Formation and Development of European Parliamentarism in the context of global challenges (ID:1044590)

INTRODUCTION In contemporary times, amidst the complexities of global politics and governance, the evolution of parliamentary systems stands as a pivotal subject of inquiry. The formation and development of European parliamentarism, particularly within the backdrop of burgeoning global challenges, encapsulates a domain of immense scholarly interest and practical significance. This diploma thesis endeavors to delve into the intricacies of this phenomenon, aiming to shed light on its historical trajectory, current state of research Alin Mitua, Niklas NienaЯ - these are rapporteurs on constitutional matters of the European Parliament, and future prospects. In this introduction, we will expound upon the relevance of this research, elucidate the existing state of investigation, articulate the purpose and tasks at hand, define the object and subject of study, delineate the research methods employed, highlight elements of scientific novelty, discuss practical significance, and outline the approbation of results. Substantiating the Relevance of the Research. The relevance of the topic is extremely high in modern conditions. European parliamentarism, as one of the key political systems, plays an important role in the formation and implementation of policy not only at the continental but also at the global level. The development of parliamentary institutions in Europe over the centuries laid the foundations for democratic processes that became a benchmark for other countries and regions. In the context of globalization and related challenges, such as international terrorism, migration crises, economic and financial turbulence, as well as climate change, European parliamentarism faces new, unprecedented challenges. The European Union, as a unique political entity uniting sovereign states, provides a platform to address these challenges through democratic procedures and mechanisms. The relevance of the study is determined by the need to analyze the evolution of parliamentary institutions in Europe, their adaptation to new conditions and their role in ensuring stability and security on the European continent and in the world. Understanding the mechanisms of functioning of European parliamentarism helps to reveal its strengths and possible vulnerabilities, which is critically important for an effective response to modern global challenges. In addition, the relevance of the topic is reinforced by the need to study the interaction of European parliamentary institutions with other international organizations, in particular the UN, NATO, WTO, and their joint contribution to the settlement of global problems. Such research will contribute to the development of recommendations for improving the functioning of European parliamentarism in the context of globalization and its impact on the international system of security and stability. Thus, the study of the formation and development of European parliamentarism in the context of global challenges is extremely relevant, as it allows not only a deeper understanding of historical and contemporary processes, but also contributes to the development of strategies to ensure an effective and stable political system in Europe and the world. State of Investigation of the Problem. While scholarly attention has been devoted to European parliamentarism, there remains a lacuna in comprehensively synthesizing its historical evolution and contemporary dynamics within the context of contemporary global challenges. Existing studies often focus narrowly on specific aspects or time periods, thereby necessitating a holistic examination that integrates historical, political, and socio-economic dimensions. Purpose and Tasks. To study the formation and development of European parliamentarism in the context of global challenges, to analyze its possibilities and prospects for solving these problems. To achieve this purpose, the following tasks are delineated: 1. Conduct a comprehensive review of literature pertaining to European parliamentarism and global challenges. 2. Analyze the historical evolution of European parliamentarism, tracing its origins and key milestones. 3. Examine the contemporary functioning of European parliamentary institutions, including the European Parliament and national parliaments. 4. Assess the impact of global challenges, such as economic crises, migration flows, and environmental issues, on European parliamentarism. 5. Propose recommendations for enhancing the resilience and effectiveness of European parliamentary systems in addressing global challenges. Object and Subject of Study. The object of study in this thesis is the process of formation and development of European parliamentarism, encompassing its institutional frameworks, political dynamics, and socio-economic contexts. Within this overarching object, the subject of study is the specific problem of navigating global challenges within the framework of European parliamentary systems. Research Methods. To accomplish the aforementioned tasks, a multifaceted approach incorporating qualitative analysis, historical research, comparative study, and policy analysis will be employed. Primary sources such as parliamentary records, legislative documents, alongside secondary sources including scholarly articles, books, and policy reports. Elements of Scientific Novelty. The scientific novelty of this thesis lies in its comprehensive synthesis of the evolution of European parliamentarism vis-а-vis global challenges, offering insights into previously unexplored intersections between parliamentary governance and contemporary global dynamics. Additionally, the thesis will propose original recommendations for enhancing the resilience and adaptability of European parliamentary systems in an era of heightened uncertainty and complexity. Practical Significance. The findings of this research hold practical significance for policymakers, scholars, and practitioners involved in European governance and global affairs. By illuminating the interplay between parliamentary institutions and global challenges, this thesis aims to inform policy debates and institutional reforms aimed at bolstering the capacity of European parliaments to address pressing transnational issues. Structure of the work: The work consists of an introduction, three main sections, conclusions and a list of used sources.  