Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:34:05.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parliamentarization and the Question of German Exceptionalism: 1867–1918

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Marcus Kreuzer
Marcus Kreuzer
Affiliation:
Villanova University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a contribution to this journal, Volker Berghahn regretted the fragmentation and lack of focus in the recent research on the German Empire. While he may have overstated his case, his criticism certainly applies to the historiography of Germany's parliamentarization. The dearth of research, especially of recent vintage, has left the debate about the exceptionalism of Germany's governing institutions indeed “fragmented and decentered.” Since Manfred Rauh's two volumes in the 1970s, little has been published. His thesis about Germany's silent parliamentarization has been attacked, it seems, more for the haughtiness of its footnotes than the substance of its argument. As a result, Rauh's provocative interpretation coexists far too quietly with other accounts, and thereby preempts the sort of dialogue and scholarly integration Berghahn so misses. In her response to Berghahn, Margaret Anderson points out that such a dialogue can be found in, without being confined to, the new work of Germany's electoral politics, that looked anew and more skeptically at the exceptional political development of Imperial Germany. Its findings indirectly raise questions about why the development of Germany's governing institutions — the Reichstag, the Bundersat, and the chancellor — continue to be interpreted in much more exceptionalist terms than the evolution of electoral politics.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 327 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

An earlier and shorter version of this paper, “Und sie parlamentarisiert sich doch: Die Enrwicklung der kaiserlichen Verfassungsordnung in vergleichender Perspektive” has been published in Parlamentarismus in Europa im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, ed. Recker, Marie-Luise (Munich, forthcoming 2003)Google Scholar. I would like to thank Marie-Luise Recker, Gerhard A. Ritter, and Christoph Schönberger for their comments. As usual, Margaret L. Anderson's copious and thoughtful suggestions helped vastly to improve my argument.

1. Anderson, Margaret Lavinia, “Reply to Volker Bergbahn”, Central European History 35, no. 1 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berghahn, Volker, “The German Empire, 1871–1914: Reflections on the Direction of Recent Research”, Central European History 35, no. 1 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Berghahn, “Reflections”, 77.

3. Rauh, Manfred, Die Parlamentarisierung des Deutschen Reiches (Düsseldorf, 1977)Google Scholar; idem, Föderalismus und Parlamentarismus im Wilhelminischen Reich (Düsseldorf, 1973)Google Scholar.

4. Anderson, “Reply to Volker Berghahn.”

5. Anderson, Margaret Lavinia, Practicing Democracy: Elections and Political Culture in Imperial Germany (Princeton, 2000)Google Scholar; Berman, Sheri, “Modernization in Historical Perspective”, World Politics 53 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kreuzer, Marcus, Institutions and Innovation: Voters, Parties, and Interest Groups in the Consolidation of Democracy — France and Germany, 1870–1939 (Ann Arbor, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sperber, Jonathan, The Kaiser's Voters: Electors and Elections in Imperial Germany (New York, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Suval, Stanley, Electoral Politics in Wilhelmine Germany (Chapel Hill, 1985)Google Scholar.

6. In his review article, Thomas Kühne conies to a similar conclusion. “The majority of monographs focus attention on the pathological aspects of Germany's parliamentary history.” However, he cites a number of more recent studies focusing on state legislatures that “point to relativization of the Sonderweg thesis.” Kühne, Thomas, “Parlamentarismusgeschichte in Deutschland: Probleme, Erträge und Perspektiven einer Gesamtdarstellung”, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 24, no. 2 (1998): 325, 27Google Scholar.

7. Space limitations permit me to review only works dealing with or touching on the Reichstag and Bundesrat between 1871–1918. I therefore do not survey studies dealing with state legislatures or national legislatures before and after the Kaiserreich. This literature is reviewed by Kühne, see n. 6.

8. The work of these scholars is well summarized by Langewiesche, Dieter, “Das deutsche Kaiserreich — Bemerkungen zur Diskussion über Parlamentarisierung und Demokratisierung Deutschlands”, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte 19 (1979): 628–29Google Scholar.

