Les périls du régime présidentiel

Abstract

Few of Juan J. Linz's works have generated as much debate and controversy as those on the relative merits of presidentialism and parliamentarism. At a time when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, along with the former Soviet Union, are freeing themselves from the single-party system and questioning the evolution of their political institutions, Linz focuses on the perils of the presidential regime and praises the merits of parliamentarism. Linz does not state that democracies with a presidential regime can not be stable. He simply states thatthe structural characteristics of presidential regimes lead them into crises. But in his opinion, the crises in parliamentary regimes are governmental crises, whereas crises in presidential regimes are liable to become regime crises. Linz's conclusion in favour of the presidential regime has been the subject of much debate and criticism. Many authors have drawn additional lessons on presidential regimes in practice, especially in Latin America. They have analysed in depth the various explanatory factors proposed by Linz to reject the presidential regime and in particular pointed out that the institutional arguments used by Linz were not sufficient to explain the instability of presidential regimes. They have sought other institutional causes (such as the party system), but also take into account political, economic and social factors. Few of Juan J. Linz's works have generated as much debate and controversy as those on the relative merits of presidentialism and parliamentarism. At a time when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, along with the former Soviet Union, are freeing themselves from the single-party system and questioning the evolution of their political institutions, Linz focuses on the perils of the presidential regime and praises the merits of parliamentarism. Linz does not state that democracies with a presidential regime can not be stable. He simply states that the structural characteristics of presidential regimes lead them into crises. But in his opinion, the crises in parliamentary regimes are governmental crises, whereas crises in presidential regimes are liable to become regime crises. Linz's conclusion in favour of the presidential regime has been the subject of much debate and criticism. Many authors have drawn additional lessons on presidential regimes in practice, especially in Latin America. They have analysed in depth the various explanatory factors proposed by Linz to reject the presidential regime and in particular pointed out that the institutional arguments used by Linz were not sufficient to explain the instability of presidential regimes. They have sought other institutional causes (suchas the party system), but also take into account political, economic and social factors. © De Boeck Université.