Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Are there world states which have an elected legislature, not subject to a higher authority (except the law), in which elected members can be expelled by a majority of the other elected members? That is, overriding the supposed mandate from the electorate?
Note: Let's limit the question to stable states with a not-insignificant population so as to exclude less-significant outliers.
In the United States there is the process of Expulsion which can be used by the US Senate and the US House of Representatives to remove the mandate of one of their elected members. This process is usually only used when a representative committed a serious crime, but it is hard to deny that such processes always also have a political component.
In the history of the United States it was used successfully to expel 15 senators and 5 representatives. The last one was Representative James Traficant in 2002. The reason for his expulsion was that a court found him guilty of committing several crimes.
The replacement procedure for representatives who get removed that way is the same as for any other reason why a representative might vacate their position. A representative in the house gets replaced through a snap election in the district they represent. For senators, it depends on which state they are from. It might either happen through appointment by the governor or also through a snap election.
Yes, the UK would be one example.
The expulsion by the House of Commons of one of its Members may be regarded as an example of the House's power to regulate its own constitution, though it is, for convenience, treated here as one of the methods of punishment at the disposal of the House. Members have been expelled for a wide variety of causes.1 In some cases, such as the last case in which expulsion was imposed, it was in consequence of a Member being sentenced to a term of imprisonment...
The French national assembly (lower chamber of parliament) has different disciplinary sanctions. After several rules violations and a whole lot of procedure, the most severe punishment that the assembly can inflict on one of its members is a 30-day exclusion (that's 30 days when the parliament sits, not 30 calendar days, in practice it means a quarter) so it doesn't go all the way to a permanent expulsion as in some of the cases that have been mentioned.
Disciplinary proceedings are managed by the bureau, a 22-member “board” whose composition reflects the composition of the assembly at large (each constituted parliamentary group gets some seats and the board should aim for an even number of men and women) but temporary exclusion requires a plenary vote.
If a member committed a criminal offense (within or outside parliament), the assembly can vote to lift his or her immunity or notify the public prosecutor. If that member of parliament is found guilty of specific offenses, they can be disenfranchised by a judge, which forces them to immediately resign their position and can prevent their reelection. That would mostly happen for office-related offenses, corruption or fraud as there is no automatic felony disenfranchisement in France. Obviously, this involves the justice system so it is not something the parliament can decide on its own.
Apart from the temporary exclusion I mentioned in a comment, the German "Bundeswahlgesetz" allows to exclude rightfully elected members of parliament at least in two cases:
§ 46 Verlust der Mitgliedschaft im Deutschen Bundestag (1) Ein Abgeordneter verliert die Mitgliedschaft im Deutschen Bundestag bei
- Ungültigkeit des Erwerbs der Mitgliedschaft,
- Neufeststellung des Wahlergebnisses,
- Wegfall einer Voraussetzung seiner jederzeitigen Wählbarkeit,
- Verzicht,
- Feststellung der Verfassungswidrigkeit der Partei oder der Teilorganisation einer Partei, der er angehört, durch das Bundesverfassungsgericht nach Artikel 21 Abs. 2 Satz 2 des Grundgesetzes.
1 and 2 mean that the MP has not been properly elected in the first place (election fraud or changes due to a recount), 4 means he reneges voluntarily. Relevant for the question are 3 and 5.
"Wegfall einer Voraussetzung seiner jederzeitigen Wählbarkeit" means that he would not be eligible in case of a new election. E.g. you cannot be elected if you are a convicted felon, so presumably you would lose your seat (since MPs have immunity the bar for this is very high, and in cases that I can remember they usually stepped down voluntarily).
"Feststellung der Verfassungswidrigkeit der Partei oder der Teilorganisation einer Partei, der er angehört" means that if the party the MP belongs to, or any organisation run by the party, is deemed unconstitutional (in this context, actively seeking to overthrow the constitution), their members can be removed from parliament. Again, the bar for this is very high, the only example I can (vaguely) remember is that in the 1950s some minor extreme right wing organisation was declared unconstitutional and lost their seats (I will see if I find the details, but no promises). This requires a decision by the Verfassungsgericht (broadly equivalent to the US Supreme Court).
After the courts have ruled, this (i.e. expulsion) requires a decision by the Council of Elders of the Bundestag (sounds a lot less Tolkienesk in German), so while not all PMs are involved in the decision, it is a decision made by at least some elected members.
My source for the above is a page by the Federal Agency for Civic Education/Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung. Unfortunately they only say the the decision has to be made without delay ("Die Entscheidung ist unverzüglich von Amts wegen zu treffen"), but not if the council has much leeway regarding the outcome, or if this is just a confirmation of the court decision.
In Brazil this is definitively possible, and explicitly supported by Article 55 of our constitution. It goes to a vote in the same chamber as the member being potentially expelled, and requires a majority of members, not just members present, to expel.
Stated reasons are:
Note that there are other conditions in which the justice system may force them out without such a peer vote. E.g. convicted of a crime (I think it translates as felony, but IANAL) with no possibility of appeal.
References are in Brazilian Portuguese.
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/topicos/10633862/artigo-55-da-constituicao-federal-de-1988 https://jus.com.br/artigos/44513/o-supremo-tribunal-federal-e-a-cassacao-de-mandato-de-parlamentar
Expulsion is possible in the Michigan Legislature.
Just five years ago, the fourth legislator ever was expelled by a 91-12 vote (and another resigned for the same scandal). Expulsion requires a two-thirds majority.
The law providing for expulsions:
Sec. 16. Each house, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, shall choose its own officers and determine the rules of its proceedings, but shall not adopt any rule that will prevent a majority of the members elected thereto and serving therein from discharging a committee from the further consideration of any measure. Each house shall be the sole judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of its members, and may, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members elected thereto and serving therein, expel a member. The reasons for such expulsion shall be entered in the journal, with the votes and names of the members voting upon the question. No member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause.
In South Korea, it is possible for members of the National Assembly, the legislature, to be expelled if they violate certain laws and regulations. More than two-thirds of the legislature must give their approval to expel a member. Only one lawmaker, Kim Young-sam was ever expelled. Source
Rule 374 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha says:
(1) The Speaker may, if deems it necessary, name a Member who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business thereof.
(2) If a Member is so named by the Speaker, the Speaker shall, on a motion being made forthwith put the question that the Member (naming such Member) be suspended from the service of the House for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session: Provided that the House may, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated.
(3) A member suspended under this rule shall forthwith withdraw from the precincts of the House.
In Australia, there is no power of expulsion, however members may be suspended for the remainder of their term for what amounts to "contempt". This is extremely rare - most suspensions are for 5 days or less and those are quite uncommon to begin with.
