Communist Parties in Transition: Structures, Leaders, and Processes of Democratization in Eastern Europe Author(s): John T. Ishiyama Source: Comparative Politics, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Jan., 1995), pp. 147-166 Published by: Comparative Politics, Ph.D. Programs in Political Science, City University of New York Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/422162 Accessed: 18-03-2016 16:40 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/422162?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
Comparative Politics, Ph.D. Programs in Political Science, City University of New York is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Politics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Communist Parties in Transition
Structures, Leaders, and Processes of Democratization in
Eastern Europe
John T. Ishiyanma
It has been five years since the demise of Communist rule in eastern Europe. Nonetheless,
the collapse of the Communist systems did not necessarily lead to the demise or
disappearance of the Communist parties. Although several did collapse, most have
attempted to adapt to new political conditions. Some reformed Communist parties, like those
in Lithuania, Poland, and most recently in Hungary, have been so successful that they now
represent the party in power. Others, as in the Czech Republic, have experienced great
difficulties in adapting to new political conditions. What accounts for the divergent paths
followed by the Communist parties of central and eastern Europe? Why have some of these
parties been able to make a relatively successful transition to the new conditions of
democratic competition, while others seem far less capable (or willing) to do so?
These questions are not simply academic for students of eastern European politics. They
have practical implications as well. First, the evolution of these parties provides an
opportunity for scholars to assess the utility of western-based theories of political party
development in explaining the unfolding events of eastern Europe. Indeed, unlike other
current "'political parties" in the region, the ex-Communist parties are not simply groups of
notables or political clubs. They have a long political tradition and an organizational history,
as well as an internal structure which sets them apart from most other political parties in the
area. However, these parties are faced with new and entirely different political
circumstances, to which they must adapt if they are not to go the way of the dinosaurs.
Second, as many observers of democratic transitions have noted, the ultimate success of
democratization from authoritarian rule depends heavily on the promotion of political
moderation within the principal political parties.' With their substantial organizational
resources and political appeal in the face of current social and economic difficulties, the
former Communist parties will play a vital role in conditioning the scope and development
of politics in the new democracies of eastern Europe. The successful transformation of these
Communist parties into political organizations that are willing to play by the rules of the
democratic "game" thus becomes a key ingredient in successful democratization.2
The central focus of this article is to evaluate two different types of explanations which
might account for the evolution of these parties. The first holds that the Communist party
(and any party for that matter) adapts itself to accord with its environment.3 Thus, whether
the party leadership has fully moved away from a connection with the Communist past
depends upon whether the incentives generated by the political, social, and economic
environment have compelled the party leadership to change. The second contends that
147
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Comparative Politics January 1995
conflicts within the party following the transition are largely a product of the party's
previous history. From this perspective, the degree to which the ex-Communist parties are
able to adapt depends on whether the leadership at the moment of the transition is comprised
primarily of political pragmatists who are willing to dump the ideological baggage of the
past and present the party as a credible alternative in order to take advantage of new political
opportunities.
To evaluate these arguments, this article begins by identifying three principal groups in
the ex-Communist party, a classification scheme borrowed from both the literature on
western political parties and studies of democratic transition. Second, I illustrate the central
features of an "environment" based approach as opposed to a "historical" or dynamic
approach to political party development. Both "environmental" and "internal" factors
which condition this process of transformation will be investigated in an attempt to explain
the evolutionary course of the ex-Communist parties. Finally, each of these arguments will
be evaluated in light of the evidence from eastern Europe.
In the selection of the national cases considered, two criteria were employed. Only cases
that have experienced a transition process uninterrupted by civil war were included (thus
excluding Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia-Hercegovina), and only countries that
gained international recognition of their sovereignty and independence before 1993 and have
undergone the transition process for at least two years were included (thus excluding
Macedonia and the former German Democratic Republic). The former Soviet Baltic
republics were included in this study for two reasons, because they are largely regarded as
part of eastern Europe (and largely regard themselves as such) and because they were the
most "westernized" of the Soviet republics and have been historically linked to eastern
Europe.
The "ex-Communist" parties considered here are all those parties which have roots in the
old regime. By roots I mean that only those parties which inherited the bulk of the former
Communists' property, membership, and leadership are considered here as ex-Communist
and hence qualify for inclusion in this analysis.
Conflicts within the Party
What are the principal lines of conflict within the party? Whatever one's definition of a
political party, one thing is certain: the ex-Communist parties of eastern Europe must now
compete in elections. Hence they are faced with the necessity of altering themselves from
essentially instruments of social, economic, and political control to electorally competitive
parties.
One approach, based largely on observations of western political parties, holds that the
way in which a party evolves is a function of the political environment in which it exists.
The political environment affects the balance of political forces within the party,
advantaging some while disadvantaging others.4 A second approach, which also focuses on
the internal composition of political parties, is offered by those scholars who concentrate on
the dynamics of democratic transitions from authoritarian rule.5 This approach holds that the
character of the intraparty struggle is largely a product of historical context and the party's
particular history. For example, Huntington argues that three principal groups exist within
148
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
John T. Ishivama
former governing parties during the course of democratic transition. In general, tensions
among the groups usually involve the struggle between "standpatters," "liberal reformers,"
and "democratic reformers." These groups are defined in terms of their basic attitudes
toward democracy. For Huntington, the key to success for a democratic transition depends
heavily on the ability of the liberal and democratic reformers in the government coalition to
fend off the antidemocratic standpatters within the Communist party.6
Ultimately, however, with the introduction of competitive elections and the onset of the
process of democratic consolidation, even the standpatters and liberals must accept the
notion that the Communist parties must be electorally competitive to survive. This change
does not mean that they must abandon their opposition to democracy and reform. Indeed,
antisystem parties of the past (most notably the National Socialists in Weimar Germany)
accepted the necessity of competing in order to win elections and thereby the power to
subsequently destroy the system.
At this point, with the onset of the consolidation process in eastern Europe, the approaches
offered above begin to converge and provide insights into the internal evolution of the ex-
Communist parties. The issue within the party (once the decision to compete has been made)
involves the debate over the extent to which the party will break with the past and compromise
its ideology to remain politically competitive. Standpatters and liberal reformers are far less
willing to condemn the past and compromise on the programmatic goals of the party, whereas
democratic reformers are far more inclined to do so to gain electoral victory. The party's
program is viewed as quite malleable, especially if flexibility is required to win election.
