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

Basically the absence of clear constitutional rules and the difficult cohabitation between presidentsand governments were sometimes due to weak democratic culture and strong party systempolarisation. In several cases the president and the Prime Minister belonged to different parties.Thus cohabitation “in the French sense” took place in Poland under the post-communistgovernment (Walesa versus the SLD-PSL government), and later under the AWS-UW government(Kwasniewski versus AWS-UW government).In some cases the intervention of presidents nullified a governmental crisis and a “deadlocked”situations. That took place in 1993 when president Lech Walesa dissolved the parliament after voteof non-confidence against the Hanna Suchocka government, and larer when Walesa intervenedagainst Jan Olszewski’s government. President Vaclav Havel’s intervention in late 1996 thatremoved Vaclav Klaus from the post as Prime Minister, was controversial from a constitutionalpoint of view, but the final outcome, the establishment of a caretaker government and new un-timeelections in summer 1998, looked like the best solution in the then prevailing almost “deadlocked”political situation.Formation of new parties some times follow after successful presidential campaigns. The rise of theMovement for the Construction of Poland (ROP) was initiated by Jan Olszewski, one of thesuccesful candidates at the 1995 presidential election. Just before the 1995 election Lech Walesaestablished the presidential party (BBWR), and after the 2000 presidential election the presidentialcandidate, Andrzej Olechowski, together with defectors from the Freedom Union (UW) and AWSestablished the liberal platform (PO). Normally such “spontaneously” created party formations arebadly institutionalised and thus vulnerable to internal splits on policy, programme as well as actorlevel. Actor rivalisation (“wars in the top”) and political crafting has been striking because of theweak party institutionalization. In the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary characterized byparliamentary political systems no distinct presidential parties have ever been represented inparliament.1.11. The new political elitesThe establishment of political parties was closely connected with the emergence of new politicalelites. At the time of the demise of the old systems individual politicians had good opportunitiesforleave one’s mark on the political agenda (“political crafting” and “political entrepreneurship”).James Tool (Toole, 2003) and Jon Elster, Calus Offe and Ulrich K. Preuss (Elster etc., 1998)belongs to those, who argue that the devlopment of political parties in the new democracies in anuntil then unseen extent was pushed forward by the new political elites and the significance ofpolitical elites for further consolidation af democracy (“institutional agency”). Prime Ministers,presidents and some other ministers, especially the ministers of finance, obtained an importantposition due to the chaotic situation and the weak party institutionalisation. As we have seen, theparties were mostly established top-down and became elitedriven. After the demise of the oldsystems new elite structures emerged. Special interest was attached to the new non-communistelites and the fate of the old nomenklatura. In addition, many seeked an answer on the the crucialquestion, wo had become the “winners” and who the “loosers” in the new post-communist system.Political elites can shortly be defined as individuals and groups who by occupying strategicpositions in society are able regularly and substantially to make an effect on the political decisions.By “substantial” we mean that without the impact of elites the political outcomes would have been30