T H E ROLE O F LEGISLATURES I N POLICY

PROCESSES

titer TURAN

The decline of parliaments has been a common theme i n litera^

ture on legislatures. As early as 1921, L o r d Bryce complained that
representative assemblies were losing authority to the executive and
1
to the electorate . More generally, i t has been argued that the deve-
lopment of disciplined mass political parties and an executive equip-
ped w i t h a bureaucracy w h i c h has more information and expertise
have gained power and authority at the expense of legislatures. Jean
Blondel, for example notes, " i n the post-war years, legislatures of
Western European states often seemed to become increasingly stre-
amlined and increasingly confined t o obeying fiats of strong execu-
2
tives backed b y a disciplined party" .

Another line of argument explaining the decline of parliaments

has alluded to the increasing role of the state in. society, which has
meant, i n t u r n an increasing amount of business of greater variety
before the parliaments. Consequently, parliaments have had less time
to deliberate on issues before them while at the same time their
members, often unfamiliar w i t h the technicalities of issues they are
asked to consider, have been placed i n a position of hieing mere
supporters or opponents of proposals p u t before them h y the exe-
cutive.

(*) Istanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilimler Fakültesi, Kamu Yöne-

timi Bölümünde Profesör.
1) Gerhard LoeWenberg, Modern Parliaments : Change or Decline
(Chicago: Aidine - Atherton, 1971), p. 6¬
2) Jean Blondel, Comparative Legislatures (Englewood Cliffs; Pren-
tice - Hall, 1973), p. 6.
 Hier Turan

Despite the fact that their decline has provided ground for ag-
1
reement among many observers, legislatures have demonstrated a
remarkable ability to survive. They have continued to exist i n soci-
eties which have traditionally had them (i.e. established before or
during the X I X t h century). N e w legislatures have been established
in countries which have either gone through a transformation of
their political system or have emerged as new units i n the inter-
national community. Where they have been closed, or dissolved,
new ones have soon reappeared.

The persistence of legislatures despite their alleged decline has

led some scholars to ask w h y this has been the case. I n his per-
ceptive article, Packenham pointed to where the answer might lie :

"Specialists i n legislative studies have not studied the

functions of legislatures very much .... Most of the legis-
latures of the world seem to have functions which do
not fit at all closely the assumption adopted by most
studies of legislatures. Although most studies use the
working assumption that the principal function of legis-
latures is to allocate values, this seems not to be the
3
case for the vast majority of the world's legislatures .

One cannot but agree w i t h Packenham's analysis. Institutions,

may serve functions either i n addition to or other than those which
they were intended. These may change over time. Therefore, i t may
be more meaningful to talk about the decline of legislatures i n per-
forming a particular function or set of functions or possibily a dec-
hue i n the importance of some functions themselves. I t is, however,
possible t o take exception to Packenham's suggestion that a vast
majority of the world's legislatures do not i n fabt allocate values
not necessarily because i t is inaccurate, but because the topic has
not been studied very much. Packenham himself admits that the
"decisional function" of legislatures has not received rigorous treat-

3) Robert Packenham, "Legislatures and Political Development"

in Legislatures in Developmental Perspective, Allan Romberg
and Lloyd D . Musolf, eds. (Durham. N . C : Duke University Press.
1970), p. 537.
The Bole of Legislatures in Policy Processes 269

4
merit . Wahlke points to the same deficiency i n legislative research.
After noting that "legislative policy decisions are commonly u n -
derstood t o be the most important type of legislative output", he
finds i t ''rather startling to discover that the term "policy" remains
5
almost totally unconceptualized" .

This paper is an attempt to provide a framework for the study

of the role of the legislatures i n the policy-making process. I t w i l l
start w i t h an examination of the concept of "policy" and w i l l then
proceed to a discussion of the units of analysis to be used i n stud-
ying the policy-making role of legislatures and what factors affect
that role. I t w i l l conclude b y making suggestions both of a theoretical
and methodological nature on how to study the public policy ma-
king role of legislatures.

POLICY A N D POLICY PROCESSES

Policy - making, decision - making, legislative outputs, allocation

of values, legislating and law making are some of the familiar terms
used to identify a set of activities legislatures engage i n and which
have consequences or impacts on the actions and behavior of other
parts of the political system.

The utilization of "almost" synonyms to describe the same phe-

nomena gives an indication not only of a lack of standard terminology
but also of a lack of consensus on the meaning of what has been
called policy - making. I have for the moment preferred policy - ma-
king to other possible alternatives for I feel " p o l i c y - m a k i n g "
describes better the phenomena w h i c h I want to examine than ot-
hers. Legislating and law - making, for example, cover only one
type of activity w h i c h is subsumed under policy - making, legislative
oversight of the bureaucracy or publicly criticizing the actions of
government, may, on many occasions, constitute a dimension of the
policy - making process but would not be thought of as legislating
or law - making. Decisions - making relates often to how a legis-

4) ibid., p. 556.
5) John C. "Whalke, "Policy Demands and System Support" i n Ger-
hard Loewenberg, op. cit., p. 152.
270 liter Turan

lature reaches its own decisions rather than affecting the decisions
of others. N o t all legislative outputs may comprise "policies." A n
amnesty granted to an 80 -year - old man w h o was sentenced to
lifetime imprisonment and who has already served 50 years, as I
shall explain later, may not mark the existence of a policy. The
same can be said of resource allocation. Each action of the legis-
lature as a collectivity or of one or more of its constituent units
including individual legislators, may involve an allocation of a
resource. That does not automatically mean, however, that the par-
ticular resource allocated constitutes a manifestation of a "policy."