Standpatters view the past Communist regime as having produced more positive
accomplishments than negative ones. Moreover, although ostensibly in favor of democratic
competition, they often view such competition as part of the political struggle between
opposing poles-the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, capitalism and socialism. Within the
party they speak of a "renaissance of the socialist world outlook" and a return to the
Marxist-Leninist norms of democratic centralism.7
In contrast, liberals view the past Communist regime as generally more negative than
positive. They usually held top positions in the former Communist regime and hence are not
completely willing to condemn the past, lest they also condemn themselves. Liberals favor
democratic competition, although they oppose "anarchic" competition. Further, they have
not abandoned some future transition to socialism, albeit through democratic means. Within
the party they call for the creation of an organization which emulates the "modern European
left" (a euphemism for "Eurocommunism") to maintain the party's commitment to the
interests of workers and peasants and consistently promote internal party discipline and
ideological cohesion."
The democratic reformers tend to favor what they refer to as a "social democratic"
viewpoint. By this they mean a complete break with the past, and they often contend that the
difference between themselves and the "liberals" is their argument that there is no "turning
back." In general, the democratic reformers were not top officials in the former Communist
regime, and many joined the party only towards the end of Communist rule. The democratic
reformers argue that they, unlike the liberals, have completely abandoned the ideology of
Marxism-Leninism. They fully embrace internal party pluralism and seek to broaden the
party's social and political base beyond the confines of workers' and peasants' interests as
the key to the party's electoral success.
149
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Comparative Politics January 1995
What forces shaped, and will continue to shape, the relationship between these disparate
groups within the ex-Communist parties? In general, there are two sets of factors which
affect the balance of forces within the party. First, there are the environmental factors, or the
context in which the party finds itself after the onset of competitive elections. Second, there
are the factors associated with the transition process, particular to each party, which affect
the internal balance of power before the onset of competitive elections.
Environmental Factors
In the literature there are three often cited environmental dimensions which affect the inner
workings of the political party: electoral incentives (such as the offices open to competition
and the method of election), political opportunities (such as issues the party can exploit), and
the "structure of competition" between political parties (especially the strength of other
left-wing parties which might compete with the Communists for the same "niche" on the
ideological spectrum).
Electoral Incentives The basic constitutional features of a political system and electoral
rules have long been held to exert an important influence on political parties and party
systems. For example, Linz notes that in presidential systems the importance of capturing
the presidency becomes paramount, dwarfing all other electoral goals for political parties.9
Shugart and Carey note that the electoral incentives provided by a directly elected and
politically powerful presidency tend to benefit the "electoral component" of the party in that
legislative candidates enjoy "two advantages simultaneously: identification with a national
presidential candidate, and the freedom to pursue local particularism." As a result, parties in
presidential systems are not characterized by a high degree of ideological or organizational
rigidity and therefore "should obviously be diffuse and internally diverse, as well as
involved to a great degree in the provision of constituent services." W
Of the surveyed countries in eastern Europe, none adopted a presidency like those in the
United States, France, or (since December 1993) Russia (see Table 1). Like other West
European systems, the presidency has a relatively weak constitutional basis with most
executive powers officially invested in the hands of the prime minister and the cabinet.
However, there is a great deal of diversity, not only in terms of the method of electing the
president (either through direct, popular election or indirect selection by the legislature), but
also in the powers of the presidency. Of the surveyed countries, Bulgaria, Lithuania,
Poland, and Romania have directly elected presidents, and all of them rank relatively high in
terms of the "presidential power score" reported in Table 1 (46, 45, 47, and 51,
respectively). Only Hungary's presidency, selected by the legislature, ranks higher (52).
Although none of the presidencies of these countries is comparable to those of the United
States and France, if the proposition that a relatively more powerful and directly elected
presidency should better promote the aspirations of those who seek to broaden the party's
appeal and dump the ideological baggage of the past is generalizable to eastern European
ex-Communist parties, then one would expect this trend to be exhibited most in Bulgaria,
Lithuania, Poland, and Romania.
Many scholars have also observed the political effects of electoral laws. The most
150
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
John T. Ishivanma
Table 1 Characteristics of Eastern European Political Systems
Country President Lgqislative Year of electoral .ystet Index of**
elected? structure election type Proportionality
(weighted
power score)*
Albania Indirect Unicameral 1991 single-mebear/aejority NA (40)
1992 mixed 94.86
Bulgaria Direct Unicameral 1990 mixed 93.86 (46)
1991 list PR 75.67
Czecho-
Slovakia Indirect Bi-cameral 1990 list PR 83.92
Czech
Republic Indirect
(37)
Slovakia Indirect
(39)
1992 list PR 74.15
Estonia Indirect Unicameral 1990 Non-list PR NA (36)
1992 list PR 81.23
Hungary Indirect Unicameral 1990 mixed 84.70
(52)
Latvia Indirect Unicameral 1990 Single member/majority NA
(30)
1993 list PR 89.27
Lithuania Direct Unicameral 1990 Single meembr/imaority NA
(45)
1993 mixed 88.65
Poland Direct Bi-cameral 1991 list PR 88.97
(51)
1993 list PR 62.84
Romania Direct Bi-cameral 1990 list PR 90.93
(47)
1992 list PR 82.42
*The Presidential Power score ranges from 0 to 100 where zero represent a president with no constitutional powers,
and 100 where all powerea are inveted in the presidency. Th* scores reported are the weiqJted scores taken from
Jaeea McGregor "The Presidency in Zaet Central Europe" RFE/RL Research Reportsa 3:2 (January, 1994) p. 29. **The Index of Proportionality is calculated by summing the dlfferncc b*owean each party'* percentaqe share of
seats and its *hare of votes, dividing by two and subtracting thsi from 100. Scores were calculated for lower house
only.
Souwces: RFE/RL Resaarch Reports 1992-19941 Foreign Broadcast Infotration Reports--Eastern Europe (FBIS-EEU), 19901993.
noteworthy distinction made in this body of literature has concerned the impact of
proportional representation systems versus plurality/majority formulas on political party
organization." The primary difference between proportional representation (PR) and
plurality/majority systems is that the former provides opportunities for political parties (no
matter how limited the scope of their appeal) to win seats in the legislature. Under
proportional representation there is electoral utility in remaining true to the party's ideology.
