When reading scholarship on political regimes in Central Europe, one can notice an interesting and indeed remarkable fact: these regimes (or forms of government) are classified rather differently. Whereas some scholars tend to approach them as parliamentary regimes, others classify them as semi-presidential ones. The major dividing line between these two perspectives runs between a large group of English-writing scholars based outside Central Europe and those from Central Europe itself. Having reviewed a large number of relevant studies in this field, the authors of this paper argue that the key reason for the different assessments of Central European regimes resides mainly in a different theoretical approach which has important implications when considering how these regimes are treated in various studies. Whereas the group of English-writing scholars tends to adopt a “post-duvergerian” approach, most Central European scholars prefer a “duvergerian” and “sartorian” approach that emphasizes presidential powers which are irrelevant for “post-duvergerians”.
