ABSTRACT
Introduction In most of Central and Eastern Europe, the beginning of transition to democracy was marked by negotiations among political elites grouped within proto-parties or loose political movements (e.g. umbrella organisations). This top-down process was combined with the fact that most of it occurred before the real institutionalisation of the new democratic regimes consecrated the central role of political parties in the political life of these countries. As a result, postcommunist politics soon became party politics (Enyedi and Toka 2007). Empirically, this claim is corroborated by the very few instances in which independent politicians managed to secure seats in the legislatures. Thus, the vast majority of decision-making processes has been the result of intra-and inter-party competition and negotiations. Romania follows this pattern: its political system is dominated by parties and their leaders – especially when the latter become heads of state or government. Unlike some of its neighbours, the Romanian party system and the patterns of inter-party competition have been quite stable in the last two decades. Since 1992, no new party has gained seats in the legislature; there were only exits with no entries. Therefore, the dominant pattern has been the gradual reduction of the number of significant parties in Romania. In the 2008 elections, only five parties secured seats in Parliament: two major, one mid-size, and two minor actors (out of which one formed a pre-electoral alliance with the largest party). Three of them – the Democratic Liberal Party (PDL), the Social Democratic Party (PSD), and the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR) – have had uninterrupted presence in the legislature since the regime change.1 The PSD (formerly PDSR) is the largest Romanian party: it won five out of six national elections, was the dominant party of the government coalition three times, once supported a minority government (based on a ‘silent agreement’2), and took part for a year in the most recent government coalition (as a second party although it won the popular vote). Its president won the presidential elections three times and since 2000 the party has enjoyed relatively constant electoral support of approximately 35 per cent of the vote (very low levels of electoral volatility). In 2001, it absorbed the Party of Social Democracy in Romania (PSDR) and it
formed electoral alliances with the PC (formerly known as PUR – the Romanian Humanist Party) for the 2000, 2004 and 2008 national legislative elections. The PDL (formerly PD) is the second largest party in post-communist Romania. It formed together with PSD the umbrella organisation winning the first elections after regime change (the National Salvation Front, FSN). It emerged in 1992 when the separation from PSD marked the official formation of both parties. Although it did not win any elections outright, it was part of four government coalitions – twice as minor partner (1996-2000 and 2004-8) and twice as the major party (2008-9 and 2009-12). It subsequently left all the governments in which it did not act as the major party. The PNL is the third largest party. It was part of the electoral alliance winning the 1996 elections and was twice part of a coalition government (1996-2000 and 2004-8). In its most recent governmental experience it led a minority government for two years (supported by the PSD on the basis of a ‘silent agreement’). The UDMR is the fourth party with relatively low but constant electoral support. The party represents the interests of the ethnic Hungarians and has played a pivotal role in many instances. Accordingly, it has been part of the government since 1996 (including a ‘silent agreement’ with the PSD between 2000 and 2004). The PC (formerly PUR) has been a parliamentary party since 2000, but has never competed on its own. Having always run in an electoral alliance with PSD this party had, nevertheless, for most of the period its own parliamentary party group. The party was twice in government (2000-3 and 2004-6), not always being loyal to the PSD (e.g. in 2004 it supported other parties in government although it got into parliament due to its pre-electoral coalition with the PSD). In organisational terms, the function of party president has been always considered as the most important and powerful position in the party. This importance was also reflected in the visibility and electoral advantages provided to their parties. The party presidents did not limit themselves to their position within the party, but also targeted high state offices. For example, the first president of the Social Democratic Party (PSD) also became the head of state for two successive terms between 1990 and 1996. By running in presidential elections, organised simultaneously with the legislative ones until 2004, popular party presidents often had a coat-tail effect on the legislative results of their party (e.g. Traian Băsescu with the Liberal Democratic Party – PDL). Similarly, party leaders on a descending slope of popularity dramatically reduce the opportunities for their parties to make a comeback on the political scene after electoral defeat (e.g. Marian Milut as the president of the Christian Democratic National Peasants Party). Given this high profile status of the party presidents, it is particularly relevant to know who selects and deselects them. Who has the power to vest one person with extensive prerogatives and indirectly decide the fate of the party? Congresses bringing together party delegates are in charge of the process virtually everywhere, the only differences appearing in the number of delegates. There are variations in terms of electoral rules (majority vs run-off system); provisions
governing eligibility; and competitiveness (in slightly more than half of the situations, only a single candidate contested the leadership election). This chapter describes and analyses the similarities and differences between the selection methods of the five Romanian parties relevant for the post-communist period. In doing so, we emphasise the main features of these methods, sketch the profile of the leaders selected, and explain how the selection methods can influence the trajectory of the party.