In other words, a proportional representation system tends to reinforce the position of the
"inflexible" element of the party, since there is less need for compromise to win election.(2
Plurality/majority systems do not necessarily require that a party broaden its appeal to
increase its probability of electoral success, but they also do not reinforce ideological
inflexibility as much as proportional representation does.
Table 1 reports the basic features of East European electoral systems for the last two
elections in each country (with the exception of Hungary, which at the time of this research
had had only one election). The general type of electoral system and the index of
proportionality, which measures the deviation from proportionality generated by the
mechanical effects of the electoral rules, are reported. 13
151
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Comparative Politics January 1995
The highest scores, and hence the least deviation from proportionality, are the 1992
Albanian elections (94.86), the 1990 Romanian chamber of deputies elections (90.93), the
1993 Latvian elections (89.27), the 1993 Lithuanian elections (88.65), and the 1992
Romanian Senate elections (82.42). The lowest scores are reported for the Polish Sejm
elections of 1993 (62.84), the Czechoslovak elections of 1992 (74.15), and the Bulgarian
election of 1991 (75.67). One problem with assessing the "psychological" effect of the
electoral system is that all of the countries examined (save for Hungary) have significantly
altered or overhauled their electoral rules since the first elections. In some cases (such as
Poland and Bulgaria) the introduction of such changes led to a significant increase in
deviation from proportionality. As a result, there has effectively been only one election in
each of these countries, making it virtually impossible to assess accurately the psychological
effect of the electoral system. Despite these limitations, however, one would expect that, in
those countries where the initial proportionality profiles were relatively high, the
ideologically driven element of the party would be advantaged over those who called for a
broadening of the party's electoral appeal.
Political Opportunities Another set of factors which may have an impact on the internal
balance of power within the ex-Communist party is related to political opportunities, that is,
the issues which the party can exploit. As Roskin astutely notes, two of the most important
issues around which the ideological spectrum polarizes in eastern Europe are the pace and
pain of economic reform. Indeed, the initial euphoria and admiration for rapid privatization
has begun to wain--"everyone wants prosperity on the West European market model. ...
they see the results but don't grasp what makes the thing work." 4 The economic rationale
for marketization (or allowing prices to find their own level) and privatization (turning
previously state or socially owned property over to private hands), as even their supporters
admit, can not be accomplished without some unfairness. To the average citizen (and voter)
privatization means that some new owners will benefit more than others. Further, selling
enterprises to foreign capitalists stirs anger that the country is being sold out to foreigners.
The potential for a popular political backlash against economic reform and the opportunities
these sentiments create for the ex-Communist parties are obvious. The ex-Communist
parties are perhaps best positioned to take advantage of worsening economic conditions.
Indeed, almost prophetically, the program of the Czechoslovak Communist Party (CPCS) in
1990 underlined this theme when it predicted that rapid economic reforms would inevitably
"generate sizable unemployment and result in huge property differentiation between
individuals and groups of the population. Inherent in it is the possibility that Czechoslovakia
will lose sovereignty over its national wealth, natural sources and economic activity, and
that cultural and national traditions will be lost as well."15
The temptation to take advantage of the worsening economic situation is an important
political pressure which affects the internal struggle within the party. The increasing
difficulties associated with economic reform in part vindicates those in the party who yearn
for the old ways and support those who desire a return to the party's role as the defender of
workers' rights.'6 In the internal clash with those who seek to abandon the past, worsening
economic conditions tend to favor those who view the past favorably and are far less willing
than the democratic reformers to compromise the party's ideological purity and to break
completely with the past.
152
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
John T. Ishivama
However, as Table 2 illustrates, the introduction of marketization and privatization has
had different effects on the economies of eastern Europe. Although all of the countries are
currently plagued with the problems associated with economic reform, the hardest hit in
terms of real GDP, inflation, and unemployment are Albania, the Baltic states, Bulgaria,
Slovakia, and Romania (although Albania showed some positive growth in 1993). In
contrast, the '"pain" of economic reform has not been as great in the Czech republic,
Hungary and Poland. The differing impact of marketization and privatization would suggest
that one should observe a move toward a leadership more intent on maintaining some
connection to the past in ex-Communist parties in the countries hit hardest by economic
reform.
In addition, in the world of postcommunist politics another opportunity has arisen:
engaging in what can be referred to as nationalist outbidding in ethnically divided societies.
In general, this outbidding can take two forms. On the one hand, the ex-Communist party
can act as the champion of the dominant group (as in the former Yugoslavia and recently in
Bulgaria); on the other, it can champion the interests of minority groups and, ironically, the
"human rights" of the "oppressed" group. This position can be particularly appealing to
groups who have suffered under economic and political reform (as in Slovakia) or who have
fallen from a previous position of privilege (as among the Russians in the Baltic states). In
either case, the appeal of wedding Communist ideology with ethnic particularism is
especially strong when such a strategy can be exploited for political gain.17 Moreover, under
the conditions of ethnic conflict there is a strong incentive to "close ranks" against an enemy
or "oppressor" and to use nationalism to expel the democratic reformists. This incentive can
be seen not only in the former Yugoslavia, but elsewhere as well. For example, in the
Communist Party of Latvia (CPL) standpatters under the leadership of Alfreds Rubiks (at
least until the August 1991 coup in the former USSR) used the "national card" to warn
Table 2 Indicators of Political Opportunities in Eastern Europe
Country Averagee Averagqe Average population titular %seats in parliament
Annual% Change Annual % change Annual % change Nationality controlled by lett
Real GDP Inflation Unemployment socialist competitors
1991-1993 1991-1993 1991-1993 1993
Albania -10.43 104.17 15.39 90.0 0.00
Bulgaria -6.43 129.00 13.43 83.5 0.00
Czecho-
aslovakia -12.20 35.00 6.70
(1991-1992)
Czech
Re public
(1993) 1.00 20.00 3.50 94.1 18.00
Slovakia -9.30 25.O00 13.80 86.7 0.00
(1993)
Estonia -12.50 436.53 10.00* 61.5 11.88
Rungary -6.10 27.50 10.66 91.6 0.00
Latvia -17.07 NA 6.00 51.8 13.00
(1993)
Lithuania -19.27 427.40 10.00 80.1 5.67
(1993)
Poland -.86 47.70 13.40 97.6 38.00
Rowania -11.10 134.50 7.30 89.1 17.07
*~stimated
Source: World Economic Outlook October 1993 Inttrnatonal Monetary Fundl 1993 World Fac~tbook.
