In modern times, the idea that there might be many ways in which something can be true when interpreting "reality" has become more and more widespread. In other words, it seems that there is more than one truth about the world, about the people and about society. In this pluralistic world, and with the diversity of views, for societies to function, there is a need for collective decision-making based on the Majority Principle. It turns out that majority rule is an important element of democratic politics and deserves careful consideration. The notions 'tyranny of the majority' and 'rights of the minorities' suggest that majority rule can be dangerous, and this explains why we have to emphasise that majority rule is not identical to almighty government, and that the Majority Principle does neither lead to anarchy, nor to absolutism, but it rather brings about a self-constrained system of government. This system needs aggregate group decisions, compromises and/or consensus, expressing the will of the majority with respect to the interests of the minorities. This paper attempts to present a short analysis of the Majority Principle, and to present three methods (first preference; Condorcet method; Borda count) for selecting members of the majority.
Key words: Borda count, Condorcet method, first preference, majority, Majority Principle
Levente Nagy head of department associate professor, Department of Political Science University of Debrecen, nagy.levente@arts.unideb.hu.
- 183/184 -
This paper, in addition to presenting the first two years of the operation of the new institution of nationality spokespeople, examines the answers of the legislator given to the criticism related to the lack of parliamentary representation of national minorities. The legislator originally considered the possibility that national minorities should not gain representation despite the preferential quota. National minorities that have a nationality list but did not earn a mandate may represent themselves in the parliament through a nationality spokesperson. The term may lead to misunderstandings, because the spokesperson may seem to be an MP. The nationality spokesperson, who bears immunity does not have an "ordinary" MP status: they are not allowed to exercise the main right of MPs, which means they do not have the right to vote at the sessions of the parliament. Important rights of spokespeople include that they are allowed to submit legislative proposals through the relevant national minority committee, they participate in the work of the committee and have the right to vote. In a small parliament, such as the current one in Hungary, the establishment of a preferential mandate may lead to the increase of aversion related to national minorities, and the issue of parliamentary groups is also problematic. The author believes that a modern second chamber of the parliament would solve many problems like, among others, the one concerning the parliamentary representation of national minorities. The final conclusion of the paper is that more trust and time should be vested in spokespeople who can make their voice heard by using the public nature of the parliament, which would be a step forward compared to the previous regulation.
Key words: Constitutional Court, components of the state, parliamentary representation, second chamber of parliament, nationality spokesperson
Sándor Móré adjunct professor, Faculty of Law, Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary, more.sandor@kre.hu
- 184/185 -
This paper provides an overview of the current trends in the research, topics and methodology of legislative studies. This task is accomplished by a content analysis of the two flagship journals of the research field, the Legislative Studies Quarterly (LSQ) and the Journal of Legislative Studies (JLS). The computer-aided qualitative data analysis is performed using ATLAS.ti on a database consisting of 100 LSQ and 149 JLS abstracts of research papers published in the journals between 2011 and 2015. We established 11 main thematic categories for the topics of abstracts. Roughly a third of the topic codes were associated with legislative institutions, processes and behaviour in the case of LSQ; for JLS, this ratio reached almost 50%. Additional major research topics include parties and ideologies; legislative relations with external partners (the president, interest groups, the judiciary); as well as elections and candidate selection. In terms of methodology, most abstracts implied (or explicitly used) a regression-based analysis. Important data sources included legislative data (such as roll-calls) and electoral results. The geographical content of abstracts in LSQ was firmly centred on the United States, with the Congress and state legislatures emerging as important sub-fields. On the other hand, the main geographic focus of JLS is Europe. In the period under scrutiny, the research papers showed a wide range of types from case studies to long time series.
Key words: legislative behaviour, legislative institutions, legislative studies, political science, qualitative content analysis
Miklós Sebők research fellow, Centre for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, sebok.miklos@tk.mta.hu
Balázs Ágnes PhD student, National University of Public Service, Faculty of Political Sciences and Public Administration, balazsagnes91@gmail.com
- 185/186 -
Last year, after a previous decision of the Czech Supreme Court, the Czech Constitutional Court issued two statements regarding the question of the autonomy of the parliament and the scope of immunity of MPs. According to the Constitutional Court, the bodies of the chambers of the parliament do not make decisions as public authorities while exercising their disciplinary power, and their decisions are not subject to judicial review. This means that the decision is also a manifestation of the autonomy of the parliament. In addition, the Constitutional Court, in the justification of a constitutional complaint they refused, argued that parliamentary immunity is an exception to the principle of equality before the law, where parliamentary immunity belongs to the parliament as a whole. Therefore, in the event of indemnity, it is the parliament as a forum of debate among deputies and senators that is protected primarily. Both cases lead us to think about the question whether it is desirable to exempt deputies and senators from both criminal and administrative law sanctions.
Key words: case law of constitutional court, Czech Republic, immunity, legal status of representatives and senators, parliamentary autonomy
A Jogkódex-előfizetéséhez tartozó felhasználónévvel és jelszóval is be tud jelentkezni.
Az ORAC Kiadó előfizetéses folyóiratainak „valós idejű” (a nyomtatott lapszámok megjelenésével egyidejű) eléréséhez kérjen ajánlatot a Szakcikk Adatbázis Plusz-ra!
Visszaugrás
