Machtwille und Machtressourcen der lateinamerikanischen Parlamente: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des argentinischen Kongresses, seiner „technischen Krise“ 1999 und der Ereignisse Anfang 2002

Abstract

[ES] En este artículo se analizan las capacidades institucionales de los parlamentos latinoamericanos y particularmente sus facultades de control frente al poder ejecutivo. Se consideran diversos instrumentos de medición del poder efectivo de control parlamentario, particularmente a partir de la distinción entre poder proactivo o positivo y poder obstructivo o negativo de los parlamentos. Se analizan luego las capacidades legislativas o cuasi-legislativas que son inherentes a los poderes ejecutivos en América Latina, debido a la extendida presencia de la “facultad reglamentaria” de las leyes como atribución presidencial y a la práctica institucional de los decretos de emergencia o urgencia. Finalmente, se estudian las razones que determinan el predominio de una actitud negativa u obstructiva en el ejercicio del poder de control parlamentario en América Latina, comparando las prácticas parlamentarias de esta región con las prácticas respectivas en los Estados Unidos, Reino Unido y Alemania. [EN] The poor performance of the parliaments in several Latin American countries has been often pointed out in the literature. Most critics agree that parliamentary practice has a typical shortcoming in the region: It is merely "reactive" or "obstructive", i. e., the parliament/congress tends not to develop an agenda for public policy discussions of its own but just to act as a "veto player" of the executive. This reactive or obstructive parliamentary power must not be underestimated, of course: It provides an essential check for an otherwise over-mighty presidency. Nevertheless, several reasons speak for the necessity of improving the ability of parliaments in Latin American democracies to a) contribute to public police and b) scrutinize the public administration. The main thesis of the present paper contends that the deficiencies in these two areas are closely related and that they are the result of inadequate conceptions of parliamentary instruments and procedures. The parliaments, being thus willing to exercise more ample powers, often lack the necessary expertise to pursue their goals. In order to support this argument and propose some essential reforms, a comparative perspective on the methods of parliamentary work is assumed. Three different parliamentary practices, which are respectively characteristic for the USA, United Kingdom and Germany, are discussed and compared to parliamentary practices in Latin American countries.