153
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Comparative Politics January 1995
against the "national extermination" of non-Latvians as a pretext to seize control of much of
the party's resources, freeing it from "ideological double dealers.""
Table 2 illustrates the ethnic composition of each East European country. Poland and the
Czech republic are largely homogeneous, but there are large minority populations in all of
the other countries. In both Estonia and Latvia the minority population is extremely large.
This situation suggests that, in those countries where the opportunity exists for the
Communist party to capitalize on interethnic conflict, one would expect pressure towards
"'closing ranks."
The Structure of Competition A third environmental dimension which could conceivably
affect the balance of forces within the Communist parties is the structure of competition.
Indeed, for positive political theorists working on spatial models of electoral competition,
the presence of several parties may exert a "squeezing out" effect on political parties which
occupy the same ideological space. For example, Cox argues that if there are several
competitors crowding around a point on the ideological spectrum an incentive emerges for
one of the competitors to "defect" from this position."9 This "squeezing" effect is
particularly prevalent under a plurality electoral rule (although under other electoral rules it
also seems to apply) when a "crowding" of competitors leads to parties that seek to
differentiate themselves sharply in terms of policy platforms.21
The presence of significant leftist competition to the ex-Communist party (such as social
democratic or socialist parties) also would benefit those less inclined to compromise the
party's past because such an alternative noncommunist left promotes the defection of party
members who might otherwise support democratic reform. Indeed, the presence of
alternative noncommunist options provides an incentive for reformists to bolt to other
parties, especially if these parties have demonstrated an ability to compete effectively. This
defection of democratic reformers would tend to leave the ex-Communist party in the hands
of those less inclined to divorce the party from its Communist past.
The Empirical Record Based upon the data provided in Tables 1 and 2, a set of
theoretical expectations was generated as to the direction of the evolution of the struggle
among democratic reformers, liberals, and standpatters within the ex-Communist parties. In
Table 3 the environmental indicators, such as weighted presidential power score, index of
proportionality score, average percent change real GDP, and average annual inflation rate,
were ranked for each country from one to ten, where the value one was defined as producing
an environment which most promotes democratic reformists and ten as least. Then, the
values for each indicator were added together to produce a total score and ranking for each
country. Although this ordinal measure is admittedly crude, the rank order reported in Table
3 provides a basis for the generation of certain expectations derived from social, economic,
and political conditions.
From Table 3, Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic have environmental
characteristics that are most conducive for the promotion of the democratic reformers in the
ex-Communist parties. The next group includes Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Albania.
The countries where the environmental conditions are least advantageous for the democratic
reformers are the Baltic states. Thus, in the ex-Communist parties of the first group one
would expect the emergence of a democratic reformist leadership, whereas one would expect
154
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
John T. Ishiyama
Table 3 Country Rank According to Environmental Indicators
Country Presidential* Index of %change Average Average % %titular %*eats held Total Rank
Power score Pro- Real GDP Inflation Unemployuent nationality by other score
portlonality leftist patieas
Albania 6 10 5 5 9 4 1 40 7
OBlgeria 3 4 3 7 10 7 1 35 5
Republic 8 2 4 2 1 2 9 28 3
Slovakia 7 3 7 3 7 6 1 34 4
Estonia 9 5 8 9 5 9 6 46 9
Hungary 5 7 2 1 6 3 1 25 1
Latvia 10 9 9 8 3 10 7 56 10
Lithuania 4 8 10 10 2 8 5 47 8
Poland 1 1 1 4 8 1 10 26 2
Romania 2 6 6 6 4 5 8 37 6
* for the Presidential power score direct presidential elections were ranked first followed by the indirect
elections.
such a movement less in the second group. The situation in the Baltic states, the third group,
at least in terms of the environment, is least conducive to the emergence of a democratic
reformist leadership within the ex-Communist parties.
Table 4 illustrates the composition of the leadership of the ex-Communist parties for the
years 1990, 1991, and 1993, and Table 5 reports the parties' performance in the last two
elections. In evaluating the composition of the leadership of each of the ex-Communist
parties, the top positions in the party's official hierarchy were considered, and the political
affiliation of the individuals who held these positions was judged according to biographical
data and official pronouncements. 2
From Table 4 it is apparent that several cases do not conform to the theoretical
expectations derived from the above environmental conditions. In the first group, the
ex-Communist parties of Hungary and Poland fit the expectation that the democratic
reformers should hold sway. However, the case of the Czech Communist Party of Bohemia
and Moravia (CPBM) does not fit this expectation. In the second group, although three of
the four cases (Albania, Bulgaria, and Romania) seem to correspond to the theoretical
expectations posited above, Slovakia does not. In the Slovak Party of the Democratic Left
(PDL), the democratic reformists have held the top leadership positions since the party's
establishment in 1990, whereas liberals have predominated in the Albanian, Bulgarian, and
Romanian ex-Communist parties. Finally, in the third group (Lithuania, Estonia, and
Latvia), despite general similarities in terms of their social, economic, and political
environments, the evolution of each of the ex-Communist parties has been very different,
with the Lithuanian Democratic Labor Party (LDLP) led by democratic reformers, the
Estonian Democratic Labor Party (EDLP) led by liberals, and the Equality/Equal Rights
Party in Latvia led by standpatters.
Although the data in Table 4 suggest that reference to environmental conditions alone is not
sufficient to explain the patterns of ex-Communist party evolution, the claim that individual
dimensions may exert a powerful influence may still be valid. For example, in comparing
the evolution of the Czech and Slovak ex-Communist parties from 1990 to 1992, we find
identical political structures and a general similarity in the ethnopolitical environment in
both the Czech and Slovak republics, which would suggest some similarity in the evolution
of the Czech and Slovak ex-Communist parties. However, a better economic record in the
155
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Comparative Politics January 1995
Table 4 Leadership Composition of Ex-Communist Parties
Country Successor party Party Leadership (as of 1993) Predosinant group in leadership of party*
1990 1991 1993
Albania Party of Labor Chairman: Patos Nano liberal/ liberal liberal of Albania (PLA); vice Chairsmen: Spiro Deda atandpatter
Changed nasn to Ismail LLeshi
Socialist Party of Servet Pelluhbi
Albania (SPA) 10th Shkelqin Begari
Congress, June 1991
Bulgaria Bulgarian Chairman: Zhan Videnov liberal liberal liberal Commssunist Party; Andrel Lukanov
changed name to Aleksandur Lilov Bulgarian Yanaki Stoilov
Socialist Alexander Tosov
Party (8SP),
April, 1990
Czech
Republic Communist Chairman: Miroslav liberal democratic liberal
Party of Grabonicek /standpatter reformist
Bohemia and former chair: /liberal
Moravia (CPB) Jiri Svoboda (resignad
Founded March, June, 1993)
1990. Party split
In June, 1993.
