The systems of state authority differ in the way they separate powers, branches of power that are holders of the power and their relations. The parliamentary system, which is established also in Slovenia, is based on the principle of separation of powers. The branches of state authority collaborate with each other and control the work of one another. The system of checks and balances is set up to prevent the abuse of power.
In the modern democracy there has always been a race to get as many votes as possible, win the elections and take over the power among parties in the elections. The majority that wins is united and forms the Government, while parties that are not members of the majority coalition wait for their opportunity in the next elections. However, their voice has to be heard, because the decisions of majority become the decisions of minority as well, that is why they have to have an impact on decision-making. Besides, the possibility of supervision over the part of the majority coalition and the executive branch is important, for this purpose the opposition has different instruments of supervision. The opposition has a possibility of the use of its means on various areas, within the legislative, electoral and supervisory functions of Parliament.
The government, which answers to the parliament for its work, but without its support cannot work properly, is the holder of the executive body in the parliamentary systems. The Parliament, and within it, also in particular the opposition, has several instruments for controlling the work of the Government, the most important are parliamentary question, interpellation and constructive vote of no confidence. Disagreements between the Parliament and the Government can lead to the political crisis and ultimately to the dissolution of the Parliament and new elections.
There are several variants of parliamentary system, they differ in the way of forming, structure and working of the Government. Our system follows the German model’s example, but as far as assembly is concerned, it differs in some important elements. This mainly refers to the appointment of ministers coming from the National Assembly and instruments referring to it. These instruments are increasing individual responsibility of individual ministers in relation to the National Assembly and that is inconsistent with modern parliamentary systems which are familiar with collective responsibility of the Government in particular. Such system relativizes the meaning of the institute of constructive vote of no confidence which is based on the German’s model.
Constitutional changes would be logical due to our ineffective system, this was also noticed by our National Assembly. The group of members of the Parliament proposed a change for constitutional provisions which refer to the forming of the Government. In response to this proposal, the Professional group, which analysed the proposal of the members of the Parliament, formed another one.
This master's thesis deals with the proposed change of the Government, the proposal of members of the Parliament and the proposal of the Professional group, with emphasis on the effects of proposed changes regarding the position of the opposition. The thesis also presents some of the other possible constitutional changes that refer to the way of forming the Government. Each proposal of the constitutional change brings about our valid system to get closer to the certain category of the parliamentary system. It is worth considering which system is better and what kind of effect would passing a certain constitutional change cause, before even considering constitutional changes of any kind.
|
