Parliamentarism

(redirected from Parliamentarianism)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Wikipedia.

Parliamentarism

 

a system of government control of society by the bourgeoisie, characterized by a clear-cut distribution of legislative and executive functions, so that the legislative body (the parliament) holds a more privileged position than the other bodies of government.

In a parliamentary system the government is formed by the parliament and is responsible to it. Thus, in a formal sense, the term “parliamentarism” indicates that the elected body occupies the leading position in the machinery of state power and administration. Parliamentarism was characteristic of the epoch of premonopoly capitalism, when the bourgeois class was a relatively homogeneous aggregate of owners of the means of production, the contradictions inherent in capitalism were not yet fully developed, and the class struggle was not as acute as it became later, during the epoch of imperialism. Consequently, it was possible for the bourgeoisie to attain political dominance through the elected body—the parliament, the representative body of the entire ruling class. Parliamentary control of government, which was typical of the epoch of premonopoly capitalism, was nothing other than direct control by the propertied classes. It was one of the forms through which the industrial division of labor was brought under state administration. The electorate had the opportunity to choose only which representative of the ruling class would receive the deputy’s mandate. Lenin wrote: “To decide once every few years which member of the ruling class is to repress and crush the people through parliament—this is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in parliamentary-constitutional monarchies, but also in the most democratic republics” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 33, p. 46).

Parliamentarism reached its peak in the 19th century, when the victorious bourgeoisie sought to rule primarily through representative bodies. However, as industrial capital developed into monopoly capital, the role of the executive bodies grew more important, while the role and jurisdiction of the parliament declined. Increasingly, parliamentary democracy gave way to authoritarian and oligarchic methods of government. Underlying this process was the sharpening of class contradictions and the strengthening of the political independence of the working class: the executive bodies were much more effective than the parliament in struggling against the working class and defending the interests of the bourgeoisie.

In contemporary bourgeois states parliamentarism is going through a deep crisis. Bourgeois governments have usurped many parliamentary functions, including legislation (delegated legislation), and have, in fact, come to dominate the parliamentary bodies. As a result, parliamentary discussions on various aspects of government are purely formal. In many instances, governments react to parliamentary votes of no confidence by dissolving parliament and calling new elections. Thus, the “responsibility” of the government is a sham. To a considerable degree, the two-party system, which is characteristic of many countries, has contributed to the crisis of parliamentarism. This alliance of the bourgeois parties almost always guarantees the support of the parliamentary majority for the government and the imposition of the majority’s decisions on the opposition.

The progressive forces in the capitalist countries, including the Communist and workers’ parties, have waged a relentless struggle to preserve the institutions of parliamentary democracy. As a result, after World War II (1939–45) these institutions became stronger in France, Italy, Japan, and a number of other countries where the Communist parties are strong in parliament. In their programs, the Communist parties of the capitalist countries have provided the foundation for the possibility, under certain conditions, of a peaceful transition to socialism by means of a Communist majority in parliament, which would carry out socialist transformations. This objective can be attained by the comprehensive development of the extraparliamentary class struggle of the proletariat.

REFERENCES

Bel’son, la. M. Sovremennoe burzhuaznoe gosudarstvo i “narodnoe predstavitel’stvo.” Moscow, 1960.
Krylov, B. S. Parlament burzhuaznogo gosudarstva. Moscow, 1963.
Parlamenty, new ed. Prepared by M. Ameller. [Moscow] 1967. (Translated from English.)
Mishin, A. A. Tsentral’nye organy vlasti burzhuaznykh gosudarstv. Moscow, 1972.

M. V. BAGLAI

References in periodicals archive ?
The case for parliamentarianism is a compelling one.
As mentioned above, implicit parliamentarianism, in a sense, may emerge, creating a serious problem in a system prioritizing stability and predictability.
Our great Labour Party used to be one where socialism was achieved through parliamentarianism, through democracy.
(27) Ackerman, supra note 6 makes this argument in the context of comparison between the American Presidential model and the constrained Parliamentarianism he finds in descendants of Westminster democracies.
There is no cookie-cutter formula to solve the problem; seemingly more stable models like parliamentarianism cannot work unless the political class and its division of power evolves first.
In order to make it possible to have politics when people adhere to parliamentarianism, to syndicalism, it is necessary to admit that people who vote, who are syndicalized, also think.
The Case of the Austrian Parliament 1945-2008" Nico held a research fellowship at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and focuses his research on political theory, parliamentarianism, antisemitism and critical theory.
And we have a committee that I chair called the parliamentarianism and democracy committee that keeps a relationship with other associations, including French-speaking associations in France and Belgium, and of course our Canadian counterparts.
The feature of parliamentarianism development in Kyrgyzstan is that party system develops on the basics of patronage networks, where business interests and "regional identity" are inside them.
A few days ago he alleged that the United States adopted a presidential system after failed parliamentarianism for "20, 30, 40 years..."

Full browser ?