Launch of my book “Presidential Activism and Veto Power in Central and Eastern Europe” at UCL SSEES – 8 December 2017

You are all cordially invited to join me for the launch of my book “Presidential Activism and Veto Power in Central and Eastern Europe” (Palgrave, 2017):

8th December 2017
18:00-19:00, followed by a wine & snacks reception
UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies
16 Taviton Steet, London WC1H 0BW

This book is one of the first comprehensive comparative studies of presidential activism and veto power in Europe. Focusing on presidential vetoes and the formation of governments, it maps patterns of presidential activism and its determinants across nine Central and East European democracies between 1990 and 2010. Thereby, it combines the analysis of original quantitative data on the use of presidential powers with in-depth case studies in an innovative mixed-methods framework. Based on regression analyses and unique insights from numerous elite interviews, the study shows strong support for the hitherto insufficiently tested assumption that popularly elected presidents are more active than their indirectly elected counterparts. This book will be a key resource not only for area specialists but also for scholars of presidential studies, comparative government, and executives.

The book will be introduced by Professor Petra Schleiter (Oxford University) followed by a brief presentation by the author and a Q&A. The launch concludes with a wine and snacks reception in the Masaryk Senior Common Room.

The launch and wine reception are kindly sponsored by the Political Leadership Specialist Group of the Political Studies Association (PSA). The event is hosted jointly by the UCL SSEES Centre for European Politics, Security and Integration and the UCL European Institute.

CCCU Expert Comment: A warning shot, not yet a crisis for German democracy

I wrote a brief commentary for the CCCU Expert Blog about the outcome of the German federal elections. You can find the whole text below:

A WARNING SHOT, NOT YET A CRISIS FOR GERMAN DEMOCRACY

Dr Philipp Köker explains why the success of the far-right ‘Alternative for Germany (AfD)’ in Sunday’s election is cause for concern, but far from heralding a crisis for German democracy.

Angela Merkel emerged as the winner of yesterday’s federal elections in Germany. As expected, her coalition of Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) topped the polls with 33.5% of the vote while the Social Democrats (SPD), led by Martin Schulz, trailed behind at 20.5% (the worst result since 1949). However, the most interesting point of the election was always the competition between the four smaller parties, which at times appeared to be tied at around 10% each.

In the end, the differences were small but significant – the Free Democrats (FDP) more than doubled their 2013 result and re-entered parliament after a four-year break, while the Greens and the leftist DIE LINKE were unable to boost their numbers. Most notably, however, the formerly anti-Euro turned xenophobic far-right ‘Alternative for Germany’ (AfD) entered the Bundestag for the first time. Having polled just below the 5% threshold at its first attempt in 2013, the AfD now emerged as the third largest party with 12.6%.

The AfD’s success is certainly cause for concern, given that it is the first time since 1949 that a far-right party will sit in Germany’s federal parliament. However, its success must also be seen in a comparative context.

After the last ‘grand coalition’ of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats in 2005-2009, smaller parties likewise effectively channelled public discontent and benefitted electorally from the losses of the major parties. Exit polls also showed that the majority of AfD voters cast their vote out of protest, not because they were persuaded by the views of its leadership.

Furthermore, German politicians – bar some representatives of the Christian and Social Union (CSU) – have also stood firmly by the government’s decision to accept more than 1m refugees.

In contrast to the UK, where Conservatives and Labour alike adopted the populist anti-immigration rhetoric of UKIP, German parties have not stooped down to the AfD’s level.

Moreover, the AfD is rife with in-fighting between various factions –the party’s founder Bernd Lucke left in 2015 and Frauke Petry, who led the challenge against Lucke in 2015, just announced her intention to set up her own party group in parliament. This puts the AfD in stark contrast to other, more disciplined far-right parties in Europe, e.g. the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), which could win 25% in the general election on 15 October 2017.

Thus, the potential for a far-right resurgence in Germany is limited – in terms of both electoral support and party organisation. The AfD’s success is a warning shot, but is not yet heralding a crisis for German democracy.

Dr Philipp Köker is Senior Research Fellow in Politics and International Relations and deputy director of the Centre for European Studies (CEFEUS) at Canterbury Christ Church University.

CCCU Expert Comment: The deterioration of Polish democracy

Following the announcement of Polish President Andrzej Duda to veto two bills that are part of the governments controversial plans to reform the judiciary, I wrote a brief commentary for the CCCU Expert Comment blog. You can find the whole text below:

THE DETERIORATION OF POLAND’S DEMOCRACY

Dr Philipp Köker explains that the President’s veto is unlikely to stop the deterioration of Poland’s democracy.

The Polish president, Andrzej Duda, has announced that he will veto two highly controversial bills aimed at reshaping the country’s judicial system.