Policy

I have narrowed m y choice to "policy" and policy - making".

Needless to say, this is not sufficient ground to achieve a standard
meaning for the terms. I n common usage, "policy" has been emplo-
yed to denote several related but distinct phenomena. Policy is
sometimes used to express intent. I f one asks an opposition party
leader "What is your national defense policy?" one means, "What
sort of things do you intend to do i n the field of national defense
if you should become the government party?"

From a legalistic point of view, policy may simply mean all the
rules and regulations i n effect regarding a particular Held of societal
activity. The emphasis i n this definition is on prescription, not
action or behavior.

Few political scientists would be w i l l i n g to adhere to such a

narrow legislatic definition. Policy is often used to mean actions,
activities and behavior of public authorities, includings legislatures
or their constituent units, i n a given area of societal activity.

Finally, policy is sometimes employed to refer to the conse-

quences of the actions, activities and behavior of public authorities
on society or a part of i t . When I say "The agricultural - development
policy of the government was disastrous", I do not mean the policy
itseH was disastrous i f I employ "policy" i n a neutral, empirical way
as I have done i n the previous paragraph, but I mean, the consequ-
ences of what public authorities d i d i n the field of agriculture, d i d
The Role of Legislatures in Policy Processes 271

not meet by approval according to a set °f criteria which I happen

to think of as being desirable.

I shall use "policy" in this paper to refer to all actions, activi-

ties and behavior of public, institutions and persons in public roles
which ate patterned and which have conséquences or impacts on a
given society or some part of it in a given area of interest, concern or
activity.

Policies naturally change over time and i t is very difficult to

identify a minimum time period before w h i c h a policy may not be
said to exist. I can not propose to overcome this difficulty. I can only
emphasize that a particular action b y a public institution or a person
occupying a public role in a particular area cannot be taken as an
indication of the existence of a policy i n that area unless that action
can be related to a broader set of activities directed toward a parti-
cular end (consequence and impact).

Policy - Malting

Defining, "policy" does not render the job of defining "policy-

making" much easier. The difficulties encountered i n attempting to
propose a definition derive from the fact that policy-making consists
of two very closely related stages. The first stage may be called the
"decisional." I n this stage, public actors (institutions and persons in
public roles) decide what actions w i l l be taken, what activities, w i l l
be carried out and what rules and modes of behavior w i l l be adopted
and observed in a given area of public concern, interest or activity
in a society or a part of it. The second stage, often called the "exe-
cution" stage is the stage where the decisions readied i n the first
stage are implemented.

Although the two stages appear t o be conceptually distinct, they

are closely related to such an extent as to render the distinction not
very meaningful. First, what is decided (intended) at the decisional
stage and what actually happens, i.e. how actions, activities and
behavior of public actors affect the society at large or some part of
it may vary greatly. Given this possibility of divergence between the
two stages, policy - making may be said to occur i n both stages. Se-
cond, at the decisional stage the outputs are often not of a detailed
272 liter Turan

nature and room is left for those charged w i t h policy implementation

to make smaller-scale decisions and engage i n interpretations. W h a t
this means, needless to say, is that public actors compete t o affect
outputs vis-a-vis society not only at the decisional but also at the
execution level.
Policy-making carries a connotation more closely associated
w i t h the decisional than w i t h the execution stage. I t may therefore
be more useful to talk about "policy-processes" to describe the phe-
nomena which I have 'been alluding to above. I n addition to co-
vering the t w o stages, policy processes I feel, captures better two
other dimensions, that of time and interactions between the actors.
I n studying the role of public actors, the legislature and its com-
ponent units i n our case, policy-making should be understood as
"policy processes. "Each actor i n these processes competes w i t h
others at both the decisional and execution stages to influence the
consequences and impacts of the actions, activities and the 'behavior
of other public actors on society or some part of i t .

Scope of Policies

Public or governmental policies, may 'be grouped into tliree

types: distributive, sectorally-fragmented and redistributive policies.
Distributive policies are characterized by little or no conflict. Bene-
ficiaries of the policies do not compete w i t h each other i n seeking
favorable outputs from the government. Sectorally fragmented p o l i -
cies differ from distributive policies i n that they include several ac-
tors competing for benefits, and not every actor can be satisfied to
the same degree. However, both the benefits and the deprivations
(negative benefits) deriving from the policy tend to be specific. Re-
distrubutive policies, o n the other hand, affect broad aggregates of
people. They are associated w i t h intense conflict of wide scope,
6
including class interests and ideological differences .

