An Intellectual History of the Concepts of Premier-Presidentialism and President-Parliamentarism
| DOI | 10.1177/1478929919864770 |
| Date | 01 February 2020 |
| Published date | 01 February 2020 |
| Author | Robert Elgie |
| Subject Matter | Special Issue Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929919864770
Political Studies Review
2020, Vol. 18(1) 12 –29
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1478929919864770
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
An Intellectual History of
the Concepts of Premier-
Presidentialism and President-
Parliamentarism
Robert Elgie†
Abstract
Shugart and Carey introduced the twin concepts of premier-presidentialism and president-
parliamentarism in their 1992 volume, Presidents and Assemblies. Based on a meta-analysis of journal
articles and book publications, this article distinguishes between an early and a contemporary
history of the two concepts. The period of early history runs from 1992 to around 2009. This was
the time when the two concepts were entering the academic consciousness and when there was
also some typological and classificatory ambiguity. The period of contemporary history begins in
2010. This era is marked by conceptual and classificatory clarity and by an increasing reference to
the two concepts in academic work. In the article, we show how the concepts have been applied
over time, noting a number of changes across the two periods under consideration. We conclude
by pointing out some challenges to the future application of the two concepts.
Keywords
premier-presidentialism, president-parliamentarism, semi-presidentialism, political institutions,
meta-analysis
Accepted: 14 May 2019
Matthew Shugart and John Carey published Presidents and Assemblies in 1992. This was
a moment of profound constitutional choice and institutional upheaval generally. With the
collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe and with the
broader move towards democratisation in Africa, Asia and Latin America, many coun-
tries were writing their first independent constitutions and many others were choosing
new political institutions. In this context, there was a debate about the best form of exec-
utive–legislative relations to adopt. Prior to Shugart and Carey’s ground-breaking contri-
bution, this debate was confined primarily to a discussion of the relative merits of two
School of Law and Government, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
†Author deceased
Corresponding author:
Robert Elgie, School of Law and Government, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland.
Email: robert.elgie@dcu.ie
864770PSW0010.1177/1478929919864770Political Studies ReviewElgie
research-article2019
Special Issue Article
Elgie 13
regimes – presidentialism and parliamentarism – and to a much lesser degree at that time
a third regime – semi-presidentialism. By introducing the twin concepts of premier-pres-
identialism and president-parliamentarism, Shugart and Carey provided constitutional
builders with the potential to consider an expanded set of institutional choices. In addi-
tion, Shugart and Carey also provided academics with a new research agenda. Indeed,
since the publication of Presidents and Assemblies, scholars have continued to study the
two concepts to the point where they are now a standard element of the comparative poli-
tics curriculum.
This article charts the intellectual history of the two concepts since they first appeared
in 1992 and provides a meta-analysis of their use in scientific studies since this time. The
aim is to chart the evolution of the academic study of the two terms, highlighting how
they have become increasingly important for the reliable classification of countries as
examples of particular regime types and for the study of the effects of institutional varia-
tion on political outcomes. The main conclusion is that references to premier-presiden-
tialism and president-parliamentarism have become increasingly prevalent over time.
However, the historiography is not quite as straightforward or linear as it might at first
appear. Accordingly, we distinguish between an early and a contemporary period of the
two terms. The early period runs from 1992 to around 2009. This was the time when a
new and seductive idea was entering the academic consciousness, but when there was
also some typological and classificatory ambiguity. The contemporary period begins in
2010. This era is marked by conceptual and classificatory clarity and by a broader empiri-
cal application of the institutional variation that is captured by the two terms. We begin
by charting the intellectual history of Shugart and Carey’s typology through a deep read-
ing of the work of Matthew Shugart from 1992 to 2010. We then report the findings of the
meta-analysis, showing how the concepts have been applied over time, noting a number
of changes across the two periods under consideration. We conclude by pointing out some
limits to the future application of the concepts. Overall, we argue that the two concepts
have been extremely important for the development of the study of semi-presidentialism
specifically and for scientific research in the field of comparative political institutions
more generally.
The Intellectual History of the Two Concepts
The original definition of the concepts of premier-presidentialism and president-parlia-
mentarism can be found in Presidents and Assemblies. Shugart and Carey (1992: 23)
defined premier-presidentialism as a regime ‘in which there is both a premier (prime
minister), as in a parliamentary system, and a popularly elected president’. Specifically,
they repeated Duverger’s three definitional criteria for semi-presidentialism as being con-
stitutive of a premier-presidential regime, namely:
1. The president is elected by popular vote;
2. The president possesses considerable powers;
3. There also exist a premier and cabinet, subject to assembly confidence, who per-
form executive functions.
Then, Shugart and Carey (1992: 24) referred to president-parliamentarism as the situ-
ation where ‘both the president and the parliament have authority over the composition of
To continue reading
Request your trial