Guide to Citizens’ Rights and Responsibilities

C I T I Z E N   PA R T I C I PAT I O N   A N D   C I V I L   R I G H T S  
A N D   L I B E R T I E S
The transition to democracy in Paraguay has not resolved all, or even many,
of the country’s deep problems. However, some very significant improvements
in the rights of citizens to participate in the political process, and to enjoy civil
and political rights, have occurred. If one considers the very long period of
authoritarian
rule in Paraguay, progress in this area must be considered a funda-
mental change in the nation’s history.
Political parties continue to be the primary actors for the organization of
elections and the channeling of demands. There are two traditional parties,
both founded in 1887. These are the National Republican Association-Colorado
Party and the Liberal Party, in its current form the Authentic Radical Liberal Party.
Long-standing and emotional affiliation with these parties remains very impor-
tant to many Paraguayans, symbolized by the wearing of red, for the Colorados,
authoritarianism: the domination of the
state or its leader over individuals
tenure: the right to hold land, position, or
status over the long term, or the act of
doing so
judicial review: the ability of the judicial
branch to review and invalidate a law that
contradicts the constitution
ratify: to make official or to officially sanction
■ ■ ■  

G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
255
P a r a g u a y
and blue, for the Liberals. Newer parties have attracted support, especially in the
cities, but have not created the same deep ties as exist between the traditional
parties and their supporters. These new parties include the National Encounter
Party, which opened up a “third” space in the political system with a very
successful electoral performance in 1993. Nevertheless, this party was reduced
to just one seat in Congress in elections held ten years later. The challenge then
for other alternative parties is to avoid rapid declines in support.
Under Stroessner the Colorado Party was organized into sections and sub-
sections, located in every corner of the country. This facilitated the maintenance
of social control. The party no longer monopolizes the organization of civic life.
Independent citizen organizations have grown in strength and number, and no
longer need the Colorado Party’s approval to make demands directly to public
officials. Most dramatic has been the rise of peasant organizations as a significant
force of pressure, although it cannot be said that the peasantry has been suc-
cessful in reorienting the government’s 
agrarian
policies. Other actors include
business associations, neighborhood groups, especially in Asunción, and human
rights organizations. The impact of these groups on policy is somewhat limited
by the politicians’ preference for negotiated agreements between the president
and party leaders.
One distinctive characteristic of the Paraguayan political system is the consti-
tutional requirement that all political parties and all “intermediary” organizations
in the civic sector select authorities through direct elections with proportional rep-
resentation. This requirement fills the electoral calendar with contests of all sorts.
The media are very active in reporting on national politics. Unfortunately,
Paraguay’s daily newspapers are connected to various political and economic
interests and thus often irresponsible and biased in their reporting. Television
has grown in importance as a source of political news and is more credible than
the print media.
The quality of elections has improved dramatically. Significant accusations
of electoral fraud became rare after 1998. Voter turnout for elections in the
1990s averaged 73.4 percent, which according to the International Institute for
Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), placed Paraguay tenth among the
twenty Latin American republics. Voter turnout for national elections in 2003
decreased to 64 percent.
Significant human rights problems remain, including the excessive use of
force and torture by the police, mistreatment of military recruits, and domestic
violence against women. Peasant organizations and groups representing the
urban poor are particularly subject to police repression.
See also: 
Presidential Systems.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Amnesty International. 
Ͻhttp://www.amnesty.org/Ͼ.
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA).
Ͻhttp://www.idea.intϾ.
Lambert, Peter, and Andrew Nickson, eds. The Transition to Democracy in Paraguay.
New York: St. Martin’s, 1997.
Lewis, Paul. Paraguay Under Stroessner. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina
Press, 1980.
Nickson, R. Andrew. Historical Dictionary of Paraguay, 2nd ed. Metuchen, NJ: The
Scarecrow Press, 1993.
agrarian: having to do with farming or
farming communities and their interests;
one involved in such a movement
■ ■ ■  

