정당정치와 외교정책 정당정치와 외교정책의 딜레마 정당정치와 외교정책 연구의 딜레마 Foreign Policy and the Myth of Bipartisanship “Politics Should Stop at the Water’s Edge.” (Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, R-MI) Cf) Wilson vs. Lodge in 1919 Presidential Leadership and Congressional Response “rally-around-the-flag” effect “praise him or blame him!” “Cry and Sigh Syndrome” 정당정치와 외교정책 연구의 딜레마 Institutional Dimension (President vs. Congress) > Partisan Politics (Republicans vs. Democrats) Diplomatic historians들이 주로 연구

Presidents, Parties, and Foreign Policy Presidents and Parties in the Constitution Both unspecified and underemphasized in the Constitution Both conflicting with each other Both expanded over time in American political history 미국의 경우 건국 당시 “정파”(faction)에 의한 폐해를 줄이기 위해 상원과 협력하는 대통령제가 도입되었지만 (Milkis 1993), 역설적으로 대통령의 헌법적 권한 범위에 대한 논쟁을 둘러싸고 미국의 정당들이 등장하게 됨 이후 1920년대 대공황을 거치면서 형성된 행정부 중심의 “근대적 대통령제” (modern presidency)가 나타나기 전까지는 동원력이 높고, 당파적 경쟁이 심하며 지방 위주의 정당 시스템이 미국정치의 근간이 됨

Presidents, Parties, and Foreign Policy 1930년대 뉴딜 이후 정당 쇠퇴 시기와 맞물려 미국의 대통령들은 행정부 중심의 정치 시스템을 구축하게 되는데, 이는 잦은 분점 점부 상황하의 공화당 출신 대통령들이 의회정치를 견제해야 하는 상황과도 맥락이 닿아 있음 대통령-정당 관계에 관한 최근 연구 중, 갤빈 (Galvin 2010)은 민주당 대통령들이 공화당 대통령들에 비해 정당 건설 (party building)을 위해 더 노력한다는 주장을 제기함

Presidents, Parties, and Foreign Policy 밀키스 (Milkis 2007))는 부시 행정부와 공화당간의 새로운 관계를 설명하면서 “Executive-driven Party System” 이라는 개념을 도입함 행정부와 정당이 융합되는데 테러와의 전쟁 등 초당파적 어젠다 중 공화당이 유리한 것으로 알려져 있는 이슈를 중심으로 행정부가 주도하고 정당이 뒷받침하는 새로운 정당 시스템이 대두되었다고 주장함 결론적으로, 미국 정치의 근간을 차지하는 대통령 정치와 정당 정치는 외교정책의 형성과 영향을 중심으로 전개되어 왔음을 알 수 있으며, 앞으로 많은 연구가 필요한 분야

Any law-like rule in political science? the “law of supply and demand” in economics What about in political science? Any law-like axiom in politics? “Duverger’s Law” A French political scientist Maurice Duverger (1951) A law-like impact of electoral system on coalition- building pattern in elections “First-past-the-post” (i.e. plurality, or “winner-takes- it-all”) electoral system brings about two-party system.”

Plurality–majority 2. Second ballot The second-ballot (SB) system tries to avoid the disproportionality problem of SMSP systems by requiring the winning candidate to get an absolute majority of the votes (i.e. 50 percent + 1) in the first round – or if not, a second run-off ballot (election) is held between the two strongest candidates. The advantage is simplicity. the disadvantage is the need for a second ballot shortly after the first. The French use this system in presidential elections.

Electoral Rules Proportional representation Proportional representation (PR) allocates seats according to a formula that tries to ensure proportionality. The main forms of PR are: * The list system * The single transferable vote

Example: A Spectrum of Parties The parties in Swedish Riksdag (unicameral)

Electoral Rules 1. List PR system One of the simplest ways of ensuring proportionality is to distribute the seats on a national basis or else on a large regional one. Parties rank their candidates in order of preference, and they are elected in proportion to the number of votes for that party, starting from the top of the list. For example, a party getting 25 percent of the poll will fill 25 percent of the seats from the top of its list.

Electoral Rules 1. List PR system The advantage is simplicity and the proportionality of the results. The disadvantage is that voters cast a preference for a party, though they may prefer to vote for an individual candidate. The system also gives power to party leaders, who decide the rank order of candidates on their lists. Because list PR voting requires multi-member districts it also breaks the direct and simple link between representatives and their districts. List PR is highly proportional and it can encourage very small parties and fragmentation of the party system.

Electoral Rules 1. List PR system Many democratic countries have adopted the list PR system, including: Argentina (compulsory voting), Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica (compulsory voting), Cyprus (compulsory voting), Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic (compulsory voting), Estonia, Finland, Greece, Israel, Italy (before 1994), Latvia, The Netherlands (compulsory voting before 1970), Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland (compulsory voting).

Electoral Rules 2. Single transferable vote (STV) Voters rank candidates according to their order of preference, and elected candidates must either get a specified number of first preferences or else the second preferences are taken into account. If no candidate has an absolute majority, the third preferences are counted, and so on until all seats are filled. STV must be used in conjunction with multi-member constituencies.

Electoral Rules 2. Single transferable vote (STV) The advantage of the system is its proportionality and the avoidance of ‘wasted’ votes. The disadvantage is the complexity of the STV formula (although this is now easily and quickly done by computer) and the fact that multi-member constituencies do not create a direct link between constituencies and a single representative. The system is used only in Australia, Estonia (1989–92) and Ireland.

Electoral Rules and Party Systems Voting systems and party systems in democracies Of a list of seventy-three liberal democracies in the 1990s, thirty-six had PR electoral systems and thirty-seven non-PR systems. Of the thirty-six PR countries, 81 percent were multi-party and the remaining 19 percent were two- or dominant one- party systems. Of the thirty-seven non-PR countries, 13 percent were multi-

Sartori 비경쟁적 일당체계의 유형화

Party Systems Dominant one-party systems Two-party systems India (the Congress Party), Japan (the Liberal Democratic Party), South Africa (the African National Congress, ANC) and Sweden (The Social Democratic Workers’ Party) Two-party systems Canada, New Zealand (until constitutional reform in 1966), the UK (Labor and Conservatives) and the US (Democrats and Republicans) Multi-party systems the norm and found in most parts of the democratic world

Conclusion: The Features of Party Systems Two-party competition Single winner chosen by plurality vote Major parties help maintain the system. Proportional Representation (PR) system Multiple winners chosen by proportionality rule Diverse interests can be represented by the system. Which one do you prefer and why?