9. Rosenberg, Arthur cited in Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, The German Empire, 1871–1918 (New York, 1985), 53Google Scholar.

10. Berghahn, Volker, Imperial Germany, 1871–1914 (Oxford, 1994)Google Scholar; Blackbourn, David and Eley, Geoff, The Peculiarities of German History (Oxford, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wolfgang Ernst Böckenförde, “Der deutsche Typ der konstitutionellen Monarchie im 19.Jahrhundert”, in Recht, Staat, Freiheit, ed. idem (Frankfurt am Main, 1999); Frauendienst, Werner, “Demokratisierung des deutschen Konstitutionalismus in der Zeit Wilhelms II”, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 113, no. 4 (1957)Google Scholar; Nipperdey, Thomas, Deutsche Geschichte 1866–1918. vol. II, Machlstaat vor der Demokratie (Munich, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Puhle, Hans-Jürgen, “Parlament, Parteien und Interessenverbände 1890–1914”, in Das kaiserliche Deutschland: Politik und Gesellschaft, 1870–1918, ed. Stürmer, Michael (Düsseldorf, 1970)Google Scholar; Rauh, , Die Parlamentarisierung; Ritter, Gerhard A., ed., Der Berliner Reichstag und die politische Kultur der Kaiserzeit: Vorträge anlässlich der Verleihung der Ehrendoktonvürde an Gerhard A. Ritter (Berlin, 1999)Google Scholar; Schoenbaum, David, Zabern 1913: Consensus Politics in Imperial Germany (London, 1982)Google Scholar; Schönberger, Christoph, “Die überholte Parlamentarisierung”, Historische Zeitschrift 272, no. 3 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shepard, Walter J., “Tendencies toward Ministerial Responsibility in Germany”, American Political Science Review 5, no. 1 (1911)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wehler, The German Empire, 1871–1918.

11. Berghahn, Imperial Germany; Blackbourn, David, “New Legislatures: Germany, 1871–1914”, Historical Research 65, no. 157 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Böckenförde, “Der deutsche Typ”; Nipperdey, Machtstaat; Rauh, Föderalismus; Ritter, ed., Der Berliner Reichstag; Schoenbaum, Zabern 1913, Schönberger, “Die überholte Parlamentarisierung”; Wehler, The German Empire.

12. Berghahn, Imperial Germany; Blackbourn, “New Legislatures”; Nipperdey,. Machtstaat; Rauh, Föderalismus; Ritter, ed., Der Berliner Reichstag; Schönberger, “Die überholte Parlamentarisierung”; Shepard, “Tendencies”; Wehler, The German Empire.

13. Berghahn, Imperiai Germany; Nipperdey, Machtstaat; Rauh, Die Parlamentarisierung; Rauh, Föderalismus; Schönberger, “Die überholte Parlamentarisierung”; Wehler, The German Empire.

14. Berghahn, Imperial Germany; Blackbourn, “New Legislatures”; Blackbourn, and Eley, , The Peculiarities; Gordon Craig, Germany 1866–1945 (New York, 1978)Google Scholar; Fraenkel, Ernst, Deutschland und die westlichen Demokratien (Stuttgart, 1964)Google Scholar; Nipperdey, Machtstaat; Puhle, “Parlament”; Rauh, Die Parlamentarisierung; Ritter, ed., Der Berliner Reichstag; Schönberger, “Die überholte Parlamentarisierung”; Sheehan, James J., “Political Leadership in the German Reichstag, 1871–1918”, American Historical Review 74, no. 2 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wehler, The German Empire.

15. Kühne, “Parlamentarismusgeschichte”; Langewiesche, “Das deutsche Kaiserreich.”

16. Blackbourn and Eley make a heretofore largely unheeded pitch for cross-national comparison. Blackbourn and Eley, The Peculiarities, 11.

