Giovanni Sartori

Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics

“To have mastered ‘theory’ and ‘method’ is to have become a conscious thinker, a man at work and aware of the assumptions and implications of whatever he is about. To be mastered by ‘method’ or ‘theory’ is simply to be kept from working.†The sentence applies nicely to the present plight of political science. The profession as a whole oscillates between two unsound extremes. At the one end a large majority of political scientists qualify as pure and simple unconscious thinkers. At the other end a sophisticated minority qualify as overconscious thinkers, in the sense that their standards of method and theory are drawn from the physical, “paradigmatic†sciences. The wide gap between the unconscious and the overconscious thinker is concealed by the growing sophistication of statistical and research techniques. Most of the literature introduced by the title “Methods†(in the social, behavioral or political sciences) actually deals with survey techniques and social statistics, and has little if anything to share with the crucial concern of “methodology,†which is a concern with the logical structure and procedure of scientific enquiry. In a very crucial sense there is no methodology without logos, without thinking about thinking. And if a firm distinction is drawn—as it should be—between methodology and technique, the latter is no substitute for the former. One may be a wonderful researcher and manipulator of data, and yet remain an unconscious thinker.

Comparative constitutional engineering : an inquiry into structures, incentives and outcomes

Preface - Foreword to the Second Edition - PART 1: ELECTORAL SYSTEMS - Majoritarian and Proportional Systems - Who Gets Elected? - The Importance of Electoral Systems - Choosing an Electoral System - PART 2: PRESIDENTIALISM AND PARLIAMENTARIANISM - Presidentialism - Parliamentary Systems - Semi-Presidentialism - PART 3: ISSUES AND PROPOSALS - The Difficulty of Politics - Alternating Presidentialism: A Proposal - The Paradox of Governing by Legislating - Problems with Presidential Systems - Problems with Parliamentary Systems - Constitutional Engineering - Bibliography - Index

Politics, Ideology, and Belief Systems

The word ideology points to a black box. As a philosopher puts it, ideology “signifies at the same time truth and error, universality and particularity, wisdom and ignorance.” Likewise, for the political scientist the term ideology points to a cluster concept, i.e., belongs to the concepts that bracket a variety of complex phenomena about which one tries to generalize; and the growing popularity of the term has been matched, if anything, by its growing obscurity. All in all, one is entitled to wonder whether there is any point in using “ideology” for scholarly purposes. And my specific question will be whether there is a technical meaning, or meanings, of “ideology” which constitute a necessary tool of enquiry for a science of politics.Discussions about ideology generally fall into two broad domains, namely, ideology in knowledge and/or ideology in politics. With respect to the first area of inquiry the question is whether, and to what extent, mans knowledge is ideologically conditioned or distorted. With respect to the second area of enquiry the question is whether ideology is an essential feature of politics and, if so, what does it explain. In the first case “ideology” is contrasted with “truth,” science and valid knowledge in general; whereas in the second case we are not concerned with the truth-value but with the functional value, so to speak, of ideology. In the first sense by saying ideology we actually mean ideological doctrine (and equivalents), whereas in the second sense we ultimately point to an ideological mentality (also called, hereinafter, ideologism).

Constitutionalism: A Preliminary Discussion.

In the 19th century what was meant by the term “constitution†was reasonably definite and clear. Paradoxically enough, if the word retained some ambiguity, this was because of the British constitution; that is, because the mother country of modern constitutionalism appeared to have an obscure constitution, or even—according to some of the standards that seemed very important elsewhere—no constitution at all.

Where is Political Science Going

Political science, as we currently understand the label, was born, in Western Europe, in the early Fifties. One may say that it was “reborn”; but that would be inaccurate, for in the nineteenth century and until World War Two the label indicated a captive discipline largely dominated by juridical or historical approaches (as in the case, e.g., of Gaetano Mosca). So political science had a new start and became a field of inquiry in its own right about half a century ago. I was, at the time, one of its founders (with Stein Rokkan, Juan Linz, Mattei Dogan, Hans Daalder, Erik Allardt, S. N. Eisenstadt, and others. See: Comparative European Politics: The Story of a Profession , edited by H. Daalder, 1997). I am thus one of the witnesses of what the “young turks” of the time had in mind, of how we conceived and promoted political science. I am now an “ancient sage” and it now pleases me to reflect, some fifty years later, on where political science has gone and on whether it has taken the right course, the course that I had wished for and expected. Thus to ask today, in the middle of Mitteleuropa , where political science has been heading is also to ask whether the new beginnings of the discipline in Eastern Europe should or should not follow the path entered by our “big brother,” I mean, by American-type political science. I too have been somewhat swallowed by our big brother (to be sure, a benevolent and well meaning one) in the sense that I have been teaching in the United States for some thirty years. Let me add that I have largely benefited from my American exposure. Yet I have always resisted and still resist the American influence. And I take this occasion to say why I am unhappy about the American molding of present day political science.

Who Gets Elected

Thus far electoral systems have been classified, in the main, on the basis of how votes are translated into seats. But what about who gets elected? How does one become a candidate and then win office?

Problems with Presidential Systems

The most heated debates within most presidential systems currently bear on the tenure of presidents and on their reelectability. I begin, therefore, with these two issues. The fundamental issue remains, however, the support that presidents can expect to obtain in their respective Congresses. The support problem has already been discussed at various points, but one of the indicators that help its assessment is the nature of the party system. I thus bring all these elements together in Table 11.1. The table is not exhaustive; it omits a few countries (Burkine Faso, Dominican Republic) because very small and/or too unsettled, and South Korea because its presidentialism has only been a 1988–90 interregnum. Note, finally, that the table is strictly confined to ‘pure’ presidential systems.

The Importance of Electoral Systems

The importance of electoral systems has long been downgraded. A large majority of scholars have argued i) that they are not an independent variable, and/or ii) that their effects are, at best, uncertain. Both arguments are demonstrably wrong.

Problems with Parliamentary Systems

Since all democracies have a parliament, the problems that arise with parliamentary systems are not, in most instances, unique problems, problems that apply only to the parliament-centered polities. They are, however, problems that are more salient, or more thorny, in parliamentary than in other systems.

Alternating Presidentialism: A Proposal

Presidentialism and parliamentarism are single-engine mechanisms. In the first system the engine is the president, in the second the engine is parliament. And far more often than not the presidential engine falters in its downward parliamentary crossings, while the parliamentary engine disarrays, in its upward ascent, the governing function. Semi-presidentialism is, instead, a double-engine system. However, since its two engines operate simultaneously, what if they start pulling in opposite directions and work against one another? While the French system is able to handle divided government, still the risk of having two counter-pulling engines cannot be ruled out.