At first glance, this may appear as a success for thousands of Poles who protested for weeks across the country and abroad. However, even though the president’s veto can only be overridden by a 3/5 majority in the Lower House of parliament, the veto alone is unlikely to stop the deterioration of Polish democracy.

Since taking office, the Law and Justice Party – whose leader Jarosław Kaczyński has publicly expressed his admiration for the policies of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán – has taken it upon themselves to reshape the country’s political system by bringing state media and judiciary under their control.

Shortly after their election in 2015, their government overruled nominations for five constitutional judges that had still been made by the last parliament and later refused to publish a ruling of the Constitutional Court that demanded three of these had to be sworn in by president Duda. Yet Duda, a member of Law and Justice himself, refused.

Subsequently, the government effectively cleansed state media of critical editors and journalists who the party had long accused of biased coverage.

Since then, objective coverage and commentary has been largely absent from public channels. The reform of the judiciary, already at the heart of the party’s programme during its first government in 2005-2007, is now a further step towards an ‘illiberal state’ modelled on the Hungarian example.

One of the two bills now vetoed by the president would have given the justice minister the right to fire the heads of lower courts, while the other would have allowed the government to replace all Supreme Court judges.

President Duda has been complicit in all these changes and so far failed to provide an effective check-and-balance on the government. However, presidential action was inevitable after it emerged over the weekend that the Polish Senate had passed bills in different versions than the lower chamber. Nevertheless, the veto alone is unlikely to put a halt to the Poland’s descent into illiberalism.

The president has only temporarily halted a reform that will inevitably be implemented unless other countries stand together and oppose this attack on democracy.

The EU, which has already threatened Poland with a suspension of its voting rights, will thereby play a key role. However, individual states and their parties also have an important role to play. Although the UK is headed for Brexit, Theresa May must not be indifferent to these developments – in particular because both the Conservatives as well as the DUP have a long history of cooperation with Law and Justice in the European Parliament.

Dr Philipp Köker is Senior Research Fellow in Politics and International Relations at Canterbury Christ Church University. He is an award-winning expert on presidential politics in European democracies. His new book ‘Presidential Activism and Veto Power in Central and Eastern Europe’ has just been published with Palgrave Macmillan.

My first book “Presidential Activism and Veto Power in Central and Eastern Europe” has now been published

My first book Presidential Activism and Veto Power in Central and Eastern Europe has now been published with Palgrave Macmillan as the inaugural volume in its new series ‘Palgrave Studies in Presidential Politics‘. The book is based on my award-winning PhD thesis that I completed at University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies in 2010-2015 and which received the ECPR Jean Blondel PhD Prize 2016 for the best thesis in politics.

The book examines the use of presidential powers in Central and East Europe between 1990 and 2010, focusing on presidential vetoes and the formation of governments. Based on original quantitative data and unique insights into presidential politics gathered through a large number of elite interviews, it provides one of the first comprehensive comparative studies of presidential activism and veto power in Europe.

“Despite the prominence of presidential powers in academic debates, until now only few scholars have tried to analyse and explain how presidential actually use them. My study attempts to fill this gap in the literature and add to our understanding of presidential politics in parliamentary and semi-presidential systems.”

The book has already received praise from established scholars. Ferdinand Müller-Rommel, Professor of Comparative Politics at the Leuphana University Lüneburg, highlights the originality and scientific rigour of the study: “The book is an inspiration for scholars of comparative government. It has set a new approach of excellence for those seeking to understand presidential activism in democracies across the globe.”

The book is available as hardback and ebook – you can download a flyer here. I would of course also be grateful if you would recommend it to your library. Last, you can watch a short book trailer summarising the book’s key features below.

CCCU Expert Comment: Hung parliaments are democracy in action

On Friday, 9 June, I wrote a brief commentary on the outcome of the UK General Election for the CCCU Expert Comment blog. You can find the whole text below.

HUNG PARLIAMENTS ARE DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

Dr Philipp Köker explains why coalitions are not detrimental to democracy or strong leadership.

Theresa May’s gamble to consolidate (or even increase) her majority in the House of Commons has not paid off. Instead, the Conservatives have lost their majority and now need to find a coalition partner to continue to govern and ‘command the confidence of the House of Commons’.

Hung parliaments such as this or, more generally speaking, elections in which no party receives an absolute majority of seats are very common across democracies in Europe and beyond. Yet the subsequent governing coalitions are not just a matter of necessity, but an expression of democracy in action.

The mantra that ‘coalitions are undemocratic’ which we repeatedly heard after the 2010 election, is unheard of in other democracies and points to a questionable understanding of democracy among the British political elite. Democracy is exactly not winner takes all – majority rule, but requires compromise and cooperation to achieve the best outcome for everybody – not just for those who voted for the largest party.

