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

are often discussed in “relaxed” and “practical” ways. From the outset The Four-Coalition (4K) inthe Czech Republic and ”Przymierze Polski” in Poland constituted such ”pure” tactical partyformationsas they were not distinct negative alliances and party federations such as in case of AWSand SDK. However, before the 2002 election 4K tried to be transformed itself into a party alliancewith a common election program and a “shadow cabinet”. However, after the victory at the firstnational elections and after the transformation into party federations, several “wars in the top”erupted.Inside dysfunctional party alliances are not kept together primarily be references to the common”enemy”, e.g. ”post-communists” (e.g. SLD in Poland) or “nationalists” (e.g. Meciar in Slovakia).In most cases lack of loyalty and cohesion on actor level has been striking. On the Polish Rightseveral policians changed party four or five times. In the case of SLD in Poland the transformationto a party-alliance and later unified ”standard party” became the expressed goal, in other cases nofinal decision was taken, e.g. in case of the Czech ”Four Coalition” (4K) and ”Przymierze Polski”in Poland. To conclude, the ultimate aim of functional party alliances tends to be to establishfunctional party federations and in the longer term to be transformed into unified “standard” parties.However, most political groups tend to regard party alliances as only tactical and thereforetemporary. Thus, from the outset the lack of loyalty and cohesion on the elite level has beenstriking.1.10. Parties and party systems under presidentialismParties and party systems tend to develop differently in presidential and parliamentary systems.Party non-systems and weak party systems seem to create presidential or semi-presidential systems,as strong presidents, who are acting “above politics”, may “compensate” for absence of strong andlegitimate parties. In order to strengthen their own position presidents sometimes strived to set upbarriers for development of new parties such as was the case e.g. in Russia, Ukraine and Poland atthe beginning of the 1990’s.Thus, evidence show that presidential systems tend to weaken the political parties and thedemocratic process. Presidential systems seem rigid, as it is almost impossible to change thepresident in mid-term without bringing down the regime itself (Sakwa, 2002:104). The presidentialveto and the reference of laws to the constitutional courts have hampered or often delayed thedecision processes. The problem has been the greatest, when elected governments were deniedfinancial laws and tax laws already adopted by a majority in parliament. The disagreements amongparties and “wars in the top” inside parties before presidential elections suggest that direct electionof presidents reinforce party fragmentation and impair further stabilization and crystallization ofparty systems.In Slovakia the realisation and disagreements between President Michal Kovac and Prime MinisterVladimir Meciar clearly undermined the democratic process and gave rise to a heavily polarizedpolitical system. Both president Vaclav Havel in the Czech Republic and president Lech Walesa inPoland criticized the behaviour of the political parties in general and thereby raised questions aboutthe role of the political parties for the further consolidation of the new won democracy(”antipolitics”). The election of Vaclav Klaus as new president of the Czech Republic signified amove away from the “anti-politics” civic based, altlanctic and pro-European line of formerpresident Vaclav Havel.29