256
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
P a r l i a m e n t a r y   S y s t e m s
Nickson, R. Andrew. Paraguay. Vol. 84, World Bibliographic Series. Oxford, UK: Clio
Press, 1999. 
Transparency International. 
Ͻhttp://www.transparency.org/Ͼ.
Turner, Brian. Community Politics and Peasant-State Relations in Paraguay. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, 1993.
United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report Office.
Ͻhttp://hdr.undp.org/Ͼ.
Warren, Harris Gaylord. Paraguay: An Informal History. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press, 1982.
The World Bank Group. 
Ͻhttp://www.worldbank.org/Ͼ.
Brian Turner
Parliamentary Systems
Democracies usually incorporate a structure that divides governmental
power. Some states—the United States is a frequent example—use presidential
systems that have three separate centers of power: the executive, legislative,
and judicial branches. Most other democracies (according to the CIA’s World
Factbook there are 53) use some variation of the parliamentary systems.
Parliamentary systems embed primary governmental responsibility in the
national assembly or legislature, the place where representatives “parler” or
talk. In general, however, parliaments offer a way of organizing governmental
power that does not separate the executive from the legislative body, that is, the
executive and legislature branches are “fused.” This means that these branches
cannot check each other as in presidential systems. This may lead to these
branches working cooperatively, enhancing effectiveness in policy creation and
implementation.
The context within which parliamentary systems function, especially
whether in two-party or multiparty states, greatly affects operations. In two-
party, or 
majoritarian
, states, one of two major parties typically wins a majority
of legislative seats. This describes the British state, which many use to illustrate
such a model. Conversely, in multiparty states such as Belgium, often no party
wins more than a 
plurality
of seats. Frequently, this results from the use of 
pro-
portional representation
(PR) voting. Under PR, parties gain seats based on the
percentage of the total votes cast that each has won. This differs from “winner
takes all” or first past the post voting, familiar to those in the United States, in
which the candidate who gains the most votes wins the office. With PR voting,
even parties with relatively few votes may win one or more legislative seats. If
no party wins a legislative majority, members of two or more parties in the
assembly with enough policy preferences in common to be able to compromise
might agree to work in 
coalition
to form a majority. The Italian state illustrates
this well, regularly relying on coalitions in its national legislature. Which form of
party politics states use greatly can affect parliamentary operations and legisla-
tive outcomes.
Another variation in parliamentary systems derives from whether the
legislature has one house (unicameral), as does Sweden, or two houses (bicam-
eral), as does the Netherlands. Generally, in bicameral structures, the houses
represent different interests with one serving as an upper, the other as a lower,
house. Often, upper houses represent a particular class (Britain’s House of
Lords) or political interest (Germany’s Bundesrat, which gives subnational
majoritarianism: the practice of rule by a
majority vote
plurality: more votes than any other candi-
date, but less than half of the total number of
votes
proportional system: a political system in
which legislative seats or offices are awarded
based on the proportional number of votes
received by a party in an election
coalition: an alliance, partnership, or union
of disparate peoples or individuals
■ ■ ■  

G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
257
P a r l i a m e n t a r y   S y s t e m s
states direct representation). Lower houses generally represent a state’s voters
as a whole. Obviously, unicameral parliaments require less bargaining and nego-
tiation than does obtaining the agreement of two legislative houses.
Structures of national leadership also may create variation. In many cases,
leadership divides into two offices: head of state and head of government
(generally, “government” refers to the prime minister and the cabinet of minis-
ters). Often, heads of state are monarchs (Spain) or presidents (Germany).
Typically, heads of state have little real authority and serve a symbolic function.
In such cases as France, however, the head of state has important powers and
functions. The influence of the president in France leads most to classify it as
a semipresidential rather than a parliamentary state. 
Selection of the head of government clearly illustrates differences with pres-
idential models. In presidential systems, the voters elect the executive—who
generally serves both leadership functions. Conversely, in parliamentary systems
elected legislators select or validate elevation of one of their number to the
executive office of prime minister (PM). In majoritarian states, PMs most often
lead the political party that holds a legislative majority. In coalition states, gen-
erally executives serve as head of the largest political 
faction
in the coalition,
based on number of parliamentary seats. In a few cases, PMs lead a minority
group within the legislature, but this is unusual, often reflecting the desire of
nongoverning parties to avoid new elections. In such situations, parties outside
a government support it through its election (vote of investiture).
As noted, parliaments (generally the lower house if bicameral) approve and
install heads of government through votes of investiture. Such votes elevate a
member of parliament to lead government. In two-party systems, votes of
investiture are almost a formality. In multiparty systems, votes of investiture
often follow intense bargaining among coalition members about the division of
policy responsibilities in the new government. If unhappy with a PM, or his or
her policy decisions, a coalition party may withdraw from the government to
force a new round of bargaining or new elections. In such cases, governments
seek another parliamentary party to serve in coalition and ensure a majority or,
less commonly, seek the support of parties that remains outside of a formal
coalition. If neither is possible, the head of government dissolves parliament
and calls for new elections, hoping to win enough additional seats to ensure a
legislative majority.
R O L E   O F   T H E   P R I M E   M I N I S T E R
Differing roles for prime ministers create another variation in parliamentary
systems. PMs usually lead a majority political party or the largest faction within
a coalition. In cases of bicameral parliaments, generally this refers to political
divisions in the lower houses, as upper houses do not represent the voters
directly. 
Traditionally, PMs are primary or first cabinet ministers. In such cases, holders
of the office serve simply as especially powerful members of a group of influential
ministers. These other ministers, the senior members of government, often repre-
sent powerful interests, even competing factions, within a PM’s party or coalition,
which the executive must satisfy. 
More commonly, however, prime ministers now enjoy influence and clout
no other cabinet ministers have. Leading both the government and the majority
political party or faction, PMs hold numerous formal and informal powers.
As the country’s dominant political figure, a head of government commands
significant authority and attention. The executive representing the country at
factionalism: a separation of people into
competing, adversarial, and self-serving
groups, usually in government
■ ■ ■  

