Reforms in France and Germany
Divided Government and Constitutional Reform
When it comes to government, there are many forces within the framework, which influence political change for a nation and its people. When it comes to the governments of Germany and France each are structured and managed differently, however, the same force of divided government has resulted in profound constitutional reforms for both countries. This paper will discuss the forces that expand the potential opportunities for change to result and influence the legislative process. This issue of divided government is present in both governments and its effect on legislation has both short-term and long-term ramifications. How each country is willing to accept divided government as a part of the political machine is where each country forms its own identity and path for the future decision-making environments. It is the country's ability to embrace divided government or its ability to reject it that frames each country's present political machine and defines its overall global success. This paper will explore how Germany has embraced the element of divided government within its political framework as a means for maximized representation of its people and as a form of checks and balances for future reform. This paper will also examine how France has taken a more conservative approach in choosing to not embrace divided government as a means of political reform. If anything France has put into practice a government, which understands divided government has been a factor in the past and they are working to eliminate this factor for the better. Does this mean that one country is more open to change while the other is more resistant? The paragraphs below will explore similar and different governmental characteristics between the two countries and how these characteristics have shaped constitutional reforms.
France and Germany: Divided Government and Constitutional Reform
Many factors contribute to a government's management. Before defining divided government, one must understand, first and foremost that people are the...
Still there is a direct relationship between human agency and sociopolitical outcomes. As Kirk Buckman explains, " human agency impacts the social world only through concrete political, social and economic structures" (28). Divided government can be defined as "gridlock, deadlock or stalemate" (Buckman 26) but what it really describes is "opposition partisan control of separate branches of government that can produce institutional paralysis" (Buckman 26). In layman terms, this means one political party outweighs another in terms of
power and reform. Ironically, it is divided government that makes American democracy possible. Divided government can affect changes for the governments of France and Germany but it is not responsible for these countries reactions to it. Nor, can it account for such divergent reforms. For both France and Germany, divided government means different things. The
definition can be applied to work within each
political structure each resulting in constitutional reform during the process.
For France, it defines divided government as cohabitation. This occurs when "the President and
Prime Minister are from opposing political parties" (Buckman 26). Also cohabitation has occurred in French government "because of different electoral cycles: prior to the 2002 presidential election, the President was elected for a 7-year term, while the National assembly, to which the PM is responsible, was and continues to be elected for a 5-year term subject to a presidential dissolution" (Buckman 37). This proved to cause much unrest as the constitutional separation of executive power between the President and PM became unclear. Thus far, France has experienced two periods of cohabitation and it appeared to be accepted by the
public. However, there was a call for reform as the French found "cohabitation is inconsistent with constitutional conventions or normative expectations and therefore would be best to reform" (Buckman 38) to…
