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

window of opportunity in spite of some constitutional and institutional limitations, all confirmed atthe first free elections. However, the political capital was more short-term than first expected, andfor many citisins the new political leaders riminded about the former communist, at least as far aspolitical style and communication was concerned. The new power structures were signified by closepersonal contacts, i.e. several interlinked elite networks. Also the lack of political experience amongthe new leaders was striking. At the same time the majority of the electorate preferred disciplinedand professional politicians, even people with a background in the reform-minded part of the oldnomenklatura.Thus the cohesion among former dissidents did not last long. In stead of elite consensus andcohesion power struggles and “wars in the top” emerged, bringing democratisation as well asstability in danger. The split and fragmentation took place at an unfortunate point of time, for underthe prevailing transition anomie and and economic recession political truce and concensus wasbadly needed.Many new parties were lead by a narrow circle of mainly intolerant elites. In other words,censensually united elites soon became dysunified. Overideologization and unconstructive politicalinfighting were aimed at accumulation of political power. Differences of opinion and politicaldebate were not considered as a political ressource, but rather as an attack on the nation and theunity of the party and on the party leader himself. Communication failed not only inside the partiesand the political elites fail, but also between the political elites and the citizens. 27 Lack of contactsand responsiveness to the civil societies appeared to be one main obstacles for further consolidationof democracy.Even countries which were considered as the “forerunners”, e.g. the Czech Republic experiencedseveral setbacks. The new elites remained too long away from the civil societies, lived too closedand mainly focusing on the work in parliament (“overparliamentarization”). The first stage wasmarked by the growing economic and social problems and the too big need of reforms, and thecapture of the state apparatus and the reckoning with the pas took too many ressources. As aconsequence of that the policy and programme development and the quality of the law makingprocess itself was neglected.The weak linkages to the civil societies had as a consequence a striking fall in politicalparticipation. Because of the low institutionalisation the political parties’ contacts to the electorateand party members were modest, mostly mediated through the media. Thus, a party press andjournal for party members was badly needed. The party life remained strongly downgraded in themind of the elites. Neither between the elections nor during the election campaigns the parties werecapable to bring the political messages sufficiently to the voters and the party members. In addition,the party candidates and even the leaders themselves had not been sufficiently subject to thepolitical training and learning 28 .Under those circumstances, to improve the quality of governance, not only qualified leaders, butalso more competent, politically neutral and uncorrupt civil servants was needed. The problems ofgovernance were increasing because of the low wages in the public sector and the delay ofadministrative reforms. The high elite-circulation was followed by a enhanced politisation and close27 See e.g. Jiri Pehe, “Ceske demokraticky system postrada nekretere dimenze”, Hospodarske Noviny 20 January,1998:6.28 See e.g. Martin Potucek, “Ze Sredni Europy na Balkán?”, Ekonom, 1997, Praha:84.36