6) Alexander T. Smith, The. Comparative Policy Process (Santa

Barbara, California: Clio Press, 1975), pp. 34, 64, 137-128. This
section bas been based on a manuscript 'by Joel I>. Barkan, M a l -
colm Jewell, Chong Ldm, K i m and Üter Turan. The Legislative
Connection : Representatives and Represented in Kenya, Korea
and Turkey (unpublished manuscript; University of Iowa, Com-
parative Legislative Research Center, 1979).
The Role of Legislatures in Policy Processes 273

Types of governmental policies, as can be inferred from the

classification above, have differents scopes i n terms of the benefici-
airies they entail. Distributive policies often involve individuals and
groups which are acting alone, i.e. not i n competition w i t h others.
Sectorally fragmented policies, as their definition implies, covers
not individuals or a single group but several groups. Therefore of­
ten a larger group of beneficiaries or losers (negative beneficiaries).
The scope of beneficiaries i n redistributive policies, on the other
hand, is very large, since the issues they are dealing w i t h are usually
societal.
The scope of beneficiaries of a governmental policy is closely
related to the role the legislature or its component units may play
i n the policy processes. I shall later return t o h o w the scope of
policies is related to the role of the legislature and its sub-units
in the policy processes.

UNITS OF ANALYSIS PROBLEMS

I n the introduction of this essay, reference was made to the

decline of legislatures. Upon careful examination of what i t is about
parliaments that is declining, one discovers that what is often meant
by decline is the failure of legislatures to perform functions i n a
way expected of them according to 18th and 19th century political
thought. As Loewenberg notes :

"The academic study of legislatures has long been influen­

ced by an eighteenth century model of the political sys­
tem, a model which regards the legislature as the central
policy - making institution that Anglo - American law -
yers i n the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries expected
it to be. This is a demand - input model of representative
institutions which assumes that citizens have well formu­
lated policy preferences and that the function of the mem­
bers of the representative assembly is to convert these
preferences into public policies. The study of public opinion
and legislative behavior w i t h i n the last two decades, ho­
wever, has discovered strong evidence that neither of these
7
assumption is tenable" .

7) Gerhard Loeweruberg, op. cit, p. 15.

CO. Tutengil'e Armağan — la

274 liter Turan

The perception of parliament as a supreme sovereign body rep-

8
resenting a sovereign people is an ideological position which bears
little relations to the empirical reality today. I t is also doubtful whet-
her it, was so closely related to the empirical reality in the 18th and
19th centuries when ideas about liberal democracies flourished. A l l
actors involved in the policy processes today are somewhat "represen-
tative" to the extent they receive demands from individuals and
various social aggregations and engage in activities to respond to
them or copé w i t h them.

The way I have conceptualized "policy" and "policy processes"

runs counter to a legal conceptualization of the division of functions
in government, that familiar division of executive-legislative-judicial
functions. Although, it is known that the judicial branch of govern-
ment is also involved in various ways i n the policy processes, I shall
leave it out of m y analysis, because it is more immune to being
directly influenced by other branches of government, and shall ela-
borate on the executive and the legislative.

Viewing the governments as consisting of branches has resulted

i n a misconception of treating the legislature as a unit vis-a-vis the
executive. This has been particularly unfortunate in studying the role
of legislatures in policy processes, for i t is i n rare instances that the
legislature acts as a collectivity, competing for power against the
other branches of government. What Hennis says about the German
parliament and its law-making functions has relevance both for
other policy processes and other systems :

"Lawmaking without the most thorough cooperation of

both the cabinet responsible to the parliament and the
bureaucracy contributing its expertise is neither concei-
vable ruor desirable under modern conditions. Further-
more, parliament cannot claim an exclusive prerogative
to exercise control over the cabinet or administration. Our
whole system of government is based instead on a comp-
licated, tightly interrelated set of cheeks and balances i n
which initiative, criticism, and decision - making are va-

Sí Wilhelm Hennis, "Reform of the Bundestag, The Case for Ge-

neral Debate" in Gerhard Loewenberg, ibid., p. 67.
The Role of Legislatures in Policy Processes 275

riously combined. There is no room i n this system for the

6
concept of a sovereign parliament" .

I n most political democracies, the parliament is a divided house.

The division between government and opposition, far from being
unwanted, is seen to be the very manifestation of a democratic way
of life. This being so, i t is indeed surprising that the legislature should
be treated as a main unit of analysis in studies of policy processes,
when one segment of i t , cooperating w i t h the government ,tries to
produce outputs, whereas the other segment often works to reject
the outputs as proposed by the former.

I n a perceptive article on executive-legislative relations, Ant-

hony King has suggested that i f we wish to examine the influences
brought to bear on the government by the parliament i n a cabinet
system like that of Great Britain, we might do better i f we avoid the
term parliament. Even if we subtract the legislators w h o are mem-
bers of government, he continues, what we have left is not a useful
unit for analysis since there are party groupings pro or against
the government. These party groupings or their combinations, i f
no one party has a majority, may be the more appropriate units in
10
studying the role of the legislatures in policy processes . Let me
emphasize for fear of being misunderstood that, the unit of analysis
is not a political party per se, but the parliamentary party which
is sometimes referred to as the party caucus or the party group.

