Moldova, which just had elections in April, will give it another try. There are snap elections for 29 July, made necessary by the inability of the recently elected parliament to muster the 61 votes needed to choose a new president. Preliminary results from that election had shown the Communist Party of Moldova winning 61 (of 101) seats, a claim that resulted in opposition protests. (The final allocation was 60, as Jack notes in a comment.)
The Communists, who won a majority in April, are well ahead again.
Moldova has a parliamentary form of government, but the country’s year, 2009, so far serves as another reminder that just because a given presidency might be less powerful than the prime minister and cabinet does not mean the parties do not care–a lot–about who is chosen president.
Respect to the Moldovans (and the Greeks and the Czechs), but it seems a bit odd to have a general parliamentary election to resolve a deadlock over the choosing of a non-executive president.
Insisting on a super-majority implies an intention to make the office non-partisan (or trans-partisan) – something that’s undercut if the majority and the opposition parties’ candidates then go to the polls saying “Vote for us to re-elect Havel!” or “Vote for me to keep Karamanlis out!”
It does seem to work in Greece and the Czech Republic, I suppose.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 21 July 2009 @ 06:29
Good points, Tom. I wrote something about that some years ago (appearing as a chapter in Budget and Newton’s Politics of the New Europe, a textbook).
In the list of countries with similar rules, and a recent ‘deadlock’ that led to a repeat election, add Turkey.
Seed planted by MSS — 21 July 2009 @ 12:37
I’d forgotten about Turkey. Australia has been kicking around various horse-devised-by-committee schemes to have a ceremonial President appointed by supermajority of Federal Parliament (including the “Turnbull” model drafted at the 1998 ConCon and rejected by 54% at a 1999 referendum). However, none to my knowledge, has ever proposed a dissolution and re-election of Parliament if no candidate got two-thirds.
Personally, I think it would make more sense to go straight to a direct Presidential election if the Parliament couldn’t elect by supermajority. You could frame it as something like “A presidential candidate needs the signatures of (say) 25% of MPs to be validly nominated. If only one candidate is nominated, s/he is declared elected without a poll.”
Then, if the main parties can compromise on a candidate who has a 75% lockout majority, you have de facto appointment by Parliament.
Of course there is the risk of a “Gordon Brown” winner by default – where the plurality candidate is not all that popular, but gets elected “unopposed” because no single rival has enough supporters to get nominated. So it might be better to say (a) “5% of MPs, or 5,000 voters, can nominate a presidential candidate. (b) If only one candidate is nominated, or if two or more are nominated but Parliament supports one candidate by 75% vote at least 60 days before polling is due to open, that candidate is elected without a poll.”
Back to Moldova… Does it copy the Czech/ Greek model of dropping the threshold to choose a president when the new legislature meets after the general election?
Seed planted by Tom Round — 22 July 2009 @ 03:16
The Party of Communists had 60 seats in the final allocation.
Seed planted by Jack — 27 July 2009 @ 02:33
The Communists may have lost their majority (and definitely did not get to 61 seats) in the snap election.
Seed planted by MSS — 30 July 2009 @ 13:35