Transcript sdfsdfsdfsd - Europa-Uni

Party Politics ↔ Democracy
Are they linked?
Electoral Politics in new European democracies
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Lecturer: Prof. Dr. Timm Beichelt
Referee: Maarten Geuzendam
[email protected]
1
Structure
•
Klaus von Beyme
•
Beichelt (2001)
•
Short look at Hoffman
•
Hypotheses
•
References
2
Von Beyme 1
1. Incubation of a party system : institutional preconditions
1)
Consolidation of state borders
•
Decisive for the way in which the question of national identity
was being dealt with when building the state institutions
2) The choice of a government system
•
Presidential, semi-presidential, parliamentary → strongly
dependends on the regime change took place, and the
characteristics of the preceding regime.
3) The choice of the electoral system
•
A major factor according to Lijphart/Duverger/Sartori and
Hoffman (2005) Beichelt (2001: 257) slightly nuances this
•
Majoritarian systems ten to be less consolidating than
proportional ones – says Von Beyme
3
Von Beyme 2
2. Consolidation of a party systems: preconditions
•
1. Minimum of extremism (polarisation) (pull to the center)
Concensus in handling politics by democratic means →
democracy ‚the only game in town‘ (Linz /Stephan)
•
2. Clear ‚cleavage structure‘:
→ Assumption based on the ‚3rd democratic wave‘
(Huntington), not necessarily the case with the 4th wave,
→ Slovenia: high fragmentation but few fundamental
points of conflict
•
3. Clear division of labour between politics and social
movements
→ Example of the opposite: Russia nowadays, Romania
early 90‘s.
4
Von Beyme 3
•4. Decrease of factionalism within parties.
→ strongly dependent on the party system: factionalism less
likel in pluralist systems
•5. Stabilised volatility: predictability in voter behaviour
→demented by later scholars such as Beichelt: volatility
not necessarily a destabilising factor but an inevitable
occurence in stabilising the system
•6. Coalition building potential
→ availability of alternative choices beyond the ruling parties
to vote for, and to build coalitions with: the presence of a
meaningfull opposition.
Assumption based on the availability on ‚more than two-party
systems‘
5
Von Beyme 4
Von Beyme concludes:
• Political parties still play a pivotal spill in CE Europe
• Regime conflicts pose the biggest thread to the consolidation of
democracy. Unanimous agreement on the ‚rules of the game‘
• Professionalisation‘ of party politics results in politics increasingly
being made in parliament, not on the street or party organisations.
→ ‘Entideologisierung’ of the 4th wave democracies
→ similar trend can be observed in the ‚old democracies‘ as a result
of a continuing ‚Politikverdrossenheit‘
6
Beichelt 1
Factor 1: The influence of electoral systems on democratic
consolidation
•The character of parties making up a system, of greater
importance for consolidation than an electoral system
•‚System effectiveness vs. citizen participation‘ (Dahl 1994)
•High overrepresentation of bigger parties results in increased
ability to construct coalitions.
•Limited overrepresentation (proportionality) negatively affects
coalition building.
•Adaptation to threshold differs in ech country. → led to party
concentration in Poland, yet an increased number of ‚lost votes in
Russia. → Effects too diverse to be analytically usefull
7
Beichelt 2
Factor 2: Fragmentation of party systems
• Fragmentation does not have an influence on the extend of
democratic consolidation
→ EE, LV, SLO in eastern Europe. Common ground among
the members to form a polity.
• Fragmentation hard to measure without distinguishing
‘effective parties’ from other parties.
•Fragmentation not necessarily problematic as long as there
is exists a consensus about the fundamentals of the political
system,
8
Beichelt 3
5.7 Pluralism in Party systems (Beichelt 2001: p. 263)
Country
Moderate pluralism Bulgaria
Crit. 1 Crit. 2 Crit. 3 Sum Legend
2,5
5
3,8 12,5 1. Effective Parties
Lithuania
2,8
5
3,9
Moldova
3,4
4
3,8
15,2 3. Average value
Poland
3,1
4
3,6
14,4
Borderline case
CR
3,7
5
4,4
22
Strong Pluralism
Latvia
5,5
6
5,8
34,8
Macedonia
3,9
6
5
30
Romania
4,3
6
5,2
31,2
Slowakia
4,8
6
5,4
32,4
Hungary
3,5
6
4,8
28,8
Slovenia
5,5
7
6,3
44,1
Extreme Pluralism Estonia
5,4
9
7,2
64,8
Ukraine
6
7
6,5
45,5
Russia
7
10
8,5
85
Borderline case
14 2. Parties in Parliament
9
Beichelt 4
Factor 3: polarisation of party systems
•
Heterogeneity increases chance of conflicts
(moral/religious) in a society, and the risk of polarisation.
•
Four party categories and their polarising potential
1. Religious parties → low
2. Minority parties (ethnic / linguistic) → high
3. Nationalist parties (in christian-orthodox countries
related to the 1rst category: RU, GR, MK, BG)
→ small ones high, big ones low
4. Unreformed (post-communist) successor parties
→ high
10
Beichelt 5
Potential for polarisation and democratic consolidation in party systems
Form.
democratic
regimes
Party systems:
marginalized
polarising
forces
Lithuania,
Poland
Slovenia,
Hungary
Party systems
with polarising
potential
Estonia Latvia
Czech
Republic
Transition
regimes
Doubt
Bulgaria,
Moldova
Dominant
polarising
forces
Macedonia,
Romania
Source: Beichelt 2001, page 287.
