|
|
|
|
The Art of Political Manipulation in the European Constitutional Convention |
|
| Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Get this Document | Similar Titles |
|
STOP! You can now view the document associated with this citation by clicking on the "View Document as HTML" link below. |
|
Click here to view the document
|
Abstract:
|
Between 2002 and 2003, a European constitutional convention drafted a constitution for Europe. Two actors in particular influenced the negotiations in the Convention: the President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and the Praesidium.
We first examine how the Praesidium was able to structure the agenda inside the Convention due to the absence of voting on amendments. The Praesidium was able to conclude every particular proposal-amendment round by accepting, rejecting or amending proposed amendments. We then analyze cases which show how the Presidency was able to control the agenda of the Convention. By investigating institutions, we demonstrate that the Presidency used several tricks to manipulate the result. We find evidence that (1) the Presidency filtered proposed amendments, considering only some of them, (2) it determined consensus in the Convention without saying how many members approve of a particular measure, and (3) it juxtaposed proposed amendments and concluded that the Praesidium proposal constitutes the best compromise.
The second part of our agenda-setting analysis complements these cases by examining the timing of the Praesidium proposals. Analyzing the entire set of amendments in the Convention, we show that the Praesidium structured the agenda by presenting its draft proposals in multiple sequences. While the Praesidium could have proposed the entire constitution at once, such an iterated procedure resulted in fewer amendments over time. This suggests that timing was used for strategic reasons by the Praesidium. We support our hypothesis by showing that (1) some of the most important issues were presented at the end of the Convention, and that (2) the actual timing of proposals does not correlate highly with either the initial timetable or with the final constitution. We conclude that in the absence of majority or unanimity voting, agenda control mattered and thus the possibility of political manipulation. |
Most Common Document Word Stems:
propos (171), convent (169), amend (165), praesidium (114), constitut (84), european (70), presid (69), member (57), agenda (56), giscard (54), part (49), 1 (47), conv (45), 3 (42), time (40), eu (38), 2003 (38), set (37), number (36), would (36), polici (35), |
|
|
 | Convention | | Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote! |  | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. |  | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! |  | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! |  | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. |  | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! |  | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
Association:
Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
|
Citation:
|
MLA Citation:
| Tsebelis, George. and Proksch, Sven-Oliver. "The Art of Political Manipulation in the European Constitutional Convention" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 31, 2006 <Not Available>. 2009-05-24 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p151324_index.html> |
APA Citation:
| Tsebelis, G. and Proksch, S. , 2006-08-31 "The Art of Political Manipulation in the European Constitutional Convention" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2009-05-24 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p151324_index.html |
Publication Type: Proceeding Abstract: Between 2002 and 2003, a European constitutional convention drafted a constitution for Europe. Two actors in particular influenced the negotiations in the Convention: the President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and the Praesidium.
We first examine how the Praesidium was able to structure the agenda inside the Convention due to the absence of voting on amendments. The Praesidium was able to conclude every particular proposal-amendment round by accepting, rejecting or amending proposed amendments. We then analyze cases which show how the Presidency was able to control the agenda of the Convention. By investigating institutions, we demonstrate that the Presidency used several tricks to manipulate the result. We find evidence that (1) the Presidency filtered proposed amendments, considering only some of them, (2) it determined consensus in the Convention without saying how many members approve of a particular measure, and (3) it juxtaposed proposed amendments and concluded that the Praesidium proposal constitutes the best compromise.
The second part of our agenda-setting analysis complements these cases by examining the timing of the Praesidium proposals. Analyzing the entire set of amendments in the Convention, we show that the Praesidium structured the agenda by presenting its draft proposals in multiple sequences. While the Praesidium could have proposed the entire constitution at once, such an iterated procedure resulted in fewer amendments over time. This suggests that timing was used for strategic reasons by the Praesidium. We support our hypothesis by showing that (1) some of the most important issues were presented at the end of the Convention, and that (2) the actual timing of proposals does not correlate highly with either the initial timetable or with the final constitution. We conclude that in the absence of majority or unanimity voting, agenda control mattered and thus the possibility of political manipulation. |
Get this Document:
Find this citation or document at one or all of these locations below. The links below may have the citation or the entire document for free or you may purchase access to the document. Clicking on these links will change the site you're on and empty your shopping cart.
| Document Type: |
application/pdf |
| Page count: |
38 |
| Word count: |
10149 |
| Text sample: |
| The Art of Political Manipulation in the European Convention George Tsebelis Department of Political Science UCLA tsebelis@ucla.edu Sven-Oliver Proksch Department of Political Science UCLA proksch@ucla.edu 13 June 2006 1 Introduction The European constitutional convention simply called the European Convention was convened in 2002 in order to revise and consolidate existing European treaties which have formed the constitutional framework of the European Union since its beginnings in 1957. The Convention was a departure from the traditional way of revising the |
| The Accidental Constitution: The Story of the European Convention. Brussels: EuroComment. Tsebelis George and Xenophon Yataganas. 2002. "Veto Players and Decision-Making in the EU after Nice: Policy Stability and Bureaucratic/Judicial Discretion" Journal of Common Market Studies 40(2) 283-307. Tsebelis George. 2005. "Agenda Setting in the EU Constitution" Paper presented at the Domestic Structures and European Integration Conference Brussels 2005. Yataganas Xenophon and George Tsebelis. 2005. "The Treaty of Nice the Convention Draft and the Constitution for Europe Under a |
Similar Titles:
Irish neutrality and the Development of the European Union’s Security and Defence Policy under the Lisbon Treaty: Compatible or Competing Foreign Policy Agendas?
Power and Influence in the European Union: Can New Member States Set the Policy Agenda?
|
|