17. The only parliamentarization scholar to depart from this Anglocentrism is Schönberger, “Die überholte Parlamentarisierung”, 650–62. For the benefits of a more comparative perspective yield, see Anderson, Practicing Democracy.

18. Scholars like Barrington Moore or Gregory Luebbert, who look at the social-economic foundations of modern democracy, have long pointed out that there are multiple paths of political development. Luebbert, Gregory, Liberalism, Fascism or Social Democracy (New York, 1991)Google Scholar; Moore, Barrington, The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Boston, 1966)Google Scholar.

19. Blackbourn, and Eley, , The Peculiarities, 10–11Google Scholar. Ernst Fraenkel provides a particularly illustrative example of unreflective reliance on the British model when he attributes Weimar's failure to the uncritical importation of the English parliamentary system. Given Weimar's federalism, powerful and directly elected president, referenda and proportional representation, there was, in fact, very little shared with the Westminster model. Fraenkel, , Deutschland und die westlichen Demokratien, 13Google Scholar.

20. Lijphart, Arend, “Typologies”, Comparative Political Studies 1, no. 1 (1968)Google Scholar.

21. Schönberger, “Die überholte Parlamentarisierung.”

22. Shepard, “Tendencies toward Ministerial Responsibility in Germany”; Weber, Max, “Parlament und Regierung im neugeordneten Deutschland”, in Gesamtausgabe, ed. Weber, Max (Tübingen, 1984 (orig. 1917))Google Scholar.

23. Schönberger extends the same mistake to the Weimar Republic. He argues that the Weimar president's prerogative to nominate the chancellor constituted a violation of parliamentary sovereignty, what he calls negative parliamentarism. Schönberger, “Die überholte Parlamentarisierung”, 640. Weimar, however, was in no way a negative, inferior, or otherwise compromised form of parliamentarism. It was instead a semi-presidential system in which it was perfectly legitimate for presidents to have a say in government formation. Once Weimar is judged as a semi-presidential system rather than a parliamentary system, its characterization as negative parliamentarism does not make much sense. Sartori, Giovanni, Comparative Constitutional Engineering (New York, 1994), 128–29Google Scholar.

24. Schönberger, “Die überholte Parlamentarisierung,” 640.

25. Nipperdey, , Machtstaat, 102Google Scholar.

26. In many instances these rules are not constitutionally codified but have evolved from longstanding practices to become extraconstitutional norms. Winter, Lieven de, “The Role of Parliament in Government Formation and Resignation”, in Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, ed. Döring, Herbert (New York, 1995), 122–23Google Scholar.

27. Bergman, Torbjorn, “Constitutional Design and Government Formation: The Expected Consequences of Negative Parliamentarism”, Scandinavian Political Studies 14, no. 4 (1993): 287–89Google Scholar.

28. De Winter, “The Role of Parliament”; Shugart, Matthew and Carey, John, Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics (Cambridge, 1992), 106–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. Sources: De Winter, “The Role of Parliament in Government Formation and Resignation”; Shugart and Carey, Presidents and Assemblies.

30. Still, this comparison raises the question why historians preclude presidential option for Germany's political development rather than focusing solely on extending parliamentary sovereignty over government formation. The obvious answer might be that presidential systems, with their strong, highly personalized executive, would have been constitutionally incompatible with a monarchy. Still, given Weimar's semi-presidential constitution, historians could defend their focus on parliamentarization more effectively by rejecting more explicitly the presidential alternative.

31. Böckenförde, “Der deutsche Typ”, 298–99.

32. Butzer, Hermann, Diäten und Freifahrt im Deutschen Reichstag (Düsseldorf, 1999), 179–80Google Scholar; Frauendienst, “Demokratisierung”, 738.

33. Rauh, , Die Parlamentarisierung, 188–89, 25–30Google Scholar.

34. Bowler, Shaun, “Parties in Legislatures: Two Competing Explanations”, in Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, ed. Dalton, Russell J. and Wattenberg, Martin P. (Oxford, 2000), 163–65Google Scholar; Mattson, Ingvar, “Private Members' Initiatives and Amendments”, in Parliaments, ed. Döring, , 469Google Scholar.

