Institutional Conditions of Setting Up Governmental Departments in Russia and in the USA (With Russia’s Emergency Situations Ministry and the U.S. Homeland Security Department as Example)

Institutional Conditions of Setting Up Governmental Departments in Russia and in the USA (With Russia’s Emergency Situations Ministry and the U.S. Homeland Security Department as Example)




DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2004.04.12

For citation:

Streltzina M.M. Institutional Conditions of Setting Up Governmental Departments in Russia and in the USA (With Russia’s Emergency Situations Ministry and the U.S. Homeland Security Department as Example) . – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No. 4. P. 147-157. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2004.04.12



Abstract

Using the example of the emergence of the two respective new “emergency” departments adequate to new threats to national security — Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defence, Emergency Situations and Elimination of the Aftermath of Natural Calamities (Russia’s Ministry for Emergency Situations) and the Department of Homeland Security of the USA, — the author analyzes the distinction of Russian presidentialism from the classical American model. She convincingly demonstrates that the democratic parliamentary control of the work of the U.S. Administration, as well as the American President’s not disposing a legislative possibility to set up “privileged” presidential departments, are the fundamental institutional restrictions for the formation of governmental departments in the USA. Within the framework of the presidential model of post-Soviet Russia, there are no such restrictions, and for that reason Russia’s Ministry for Emergency Situations was raised by the executive power and joined the “presidential block” of strength structures directly subordinated to the President. This enables the author to affirm that in Russia, there has de facto formed a superpresidential system.


Content No. 4, 2004

See also:


Mironyuk M.G.,
Human Dimension of Federalism (Federalist Theories and Tendencies of the Federative Relations’ Development in Russia). – Polis. Political Studies. 2003. No3

Kovalev V.A., Shabayev Yu.P.,
Ethnicity and Fellow-Citizenship (Ethno-National Movements in Finno-Ugrian Regions of the Russian Federation). – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No4

Ashikhmina Ya.G., Panov P.V., Podvintzev O.B.,
On Criteria of Elections Estimation. – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No4

Khlopin A.D.,
Deformalization of Rules: Cause or Consequence of Institutional Traps?. – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No6

Panov P.V.,
Alteration of Electoral Institutions in Russia (Cross-Regional Analysis). – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No6

 
 

Archive

   2024      2023      2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991