Suchergebnisse

According to the form of government of July 17, 1919, the constitutional system in Finland was marked by strenghened position of the President. He was considered both the head of the state and the real leader of the executive power. President served as a representative of the Republic, the real constructor of its foreign policy as well as the main cabinet-maker. The President's competences became enhanced by the strong personalities holding the office (like Juho Paasikivi and Urho Kekkonen). After resignation of Kekkonen from the office the position of the President's office holder was gradually lowered, although the change of the election procedure ( the direct election has replaced electoral colegium composed of 301 persons) offered some – unexplored – space for consolidation of his political position. The new Constitution of Finland of June 11, 1999 (in force since the year 2000) moved the constitutional system of the country towards the modernized parliamentarism. The President preserved his influence in the field of foreign policy but his internal competences were narrowed in favour of both the Parliament (Eduskunta) and the Cabinet, now strictly dependent on parliamentary majority. ; Artykuł nie zawiera abstraktu w języku polskim

Publikacja recenzowana / Peer-reviewed publication ; The main purpose of this article is to bring the reader into an atmosphere of intensity created by the political disputes about the need of immigration reform in the United States. It is unquestionable that problems of the immigrants, who for decades were crossing illegally American borders, contribute to internal political turbulences in this country. This article proceeds on the assumption, that the immigration related problems created a social "melting pot" which became one of the most serious challenges for the American policymakers. The confrontation of the President with Congress was inevitable. On the one hand, Obama's administration started to regulate the status of illegal immigrants by executive orders; on the other hand, the Congress was determined to bloc these actions as illegal attempts of the President violating the prerogatives of the legislative body. The confl ict resulted in the stalemates which seriously undermined the effectiveness of the American system of checks and balances. The lack of legal certainty, a necessary component of the reliability of the democratic governments, triggered the dispute over the values of the interpretational fl exibility of the Constitution of the United States.

Turkey has adopted the presidential system over parliamentarism in 2018 with the promise that the new system would bring more stability, democracy, and economic growth. As being the most recent country which changed its government system through a referendum to presidentialism, Turkey constitutes a very important example to be analyzed in order to see the effects of it after a long-adopted parliamentary period in the 21st century. This paper compares the basic features of democracy as well as the democratic presidential systems with the example of Turkey and aims at finding out if the presidentialism has performed well and if not, why, in the light of examples and chosen indicators. Findings of this study suggest that presidential system led to a "consolidation of power" which in its nature is anti-democratic. Analysis of certain indicators show that presidentialism did not perform well in Turkey on democratic, political as well as economic fronts.