Gramsci asks whether parliament is part of the state structure itself

Evidence

The notion that Parliament may have become “inserted” into the State is a discovery in the science and art of politics that is worthy of the Christopher Columbuses of contemporary Reaction. All the same, the assertion is interesting as evidence of the way in which many politicians conceive the State in practice. For the question does indeed have to be asked: do parliaments, even in those countries where apparently they have most real power, in fact constitute a part of the State structure? In other words, what is their real function? … For even allowing (as it must be allowed) that parliamentarianism has become inefficient and even harmful, it is not necessary to conclude that the bureaucratic system must be rehabilitated and praised. It has to be considered whether parliamentarianism and representative system are synonymous, and whether a different solution is not possible—both for parliamentarianism and for the bureaucratic system—with a new type of representative system. — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 946

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishing the state apparatus (bureaucracy/government) from the representative system (parliament/parties) is a core conceptual distinction here — whether Parliament belongs inside or outside the State.