The bias in favor of treating the legislature i n its entirety as a

unit of analysis, I suspect has partly been based on a pervasive
American interest i n legislative studies where the belief i n separa-
tion of powers is strong and where disciplined political parties do
not exist. Because i t is not unusual i n the American presidential
system for the Congress and President to engage i n debates on how
much power belongs to which branch of government and because

9) idem.
10) Anthony King-, "Modes of Executive - LegitsJative Relations:
Great Britain, France and German" Legislative Studies Quar-
terly, V o l . 1, pp. l l - I 3 i . See also his "Executives;" i n Fred
J. Greenstein and Nelson Polsby, eds., Governmental Institutions
and Processes, Handbook of Political Science, Vol. & (Reading,
Mass.: Addison - Wesley, 1975), pp. 233-238.
276 liter Turan

thé consensus building for policy decisions in that system, is a rea-

sonably open process, executive-legislative relations i n the United
States have been treated even i n standard textbooks. I n parliamen-
tary sistems, particularly those w i t h a disciplined party system, the
party tie between the government and the legislature has blurred
the fact that support for the government by the parliamentary go-
vernment party (parties) is not automatic. I t has also resulted i n
neglect of h o w opposition parties may influence the policy processes.

I n studying the role of parliamentary parties i n the policy pro-

cesses, to assume that the government parliamentary party is en-
gaged i n a struggle for power w i t h the government as "branches
of government" and separation of powers ideology w o u l d have us
do, is probably not realistic. On many matters of policy, the! pre-
dominant choices i n the government and i n the parliamentary
party may not diverge. Equally important, the legislators themselves
may not perceive the government and the parliamentary party as
being separate b u t as a part of the same political force, while the
opposition party (parties) may not deem i t important to make a
distinction between the government and the government parlia-
mentary party. This, of course, is an empirical question, but i t has
received scant attention among students of legislatures, at least to
my knowledge.
To understand how parliamentary parties influence the policy
processes, i t may be appropiate to begin by studying the unusual or
exceptional cases, where there were rebellions among government
party legislators against the government. I n systems where discipli-
ned political parties are lacking, as well as i n those where the execu-
tive is elected independently of the legislature, a similar line of rea-
soning may be employed. That is t o say, situations where the exe-
cutive finds i t difficult to enlist support for his policies i n the legis-
lature may help us understand better how the legislature or its
sub-units may influence t h é policy processes.

A second way to delve into the problem of the role of legisla-

tures in policy processes is to study the relations between the back-
bench and the frontbench i n parliamentary parties. This is no origi-
nal or brilliant suggestion. I t is simply made to point to the paucity
of studies i n the field. I have a hunch that this paucity may owe
The Bole of Legislatures in Policy Processes

itself partly t o the fact that the methodological tools political

scientists employ may only be half adequate for the question t o be
studied. Especially for those of us w i t h a quantitative persuasion
and a proneness toward survey research, there may be some re-
luctance to engage i n participant observation w h i c h may be (better
suited to studying the nature of these relationships which are often
informal, personal and not public.

Next to parliamentary parties, committees provide another unit

of analysis which have been used to examine the role of the legis-
lature i n policy processes. The committee systems i n the U.S. Cong-
ress has been well studied. "While committee systems i n other democ-
racies have also been studied, their treatment has not been nearly as
exhaustive as that of the U.S. There is some agreement that the com-
mittee system i n the American legislature is unique and that legis-
lative committees i n other systems do not w i e l d as great an influence
as their American counterparts i n the policy processes. Yet, although
the committees may not be very influential i n general, some com-
mittees may have important inputs to the policy processes. Com-
mittees on Finances or the Budget may provide one example of
this type of committee. I f bills have t o be cleared ,by committees be-
fore being taken up by the legislature, a procedural necessity i n many
systems, committees may be studied to see whether they utilize pro-
cedural privileges as a tool to elicit decisions or compromises from
the executive desired by legislators, party groups or any other grou-
ping w i t h i n the legislature.

Parliamentary investigatory committees may be examined care-

fully i n systems where they exist. The activities of such committees
may impose serious restraints on the government or the bureaucracy.
I n some cases, the decisions to conduct a parliamentary investigation
in itself may have similar consequences.

The administrative oversight of 'bureaucracies by committees, I

suspect modifies executive and administrative behavior i n any system
where such functions are expected from legislatures.

Finally, the role of the individual legislator i n the policy pro¬

cesses deserves to be examined carefully. What is known as "cons-
tituency sendee" is closely related to what we have called the policy
278 Üter Turan

processes. The efforts of the individual legislators inside and outside

the legislature to provide favorable outputs on behalf of their cons-
tituents have impacts on society or some part of i t such as i n d i v i -
duals, communities or other groups.
In summary, i n this section, I have argued that adopting units
of analysis smaller than the legislature as a collectivity is more likely
to yield insights into the role of the legislatures i n policy processes.
Although, I have not assumed that legislatures and their component
units are important actors in the policy processes, I have suggested
that i t is premature to say without further research that they are
11
not important .

FACTORS AFFECTING T H E ROLE OF LEGISLATURES

I N POLICY PROCEiSSES

Many factors affect the role of the legislature i n policy processes.

