Presidential Accountability in Comparative Perspective

Abstract

Presidential accountability constitutes a central pillar of democratic governance, yet its meaning, scope, and effectiveness vary substantially across political systems, regime types, and historical contexts. While constitutions and acts provide formal mechanisms of accountability—such as impeachment, criminal liability, parliamentary oversight, or judicial review—their practical operation is frequently shaped, complemented, or undermined by various types of informal institutions and mechanisms. As a result, presidential accountability often emerges not as a purely legal process, but as a dynamic outcome of interactions between formal rules and informal political mechanisms. This panel seeks to advance conceptual and theoretical debates on executive accountability by examining how accountability regimes function in practice, how formal institutions are activated or blocked, and how informal practices—such as party discipline, elite bargaining, informal norms of succession, prosecutorial dependence, media pressure, or civic mobilization—reshape accountability outcomes. The panel is especially interested in understanding when and why formal accountability mechanisms retain constraining power, when they become symbolic or ineffective, and under what conditions accountability shifts to informal or extra-constitutional channels. Empirically, the panel welcomes contributions employing diverse methodological approaches, including qualitative case studies, comparative designs, process tracing, content analysis of presidential discourse, and quantitative analyses. Substantively, it is open to papers addressing routine accountability as well as moments of executive crisis, including impeachment processes, presidential removals, informal exits, and public contestation of executive authority. Comparative contributions within and across regions as well as case studies related to comparative frameworks, are particularly encouraged, as are studies that trace changes in accountability over time. The panel invites both theoretical and empirical papers that engage with questions such as: How should presidential accountability be conceptualized when formal and informal mechanisms coexist? What role do informal institutions play in constraining or enabling presidential power? How does regime type or level of democratic institutionalization affect accountability pathways? And how do presidents themselves respond to accountability pressures in their behavior and public communication? By bringing together theoretically informed and empirically grounded research, this panel aims to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of presidential accountability as a multidimensional and context-dependent phenomenon

Title	Details
Accountability Through Presidential Crises? Evidence from Latin America	View Paper Details
The Fragile Sword: Presidentialism and Accountability Under Informal Institutions	View Paper Details
From Claiming to Evading Accountability: A Content Analysis of Czech Presidential Discourse	View Paper Details
Adopting Term Limits for Prime Ministers in Parliamentary Regimes: Importing a Presidential Safeguard or Reinforcing Presidentialization?	View Paper Details
Public Support for Executive Power Grabs in Crisis Situations: a Vignette Experiment	View Paper Details