Minimal
democratic
regime
Russia,
Slovakia,
Ukraine
11
Beichelt 6
Polarisation - continued
• Engaging minority groupings neutralises the polarising
potential of such groupings. → Example: Macedonia with
its Albanian minority and Bulgaria with the party of the
Turkish minority.
→ On the other hand: the political rights being withheld to
the Russian minority in the Baltics might have been a key
to the rapid consolidation, especially Estonia
• The existence of regime conflicts in a political system is a
major destabilising factor for young democracies.
→ less so in SLO/ Baltics: old party elites left behind in the
former capitals Belgrade / Moscow paved the way for a
fresh, new start (tabula rasa).
12
Beichelt 7
Relevant aspects for the consolidation of party systems
Formally
democratic
regimes
Cleavage attitude
towards the old
regime
Party system type
Extend of
polarisation in the
party system
Ended regime
conflict
Social-liberal party
systems
System with
marginalized forces:
LT/PL/ SLO/ HU
Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland,
Slovenia, Czech
Republic, Hungary
Latvia, Poland
Czech Republic,
Slovenia, Hungary
Party systems with
polarising
potential:
EE/ LT/ CZ
Transition
regimes
Minimally dem.
regimes
Source: Beichelt (2001) page 292.
Continuing regime
conflict
Bulgaria,
Macedonia,
Moldova, Romania
Post-communist
system
Russia, (Slovakia),
Ukraine
Russia, Ukraine
Bulgaria, Romania,
Moldova
Systems with
dominant
polarising forces:
BG/MK/MD/RO
Russia, Ukraine,
(Slovakia)
13
Amanda Hoffman 2005
:
•Hoffman questions whether there exists an ideal number of parties
for a properly functioning democracy.
Concludes:
• The choice of the electoral system is a major factor for the
consolidation of a political system
•Countries with proportional representation show more democratic
characteristics than majority systems
•Responsiveness bigger in two-party systems than in multi-party
systems → small differences between the parties more easily result in
a change of
14
Calculating democracy – Hoffman’s method
Expanded multiple regression analysis of POLITY IV scores on
independent variables. (Hoffman 2005: page 238)
Indepdendent variables b
beta
sig
t
ENPP
0,482
0,184
0,01
Plur. Elect. System
9,191
0,636
0
Prop. Elect. System
13,33
0,973
0
Sem.-prof. El. System.
11,509
0,456
0
Majority elec. System.
9,126
0,407
0,001
British Colony
2,005
0,137
0,102
Log GDP
3,3364
0,255
0,001
Log % protestant
0,964
0,147
0,041
Independence year
-5,886
-0,216
0,004
Multiple R
F Stat
Adj. R2
0,484
N
1,205
6,477
7,117
2,726
3,298
1,689
1,386
1,239
1,309
14,144
1,125
Constant Sig
2,618
3,904
5,7
4,131
3,5
1,646
2,065
2,065
-2,957
0,722
Constant term (a)
F Sig
VIF
0
0,867
118
15
Hypotheses
1. The direct influence of a party system on the stabilisation of
democracy is doubtable and strongly depends on 3rd variables
such as the homogeneity of a society and the face of social
disparities.
2. Beichelt (2001) p. 279: „Die gemeinsame Identifizierung
konfligierender Parteien mit einem Gemeinwesen ist eine
Grundlage für die Entwicklung konfliktentschärfender
Institutionen des Parteiensystems“.
3. The bigger the incongruence between rulers and ruled, the
harder a rapid consolidation system will be. Homogenous
polities(ethnically/ culturally/ socio-politically) with minimally
polarised party systems as a rule have the fewest troubles in
consolidating democracy.
16
References
BEICHELT, Timm (2001): Demokratische Konsolidierung im postsozialistischen Europa. Die Rolle der politischen
Institutionen. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. P. 241-293.
BEYME, Klaus von (1997): Parteien im Prozess der demokratischen Konsolidierung. In: Wolfgang Merkel /
Eberhard Sandschneider (Hrsg.): Systemwechsel 3. Parteien im Transfomationsprozeß. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
BEYME, Klaus von (1994): Systemwechsel in Osteuropa. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.
HOFFMAN, Amanda L. (2005): Political parties, electoral systems and democracy: a cross national analysis. In:
European Journal of Political Research 44. P. 231-242.
HUNTINGTON, Samuel (1991): How countries democraticse. In: Political Science Quarterly 106/4. Pages 579-616.
KITSCHELT, Herbert (1995): Die Entwicklung post-sozialistischer Parteisysteme. Vergleichende Perspektive. In:
Wollmann/Wiesenthal/Bönkes (1995): Transformation sozialistischer Gesellschaften. Am Ende des Anfangs.
Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
KITSCHELT, Herbert (1995): Formation of party cleavages in post-communist democracies. Theoretical
propositions. In: Party Politics Vol. 1. No. 4. Pages 447-472.
KÖLLNER, Patrick (2004): Faktionalismus in politischen Parteien: Charakteristika, Funktionen und Ursachen
innerparteilicher Gruppen. Deutsches Übersee-Institut. http://www.gigahamburg.de/content/publikationen/archiv/duei_arbeitspapiere/ap_16_0402.pdf (17.06.2007)
STOJAROVÁ, Vĕra / Šedo, Jakub (2007): Political Parties in Central and Eastern Europe. In Search of
Consolidation. IDEA http://www.idea.int/publications/pp_c_and_e_europe/index.cfm (17.06.2007)
17