Legislative Initiative and Parliamentary Agenda-Setting in Times of Permanent Crisis

Democratic and non-democratic polities alike are navigating overlapping and recurrent crises – from terrorism and irregular migration to pandemics, climate change, and Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. These disruptions challenge legal and constitutional constraints, normalize states of exception, and can durably reshape party competition, the distribution of public authority, and the operating space of civil society. As some crises have become chronic, while others are temporary but overlapping, the permanent state of crisis alters patterns of political competition, the effective distribution of public authority, and the space available to civil society. In this environment, crises can no longer be treated as exceptional departures from normal politics. One of the underlying causes of the disfunction of modern political systems is the difficulty in complying with the constraining legal frameworks – from constitutional to supranational ones – and to navigate ever more complex procedures in the face of sudden challenges. At the same time, those challenges provide a convenient excuse for evading the constraints on government power even in those cases where emergencies are merely pretextual. What is more, recurrent crises also encourage the adoption of solutions closer to the illiberal model. They can spur intensive activism by actors entitled to initiate legislation or other responses – sometimes less to effect genuine normative change than to sustain “permanent campaigns,” especially by those outside executive power who struggle to shape the parliamentary agenda. This terrain is likewise conducive to various forms of populism (penal, constitutional, economic). This section brings together panels and papers on how political agendas are set and contested under the conditions of permanent overlapping crisis. We will try to show what instruments various political and social actors (like citizen groups) have at their disposal to influence the process of policy formation. Our core focus is legislative initiative – who proposes what, when, and with which procedural, strategic, and informational tools. We also welcome work on related fields such as government agenda-setting, legislative scheduling and gatekeeping, popular or extra-parliamentary initiatives, and informal influence on agenda-setting. We are especially interested in how emergency powers, securitization, and crisis rhetoric interact with legislative politics, and how these dynamics relate to illiberal drift or populist appeals. We invite both country-specific studies and papers with a broader comparative perspective, and we welcome a wide variety of methodological approaches, from case studies and qualitative research, through quantitative statistical studies, to papers employing machine learning and other techniques for big data analysis. We propose to prioritize five primary research areas, which could serve as suggestions for panel themes: 1) Fast-Tracks and States of Exception: Emergency Procedures under Stress. Focus: How emergency procedures (fast-track, decree-laws, urgency clauses, sunset/renewal) are activated, designed, and strategically used - or misused - during crises? Guiding questions: - Which political, social, economic, and security cues trigger use of exceptional procedures, and how do actors marshal resources to push bills? - How do government / majority actors exploit must-pass crisis response bills for non-germane purposes? - How do opposition or minority actors without agenda control employ amendments, constitutional complaints, or cross-chamber tactics? - What are the measurable effects on legislative output, civil liberties, and policy durability? 2) Gatekeeping in Crisis: Calendars, Committees, and Coalition Management Focus: Legislative scheduling, committee gatekeeping, and coalition coordination when agendas are congested and time is scarce? Guiding questions: - Which shocks and incentives move gatekeepers to advance or stall initiatives, and how do they deploy rules (agenda control, negative/positive gatekeeping) and informal tools? - Which rule-of-procedure constraints (germaneness, urgency thresholds, carry-over limits) are deliberately designed to channel crisis lawmaking? - What procedural avenues remain for actors outside the majority? - Outcomes: bottlenecks, policy bundling, “must-pass” vehicles, and later judicial or constitutional pushback. 3) Outsiders’ Levers: Opposition, Subnational, and Extra-Parliamentary Initiatives Focus: How actors lacking executive/majority control – opposition parties, citizen groups, heads of state, subnational governments - initiate or shape crisis legislation? Guiding questions: - What political, social, and economic conditions enable outsider initiatives? - What formal and informal constraints govern outsider initiatives? - Motivations when direct law-making access is limited: signaling, wedge issues, agenda seeding for later bargaining. - Outcomes and success rates. 4) Substance under Pressure: The Policy Content of Crisis Legislation Focus: What crisis bills actually do: rights-security trade-offs, penal expansions, surveillance authorities, welfare/industrial measures, climate adaptation? Guiding questions: - Which problem framings and socioeconomic conditions steer substantive choices, and how do actors use expertise, fiscal tools, and narratives to craft provisions? - Built-in constraints: proportionality tests, sunset/renewal, delegated rule-making bounds. - Outsider motivations: policy salience vs. performative signaling when lacking passage power. - Effects: implementation quality, rights impacts, distributional consequences, and repeal/entrenchment trajectories. 5) Populist Drift and Securitization: Penal, Constitutional, and Economic Initiatives Focus: When crisis initiatives tilt toward illiberalism or punitive policy, and how agenda entrepreneurs leverage fear/identity frames? Guiding questions: - What political/economic triggers and resource strategies (media ecosystems, platform campaigning) fuel penal or constitutional populism in response to crises? - Which constitutional/legislative guardrails are intentionally positioned to resist or channel such drift and what determines their effectiveness? - Why do out-of-power actors push hardline bills – negotiation leverage, issue ownership, or electoral conversion? - Effects: do populist ideas become a part of mainstream political debate? 6) From Initiative to Impact: Evaluating Outcomes and Accountability Focus: Tracing the life cycle of crisis legislation – from introduction to judicial review, implementation, oversight, and sunset/repeal. Guiding questions: - Which contextual factors and actor resources predict durable vs. ephemeral crisis statutes? - Designed constraints: post-hoc review, reporting mandates, fiscal scorekeeping, independent oversight bodies. - Opposition/minority motivations for ex-post control – interpelations, audit triggers, parliamentary inquiries. - Effects: compliance, policy performance, rights restoration, path dependence, and lessons learned.