258
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
P a r l i a m e n t a r y   S y s t e m s
meetings abroad enhances this role. Further, as most legislation comes from the
government (versus the legislature in presidential systems), the executive main-
tains a high profile announcing and building support for proposed policies.
Some prime ministers submit to regular parliamentary sessions to explain and
defend policies to the political opposition and to voters (e.g., both Britain and
Australia televise their PMs’ “question time”). Additionally, as party head, the PM
shapes party 
platforms
and policy preferences and can rely on members to advo-
cate these choices. Finally, in most parliamentary systems the executive can
schedule elections early, that is, before the expiration of the government’s term.
Usually, when a PM calls early elections, it is to take advantage of a surge in favor-
able public opinion. This was Margaret Thatcher’s (b. 1925) strategy following
Britain’s victory in the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas conflict with Argentina in
1983. First elected in 1979, Thatcher remained Britain’s prime minister until
1990. Through election timing, the PM may enhance a party’s political fortunes.
In all, prime ministers enjoy significant traditional and new powers other minis-
ters do not.
At the same time, continuing reliance on party support limits executives’
ability to act single-handedly. As political parties, rather than voters, indirectly
select PMs through party leadership elections, party members hold great power.
Further, unlike in presidential systems, a PM’s party, acting alone—even against
the wishes of voters—can replace the country’s executive if members decide to
replace their party head. In such cases, party members (rather than voters) elect
a new leader and, thus, a new national executive. For example, at its 1990 lead-
ership election, Britain’s Conservative Party failed to reelect Prime Minister
Thatcher on the first ballot. She stepped aside and the party eventually elected
John Major ( b. 1943). By this leadership vote, Major replaced Thatcher as head
of government as the Tories still enjoyed a majority (no parliamentary election
took place). 
Party members may limit executives in another way: If enough of the mem-
bers of parliament from a PM’s party refuse to vote for a major policy bill or any
legislation the PM deemed a “vote of confidence,” the government may fall.
(Germany has a slightly different system, a so-called constructive vote of
no-confidence, which brings down a government only by “investing” a new
one.) Finally, with multiparty coalitions, members may decide that another
political group should lead the government and can force change by ending
support for the current executive. 
R O L E   O F   T H E   C A B I N E T
In parliamentary systems, heads of government usually make cabinet-level or
ministerial appointments. This is unlike presidential systems, in which executives
often share appointment power with legislatures (usually, presidents nominate
and legislatures 
ratify
—or refuse to ratify—nominations). Also, in parliamentary
states, cabinet appointees, often known as ministers or secretaries, usually come
from legislatures and retain their parliamentary seats while simultaneously hold-
ing executive (ministerial) appointments. These dual roles reinforce the fusion
of executive and legislature power.
Similar to presidential systems, ministers in parliamentary systems usually
are responsible for specific portfolios, for example, the defense, treasury, or
interior. Ministers not only serve as the PM’s policy advisors in their areas,
they also serve as chief administrators for their ministries. As do appointees in
presidential systems, parliamentary ministers may find their freedom of action
limited by long-term, professional civil servants within their ministries. These
platform: a statement of principles or legisla-
tive goals made by a political party
■ ■ ■  
ratify: to make official or to officially sanction 

