Abstract

In various parliamentary democracies, institutional reformers have proposed to directly elect the prime minister, but it is only in Israel that this reform has been implemented. In this article, the Israeli model is compared to the proposals involving the direct election of the prime minister in France, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium. The analysis focuses on three crucial characteristics: the object of the election, the electoral system and the relationship between the assembly and the executive. It is shown that there is substantial variation among the models. Some of proposed models are close to the presidential idealtype. Other models combine a direct election of the executive with the possibility of censure by the assembly, and thus constitute a new regime type which can be labelled as 'neo-parliamentary'. The Israeli model belongs to this group, although it is atypical because of the investiture requirement. Finally, some models approach the parliamentary idealtype as they allow the assembly to replace the elected prime minister. White most models involve a concurrent but separate election of the prime minister and the assembly, it is argued that a linked election offers better possibilities to bring about an executive majority in the assembly.