Neither these factors nor their effects are the same in all systems, yet
a concise but hopefully comprehensive discussion of them may give
us an idea as to what kind of factors should be taken into con-
sideration when studies on the role of the legislatures in policy pro-
cesses are undertaken.

Structural Factors

Legislatures differ i n their symbolic status, the powers they are

granted by constitutions, the type of regime in which they operate
and their internal organization. Although such structural factors, hi
themselves are not sufficient to insure an effective or alternatively a
symbolic role for legislatures in the policy processes, they constitute
an important set of constraints which affect that role.

A number of structural factors relate to the place of the legis-

lature i n the political system. I n some systems, the legislature is tre-

11) For an interesting -discussion on and treatment of the unit of

analysis problems in governance", see Heinz Eulau and Kenneth
Prewitt, Labyrinths of Democracy : Adaptations, Linkages Rep-
resentation and Policies in Urban Politics (Indianapolis : Bobbs-
Merril Co., 19173), esp. eh. 2.
The Role ot Legislatures in Policy Processes 279

ated as one of the pillars of the regime, an institution without which

a constitutional order may no longer be said to exist. I n others, the
legislature is perceived mainly as an advisory body to a ruler whose
powers may include the appointing of legislators and dismissing
them, suspending the activities of the legislature or dissolving i t .
Even i n systems where the legislature constitutes an integral
institution of the political system there are differences in the privi-
leges accorded to the legislators and the legislature to insure that
they conduct their activities independently and without fear of unac-
ceptable costs. Parliamentary immunity and inviolability are examp-
les of such privileges extended to individual legislators. As regards
legislatures, procedural independence; that is the right of a legis-
lature to organize its own agenda, make its own internal rules, and
decide to meet wheneverit so desires i n addition to meetings sti-
pulated by law or the constitution, is such an example.
The relations between the legislature and the executive are usu-
ally affected by how the executive is elected into office. I n some
systems, the executive is elected through an independent election.
Whereas in others it is elected from among the members of the le-
gislature and is dependent on parliamentary support for remaining
in office. Regardless of how the executive is elected, the power of
the executive and the legislature to force each other out of office
is also likely to affect the behavior of these institutions toward each
other.
Another set of rules concern the power the executive 'enjoys to
stop, modify and delay the execution of decisions rendered by the
legislature, and the power the legislature enjoys to force the execu-
tive to act even i f the latter is not favorably disposed toward action.
An important point in this regard is whether the executive can
resort to measures such as referanda to counter the choices and
sentiments preponderant i n the legislature.
I t is often suggested that the executive has more access to i n -
formation than the legislature and legislators. O n this point, i t is
important to know what means the legislature and its constituent
units have access to, such as subpoena powers, to extract information
from the executive about the latter's activities.
Turning to means specific to the legislature, several factors ap-
pear to have a bearing on the role of the legislatures i n policy pro-
 \
\
280 hter Turan

cesses. One such factor is the length and the frequency of the mee­
tings of the legislature. For example, does the legislature have suf
ficient time to consider many matters i t deems important or are the
constraints of time so great that little time is available to deliberate
even on issues considered t o be very important by the legislature
or a majority of legislators.

Closely related to the same point is whether legislators and ot­

her component units of the legislature are accorded facilities such
as secretaries, expertise, office space, mailing and telephone pri­
vileges that render their job easier and enable them to do more
things i n a given amount of time.

The job of being a legislator is not a full-time affair i n all

systems. Yet whether and how much a legislature can develop an
institutional identity, formal and informal rules of operation and
proficiency i n dealing w i t h matters which are w i t h i n the realm
of its o w n jurisdiction w o u l d depend on how professional legis­
12
lators are .
The internal organization of a legislature influences its effective­
ness vis-a-vis other governmental institutions. I t has often been argu­
ed that the existence of a strong committee system enhances the role
of the legislature i n policy processes. I n this context, several ques­
tions come to m i n d which may help explain how committee systems
relate to the effectiveness of a legislature. T o begin w i t h , is a legis­
lature divided into specialized committees? W h a t are the bases for
being appointed to a committee? Is there continuity i n committee
membership or is the turnover rate of members high? Are the com­
mittees given supporting personnel b o t h of the secretarial and ex­
pert kind? Does legislation have to go through committees before
being considered by the whole house or can committees be bypassed,
and under what conditions? Is the executive equipped w i t h powers
to compel committees t o act? Are the committees endorced w i t h
powers t o stop or delay executive proposals? How? Can committees
hold hearings, do they have subpoena powers regarding the mem-

12) I n drawing up these questions, I nave received inspiration from

Jean Blondel, op. cit., pp. 31-46 as well as my Siyasal Sistem
ve Siyasal Davranış (istanbul; İktisat Fakültesi, 1976), pp. 16&¬
186.
The Role of Legislatures in Policy Processes 281

bers of the executive branch? W h a t happens i f bureaucrats d o not

comply w i t h a subpoena? Can they be punished, or more broadly
what kind of sanctions can committees, invoke i f non-compliance
occurs? Are there informal ways through which a committee or some
of its members can influence the actions, decisions and behavior of
the members of government and bureaucracy?