CHAPTER 1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARISM IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL CHALLENGES 1.1 Historical Overview and Evolution of European Parliamentarism European parliamentarism has undergone a complex and dynamic evolution over centuries, shaped by historical events, social structures, and political ideologies. The concept of parliamentarism emerged in Europe during the Middle Ages, evolving through various stages to its present form. This work provides an in-depth examination of the historical overview and evolution of European parliamentarism, highlighting key milestones, developments, and influences. 1. Medieval Roots. The roots of European parliamentarism can be traced back to medieval times when monarchs sought advice and consent fr om representative bodies composed of nobles, clergy, and sometimes commoners. These assemblies, such as the English Parliament (Corbett, Richard, Jacobs, Shackelton, 2007) and the Cortes in Spain, played a crucial role in advising rulers, deliberating on legislation, and representing the interests of different societal groups. The Magna Carta of 1215, signed by King John of England, marked a significant milestone in the development of parliamentary principles. It established the idea of the rule of law, limited the power of the monarch, and laid the foundation for constitutional governance. Subsequent centuries saw the gradual expansion of parliamentary powers and the emergence of representative institutions across Europe. 2. Rise of Modern Nation-States. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment period brought about profound intellectual and political transformations in Europe, fostering ideas of individual rights, democracy, and popular sovereignty. The emergence of modern nation-states in the 17th and 18th centuries further fueled the evolution of parliamentary systems. The English Revolution of 1688, also known as the Glorious Revolution, led to the establishment of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary supremacy in England. The Bill of Rights of 1689 affirmed the rights of Parliament and laid down fundamental principles of governance, including freedom of speech and regular elections. Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke and Montesquieu profoundly influenced the development of parliamentary governance with their ideas on separation of powers and checks and balances. Their writings inspired revolutions and constitutional reforms across Europe, shaping the course of parliamentary evolution. 3. 19th Century Reforms. The 19th century witnessed a wave of democratic movements and constitutional reforms that expanded the scope of parliamentary representation and participation. The Industrial Revolution brought about significant social and economic changes, leading to demands for political reform and the extension of suffrage. The Reform Act of 1832 in the United Kingdom was a landmark legislation that expanded the electorate and redistributed parliamentary seats, laying the groundwork for a more inclusive and representative political system. Subsequent reforms in the 19th and early 20th centuries further democratized parliamentary institutions and enhanced their legitimacy. Parallel developments occurred in other European countries, albeit at different paces and with varying degrees of success. The revolutions of 1848, although largely unsuccessful in their immediate goals, contributed to the spread of liberal ideas and paved the way for future reforms. 4. Emergence of Party Politics. The 19th century also saw the rise of modern political parties, which became central to the functioning of parliamentary systems. Political parties provided a means of organizing and mobilizing citizens, articulating competing interests, and forming governments based on majority support in parliament. The development of party discipline and parliamentary norms transformed legislative bodies into arenas of political competition and negotiation. Party leaders emerged as key figures in parliamentary politics, wielding influence over government policies and legislative agendas. The adoption of proportional representation in several European countries, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, further diversified political representation and facilitated the emergence of multi-party systems. However, it also posed challenges for stable governance and coalition building. 5. Challenges and Crises. The evolution of European parliamentarism has been punctuated by challenges, crises, and moments of reckoning. The two World Wars of the 20th century tested the resilience of parliamentary democracies and led to profound transformations (Costa, Olivier, 2019) in the political landscape. The interwar period witnessed the rise of authoritarian regimes and the erosion of democratic norms in several European countries. The failure of parliamentary systems to address social and economic grievances contributed to political instability and paved the way for extremist movements. The aftermath of World War II saw a resurgence of democratic values and a renewed commitment to parliamentary governance. The establishment of supranational institutions such as the Council of Europe and the European Communities aimed to promote cooperation and integration among European states. 6. European Integration. The process of European integration has had a profound impact on the evolution of parliamentary governance in Europe. The establishment of the European Parliament in 1952, initially as a consultative assembly, marked a significant step towards supranational democracy. The Treaties of Rome in 1957 laid the foundations for the European Economic Community (EEC), which later evolved into the European Union (EU) (Bressanelli, Edoardo, Chelotti, 2020). The European Parliament gradually gained legislative powers and oversight responsibilities, enhancing its role as a co-legislator alongside the Council of the European Union. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 further expanded the powers of the European Parliament, introducing the co-decision procedure and strengthening its role in shaping EU policies. Subsequent treaties, such as the Lisbon Treaty of 2007, continued to enhance the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of EU institutions. 