Party of the*** Chairman: Josef ecl --- --- democratic
Democratic Lotar lndruch reformist
Left. Founded, Michal Kraus
June 1993.
Slovakia Party of the Chairman: Peter Weiss democratic democratic democratic
Democratic Left, reformist reformist reformist founded in 1990
Estonia Estonian Chairman: Vaino Valyas democratic liberal liberal Democratic Secretary: Jaak Soobik reformist
Labor Party, Hillar Eller /liberal
founded 1992
Hungary Hungarian Socialist Presidium President: democratic democratic democratic Party Gyula Horn reformiat reformist reformist
Rezrso Nyers
tsre Ssekerea
Zoltan Gal
Miklos Neaeth
Latvia Equality, Equal chairman: Alfreds Rubiks standpatter standpatter standpatter
Rights Party, Tatyana Zhdanok
founded February, Sergejs Disanis 1993.
Lithuania Lithuanian Algirdis Braauakas daemocratic democratic democratic
Democratic Labor (President of the Republic) reformist raformist reaformst
Party, founded Chairman: Justinas Karosas 1990.
Poland Social Democracy Chairan: Aleksandr democratic democratic demratic
of the Polish Kwaaniewoaki reformist reforsist reformist
Republic General Secretary:
(core of Lessek Hiller DemOocratic Left
Alliance)
Rosania National Salvation (de facto leader) ton llescu liberal liberal liberal
Front, founded Chairean: Oleviou Ghaeran (DNSF)
February 1990. Executive Chairman: Adrian Nastas&
Split in 1992 into
National Salvation
Front (Damocratic
Reformist) and Democratic National
Salvation Front
(Liberal),
DNSF, founded
Marchb-April 1992
* only parties having won seats are includd.
SCzech PDL split Efros CPI did not run in 1992 election.
Soureos: RFE/RL Roaarch ReNporta 1992-19941 Foreign Broadcast Inforsaton Report*--Eaatern Europa (FBIS-EE),
1990-1993.
Czech Republic suggests that the Czech ex-Communist party would be more likely to be
dominated by the democratic reformers. Of course, neither of these expectations was
supported. A key difference between the Czech and Slovak cases could be the existence of
stiff alternative socialist competition for the ex-Communists in the Czech Republic, which
was virtually absent in Slovakia.22
Yet, if one were to examine a different pairing of cases, controlling for political
156
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
John T. Ishiyama
Table 5 Political Performance of the Ex-Communist Parties in the Last Two Elections
Country Year %vote %seats rank political status (1993)
Albania 1991 56.17 67.6 1 primary opposition party (169)*
1992 25.00 27.1 2
(38)
Bulgaria 1990 47.10 52.8 1 part of governing coalition
(211)
1991 33.10 44.2 2
(106)
Czech
Republic 1990 13.32** 16.0 2 part of "Left Bloc" opposition
(32) coalition
1992 14.05** 17.5 2
(35)
Slovakia 1990 13.94** 14.6 3 part of government coalition
(22)
1992 14.70** 19.3 2
(29)
Estonia 1990 --- --- -
1992 1.60 0.0 7 minor party
Hungary 1990 10.90 8.5 4 opposition party
(33)
Latvia 1990 ---
1993 5.80 7.0 5 opposition party
(7)
Lithuania 1990 --- --- -
1992 42.61 51.8 1 government
(73) party
Poland 1991 11.98 13.0 2
(60)
1993 20.41 37.0 1 part of qovernment
(171) coalition
Romania 1990 66.31 68.0 1 pat of government coalition
(263)
1992 27.71 35.7 1
(117)
%seat for lowe 1 houeo. f parlia ent only. Number of seats won in parentheses.
elections E/Lto Cech and Rlovak National CouncilI)
Sourcea: RrE/RL Reaeaoch Reports 1992-19941 Foreign Broadcast Information Reports-- Eastern Europe (FBIS-EEU),
1990-1993.
opportunities and the structure of competition while allowing for variation in electoral
incentives, then a different conclusion could be drawn. For example, as the evolution of the
internal conflicts within the Estonian and Latvian Communist parties prior to the August
1991 coup in the former USSR indicates, the existence of different electoral rules altered the
initial course of the conflicts.23 At the moment of the transitional legislative elections of
March 1990, the balance of forces within both parties was quite similar, although the
democratic reformist element in the Estonian party held a slight advantage. However,
following the elections the relative success of the Estonian Communist Party (CPE) justified
and further bolstered the program of the democratic reformists and significantly weakened
the liberals.24 In contrast, the election was an unqualified disaster for the Communist Party
of Latvia (CPL) and subsequently led to the "takeover" of the central party leadership by
standpatters under Alfreds Rubiks, who declared the program advocated by the democratic
reformists "bankrupt."25
The point here is that, if one were to focus only on a limited set of comparative cases,
very different conclusions could be drawn as to what environmental condition most affected
157
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Comparative Politics January 1995
the internal struggles within the ex-Communist parties. Although this technique is perhaps
effective in explaining individual cases, it does not provide a sufficiently general explanation
for differences among the ex-Communist parties of the region.
Internal Factors
This brief review of the empirical evidence on the effects of the above three
"environmental" dimensions indicates that reference to the political environment alone does
not provide a sufficiently general explanation of the evolution of the eastern European
ex-Communist parties. An alternative explanation argues that the evolution of the party is
largely a product of a historical legacy coupled with the dynamics of particular kinds of
transitions.