35. Herbert Döring, “Time as a Scarce Resource: Government Control of the Agenda”, in Parliaments, ed. idem, 232, 236–39.

36. Huber, John, “The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies”, American Political Science Review 90, no. 2 (1996): 270–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. Bowler, , “Parties”; Marcus Kreuzer, “Electoral Mechanisms and Electioneering Incentives”, Party Politics 6, no. 4 (2000)Google Scholar.

38. Sources; Döring, “Time as a Scarce Resource”; Mattson, “Private Members' initiatives”, 469, 164.

39. To some readers Table 3 seems to make the common sense-defying assertion that the Reichstag was more powerful than the current Bundestag. This assertion holds only for strictly formal agenda-setting powers. Once the formal powers of government formation and noninstitutional factors like party cohesion, parliamentary norms, or societal polarization are factored in, the Bundestag clearly becomes the more powerful legislature. The Bundestag's limited agenda-setting powers are stressed, however, in various studies. von Beyme, Klaus, “The Role of Deputies in West Germany”, in Parliaments and Parliamentarians in Democratic Politics, ed. Suleiman, Ezra (New York, 1986)Google Scholar; Saalfeld, Thomas, “The West German Bundestag after 40 Years: The Role of Parliament in a ‘Party Democracy’”, West European Politics 13, no. 3 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schüttemeyer, Suzanne, “Hierarchy and Efficiency in the Bundestag: The German Answer for Institutionalizing Parliament”, in Parliaments and the Modern World, ed. Copeland, Gary and Patterson, Samuel (Ann Arbor, 1994)Google Scholar.

40. Böckenförde, “Der deutsche Typ”, 292–93; Butzer, , Diäten, 149Google Scholar; Rauh, , Die Parlamentarisierung, 124–15, 32Google Scholar.

41. Rauh, , Die Parlamentarisiening, 136Google Scholar.

42. Anderson, , Practicing Democracy, 408Google Scholar. Huber, “The Vote of Confidence”, 270–71. Rauh, , Die Parlamentarisierung, 171Google Scholar.

43. Shepsle, Kenneth and Weingast, Barry, “Why Are Congressional Committees Powerful?” American Political Science Review 81 (1987)Google Scholar; Tsebelis, George, “The Power of the European Parliament as a Conditional Agenda Setter”, American Political Science Review 88, no. 1 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44. Rauh, , Die Parlamentarisierung, 124–25Google Scholar; Rauh, , Föderalismus, 253–62, 351Google Scholar.

45. Ritter, , ed., Der Berliner Reichstag, 30Google Scholar.

46. Rauh, , Föderalismus, 252–53Google Scholar.

47. No major study of either the Reichstag or Bundesrat has been published since Rauh, Die Parlamentartsierung. Rauh's work was followed by a number of studies on state legislatures but the last one to appear was in 1987. Kühne, “Parlamentarismusgeschichte”, 355.

48. Anderson, , Practicing Democracy, 347Google Scholar; Butzer, Diäten; Rauh, , Föderalismus, 56, 253–62Google Scholar.

49. Anderson, , Practicing Democracy, 422–24Google Scholar.

50. Ritter, , ed., Der Berliner Reichstag, 23Google Scholar.

51. Butzer, Diäten; Rauh, Die Parlamentarisienung.

52. Nipperdey, , Machtstaat. 99–100Google Scholar.

53. Ibid., 489–92; Rauh, , Die Parlamentarisierung, 29–43Google Scholar; Rauh, Föderalismus.

54. Graham, Sara Hunter, Woman Suffrage and the New Democracy (New Haven, 1996), 114–18Google Scholar; Morgan, Kenneth O., The Oxford History of Britain (Oxford, 1992), 527, 54, 59, 76Google Scholar.

