She noted that Austria’s agriculture minister, who hails from Nehammer’s center-right ÖVP party, had previously done exactly what she did: “Just a couple of weeks ago, [he] voted against my explicit will, for lowering environmental standards in [EU] agricultural policy.”
Can someone who lives in a system with a parliamentary form of government – which is nearly all of Europe – explain how conflicts between ministers and prime ministers from coalitions are resolved? It’s something that I really don’t get.
In the US, the system is presidential. The President gets to make a call on executive policy. People can cut deals in choosing to support a candidate for president, but once he’s in place, the President makes the call. There are some limited checks: departmental secretaries in the cabinet can resign rather than carry out an order, and the Senate must approve a President’s nominations for a replacement. The President can dismiss a departmental secretary at will. And the President’s formal directives, executive orders, are subject to judicial review, and the Supreme Court can decide that an executive order is unconstitutional. But in general, once a President is in the seat, he gets to make calls.
In parliamentary systems, control of the legislature determines control of the executive. In many electoral systems, it’s uncommon for a single party to control the legislature, so it’s necessary for a coalition to be formed to get control of the legislature. Those parties in coalition may have views that are significantly at odds with each other. One of the major things that is divvied up among the coalition parties are cabinet seats. Those seats control portions of the executive government. But someone becomes prime minister, and the prime minister is above all the cabinet ministers. And that prime minister is only going to belong to one of the coalition parties, usually the largest.
In parliamentary systems, there are definitely times when cabinet ministers – who may not belong to the same party as the prime minister – are not going to agree with the prime minister. In cases where that conflict exists, how is that resolved?
I assume that some degree of horse-trading happens at the coalition-forming time, at least for policy that can be determined at that point in time – if Party A has a program that mandates that VAT rises 10% and Party B has a program that VAT is to be reduced 5%, I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that that is worked out at the time that the coalition is formed, and if it’s impossible to come to agreement, then the coalition doesn’t get formed, and the dispute between the cabinet minister and the prime minister doesn’t come up.
But that can’t catch all cases; not all policy decisions are going to be known at the time the coalition is being formed. Some are going to come up down the line. So for those:
Is this entirely up to the individual state, with mechanisms for resolution widely varying? Can a prime minister generally dismiss cabinet ministers? Can he generally annul their actions (as was apparently attempted here)? Who gets to decide on policy prior to the action? What happens if a cabinet minister is dismissed? Does the prime minister get to select a replacement, or the party who was granted the cabinet seat in coalition negotiations? What happens if a cabinet minister dies in office?
I guess that depends a lot on each country’s political structure and conventions. In Germany the Bundeskanzler (the chancellor is the equivalent of a prime minister) has the final say. This principle is called Richtlinienkompetenz (directive competence). He or she can basically order members of his cabinet what to do. It has been used only twice since 1949, because it is a harsh instrument which always threatens to end a coalition resulting in the election of a new chancellor or even a full election. On the other hand it allows the coalition party who is against the decision to show it is not willing to give up this position other than by force. This can save a coalition because it allows the government to continue its work even if a decision is necessary that would otherwise result in a breakup of the partnership. In almost all cases these situations are therefore solved by negotiations between the coalition partners.
This principle is called Richtlinienkompetenz (directive competence). He or she can basically order members of his cabinet what to do.
It should be noted, that this doesn’t allow the Chancellor to micromanage the Ministers.
The Chancellor can set the political agenda and make high level decisions but Ministers have some degree of constitutionally ensured independence in how exactly they implement policies.
Yeah, right. environment standards are bad, very bad for economy. Best is, let the crops drown, all the houses crumble, all the bridges been swept away, all the cars explode. It’s best for economy. New stuff is coming. BIP will raise. Economy at it’s best! Or? /s /s /s
Did you respond to the wrong comment? You’re talking to someone who didn’t say anything about this particular case or person or about Green policy or even the political system in Austria. He was explaining how Germany’s cabinet system worked.
how conflicts between ministers and prime ministers from coalitions are resolved?
Usually by ending the coalition (or threatening the move). This leads to expedited elections, which happens a lot in Austria, although usually due to different circumstances like corruption scandals. Alternatively, a different government can be formed, but that is usually very unlikely (though it happened in 2019 when the president appointed a party-neutral interim government that was accepted by the parliament).
