Development of Parties and Party Systems in ... - lah@sam.sdu.dk

played an important role e.g. in the case of Spain’s and Portugal’s transition to democracy, and thiseexperiences have played a certain role also in the case of crafting democracy in the CEEC’s.However, some differences between the South European and the East European ways ofconsolidation have been striking. For example the economic consolidation and market economy inSpain and Portugal was more advanced at the time for democratic break through and the subsequentconsolidation. Therefore the way down in the “valley of tears” was more short term and less painfulthan in the CEEC’s.Nonetheless, in the end democracy became “the only game in town” in most CEECs. The “two-turnover test” has been passed, as presidential power as well as governmental power have peacefullytranferered to the opposition in case of election defeat for the parties in power. However, withoutgreater civic participation and further institutionalisation the transition to more advanced democracywill not take place and “democratic government” will not constitute a “democratic regime 12 . Also“authoritarian situations” are well known in the CEEC’s, e.g. in Hungary under Viktor Orban, inwhich case the dominant political agents exclude other agents from the political process therebysecuring for themselves direct or indirect control over the political life including mass media 13 . Insuch casesthe democratic institutions are in place, but democratic rules are “hollowed out” due tothe winner parties’ strong focus on keeping political power according to the classical principleabout the winners, “that takes it all”. In other words, consolidation of democracy demands aconsiderable “self-limitation” on behalf of the parties in governments as well the parties theopposition.To conclude, concerning consolidation of democracy in the CEEC’s we still can use ZoltanBarany’s formulation:“What we currently have in Eastern Europe are imperfect, and in some places (e.g. Albania,Romania, Slovakia) fragile but, most importantly, functioning, working, democratic polities”(Braun and Barany, 1999:107).1.6. The left-right divide and post-communist cleavagesMany notions have been used when characterizing political parties. In the operating style, mostparties shared the competitive logic of western catch-all parties, but lacked their ideological andorganisational anchors. The left-right divide known from already established political party systemscannot be used. However, instead of disappearing, the left and right divide exist in peoples mind,but differently in each East Central European country. The different patterns of ideologicalstructuring shall be seen in the context of the main cleavages and each country's experiences at thetime of leaving socialism 14 . Thus the party systems emerging in the Czech Republic after 1989,already in the first stages came close to the left-right division in the more classic sense, according to12 Wlodzimierz Weselowski distinguishes referring to O´Donnald (1994) between “democratic government” and“democratic regime” in “Political Actors and Democracy: Poland 1990-1997”, Polish Sociological Review, 3 (119),Warsaw, 1997:227.13 A term used e.g. by Juan Linz, “The Future of the Authoritarian Situation or Institutionalization of an AuthoritarianRegime: The Case of Brazil”, in Alfred Stepan (ed.) (1973), Authoritarian Brazil. Origins, Policies and Future, NewHaven, CT, and London, Yale University Press:233-254.14 Attila Ágh, ”Party Formation Process and the 1998 Elections in Hungary”, East European Politics and Societies, Vol.14, No.2, Spring 2000:292, and Radoslaw Markowski, ”Political Parties and Ideological Spaces in East CentralEurope”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies 30:3 (1997):122.21