55. Sources: Marriot, John, Second Chambers (Freeport, 1969), 220–38Google Scholar.

56. Nipperdey, , Machtstaat, 93Google Scholar; Rauh, , Föderalismus, 1–30Google Scholar.

57. Blackbourn, “New Legislatures” 202; Nipperdey, , Machtstaat, 94Google Scholar.

58. Andeweg, Rudy and Nijzink, Lia, “Beyond the Two-Body Image: Relations between Ministers and MPs”, in Parliaments, ed. Döring, , 160Google Scholar.

59. Shepard, “Tendencies.”

60. Nipperdey, , Machtstaat, 91Google Scholar.

61. Lehmbruch, Gerhard, “Party and Federation in Germany: A Developmental Dilemma” Government and Opposition 13, no. 2 (1978): 154–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62. Ironically, the link between parliament and democracy is of rather recent, mostly nineteenth-century vintage. As Sejerstedt points out, the original function of parliaments was solely to check royal powers, rather than to serve as transmission belts of popular opinion. That is why they only met every second or third year. Sejersted, Francis, “Democracy and the Historical Experiences of Contradictions in the Striving for Good Government”, in Constitutionalism and Democracy, ed. Elster, Jon and Slagstad, Rune (New York, 1988), 141–43Google Scholar.

63. Ortega y Gasset, José, Invertebrate Spain (New York, 1937), 125Google Scholar.

64. Sejersted, “Democracy”, 132, 45.

65. Ibid., 142. This distinction has been underappreciated by many political scientists, who hailed the recent victory of democracy around the world but ignored the weak institutionahzation of liberal constitutionalism. For an especially interesting treatment of this point see Zakaria, Fareed, “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy”, Foreign Affairs 76, no. 6 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66. The related issue of politicians' constitutional preferences for parliamentary government over the existing or alternative constitutional arrangements is taken up in the conclusion.

67. This might explain the dearth of systematic studies devoted to them. Kühne, “Parlamentarismusgeschichte”, 325.

68. Blackbourn, “New Legislatures”, 207–8.

69. Fraenkel, , Deutschland und die westlichen Demokratien, 23–24Google Scholar.

70. Schönberger, “Die überholte Parlamentarisierung” 645. This alleged bureaucratization directly conflicts with the equally common assertion that the advent of mass politics after 1890 increasingly polarized party politics, making legislative decision more adversarial. Ironically, the same historian oftentimes espouse these two, contradictory positions.

71. Lijphart, Arend, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries (New Haven, 1999)Google Scholar; Powell, Bingham G., Elections as Instruments of Democracy (New Haven, 2000)Google Scholar; Strom, Kaare, “Minority Governments in Parliamentary Democracies”, Comparative Political Studies 17 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72. Rauh, , Die Parlamentarisierung, 170Google Scholar.

73. Morgan, Edmund Sears, Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (New York, 1988), 90Google Scholar.

74. This argument is theoretically best articulated by Bates, Robert H., Prosperity and Violence: The Political Economy of Development (New York, 2001)Google Scholar; Rustow, Dankwart, “Transitions to Democracy”, Comparative Politics 2, no. 2 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For its historical application see Anderson, Practicing Democracy; Collier, Ruth Berins, Paths toward Democracy: The Working Class and Elites in Western Europe and South America (Cambridge, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morgan, Inventing the People.

75. von Albertini, Rudolf, “Parteiorganisation und Parteibegriff in Frankreich, 1789–1949” Historische Zeitschrift 193,.no. 3 (1961)Google Scholar; Manin, Bernard, The Principles of Representative Government (New York, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76. Sheehan, “Political Leadership”, 526–27.

77. I would like to thank Christoph Schönberger and Margaret Anderson for insisting that I address this point more clearly.

78. Schoenbaum, , Zabern, 175–83Google Scholar.

79. Anderson, , Practicing Democracy, 289–94Google Scholar.

80. On the indeterminacy of institutions and their interaction with noninstitutional factors, see Kreuzer, , Institutions, 8–14Google Scholar.

