Suchergebnisse

I. The General Character of PartiesSwedish experience highlights the simple logic of political science that popular electoral democracy calls for a clear line of undivided responsibility reaching from the policy-initiating executive branch of government through a thoroughly representative and deliberative legislature to the great body of voters. Contrariwise, Swedish experience seems to refute certain notions about the "parliamentary-majority" basis for judging of "strong government" in a democracy as these expressions often have been interpreted from the experience of Britain, France, and the United States. From both the positive and negative points of view, Swedish institutions merit examination, especially since they have successfully endured severe tests. The Swedish political system came through the prewar depression years with an enviable record, and, despite enormous international pressures and the accompanying domestic anxieties, it is surviving the war years with a consistent policy of its own, without sacrificing free and regular elections. Sweden provides, therefore, an excellent laboratory for testing principles of democracy, of representation, and of party government.

A strong and real two-party system is the most intelligent, responsive and lasting way to operate a democracy. The party in power formulates the policy and program of the Government. The minority party criticizes and tries to improve that program. The present system of electing a president prevents the candidates of the political parties from being truly expressive of the members of the parties. It also results in the, heads of the parties taking positions which are out of harmony with a large segment of the party.

"The cardinal factors of British democracy," writes W. I. Jennings in The British Constitution, "are that the character of the British government depends essentially on the results of the last general election, that there must be a general election at least once every five years … and that the electors have a choice exercised freely and secretly between rival candidates advocating rival policies." For more than two years the British government has had to meet the challenge of a war crisis which threatens the very existence of British democracy. And war, it is commonolace to say, changes everything. The mandate, whatever it was, of the last general election was given in 1935, in days which, though they may still be dear to some, are certainly dead days beyond recall. Like the Parliament of 1911, the present Parliament has had its life prolonged beyond the maximum of five years. There have been no by-elections, with major rival candidates advocating rival policies; for, soon after the declaration of war, the chief whips of the three major political parties in the House of Commons signed an agreement providing for an electoral truce covering by-elections.

The French elections of June 1951 and the serious difficulties experienced by the victorious constitutional parties in the formation of a government call attention once more to the problems of a parliamentary system in a multiparty state, and underline the urgency of a redefinition of the roles of parties and government within a constitutional democracy. These developments also draw attention to the basic constitutional problems which affect the political stability of France, and thereby weaken the Western community. With an occasional glance at parallel Italian developments, this article will first analyze the new electoral law and the election returns before proceeding to a discussion of the constitutional issues that contribute to the deepening crisis of the Fourth Republic.