ABSTRACT

In the introductory section of this book, it was stressed that the aim of the book was first and foremost to provide an in-depth insight into the parties and party systems of the eight post-communist EU member states that entered the European Union in 2004. In doing so, the book has compiled descriptive-analytical essays by experts on these countries, concentrating not only on nation specific features of parties and party system development, but also on three comparative aspects of party system research: first, ideologies and issues, mainly focusing on ideological cleavages, ideological dimensions and salient issues in present-day politics; second, party system competition including institutional aspects and central measurements of party competition; and third, party organizations and the role of parties. Based on these common themes the concluding chapter is designed, firstly, to briefly summarize the nation-specific characteristics of each country as discussed in the country studies of the book. Secondly, I focus on the three main comparative aspects included in all the country studies, i.e. portraying the ideological spectrum of party systems, including cleavages, dimensions and salient issues, and discussing party competition and the development of party organisations. Thirdly, the comparative aspects are brought together in the section on differences and similarities between countries in more general terms. Finally, the last section of the chapter touches briefly upon the issue of what we might expect in respect of party system development in the future. Nation-specific Developments By focussing on all post-communist EU member states as individual countries, the previous chapters have shed some light on numerous aspects of the parties and party systems of each country, amongst others on those nation specific circumstances that are particular to each of the countries’ parties and party systems, i.e. on those features specific to each country, and which have shaped the development of the party system in that particular country. Therein, it is evident that the countries of this study are united by a communist past with one party rule

that has influenced politics and ideological dispositions. Yet, the processes of liberalization, transition and consolidation have developed at different paces within different frameworks, reflecting different realities and eventually resulting in quite different parties and party systems, in different patterns of competition, and different prospects for further development. In summary, the country study of Estonia shows that Estonia has experienced a number of rather adverse developments in the process of consolidation. Where the party system seems well consolidated in terms of acceptance for the rules of the (democratic) game, with a negligible support for radical parties in recent elections and government participation by almost all party actors, there is still a low party implementation in society, high levels of volatility in elections, and a weak institutionalization of parties and of cleavage structures, as well as a weak ideological and programmatic foundation. There is also a misbalanced development of cleavages where ‘urban’ issues tend to dominate over ‘rural’ areas, where right-wing sentiments dominate a traditionally left-wing electorate, and where the Estonians dominate over Russian-speaking minority interests. As a result, the Estonian urban right has come to dominate politics. In its neighbouring country, Latvia, the minority issue has had a much clearer imprint on politics than in Estonia, in part because minority issues have still not been entirely solved since approximately 30 per cent of the Latvian inhabitants were not naturalized Latvian citizens in 2003. Simultaneously, the country has experienced an unstable party system structure to an even greater extent than Estonia; the party system is characterized by numerous splits, mergers and start-up parties. In addition, breakaway parties and newly founded parties frequently appear quite successful in the first elections that they contest in. This has resulted in highly volatile elections which, combined with a relatively high turnout, suggest that even if Latvian voters do not feel bound to party loyalties, they are open to new alternatives, perhaps still seeking workable solutions for party system consolidation. Contrary to the Latvian situation, the Lithuanian party system was in fact considered rather stable until the earthquake elections of 2000. However, the sudden shift of political moods has resulted in a party system which today can be described in terms of fragmentation of parliament, erosion of party loyalties, a personality orientated political style, low level of trust in political parties, increasing volatility, and a very low turnout by any standards. Looking for answers to the causes of this development, it is argued that it is partly the result of the erosion of the communist-anti-communist cleavage that has found no clear replacement since many parties appear rather pragmatic than ideological, as well as having deeply-rooted distrust in parties, accompanied by scandals. All in all, these developments have created a situation in Lithuania where party system development seems highly unpredictable. Similar to the Baltic States, the Polish party system is characterized by severe intra-party instability. This can be identified in numerous split-offs, mergers and regroupings of political parties mainly on the centre-right. In addition, frequent

turnover of MPs in parliament have implications for government stability. The intra-party instability is also reflected by high volatility levels, though there are vast differences between elections levelling out the most extreme results. As in the case of Lithuania, there is also a strong anti-party sentiment and weak links between parties and society, which is reflected in an extremely low turnout level, regardless of whether it is a parliamentary, presidential or European election. The reasons for these features of Polish politics are yet unclear, but one could speculate on the role of political culture along side those features mentioned above. Turning to the Czech party system, it is in most respects characterized by traits that could be ideal and typical of the party government model, unattained in practice in present-day Western European countries. In fact, Czech parties have a virtual monopoly over representation and interest articulation in society, whereas alternative social movements, trade unions etc. are weak or non-existent. Though this goes for all post-communist EU countries to some extent, the Czech parties appear to hold a power monopoly which is not only present, but is also less questioned among the electorate than elsewhere. This means that even though parties are generally not very trusted institutions, and there is a low level of political involvement among citizens, parties lack mass membership and elections are characterized by a volatility higher than average volatility in Western Europe, the role of parties as crucial linkages between citizens and the state is not a questioned one. Slovakia, on the other hand, was dominated by an authoritarian-democratic divide until 2000; where politics in all post-communist countries was more or less dominated by a communist-anti-communist cleavage in the very first elections after democratization, new political divisions and salient issues would enter politics shortly after. In Slovakia, however, the line of conflict concerning the rule of the country was transformed into an authoritarian-democratic divide. This transformation of the communist-anti-communist divide was due to the HZDS’ (Movement for Democratic Slovakia) dominance and questionable methods of maintaining power. However, in 2000 the salience of this divide begun to erode, and since the 2002 elections, when the dominant nationalist and ex-communist parties both fell out of parliament, socioeconomic issues have become more dominant in politics. Among the post-communist countries of this study, Hungary is perceived as the most stable and consolidated party system of all with a very low fragmentation both in terms of electoral and parliamentary parties. Moreover, the country’s party system is characterized by a bipolar drive, where dominant parties are concentrated in the conservative / Christian democratic right, and in a socialist and (social-) liberal left. Elections have produced government alternation in a two-party system like order, while dominant parties have held their positions as compared to their allies in each respective bloc. Regardless of the fact that there are numerous consensual institutions in place, other institutions, such as single-member districts and an adversarial political culture have been feeding the bipolar drive.