81. Rauh, , Föderalismus, 136Google Scholar; Shepard, “Tendencies”, 69.

82. Ritter, ed., Der Berliner Reichstag.

83. Schönberger, “Die überholte Parlamentarisierung.” Consociational democracy refers to the governing institutions and practices employed at varying times in Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Belgium. These democracies are characterized by proportional interest representation, checks and balances, oversized coalitions and extraconstitutional elite bargaining aimed at securing consensual decision-making. Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy; Lijphart, “Typologies.”

84. Shepard, “Tendencies”, 67–69.

85. Reich, G.M., “Coordinating Party Choice in Founding Elections: Why Timing Matters”, Comparative Political Studies 34, no. 10 (2001): 1245–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86. Hewitson, Mark, “The Kaiserreich in Question: Constitutional Crisis in Germany before the First World War”, The Journal of Modern History 73 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sheehan, “Political Leadership.”

87. Sheehan, James J., German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago, 1978), 270Google Scholar.

88. Schoenbaum, , Zabern. 41Google Scholar.

89. Alexander, Gerard, The Sources of Democratic Consolidation (Ithaca, 2002), 56–88Google Scholar.

90. Blackbourn, “New Legislatures”, 211; Blackbourn, and Eley, , The Peculiarities, 279Google Scholar; Puhle, “Parlament”, 350.

91. Fraenkel, , Deutschland. 23–24Google Scholar.

92. The association and Socialist laws were suspended during electoral campaigns, thus limiting their infringement on the freedom and fairness of elections. Anderson, , Practicing Democracy, 289–94Google Scholar. Still, they constituted a significant obstacle to parties' organizational effort between elections.

93. Claus Offe, Jon Elster, and Preuss, Ulrich Klaus, Institutional Design in Post-Communist Societies: Rebuilding the Ship at Sea (New York, 1998)Google Scholar; Fish, M. Steven, Democracy from Scratch: Opposition and Regime in the New Russian Revolution (Princeton, 1995), 61Google Scholar; Pettai, Velio and Kreuzer, Marcus, “Institutions and Party Development in the Baltic States”, in Party Development and Democratic Change in Post-Communist Europe, ed. Lewis, Paul (London, 2001)Google Scholar; Shabad, Goldie and Slomczynski, Kazimierz, “Interparty Mobility among Political Elites in Post-Communist East Central Europe” (paper presented at the American Political Science Association,San Francisco,28 August-2 September 2001)Google Scholar.

94. Anderson, . Practicing Democracy, 418Google Scholar; Dalton and Wattenberg, eds., Parties; Kreuzer, , Institutions, 23–52Google Scholar.

95. The organizational weakening of parties has long been a key element through which semi-autocratic regimes have tried to curtail parliamentary sovereignty. Ramsayer, Mark and Rosenbluth, Frances, The Politics of Oligarchy: Institutional Choice in Imperial Japan (Cambridge, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zeldin, Theodore, The Political System of Napoleon III (New York, 1958)Google Scholar.

96. Kreuzer, Institutions.

97. Anderson, , Practicing Democracy, 390–97Google Scholar; Sperber, The Kaiser's Voters.

98. Alexander, Matthias, Die Freikonservative Partei, 1890–1918: Gemässigter Konservatismus in der konstitutionellen Monarchie. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Parlamentarismus und der politischen Parteien, vol. 123 (Düsseldorf, 2000)Google Scholar; Heckart, Beverly, From Bassermann to Bebel: The Grand Bloc's Quest for Reform in the Kaiserreich, 1900–1914 (New Haven, 1974)Google Scholar.

99. Lijphart, , Patterns of Democracy, 91–103Google Scholar.

100. Strom, “Minority Governments.”

101. The relevant literature is surveyed and this theme further developed in Kreuzer, , Institutions, 1–22Google Scholar.