Advocates of the "dynamic" approach to democratization have long argued that different
processes of democratic transition affect the composition of the principal actors, especially
the leaders of political parties, which in turn affects how parties respond to the
environmental pressures listed above.26 For instance, in his investigation of Spanish party
behavior Gunther found that the evolution of Spain's party system could not be interpreted
simply as a direct response to the incentives generated by the political environment. Rather,
the key factor which accounted for its behavior was the character of the party leadership at
the moment of the democratic transition.27
Thus, the way in which the intraparty leadership makes the transition affects the ability of
a party to deal with the politics of the new environment. The environment does not cause the
party to adapt; whether or not the party is able to adapt depends on the willingness of the
leadership to adapt.
From this perspective, the evolution of the leadership is a product of two related historical
factors: the long-term historical experiences of each party, particularly the degree to which
the party was compelled to reform and developed a tradition of intraparty pluralism, and the
particular features of each transition, especially the degree to which the transitional
intraparty struggle was resolved in favor of the democratic reformists.
The Historical Legacy The particular history of each Communist party affected whether
or not a tradition of tolerance and internal pluralism existed, which in turn affected the
strength of the democratic reformist impulse within the party during the transition period. In
Poland, for example, the Polish United Workers Party (PUWP) was originally a rather
artificial creation with few domestic roots. Hence throughout its history its legitimacy was
consistently challenged by the widespread perception that it represented an "alien" political
force imposed by the Soviet Union. The Communist parties of the Baltic states and the
Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party (HSWP) after 1956 were also perceived in this way. In
contrast, the Czechoslovak Communist Party had a longstanding tradition as a
"home-grown" Communist movement, although this image was seriously tarnished by the
events of 1968. Similarly, the Albanian and Romanian and to a lesser extent the Bulgarian
Communist parties had cultivated an image as "national-communist" parties, independent
from Moscow's direction.
The lack of domestic legitimacy resulted in a greater willingness on the part of the Polish
158
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
John T. Ishiyama
and Hungarian parties to engage in economic and political reform to "legitimize" party rule,
as compared to the Czechoslovak and Balkan Communist parties. The Estonian and
Lithuanian Communist parties were also more willing to pursue reforms but the Latvian
party was not, largely because of a large immigrant (non-Latvian) population which
accounted for nearly half of the republic's population and provided a large standpatter
constituency.
Thus, in the Polish and Hungarian Communist parties there emerged a historical tradition
of tolerance for some measure of intraparty political pluralism and moderate reform, a
tradition which was especially important in explaining the PUWP's and Hungarian Socialist
Workers' Party's greater willingness to accept the movement toward democratic reform.28 In
contrast, in Czechoslovakia and the Balkan states the Communist parties faced no real
imperatives to reform themselves, which tended to produce ideological conformity, as in
Czechoslovakia, or a personalist dictatorship in Communist guise, as in Romania under
Ceaucescu.29 As a result, in these parties no tradition of internal pluralism and political
tolerance emerged, nor in turn did a strong party constituency for democratic reform develop
as in Poland and Hungary. This situation was especially illustrated by the Czechoslovak
Communist Party, which prompted one observer to note as late as 1989 that there was no
perception in the party of a "desperate crisis making reform imperative at once," nor was
there a significant constituency in the party's apparatus that pushed the regime into more
"decisive action.'"30
The Dynamics of the Transition Beyond the general historical context, the degree to
which the intraparty struggle was resolved (or not resolved) in favor of the democratic
reformists during the transition period, around the time of the first elections, had a major
impact on the ability of the party to adapt successfully later. For the sake of brevity, three
cases that illustrate how different intraparty dynamics during the transitional phase affected
how the ex-Communist parties adapted themselves later are explored in this section. In the
Polish case, which is similar to the pattern exhibited in Hungary, Slovakia, and Lithuania,
the democratic reformists emerged victorious during the period of the transition, and
especially prior to the first truly competitive elections. In the Czech case the intraparty
struggle remained unresolved, which largely contributed to the difficulties the CPBM faced
in adapting to new political conditions. In the Bulgarian case, which is similar to the pattern
exhibited in Albania and to a lesser extent Romania, the liberals won; moreover, the political
environment continued to contribute to the dominance of the liberals in Bulgaria.
Poland In Poland, the results of the semicompetitive elections of 1989 proved disastrous
for the PUWP. In effect, the outcome of the elections paved the way for the dissolution of
the PUWP and the foundation of its successor, the Social Democracy of the Republic of
Poland (SDRP), by the democratic reformist wing of the PUWP in January 1990. The
leadership of the SDRP was made up of those who joined the PUWP only in the mid to late
1980s and included the current chair of the SDRP, Aleksander Kwasniewski, who had also
joined the PUWP in the mid 1980s. He at first held a number of minor positions in the
PUWP's youth wing but rose to prominence as the party's specialist on trade union pluralism
in the late 1980s. Both he and the current SDRP secretary general, Leszek Miller, were
159
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Comparative Politics January 1995
associated with the reform wing of the PUWP led by Mieczyslaw Rakowski, the PUWP's
last first secretary and Poland's last Communist prime minister.
Clearly, the current leadership of the SDRP is committed to divorcing the party from its
past and playing by the democratic rules of the game. Under Kwasniewski, the leadership
has successfully purged the standpatters from the party, reducing the "died-in-the-wool
communists [to] only a lunatic fringe."3' Further, the democratic leadership has been quite
flexible in its electoral appeal, drawing over new supporters with its campaign slogan for the
1993 election that "'things don't have to go on this way." The SDRP has also adopted a
democratic phraseology and has continually stressed its commitment to market-driven
economic reform. Kwasniewski himself has declared that his "strategic goal" as party leader
is to instill "proreform thinking" in the party "and its electorate."32
The fact that the SDRP has been able to purge and marginalize standpatters has provided
the party with a number of political advantages. First, the party has become a very attractive
coalition partner, so much so that the Union of Labor, descended from the Solidarity
Movement, sought coalition with the party, as did the Polish Peasant Party, following the
September 1993 election. Although ultimately the Union of Labor declined to enter into the
governmental coalition with the Peasants' Party and the SDRP, it has pledged to cooperate
with the government in parliament.33
Second, the party has demonstrated a remarkable flexibility in attracting to its ranks a
wide variety of different supporters. Indeed the Democratic Left Alliance (DLA), an
electoral coalition which the SDRP forged in 1991, represents the "pragmatic" politics of
the party's democratic reformist leadership. Although the DLA's rhetoric tends to be
oriented toward industrial workers, pensioners, and other "losers" in the transition, its
constituency includes many private businessmen. In Poland the DLA has been labeled a kind
of political "Noah's ark."''34
Third, under the direction of Kwasniewski and Miller the SDRP has apparently convinced
Polish voters that the party has divorced itself sufficiently from the Communist past to
become a credible political alternative. Indeed, as one observer notes, voters have been
"attracted by the conscious moderation and calm tone adopted by postcommunist leaders,"
making the SDRP and the DLA, "once regarded as little more than political corpses, .
now permanent features on the Polish political landscape."35
The Czech Republic In contrast, the transition in the Communist Party of Bohemia and
Moravia (CPBM) occurred at a moment when the intraparty conflict had not been resolved.