Needless to say, this discussion of structural factors w h i c h affect

the role of legislatures i n policy processes can continue ad infinitum.
I have tried to capture what I consider to be some of t h é more
important factors which would help us understand,better how legis-
latures relate t o policy processes.

These factors should be evaluated not only i n a legal but also

i n a behavioral way. By way of example, i t is not sufficient to know
what legal powers an executive might have t o dissolve a legislature.
I t is equally important t o examine how these powers have been used
i n the past, under what conditions and whether there are informal
rules, norms and traditions w h i c h contri'bute to the determination of
13
the behavior of the executive toward the legislature .

Environmental Factors

Those factors which affect legislative behavior but derive from

outside the legislature, I shall call, for convenience's sake, environ-
mental factors.

I n trying to apply principles of organization theory to explaining

important characteristics of the U.S. Congress, Lewis Froman sug-
gests; "The more highly differentiated the social setting, the more
salient the organization itself." H e than contrasts the U.S. Congress
w i t h the British Parliament and observes that because the diversity
of interests i n Great Britain are already aggregated i n a cohesive
majority party the Parliament is a less salient (i.e. less influential)

13) For an example which combines an, examination of 'both legal

and hehavioral approaches see Guisseppe D i Falma, "Institu-
tional Rules and Legislative Outcomes" i n Legislative Studies
Quarterly, "Vol. I , No. 2, May 1976, pp. 147-180.
282 liter Turan

institution i n the policy, processes". The party system is, of course,

one of the major environmental factors which affect significantly the
place and the role of the legislature in a political system.

I shall, however, begin by discussing some factors pertaining to

the nature of the body politic in a country and its relations to go-
vernmental institutions.
One major factor is the degree of support extended to the po-
litical institutions of a country by the citizenry and sometimes b y
even those who are occupiers of roles within the political system.
Some important questions come to mind in this regard. Is there
widespread consensus on the existing form of government as a desi-
rable form of government? D o the occupiers of major roles i n the
political system feel that the continuation of the system is threatened?
Are there significant portions of the citizenry w h o bear anti-regime
or separatist sentiments for ethnic and ideological reasons?

The degree of existence of a national political life would also

affect the effectiveness of the legislature i n policy processes. I f poli-
t i c a l life is fragmented by region, such fragmentation is likely to be
reflected i n the legislature, placing the executive in the influential
position of being the arbiter between factions. The legislature on
the other hand might fail to develop an esprit de corps and an insti-
tutional capability to challenge the actions of the executive.

Another set of factors may be called the "mood-style" dimen-

sions of politics in a country. I n some countries, even though there
may be widespread consensus on the regime, there may exist deep
social and political cleavages and the political life may be polarized.
Polarization often discourages dissent w i t h i n the poles.

Major crises such as war, threat of invasion, economic collapse

and similar emergencies often w o r k to enhance the power of the
executive at the expense of the legislature. The same can be said
of the existence of politically powerful organizations such as the army
which can put pressure on both the executive and the legislature to

14) Lewis Froman, "Organization Theory and the Explanation of

the Important Characteristics of Congress" i n Herbert Hirsch.
and Donald M. Hancock, eds.. Comparative Legislative Systems
(New York ; The Free Press, 1971), pp. 167-168.
The Role of Legislatures in Policy Processes 283

behave i n ways which i t deems desirable. The need to cope w i t h such

pressures reduces opportunities for conflict among the ordinary po-
litical institutions, enhancing the leadership privileges of the exe-
cutive.

The importance of "hard" ideologies i n the political life of a

country, from what we know so far, w o u l d reduce the influence
of the legislature i n the policy processes. " H a r d " ideological orien-
tations would also reduce the demand inputs i n the legislative
system, thus undermining the legislature's ability to be assertive
in the name of being representative.

The nature of political leadership is another factor which should

receive attention. Charismatic leaders, for example, are often able
to mobilize mass support behind their choices and programs, and
then use that support to elicit compliance from other political
institutions including the legislatures.

The administrative-bureaucratic traditions of a country can be

tied to the role of the legislature and its constituent units i n the
policy processes. I f , for example, even minute matters need to be
treated as questions of l a w rather than being left to be handled i n
the form of by-laws or orders or left to the discretion of administ-
rators or possibly voluntary associations such as professional organi-
zations, one might predict that the agenda of a legislature w i l l be
bogged down w i t h detail, leaving little time to deliberate on
matters of greater consequence.

Some bureaucracies have a tradition of non-partisan professiona-

lism whereas others are more closely linked to partisan politics. I t
may be suggested that a non-partisàn professional bureaucracy may
be able to resist pressures from the legislators and the legislature
better i n the latter's attemps to affect their decisions, actions and
behavior.

A n d finally, w e can turn to the effects of political parties and

the party system i n a country on the role of the legislature in policy
processes. A sample of questions may help us understand how
characteristics of political parties and party systems may relate to
the legislature i n policy processes.
284 liter Turan

What is the size of the majority party (parties), w h a t is the ex-

tent of minority opposition? Are political parties disciplined parties?
I f they, are, can they enforce party discipline successfully? I f party
discipline does not apply, how cohesive are the political parties i n
any case?