Especially in the UK’s First-Past-The-Post electoral system, in which less than a third of all MPs receive an absolute majority of votes in their constituencies and many voters will never see their preferred candidate elected, a coalition government, irrespective of its composition, has the potential to increase the quality of democracy.

The inclusion of several parties increases the support base and legitimacy of the government and provides an additional mechanism of checks-and-balances, which prevents unilateral decision-making by a single leader.

Furthermore, coalitions require political parties to find new mechanism of conflict resolution and force them to consider a wider variety of viewpoints and potential solutions. Last, coalitions are not necessarily detrimental to strong leadership, but provide an opportunity to show actual leadership abilities. Nobody would question the leadership of Angela Merkel just because she has presided over coalition governments since coming to office in 2005.

Jean Blondel Prize award ceremony at the 45th ECPR Joint Sessions, Nottingham

From 25 to 27 April 2017 I am at the 45th ECPR Joint Sessions at the University of Nottingham. On Wednesday, 26 April, I will officially receive the Jean Blondel PhD Prize 2016 for the best thesis in politics.

Since October 2003, the ECPR Press has awarded an annual PhD prize named after Political Science Professor Jean Blondel for the best thesis in politics (including not only Comparative Politics but also other fields such as International Relations, Political Theory and Public Administration). The central criterion for this prize is that, with suitable amendments, the thesis would make an outstanding book. The prize comes with a cash reward of €1,000 and is thus one of the most highly endowed dissertation prizes worldwide.

The prize committee highlighted that “the thesis makes an important contribution to studies of presidential activism. It suggests an innovative research approach to explain this activism and, moreover, it is elegantly constructed and the dissertation is a pleasure to read.”

A revised version of my thesis will be published as a monograph with Palgrave Macmillan as Presidential Activism and Veto Power in Central and Eastern Europe in May 2017.

Invited talk on presidential vetoes in authoritarian regimes at the University of Kent, 5 April 2017

On Wednesday, 5 April 2017, I will give a talk about my research on presidential vetoes in authoritarian regimes in the seminar series of the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Kent. The paper, which I recently presented at the BASEES Annual Conference at the University of Cambridge, deals with the question why presidents in authoritarian regimes still (need to) use their veto power and tests its proposition on original data from Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia.

Presentation at BASEES Annual Conference, University of Cambridge

This weekend I am attending the Annual Conference of the British Association of Slavonic and East European Studies (BASEES). On Saturday afternoon, I will present a paper on the use of presidential vetoes in authoritarian regimes as part of a panel on executive politics in the former Soviet Union.

Panel: Executive politics in the former Soviet Union
Chair: Ben Noble (University of Oxford)

  • Fabian Burkhardt (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich) ‘The institutional presidency and the power vertical: regime stabilization by institutionalization of the presidential administration in the Russian Federation 1994-2012’
  • Ellie Martus (University of New South Wales) ‘Executive involvement in the Russian environmental policy process’
  • Ben Noble (University of Oxford) ‘Ministers with the Initiative: Russian Ministries as Actors in the Law-making Process’
  • Philipp Köker (Canterbury Christ Church University) ‘Presidential veto power in authoritarian regimes’
  • Julian Waller (George Washington University) ‘Building a Proper Presidential Majority: Federal and Regional Executive Preference for Russian SMD Candidates’

Special Issue of the Slavonic & East European Review on Innovations in Corruption Studies

The Slavonic and East European Review has published a special issue on Innovations in Corruption studies which I co-edited together with Alena Ledeneva and Roxana Bratu (UCL). The special issue emerges from the FP7 ANTICORRP project in which I worked at UCL from 2014 to 2016 and the seminar series on innovations in corruption studies in Europe and beyond that I convened on behalf of the project group in 2015/2016.

The issue (Vol 95, No. 1) includes a co-authored article on Paradigm Shifts in Corruption Studies that I co-authored with my co-editors as well as contributions by other leading scholars in the field of corruption studies and anti-corruption.

Talk on Books, Impact and REF2021 at the Academic Book Week 2017

On 24 January 2017, I gave a talk on ‘Books, Impact and REF2021: ECR and University Perspectives’ in the seminar ‘Emerging Tools and Metrics in the Book Impact Space‘ organised by Springer Nature as part of the Academic Book Week 2017. Together with experts from Springer Nature, Digital Science, Altmetric, Scopus and PaperHive I discussed the future of academic books, tools to measure their impact, and innovations for open peer-review.

In particular, my presentation focused on the decline of monograph publications by Early Career Researchers (ECRs) and its causes as well as on the upcoming REF2021 and related opportunities and challenges for books as part of universities’ output and impact case study submissions.