Indeed, even after the collapse of Communist rule the CPBM remained under the control of
standpatters grouped around then chairman Vasil Mohorita, who as late as October 7, 1990,
several months after the initial June elections, announced at a meeting of the CPBM that
"the period of National Understanding is over and a hard, uncompromising struggle
begins.'36
Tension between standpatters and democratic reformists ran high at the CPBM Olomuc
congress of October 13 and 14, 1990, with some observers predicting that the party
would split into two separate entities.37 Although the election of a new democratic
reformist leadership grouped around the former film director Jiri Svoboda, who became
the CPBM chair in fall 1990, seemed to herald the transformation of the party, the
160
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
John T. Ishiyama
democratic reformists have since been continually thwarted in their efforts to forge a new
social democratic identity for the party. For instance, the democratic reformists have thus
far been unable to change the party's name, largely because of the resistance posed by the
standpatters associated with the former CPCS presidium member Miroslav Stepan and the
former Communist minister of internal affairs Jaromir Obzina. Together they have formed
within the CPBM the "Platform for Socialism" whose declared aim is "to return to the
conditions before November 1989.1"38 The liberal wing under former federal CPCS
chairman Miroslav Grebenicek also opposes Svoboda,39 as well as the "For Socialism"
faction. 40
In addition to continued divisions within the party's leadership, the democratic reformists
face challenges from the party's rank and file. A poll taken at the time among party members
confirmed that 82 percent of those polled were opposed even to changing the party's name.41
Ultimately, Svoboda resigned the chairmanship on June 25, 1993, acknowledging that "his
views were no longer acceptable to the majority of party members."'42
However, the party congress of June 1993 also expelled the "For Socialism" faction, and
party leaders have emphasized that the expulsion of the standpatters demonstrated that the
CPBM did not seek to return to pre-1989 policies. Nonetheless, the expulsions and the
defection of the democratic reformists have seriously weakened the CPBM.
Because of these internal struggles, the party has been unable to convince either Czech
voters or other parties that it represents a credible political alternative. Although the party's
consistent polling of about 14 percent of the vote in both the June 1990 and 1992 elections
seemed to indicate that it had found a niche among a certain part of the population that was
most adversely affected by the economic reform program of the past two years, it appears
that the appeal of the CPBM even among this constituency has declined. Indeed, according
to an opinion poll conducted in mid May 1993, if an election had been held at that time the
CPBM would have received only 10 percent of the vote, whereas the noncommunist Czech
Social Democratic Party (CSDP) would have received 14 percent, an increase of 7.5 percent
compared to the vote it received in 1992. Further, the CPBM has been unable to convince
other parties that it is a credible coalition partner. For instance, the CSDP has explicitly
rejected the possibility of cooperating with the CPBM or even with any of its offshoots,
dashing the hopes of those Communists who hoped for a partnership with the Czech social
democrats.43
There are two reasons for this failure. First, the divisions within the party and its inability
to forge a coherent political identity have alienated voters. Second, other social democratic
competitors, in particular the CSDP under the leadership of Milos Zeman, have moved
further to the left and become more attractive to left-leaning voters; moreover, some former
CPBM members have entered the CSDP as individuals. So confident has the CSDP become
that Zeman has argued that the former Communists, even if they were to reform the party
and adopt a truly social democratic program, "would be superfluous, since there was only
room for one social democratic party in the country and that was the CSDP."44
Bulgaria The Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) represents the situation where the liberal
reformers, intent on expanding the party's appeal but unwilling to abandon the party's past,
essentially won the intraparty battles of the transition period.45 Moreover, the liberals
161
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Comparative Politics January 1995
continue to dominate the leadership group within the BSP, for several reasons. First, there
was little historic tradition in the Bulgarian Communist party of internal party pluralism,
unlike in Poland or Hungary. Second, there were few pressures emanating from the political
environment compelling the party to change. Third, the liberal leadership has effectively
used its political successes in the first elections to establish itself as the principal left-wing
political party, which in turn continues to justify the perpetuation of a liberal leadership.