7. Challenges of European Parliamentarism. Despite its achievements, European parliamentarism faces a range of challenges in the 21st century. The rise of populist movements, Euroscepticism, and political polarization has strained the functioning of parliamentary systems and undermined trust in democratic institutions. The complex and opaque decision-making processes of the EU have led to criticisms of democratic deficit and lack of accountability. The role of national parliaments in European governance remains a subject of debate, with calls for greater involvement and scrutiny of EU policies. Brexit, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, represents a significant setback for European integration and raises questions about the future of parliamentary cooperation in Europe. The ongoing debate over the balance between national sovereignty and supranational governance continues to shape the evolution of European parliamentarism. In conclusion, European parliamentarism has evolved through centuries of historical developments, ideological shifts, and institutional reforms. From its medieval roots to the present day, parliamentary systems have played a central role in shaping the political landscape of Europe. The principles of representative democracy, rule of law, and separation of powers remain fundamental to the functioning of parliamentary institutions. However, the challenges of the 21st century, including populism, globalization, and technological change, pose new challenges to the viability and legitimacy of European parliamentarism. Despite these challenges, the European project continues to evolve, driven by a commitment to democratic values and collective action. The future of European parliamentarism will depend on the ability of political leaders and citizens to address these challenges and adapt to changing circumstances, while remaining true to the principles of democratic governance. 1.2 The main features and functions of European parliamentarism The origins of European parliamentarism should be sought in ancient Greek state traditions and the Roman Senate. The great resettlement of peoples reliably and for a long time erased the memory of ancient civilizations. Ancient history returned to scientific and public use only during the Renaissance, and became the ideological basis for state-building researchers who developed the ideas of people's rule and limiting the absolute power of monarchs. European parliamentarism is, first of all, the heir of the tribal councils that captured and divided the Roman Empire. It is not surprising that the first parliament arose in Iceland, wh ere there were no Romans at all, and the following ones - in Britain and Spain, that is, on the distant outskirts of the former empire. The long history of European parliamentarism has two main aspects. This is an increase in the powers of the parliament and the government, which it represents, due to the powers of the monarch and the expansion of suffrage - first due to the reduction of the censor and the abolition of the caste approach, and starting fr om the end of the 19th century - due to the elimination of sexual restrictions. First of all, women got the right to vote in New Zealand - in 1893, the latest - in Saudi Arabia - in 2011. The development of European parliamentarism did not always follow an exclusively upward trajectory. There were periods of strengthening of royal power, when the powers of parliaments were cut, and the property or status qualification was strengthened - for example, in England in 1407 the right to vote was abolished for all owners of free lands: for the first time, lists of nobles who had the right to vote were compiled. There were also opposite precedents: for example, in France during the Jacqueria in the middle of the 14th century, the States General claimed a serious role in the management of the country. But their decline did not pass either: from 1484 to 1560 and from 1614 to 1789, the States General did not convene at all. The convocation of 1789 was the last - the king was overthrown and power passed to the National, and then the Constituent Assembly. Chronologically, the history of European parliamentarism can be divided into three fairly uneven parts. The first stage, which refers to the Middle Ages, is the emergence and initial institutionalization of representative authorities. Feudal lords and well-to-do townspeople looked for ways to influence the kings, and to one degree or another they sought this right. It is X-XV centuries. The second stage is characterized by the strengthening of supreme power and the centralization of states - the reduction of the role of representative authorities in the general state machine. This happened as a result of the Renaissance and the advent of the New Age - in the 16th-18th centuries. "Deparliamentation" manifested itself most clearly in France, wh ere, as mentioned above, the Estates General did not convene for a total of about 200 years. In England in the 16th and 17th centuries, kings also tried to diminish the role of parliament. In both cases this led to revolutions – in 1649 in London and in 1789 in Paris, respectively. Kings were executed. The third stage is the final institutionalization of the parliament as an integral part of the state machinery of the European state, the implementation of the principle of separation of powers and the formation of political systems that have not changed much until now. This period stretched from the end of the 18th to the middle of the 20th century. Most of the previously numerous electoral qualifications, except for age, were gradually abolished, universal secret voting was introduced, nomination of candidates was also significantly simplified. In modern conditions, the viability of parliamentarism as a political ideology of Western Europe is manifested, first of all, in polar assessments of the future of parliamentarism in Europe and around the world. On the one hand, there is an increase in pessimistic attitudes, one of the main theses of which is the diagnosis of the erosion of the power of the parliament. Yes, the President of the Constitutional Court of Germany Kh.