Does the distribution of seats among parties i n the legislature

necessitate a coalition government? I f so, how many parties are i n
the coalition?

How do political parties recruit their candidates for die legisla-

ture? D o the central organs of parties (if they exist) exercise a signifi-
cant influence i n the nominating process or is the nominating process
mostly a local affair? Are party organizations important actors i n
die electoral process or is i t mainly incumbent on the individual
candidates t o conduct their electoral campaign?

What is the nature of the relationship between the national

party organization and the parliamentary party, the party leader-
ship and the backbenchers i n the legislature?

Again, I shall stop here, reminding that the number of factors

which may be considered and the number of questions which may
be asked can be expanded very easily. What is intended here is to
identify groups of factors w h i c h I feel are. important i n affecting
the role of legislatures i n policy processes.

POUCHES, FACTORS, HYPOTHESES

I n the discussion of factors which have a 'bearing on the role

of legislatures i n policy processes, some hypotheses on what the re-
lationships may be, have either been implied or stated. T o discuss
every possible hypothesis is not necessary, nor is i t possible tor me
to state them and justify them w i t h i n the scope of this paper. H o -
wever, I feel i t may be useful to give some fut'her examples of hypo-
theses which I have encountered in the pertinent literature.

I f we tahe the scope of policy as an independent variable, for

example, w e might hypothesize that as the scope of policy moves
The Role of Legislatures in Policy Processes 285

from narrow (distributive) to broad (redistributive), the role of tire

15
legislature i n policy processes tends to decline .

Miller has observed of British parliamentary committees that

they have little direct influence on government, ministers and civil
servants but that they have some indirect influence through infor-
10
mal communications between committees and departments . His
obvervation may serve as a starting point to examine committees
i n other parliaments.

Bernard Crick has suggested that changes i n the background of

Labor MPs i n Great Britain resulted i n their greater aggressiveness
against their leadership. Whereas earlier, there were a l o t of retired
labor leaders just happy to sit i n the House, currently many MPs
come from professional background and are not content just to sit
17
and wait for an occasional opportunity to ask a few questions .
More broadly, i t may be hypothesized that professional backgrounds
of legislators affect the role of the legislature and legislators i n
policy processes.

Speaking about organizations, Froman says, "The greater the

degree of conflict w i t h the social setting, the greater the amount of
authority exercised at all levels, and the more cohesive the group
18
structure" . Applying Froman's generalization to legislatures, we
may derive the hypothesis that i n a, parliamentary system, where
the relations between government and opposition are tense, the par-
liamentary government party is likely to be more obedient t o the

15) Jean Blondel has a discussion of the role of legislatures based

on detailed change, policies of intermediate importance and
broad policy question which roughly correspond t o the scope
of policies , categories I have proposed. The relationships Blondel
suggests are similar to what I am proposing below. See Jean
Blondel, op. cit., ohs. 8, 9, 10.
16) Harris N . Miller, "The Influence of British Parliamentary Com-
mittees on European Communities Legislation" i n Legislative
Studies Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 45-76.
17) Bernard Crick, "Parliament i n the British Political System",
i n Allan Korniberg and Lloyd D. Musolf, eds.. Legislatures i n
Developmental Perspective (Durham,! N - C : Duke University
Press, 1970), p. 47.
18) Lewis Froman, op. cit., p. 169.
286 İlter Turan

authority of the government and i t is: therefore less likely to be

influential in the policy processes.

I have suggested elsewhere, the higher the turnover rate of

legislators in elections, the greater the likelihood that the parlia­
mentary parties w i l l be dominated by their leardership. I n the case
of the parliamentary government party, this means domination by
19
the executive .

Blondel has hypothesized that "the more nationalized and the

less fractionalized parties are, the more the executive is likely to
20
be strong" .

These examples may give us an idea of how hypotheses can be

formulated in studying the role of legislatures in policy processes
b y utilizing some of the factors w h i c h I have alluded t o earlier.
Needless to say hypotheses need to be justified, not just stated as I
have done. Btt my purpose has not been to test well articulated
and defended hypotheses, but rather to cite, examples of hypotheses
which may be tested t o identify i f and how legislatures relate to
policy processes.

CONCLUSION

Jean Blondel remarked i n his Comparative Legislatures:

"The study of legislatures is not by itself interesting. I t

is interesting only i f we can throw some light on the ques­
tion of the influence of legislatures' i n the political process
and on the ways i n which this influence is exercised. What
difference does i t make i f a country has a legislature and"
what is the direction of that influence, are the main ques­
21
tions?..." .

This essay began by offering definitions of policy and policy

processes which may be utilized in studying how legislatures and
then component units affect the decisions, actions and behavior of

19) liter Turan, "Parlamenter Demokraside Denetim İşlevi ve T ü r ­

kiye" i n Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültemi Dergisi, vol. 3S, no. 1-2, p. 28.
20) Jean Blondel, op. cit-, p. 52.
21) Loc. cit., p. 26.
The Role of Legislatures in Policy Processes 287

other governmental institutions such as the executive and the bure-

aucracy vis a vis the public at large or some part of i t .

