Historical Cleavages or Transition Mode?

Abstract

This article tests two propositions derived from European transitions to democracy on three countries in East Central Europe: Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. On balance, the paper finds that new party systems seem to be developing differently in postcommunist regimes than they did in Southern and Western Europe. First, the political cleavages of the pre-authoritarian period that might have re-emerged after an interruption in democratic rule did not simply `unfreeze' after the demise of communism. Second, the type of transition - whether by reform or ruptura - does not predict how ex-regime parties fared initially in East Central Europe. These findings suggest that, at least initially, the pre-authoritarian period and transition mode are likely to be less influential in shaping party systems than is the legacy of the communist authoritarian period. They also highlight the particularly destructive nature of communist rule in East Central Europe, in that it may have altered the bases of social and political life to a greater extent than did other types of authoritarian regimes.

Left–Right Orientations and Ideological Voting in New Democracies: A Case Study of Slovenia

“…For example, Kitschelt suggests the type of former communist regimebureaucratic-authoritarian, national-consensus, or patrimonial-shapes patterns of competition after transition: in terms of economic distribution, social libertarianism, and issues of democratic legitimacy, respectively (1995, pp. 461-62), 23 and Rivera (1996) highlights legacies of communist rule (rather than pre-communist party competition or mode of transition). In contrast, Lewis emphasises 'the role of microinstitutional factors, choice and political agency, and effective leadership' in elucidating post-transition cleavages (2004, p. 136).…”

The historical foundations of party politics in post-communist East Central Europe

“…The LipsetRokkan model has been applied to a remarkable range of political questions and to many regions of the world. In recent years, it has been applied by many to analyse party development in post-communist Europe (Cotta 1994;Ma´rkus 1994Ma´rkus , 1996Tworzecki 1996Tworzecki , 2002Ko¨ro¨se´nyi 1996;Rivera 1996;Mair 1997;Lewis 2000;Lindstro¨m 2001;Sitter 2001Sitter , 2002Kostelecky´2002;Zielinski 2002;Toole 2003). What makes the Lipset -Rokkan model so helpful in studying the question posed here is its strong historical basis-its insistence that contemporary party politics can have deep roots in the accumulated social changes of several centuries.…”

“…Some who have studied the historical foundations of East Central European party politics have not used the model (Kitschelt et al 1999;Lubecki 2004). Others have applied it and found it wanting (Rivera 1996;Lewis 2000, pp. 140 -149;Lindstro¨m 2001).…”

“…It then also considers why the model works in part but not in full. 6 A handful of studies (Cotta 1994;Rivera 1996;Tworzecki 1996Tworzecki , 2002Kostelecky´1996) have applied the Lipset -Rokkan model to East Central Europe using other kinds of historical approaches. Of these, only Tworzecki and Kostelecky´evaluate the impact of periods prior to the early twentieth century.…”

Russia's 1996 Presidential Elections

“…Under these circumstances, societal cleavages are fashioned more by general attitudes toward the revolutionary project than by specific economic, social, or even ethnic concerns. More conventional, interest-based cleavages, such as those that demarcate the contours of stable party systems, emerge only after consolidation of the new economic and political orders (Rivera, 1996;Evans and Whitefield, 1993).…”