-I. The paper states "the process of the decline of constitutional law and public legal policy" as a result of "declining influence of the parliament" [32]. There are also diametrically opposed views of scientists and politicians, according to which parliamentarism in Europe does not demonstrate a history of decline at all, but, on the contrary, a history of development. First of all, the Western European parliaments of the 20th century. were able to find their own niche. Paradoxically, the textbook function of the parliament (legislation and legislative process) plays a rather modest role in this "niche". We are talking about at least three aspects of modern parliamentarism in Europe, namely: 1) about the creation and adequate functioning of control mechanisms over the centers of political and social domination; 2) on the operative parliamentary reaction to large and small political programs of the executive power; 3) about the special synergy that arises as a result of the interaction of the parliament as an institution and the mass media regarding the support of the regime of publicity, transparency and transparency of any activity of public authorities. Proponents of the thesis about the decline of modern parliamentarism in many respects only repeat the well-known theses of great critics of liberalism, such as Carl Schmitt. In particular, they mix two logically independent concepts of parliament, namely: parliament as an institution of constitutional law and parliament as a political institution. In the context of the above, they believe that since the modern parliament in the West no longer claims a leading role in the political process, as in the era of dualistic monarchies, the parliament has thus exhausted its resources as an institution of constitutional law [33, c. 1332; 34, c. 7]. It is quite obvious that in the conditions of a dualistic monarchy, the parliament could only restrain the policy of the monarch, but could not direct it in any way. Regarding the structure-forming role of the parliament as a constitutional and legal institution, on the one hand, one cannot deny the political nature of the parliament, primarily as a form of interaction between different political parties. On the other hand, the parliament is not a political club, but is the most important element or institution in the organizational and legal form of a modern legal state. As a constitutional and legal institution, the parliament does not belong to itself and therefore cannot claim any monopoly status to the detriment of other constitutional and legal institutions (head of state, government, judiciary). Parliament as a venue for various political parties can, of course, participate in this process without any guaranteed results. But when it comes to the parliament as an institution in the constitutional and legal system of organizing public power, it plays the role of an "inconvenient witness", in which it is more convenient for the executive authorities to observe the "rules of decency" than to violate them [35]. Thus, the nature of parliament is rather focused on parliamentary procedures, which are multifaceted in nature. This is not only a legislative procedure, but also a control procedure, a public authority budgeting procedure, a procedure for political interaction between the parliamentary majority and the parliamentary opposition, etc. The category "competence", i.e. "the currency with which holders of legal power are settled among themselves" [36, c. 446], often used by defenders of the thesis about the absolute decline of parliamentarism in the sense that the entire history of the 20th century. indicates a global removal of competence - both in terms of scope and content - from the parliament in favor of the executive power. In this pessimistic perspective, the parliament increasingly turns into a machine of formal voting for any external reason. At the same time, the reasons are given exclusively by the executive power and exclusively at its own discretion. What can be called the Renaissance of parliamentarism in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe after the collapse of the socialist system does not fit well with such a pessimistic forecast. After the "velvet" revolutions, the post-socialist legislative bodies immediately started working in the regime of the classical parliament. This gives grounds for asserting that the form of parliament as such determines the content of parliamentary activity [37, c. 95-96, 100, 114, 116]. Accordingly, the material, substantive or political aspects of this activity are always pre-designed and limited by the constitutional and legal framework. It is no coincidence that extra-parliamentary parties are divided into only two types: parties that want to become parliamentary, that is, they have not yet entered parliament, but they really want to, and parties that have already become anti-parliamentary because, due to their marginal or radical ideology, they will never enter parliament. In any case, the reference point or scale of classification of political party activity is the parliament as an institution and institution of constitutional law. Assessments of this victorious march of parliamentarism in Central and Eastern Europe are rather ambiguous. Thus, Jьrgen Habermas believes that in this case it is largely just about "catch-up revolutions" according to the already known classical patterns of Western European parliamentarism [38]. That is, it is believed that this "second wave" in Central and Eastern Europe has no fundamental significance for the fate of parliamentarism in Europe. There are influential voices calling for a cautious assessment of this victorious march of parliamentarism in Central and Eastern Europe. Thus, Jшrgen Habermas believes that in this case it is largely just about "catch-up revolutions" according to the already known classic patterns of Western European parliamentarism. According to the fate of parliamentarism in Europe, this "second wave" in Central and Eastern Europe is of no fundamental importance. It would be possible to assume that the "catch-up" democracies of Central and Eastern Europe could choose not parliamentarism, but a presidential or semi-presidential model of state power, but the vast majority of new democracies chose a parliamentary regime in its narrow sense. A certain exception to this trend is Poland, which for various reasons decided to take as a model of its post-communist state system the model of the Fifth Republic of France, that is, a semi-presidential regime. So, having studied the nature of European parliamentarism, we can conclude that there is a certain affinity between the Western European system of public power in its general features and parliamentarism as a public-legal ideology and practice. Therefore, a supporter of anti-parliamentarism will in one way or another be an opponent of pan-European values, since the system of these values cannot be thought of without the parliament as an institution and institution of constitutional law.