Next, a case was made that i t might be premature to conclude

that the role of the legislatures i n policy processes was unimportant.
I t was pointed out that often the legislature as a collectivity was
adopted as the main unit of analysis in studying what difference the
existence of a legislature made in policy processes. I t was suggested
that such a stance was somewhat inappropriate because not the le-
gislature as a whole, but its component units such as parliamen-
tary parties, factions, committees and individual legislators are the
main actors in the policy processes. Therefore', their adoption as
the units of analysis i n researching the role of legislatures i n policy
processes was urged to gain better insights and understanding of
what really happens.

Third, i t was argued that i t may be mistaken to assume that

legislatures are engaged i n constant competition w i t h other govern-
mental institutions. I t might therefore be more fruitful to begin by
examining cases where there were known conflicts between some
part of the legislature such as the government parliamentary party
and the government on what is to be done. I n other words, a har-
monious relation, between the legislature or some of its component
parts and the executive and the bureaucracy does not i n itself pro-
vide sufficient evidence to assert that the government dominates the
legislature or the parliamentary party, unless it can be demonstrated
that the latter would have behaved somewhat differently if i t had
its own way. This is a particularly important point to note, because
governments often behave in a w a y to preempt resistance or oppo-
sition from legislative sources.

Fourth, it was observed that the policy processes are often infor-
mal and personal and not public. These constraints render survey-
type research by itself insufficient i n studying policy processes. Par
ticipant observation as a method should be utilized either alone or
to complement survey research i n understanding how legislatures
and then constituent units affect policies.

Fifth, factors affecting the role of legislatures in policy proces-

ses were dicussed and some examples of hypotheses between these
288 liter Turan

factors and the role of die legislature i n policy processes were put
forth.
Throughout the discussion, sometimes implicitly, sometimes exp­
licitly, what was talked about is a process. A process occurs over
time, tiierefore i t needs to be studied over time. This is a difficult
task and does not have the ease one might find i n cross-sectional un­
dertakings. Yet, w e can not understand and explain the role of le­
gislatures i n policy processes unless we are w i l l i n g to undertake this
difficult task.

ÖZET

Siyasal önlemlerinin azaldığına ilişkin çözümlemelere rağmen,

parlamentolar d ü n y a üzerinde yaygınlaşmağa devam ermektedirler.
Bu durum, parlamentoların öneminin azalmasından ziyade, işlevle­
rinin değiştiğini düşündürmektedir. Makalede parlamentoların si­
yasal yapımı sürecindeki rolü incelenmektedir.

Siyasa, kamu kurum ya da görevlilerinin, toplum ya da bir kesi­

minde etkileri olan ve düzenlilik gösteren eylem ve davranışları ola­
rak t a n ı m l a n m a k t a d ı r . Bir siyasanın kapsamı, parlamentonun siyasa
yapımı ve uygulanması sürecindeki rolünü etkilemektedir.

P a r l a m e n t o l a r ı n siyasa y a p ı m ı n d a k i rolünün incelenmesinde

bazı eski kavramsallaştırmalar zorluk yaratmaktadır. Örneğin, kuv­
vetler ayrılığı yaklaşımı, siyasal gerçeğin algılanmasını saptırmakta;
parlamentonun parlamenter partilerden ayrı b i r b i r i m olarak d ü ş ü ­
nülmesi, onun siyasal g ü c ü n ü n azımsanmasıyla sonuçlanmaktadır.

Parlamenter partilerin siyasa yapımındaki rolünü incelemek için,

o l a ğ a n d a n ayrılan (parti disiplinine başkaldırma gibi) olayları incele­
mek uygun bir başlangıç olabilir. Parti lider kadrosu ile sıradan tem­
silcilerin ilişkilerinin incelenmesi de verimli bir y o l olarak gözükmek­
tedir. Parlamento komisyonlarının faaliyetlerinin daha y a k ı n d a n i n ­
celenmesi yerinde olabilir. Parlamento üyelerinin seçmen hizmeti a d ı
altında yürüttükleri faaliyetler de araştırılmağa değer niteliktedir.

Parlamentoların siyasa sürecindeki rolü hem yapısal, hem de

çevresel değişkenlerden etkilenmektedir. Bü değişkenlerin parlamen-
The Rolp ot Legislatures in Policy Processes 289

tonun siyasa yapımındaki rolünü nasıl etkilediğine ilişkin çok sayıda

denence üretilebilir.

Parlamentoların, siyasal sistemini diğer öğelerinden soyuüan-

mış birimler olarak incelenmesi anlamlı gözükmemektedir. Siyasal
süreç içindeki etkilerinin anlaşılması, ancak zaman boyutu içeren
bir etkileşim süreci içinde ele alınmalariyle m ü m k ü n d ü r .

Not: B u makale Uluslararası Siyasal Bilimler Derneği'nin (ÜPSA)

İ2-18 Ağustos 1979 tarihleri arasında Moskova'da toplanan üç
yıllık kongresine tebliğ olarak sunulmuştur.

C.O. Tütengil'e Armağan — 19