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

analyses of party institutionalization. As he points out, until now rather low attention has been givento the internal party dynamics, as these subjects are relatively difficult to analyse due to the limitedaccess to data.The party institutionalisation is closely connected with those mechanisms that distribute politicalpower between each section of the party, e.g. the parliamentary group and the party apparatus.Institutionalisation can take place internally by introducing more regular decision procedures, orexternally by stronger linkages to the society. In other words, institutionalization can take placewithout closer links to socual interests. Nevertheless, instututional structures playes a still strongerrole when moving to more interest based “ordinary politics”. Does institutionalization become asuccess, more strict rules will be established and internalized for distribution of political power, atthe same time a routinisation and legalisation of political enterprise can be observed.Institutionalisation tend to foster detailled and internalised rules and norms as regards cooperationon leadership level, mechanisms of conflict resolution and control. Political demobilisation andlower political participation will mostly be the result of, not the reason for higherinstitutionalisation.Legitimation is an important factor here, as legitimacy brings to institutions more freedom of action.Institutionalisation inevitably was most difficult to obtain in the first stage of postcommunismcharacterised by high voter volatility, functional and government overload, antipolitical attitudes inpopulation and overparliamentarisation. In other words, institutionalisation took place underunsecurity and widespread transition anomie. An institutional vakuum could be observed, and thepolitical parties were not able to fill out that vacuum.Linkages to social cleavages and the prevailing policy preferences in society are not in themselvessufficient to promote consolidation of democracy. Parties also have to be sufficiently strongorganisatorically to bring the political messages to the electorate. Insufficient organisationalcapacity and bad party finances have been characteristic resulting in internal splits and weak policyandprogramme formulation. Formally the institutions were in place, but the attitudes forstrengthening institutions and make them functional, did not exist. Under those circumstances thepolitical agenda to a great extent was decided by other institutions, such as the presidency, foreigninstitutions and doners, criminal structures and other institutions outside democratic control(“shadow institutionalization”). The democratically elected institutions simply do not fill out thevacuum. Shadow institutionalisation was most striking in the CIS countries and on Balkan, but notlimited to those countries. The worst case scenario is a long-term weakening and marginalisation ofthe political parties. According to most opinion polls the political parties and the parliament are lowestimated. Moreover, low institutionalization had as a result that elections could not be won becauseof close links to the most important sections of society. For that reason better access to andunfortunately also more party control over the media became an obvious strategy for parties inpower.Som esome extent all the CEEC’swere signified by institutional hybridization as some importantchanges and “openings” of the fomer authoriatarian systems took place, however, at the same timemany from the old elites were still in power, and post-communist institutions did not changefundamentally. In Poland well organised institutions such as the church and some trade unions wereable to penetrate the political process and the parties due to strong organisation and close links thecertain parties.38