Parlamentarismus nebo poloprezidencialismus? Spor o klasifikaci středoevropských demokratických režimů

Abstract

While reading academic papers and books on political regimes in Central Europe, one can become aware of an interesting and remarkable fact: these regimes (forms of government) are classified rather differently. Whereas some scholars tend to approach them as parliamentary regimes, others classify them as semi-presidential ones. The major dividing line between these two perspectives runs between a large group of English-writing scholars based outside Central Europe and those from Central Europe itself. Having reviewed a large number of relevant studies in this field, the authors of this article argue that the key reason for the different assessments of Central European regimes resides mainly in a different theoretical (but also methodological) approach, which has important implications when considering how these regimes are treated in various studies. Whereas the group of English-writing scholars tends to adopt a minimalist institutional definition suggested by Robert Elgie, most Central European scholars prefer an approach (inspired by Duverger or Sartori) that emphasizes presidential powers, which are irrelevant to Elgie’s definition.