The problem Nehammer (the current head of government) is now facing is that regular elections are coming up in September anyways, so it doesn’t really matter whether he quits the coalition. Quitting is actually a bad idea, because then he wouldn’t go into the election as the government party, which can lead to a worse outcome.
Can someone who lives in a system with a parliamentary form of government – which is nearly all of Europe – explain how conflicts between ministers and prime ministers from coalitions are resolved? It’s something that I really don’t get.
In the US, the system is presidential. The President gets to make a call on executive policy. People can cut deals in choosing to support a candidate for president, but once he’s in place, the President makes the call. There are some limited checks: departmental secretaries in the cabinet can resign rather than carry out an order, and the Senate must approve a President’s nominations for a replacement. The President can dismiss a departmental secretary at will. And the President’s formal directives, executive orders, are subject to judicial review, and the Supreme Court can decide that an executive order is unconstitutional. But in general, once a President is in the seat, he gets to make calls.
In parliamentary systems, control of the legislature determines control of the executive. In many electoral systems, it’s uncommon for a single party to control the legislature, so it’s necessary for a coalition to be formed to get control of the legislature. Those parties in coalition may have views that are significantly at odds with each other. One of the major things that is divvied up among the coalition parties are cabinet seats. Those seats control portions of the executive government. But someone becomes prime minister, and the prime minister is above all the cabinet ministers. And that prime minister is only going to belong to one of the coalition parties, usually the largest.
In parliamentary systems, there are definitely times when cabinet ministers – who may not belong to the same party as the prime minister – are not going to agree with the prime minister. In cases where that conflict exists, how is that resolved?
I assume that some degree of horse-trading happens at the coalition-forming time, at least for policy that can be determined at that point in time – if Party A has a program that mandates that VAT rises 10% and Party B has a program that VAT is to be reduced 5%, I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that that is worked out at the time that the coalition is formed, and if it’s impossible to come to agreement, then the coalition doesn’t get formed, and the dispute between the cabinet minister and the prime minister doesn’t come up.
But that can’t catch all cases; not all policy decisions are going to be known at the time the coalition is being formed. Some are going to come up down the line. So for those:
Is this entirely up to the individual state, with mechanisms for resolution widely varying? Can a prime minister generally dismiss cabinet ministers? Can he generally annul their actions (as was apparently attempted here)? Who gets to decide on policy prior to the action? What happens if a cabinet minister is dismissed? Does the prime minister get to select a replacement, or the party who was granted the cabinet seat in coalition negotiations? What happens if a cabinet minister dies in office?
I guess that depends a lot on each country’s political structure and conventions. In Germany the Bundeskanzler (the chancellor is the equivalent of a prime minister) has the final say. This principle is called Richtlinienkompetenz (directive competence). He or she can basically order members of his cabinet what to do. It has been used only twice since 1949, because it is a harsh instrument which always threatens to end a coalition resulting in the election of a new chancellor or even a full election. On the other hand it allows the coalition party who is against the decision to show it is not willing to give up this position other than by force. This can save a coalition because it allows the government to continue its work even if a decision is necessary that would otherwise result in a breakup of the partnership. In almost all cases these situations are therefore solved by negotiations between the coalition partners.
It should be noted, that this doesn’t allow the Chancellor to micromanage the Ministers.
The Chancellor can set the political agenda and make high level decisions but Ministers have some degree of constitutionally ensured independence in how exactly they implement policies.
Yeah, right. environment standards are bad, very bad for economy. Best is, let the crops drown, all the houses crumble, all the bridges been swept away, all the cars explode. It’s best for economy. New stuff is coming. BIP will raise. Economy at it’s best! Or? /s /s /s
(Both thumbs up for Leonore Gewessler!)
Did you respond to the wrong comment? You’re talking to someone who didn’t say anything about this particular case or person or about Green policy or even the political system in Austria. He was explaining how Germany’s cabinet system worked.
My bad, wrong topic. Thanks. Was in the header and knew bout this subject.
Usually by ending the coalition (or threatening the move). This leads to expedited elections, which happens a lot in Austria, although usually due to different circumstances like corruption scandals. Alternatively, a different government can be formed, but that is usually very unlikely (though it happened in 2019 when the president appointed a party-neutral interim government that was accepted by the parliament).
The problem Nehammer (the current head of government) is now facing is that regular elections are coming up in September anyways, so it doesn’t really matter whether he quits the coalition. Quitting is actually a bad idea, because then he wouldn’t go into the election as the government party, which can lead to a worse outcome.