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

considerably different. The question inevitably arises, who in the society occupy the most powerfulposts in society and who to the greatest extent are capable to influence and control those in power.As the point of departure research of political elites has often taken theories about elitereproduction,in which case systemic changes do not lead to renewal on the personal level, or withelite-circulation, in which case focus is laid upon the instalment of new people. In case changes onelite level are modest or cosmetic we have to do with “within-private” regimes (Braun and Barany,1999:8). Russia under Jeltsin is one example of within-private regimes, as the new elites to a greatextent were recruited from the old nomenklatura. However, within-regimes are not unknown in theCEEC’s.Many, including A. Lijphart have underlined the significance of political elites for stablisationinpluralistic societies., where the etnic and social divisions are deep and foster more polarisationand political conflicts 21 . In this respect,Yugoslavia has been an important case. High elitefragmentation inevitably deepens polarisation and foster party competition of the centrfugal type.Therefore, it is important to limit political conflicts and install a consociational type of democracy.Thus, elite consensus is considered as important for enhancing political stability and consolidationof democracy.From the mid 1980s influenced by changes taking place in the Soviet Union the old elites wereforced to concentrate on pure strategies of survival. On the one side, since 1989 the oldnomenklatura has been accused of usurp political power, on the other side there have been warningsagainst “demonising” the role of the nomenklatura due to the argument, that a great part of the oldnomenklatura contributed to the almost smooth transition from plan to market and consolidation ofthe new won democracy.John Highley distinguishes between consensually united and ideocratically united elites 22 .Consensually united elites share basically the same views on development of society, which meansthat the different networks and elite groups co-exist rather harmoniously. In contrast, ideocraticallyunited elites adhere to common attitueds and belief systems. The conservative-traditionalistictypically have been ideocratically united, but only as long as the common enemy, the(post)communists were alive. Normally ideocratically united tend to behave intolerant and inclinedto secure for themselves the necessary support by non-democratic procedures, even by use of meansof force 23 .Before 1989, the old elites were forced to act under constantly growing insecurity in the SovietUnion. After the demise of the then existing one-party systems and the modernising oldnomenklaturas attemt to exchange political power with economic power. The party loyalty steadily,also the cohesion inside the nomenklatura. In Hungary a part of the nomenklatura was in front inundermining the old system, as many were more listening to the advises from the IMF and WorldBank than to the communist parties. Others adopted a “new-old” attitude. The attitude tointroduction of democracy and market economy was positive, but they did not reject all in the oldsystem.21 A. Lijphart (1977), Democracy in Plural Societies: Acomparative Exploration”, Berkly, California:University ofCalifornia Press.22 John Highley, in Braun and Barany, 1999:52-53.23 John Highley, in Braun and Barany, 1999:52-53.31