ABSTRACT

The relationship between governments and legislatures is founded upon a confidence agreement, whereby the executive derives its authority from, and is accountable to, the legislature. As heads of government, prime ministers are crucial political actors in parliamentary systems, yet there is little understanding of how they are held accountable by legislatures. What are the mechanisms through which parliamentarians may question them? How do such mechanisms vary, and how do procedural rules affect questioning and accountability? This paper builds on theoretical foundations from comparative legislative studies and presents the first survey of mechanisms through which parliamentarians may question prime ministers in 31 parliamentary democracies. It draws on research on parliamentary rules of procedure, followed by a consultation with practitioners on matters of convention and practice. It presents novel classifications and typologies of parliamentary questioning mechanisms that include prime ministers along six key dimensions, thus filling a crucial gap in executive-legislative studies.

摘要

政府与立法机关之间的关系建立在信任协议之上，据此，行政机关从立法机关获得权力，并对立法机关负责。作为政府首脑，总理是议会系统中至关重要的政治角色，但人们对立法机关如何追究他们的责任却知之甚少。议员可以通过哪些机制质疑他们？这些机制如何变化，程序规则如何影响提问和问责制？本文建立在比较立法研究的理论基础之上，并首次对 31 个议会民主国家中议员质疑总理的机制进行了调查。它借鉴了对议会议事规则的研究，随后与从业人员就惯例和实践问题进行磋商。它提出了议会提问机制的新分类和类型，包括总理的六个关键维度，从而填补了行政立法研究中的一个关键空白。