Suchergebnisse

Das politische System der Schweiz gilt mit seiner ausgebauten Konkordanz, der direkten Demokratie und seinen föderativen Strukturen in vielerlei Hinsicht sowohl als Vorzeige- als auch als Sonderfall einer funktionierenden Demokratie des 21. Jahrhunderts. Das vorliegende Lehrbuch behandelt, in der nun 4., vollständig aktualisierten Auflage, die wichtigsten politischen Institutionen und Akteure des schweizerischen politischen Systems, setzt sie in einen internationalen Vergleich und zeigt den beträchtlichen Wandel der schweizerischen Politik letzten 20 Jahre auf. Besonderes Gewicht wird dabei auf die Darstellung der Funktions- und Wirkungsweise der für die Schweiz typischen Institutionen wie die direktdemokratischen Volksrechte, die breit abgestützte Konkordanzregierung und die vielfältigen föderativen Institutionen gelegt. (Verlagsinformation)

AbstractCan Switzerland still be classified as an example of consociational democracy, characterized by power sharing and elite cooperation, by the second decade of the 21st century? Drawing on Lijphart's typology of consociational and centrifugal regimes, an analysis of the transformation of Swiss democracy reveals that while Switzerland continues to display institutional elements of power sharing, a polarizing and competitive trend can be observed in the governing style of the elite. Increasingly adversarial elite behaviour and a growing polarization within parliament and government as well as with regards to referendums indicate a growing shift toward centrifugal democracy.

Wahlsysteme prägen entscheidend den Charakter eines politischen Systems. Durch sie werden die politischen Präferenzen der Wähler in Mandate für die Repräsentationsorgane wie den Nationalrat übersetzt. Die Gestaltung des Wahlsystems ist damit auch immer eine zentrale Machtfrage, die darüber entscheidet, welche politischen Gruppierungen die Parlamentsmehrheit stellen und welche in der Minderheit sind. Der Artikel sucht nach Antworten auf folgende Fragen: Wie wirkt sich das schweizerische Wahlsystem auf den Erfolg der Parteien bei den Nationalratswahlen aus? Ist eine Systemreform angezeigt?

Der Autor dokumentiert die Wandlungsprozesse, die aufgrund institutioneller wie politischer Veränderungen im Schweizer Konkordanzsystem aufgetreten sind. Es wird eine Re-Analyse von Arend Lijpharts Studie für den Zeitraum von 1997 bis Ende 2007 durchgeführt. Unter Rückgriff auf das Konzept der Konsensusdemokratie wird dokumentiert, dass das politische System der Schweiz heute zwar immer noch stark konsensual geprägt ist, aber bereits einen stärkeren Wettbewerbscharakter aufweist. (ICB)

This article attempts to examine the relationship between the most important political institutions and direct democracy in 23 modern OECD democracies by expanding Lijphart's concept of majoritarian and consensus democracy. The article updates Lijphart's data collection for the most recent period (1997–2006); it responds to criticisms of Lijphart's measurement of a number of variables and of case selection, and it integrates direct democracy as an additional variable. Based on factor analysis, the main finding is that there are not just two, but three dimensions of democracy in advanced democracies. The horizontal dimension comprises the disproportionality of the electoral system, the number of parties, the executive–legislative relationship, the interest groups, and the degree of central bank independence. In the vertical dimension of democracy, we find federalism, decentralization, bicameralism, the rigidity of constitutional provisions, and the strength of judicial review. The top-to-bottom dimension of democracy comprises the type of cabinet government and the strength of direct democracy. In contrast to earlier research, our empirical analysis furnishes the hypothesis that direct democracy is not a variable that is independent of all other political institutions. While active direct democracy goes hand-in-hand with broadly supported multi-party governments, purely representative constitutions frequently appear in conjunction with minimal winning cabinets.

The present article addresses the question of whether Switzerland can continue to be seen as an extreme case of federal consensus democracy, as illustrated by Arend Lijphart (1999). A re-analysis of Lijphart's (1999) study of the Swiss political system from 1997 to 2007 clearly demonstrates that due to recent political-institutional changes (a decreasing number of parties, growing electoral disproportionality, increasing decentralization and deregulation of the relationship between the state and interest groups), a consensus democracy with strong tendencies toward adjustment and normalization of the original exceptional Swiss case to meet the rest of the continental European consensus democracies has emerged. This development has been further strengthened by intensified public political contestation, rising polarization between the political camps in parliament, and the weakening of the cooperative search for consensus as the dominant mode of negotiation within the government. From the perspective of international comparison, Switzerland can thus be seen henceforth as a typical example, not an extreme case, of consensus democracy.

Can Switzerland still be seen as an extreme case of federal consensus democracy, as illustrated by Arend Lijphart (1999)? A reanalysis of Lijphart's study of the Swiss political system from 1997 to 2007 clearly demonstrates that a consensus democracy has emerged that bears strong tendencies toward adjustment and normalization of the original exceptional Swiss case to the rest of the continental European consensus democracies. Switzerland can be considered a typical, rather than extreme, case of consensus democracy. (Swiss Political Science Review / FUB)

Can Switzerland still be seen as an extreme case of federal consensus democracy, as illustrated by Arend Lijphart (1999)? A reanalysis of Lijphart's study of the Swiss political system from 1997 to 2007 clearly demonstrates that a consensus democracy has emerged that bears strong tendencies toward adjustment and normalization of the original exceptional Swiss case to the rest of the continental European consensus democracies. Switzerland can be considered a typical, rather than extreme, case of consensus democracy.