G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
259
P a r l i a m e n t a r y   S y s t e m s
bureaucrats may have a longer view, a great investment in the status quo, and a
remarkable ability to control the information available to their political heads.
Depending on this relationship, unelected senior civil servants may limit gov-
ernments’ overall ability to create change. 
Outsiders rarely understand the exact process of cabinet decision making.
When PMs are limited to a “first among equals” role, collective decision making
probably best captures the cabinet dynamic. In states with more presidential
executives, many suppose that PMs, by chairing cabinet meetings and offering
summaries of group decisions, can direct cabinet outcomes without exercising
raw power. Even these leaders, however, seem to rely on the counsel of at least
senior cabinet members. At the same time, PMs expect ministers to support any
proposal the government advances. This doctrine of collective or cabinet
responsibility means that any minister who wants to disagree publicly with the
government must resign his or her executive post (but retains any parliamen-
tary seat).
In many cabinets, some ministries are more powerful than others. “Power
ministers” generally include defense, finance or treasury, state or foreign affairs,
and interior. Those named to these posts often make up an elite subset within
cabinets. Their opinions carry greater weight, and executives may rely on and
meet with them more frequently than other ministers. In some states, holders
GERMAN PRESIDENT HORST KOEHLER SPEAKS TO THE BUNDESTAG.
Established in 1991, the legislative Bundestag, or parliament, 
is comprised of 603 members elected every four years who perform a variety of plenary functions. 
(SOURCE: SEAN GALLUP/GETTY IMAGES)

260
G O V E R N M E N T S   O F   T H E   W O R L D
P a r l i a m e n t a r y   S y s t e m s
of these positions may be political rivals of the executive, either leading
competing factions within their shared party or competing parties within the
coalition. In such situations, ministers may become obstructionist, seeking to
prevent outcomes they believe voters oppose and for which they wish to bear
no responsibility. 
As parliamentary systems concentrate power in governments, governments
logically use that power to legislate. Thus, the vast majority of bills originate in
cabinets and legislatures’ contribution is granting approval. In majoritarian states
particularly, governments reference a party platform, party papers, and campaign
promises in drafting legislation. Since governments and senior ministry staff are
main sources of legislation, they are also major targets for 
lobbyists
. As a bill’s
proposal by the cabinet, especially in two-party systems, usually leads to routine
approval by the parliament, the government is a valuable source of influence.
The fusion of executive and legislative power and the absence of legislative
checks found in presidential systems have led to situations in which those seek-
ing specific outcomes have bribed members of government to propose legisla-
tion whose passage is almost then assured. Japan’s Recruit scandal, in which leg-
islators received stock for favors and which led to Prime Minister Noboru
Takshita’s 1989 resignation, exemplifies this. With coalition governments, mem-
bership of ministers from competing parties may limit such opportunities.
R O L E   O F   M E M B E R S   O F   PA R L I A M E N T
Usually, members of parliament (MPs) not in the cabinet have a reduced
role compared to what they might enjoy in more adversarial, presidential
systems. This is true even if they belong to the governing party. Further, MPs
overall enjoy less independence than their counterparts in presidential states as
parliamentary systems foster rigid party discipline. This is especially true in
majoritarian states, as in multiparty systems MPs have additional options, which
reduce any party’s control. 
F A S T   F A C T S
Iceland has the oldest parliament in the
world. The Althingi was created in 
C
.
E
.
930.
■ ■ ■  
M A R G A R E T   T H AT C H E R
Margaret Thatcher (b. 1925), who served as prime min-
ister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990, was born
Margaret Hilda Roberts on October 13, 1925. She studied
chemistry at Somerville College, Oxford, and entered politics in
1950. She married Denis Thatcher, a businessman, in 1951 and
gave birth to twins, Carol and Mark, in 1953. Elected to
Parliament as a Conservative in 1959, Thatcher became secre-
tary of state for Education and Science in 1970. She became
Britain’s first female prime minister in 1979.
Thatcher was first nicknamed “the Iron Lady” by a Soviet
newspaper in 1976, and the phrase quickly became part of
her public image. Her policies included reduction of the
power of labor, reduction in government spending, privatiza-
tion of government-owned industries, shrinking of social
provision (the welfare state) and lowered taxation. She main-
tained Britain’s historically close relationship with the United
States—she was personally very close to President Ronald
Reagan—and sent the Royal Navy to retake the Falkland
Islands from Argentina in 1982. She won three successive
general elections, becoming the longest-serving British prime
minister in the twentieth century. Motivated by conservative
market ideology, her overall goal, in which she was largely
successful, was to change British political culture. In the
process she became one of the most divisive figures in recent
British politics; late in her term of service she became highly
unpopular, and her leadership was eventually challenged
from within the Conservative Party. She was forced to resign
in favor of John Major in 1990.
Thatcher was titled Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven by
the queen in 1992 and entered the House of Lords. In late
2001 she suffered a series of minor strokes. Her husband died
in June 2003.
■ ■ ■