The political transition in the BSP began with the Bulgarian Communist Party's "congress
of renewal" (the fourteenth party congress held on January 30-February 2, 1990) and
continued in 1991 at its thirty-ninth and fortieth congresses.46 Although the party formally
severed its ties with the past, purged former Zhivkov associates, and made formal
commitments to market transformation and democratic socialism, the party leadership has
remained in the hands of liberal "left-overs" from the Communist era. With the election of
Zhan Videnov, the youngest and least experienced chairman the BSP has ever had, in
December 1991, the liberals solidified their control over the party. Indeed, many have
viewed him as a front man for the BSP liberal kingpin, Alexander Lilov. The Bulgarian
press, for instance, has disparagingly referred to Videnov as "Zhan Lilov," a "Lilovist,"
and a "young Bolshevik" to underscore his connection with the liberal camp.47
Coupled with the emergence of a predominantly liberal leadership in the BSP has been the
marginalization of the democratic reformist wing of the party. Although several
representatives of the most prominent exponents of "radically" transforming the party-the
Alternative Socialist Association, Road to Europe, and Movement for Democratic Socialism
(DEMOS) factions-are represented in the party's supreme council, they have been
consistently defeated in their efforts to break completely with the party's past and appear to
have only a limited influence over party policy formation. Their weakness is due to the
rather informal and divided organization of the democratic reformists within the BSP,
although in 1992 these factions coalesced in the Association for Social Democracy faction
(ASD). Further, the democratic reformists appear to be relatively weak among the party's
rank and file, evidenced by the overwhelming majorities which consistently rejected
proposals for radical change and voted against most of the figures associated with reform
factions in the party at the thirty-ninth and fortieth congresses. One fact that clearly emerged
was that such groups as the Road to Europe and the Alternative Socialist Association, which
received a great deal of media attention, were composed almost exclusively of Sofia
intellectuals with little following in the provincial party apparatus.48
Despite large differences between the liberals and the democratic reformists within the
BSP over several key issues, the democratic reformists appear reluctant to separate from the
BSP, preferring to attempt to reform the party from within. However, this reluctance has not
prevented leaders of the ASD to warn of a growing "re-Bolshevization" of the BSP
leadership and the growth of a "certain nationalistic deviation" in the party as a whole."49
The future of the ASD within the BSP is highly problematic. As one observer notes, it will
depend on whether the democratic reformists continue to be "content with bolstering the
party's standing while at the same time having only limited influence over policy
formation. "50
The liberal party leadership of the BSP, unlike the democratic reformist leadership in the
Polish, Hungarian, Slovakian, and Lithuanian ex-Communist parties, has predictably not
attempted to broaden its political base. Although the party formed an electoral coalition in
162
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
John T. Ishiyama
1991 with eight other tiny parties, these coalition partners for the most part were silent
during the campaign and occupied only a few positions on the BSP election list. Further,
although the party has at times formed a legislative coalition of convenience with the
Turkish Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF, Bulgaria's third largest party,
cooperation between the two has been for the most part uneasy. This uneasiness is due in
part to the BSP's past support of extreme nationalists, particularly in 1991 and 1992, and the
BSP's opposition to the decision to allow the MRF to compete in the 1991 elections.5'
There are several reasons why the BSP has followed neither the Polish and Hungarian
road to adaptation nor the Czech refusal to adapt. The Bulgarian political environment has
not exerted as great a pressure to adapt in the direction of a democratic reformist party as in
Poland and Hungary. Unlike the ex-Communists in Poland, the BSP was relatively
successful in the first elections, garnishing 106 of the 240 parliamentary seats in 1991, and
has done increasingly well in public opinion polls since then, thus further legitimizing liberal
rule in the BSP.52 Moreover, unlike the cases of the SDRP and the Czech ex-Communist
party, the Bulgarian Socialist Party has not had to contend with other left-wing alternatives;
it has therefore had little incentive to alter its position on the political spectrum, while at the
same time groups like the ASD have been prevented from defecting from the party's ranks.
As a result, the BSP has remained a relatively cohesive and powerful political force which
will continue to have a significant impact on the course of Bulgarian politics for the
foreseeable future.
Discussion and Conclusions
In reviewing the empirical evidence thus far, it is clear that reference to environmental
factors alone does not sufficiently explain the evolution of the ex-Communist parties during
the course of democratic transition and consolidation. It would be wrong to say that
environmental pressures played no role in intraparty conflicts. Indeed, environmental
conditions created the context to which the ex-Communist parties have had to adapt.
However, the political environment did not cause the ex-Communist parties to adapt.
Rather, their ability to adapt to particular political circumstances was due largely to the
dynamics of the transition period. For instance, the collapse of Communist rule led to the
emergence of a democratic reformist leadership in the SDRP which could adapt and thrive in
the political conditions of postcommunist Poland. By fostering a new image for the party
and by being flexible in forming political coalitions, the SDRP represents a model of a
"successful" ex-Communist party. In contrast, the Czech ex-Communist party has proven to
be unable to adapt, largely because of the persistence of intraparty conflicts among
standpatters, liberals, and democratic reformists. The party has been unable to shed its
tarnished past, leaving it politically isolated and in decline.
In Bulgaria, the BSP, like the SDRP in Poland, has adapted "successfully." However, its
adaptation has not followed the same process as in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and
Lithuania. The liberals in Bulgaria rather than the democratic reformists won the transitional
intraparty struggle. However, in contrast to the CPBM, their victory has led, not to the
decline of the BSP, but rather to its success, largely because the political environment has
not compelled the party to shed its connection with the past. For example, the absence of
strong left-wing competitors has certainly helped to prevent an exodus of democratic
163
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Comparative Politics January 1995
reformists from the BSP, forestalling the fragmentation that has characterized the CPBM.
Further, electoral success has strengthened liberals in the party, rather than standpatters or
democratic reformists.
These observations suggest that the evolution of the ex-Communist parties is a product of
the interaction of the dynamics of intraparty struggle during the democratic transition with
the political environment which these parties face. Indeed, like ships which set out from
port, the future evolution of the ex-Communist parties depends heavily on their ability to
adapt to adverse conditions. Some are designed well and float; others are designed poorly
and sink. However, whether they float or sink also depends on the conditions they
face-rough seas for some, calm for others. Yet, unlike ships, the ex-Communist parties
will also affect the seas upon which they travel. Indeed, whether they play a constructive or
destructive role in further democratization depends heavily on how their internal
metamorphoses are ultimately resolved.
NOTES
The author would like to thank Brian D. Silver, Marijke Breuning, and Jonathan E. Monroe for their invaluable
assistance in preparing this manuscript.
1. Samuel Huntington, "How Do Countries Democratize?," Political Science Quarterly. 56 (Winter 1991-1992).
2. See Giovanni Sartori, "European Political Parties: The Case of Polarized Pluralism," in Joseph LaPalombara and
Myron Weiner, eds., Political Parties and Political Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), pp.
143-144: S. M. Lipset and Stein Rokkan "Cleavage Structures, Party Systems and Voter Alignments: An
Introduction," in Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan, eds., Parry Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National
Perspectives (New York: Free Press, 1967), p. 4.
3. See Otto Kirchheimer, "The Transformation of the Western European Party Systems," in LaPalombara and
Weiner, eds.
4. Joseph A. Schlesinger, "On the Theory of Party Organization," The Journal of Politics, 46 (Fall 1984).
5. See Donald Share and Scott Mainwaring," "Transitions through Transaction: Democratization in Brazil and
Spain," in Wayne A. Selcher, ed., Political Liberalization in Brazil: Dynamics, Dilemmas and Future Prospects
(Boulder: Westview Press, 1986); Juan J. Linz, "Crisis, Breakdown and Reequilibration," in Juan J. Linz and Alfred
Stepan, eds., The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978);
Dankwart A. Rustow, "Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model," Comparative Politics, 2 (April 1970),
337-363.
6. Huntington, pp. 588-589.
7. See Milada Anna Vachudova, "Divisions in the Czech Communist Party," RFE/RL Research Report, 2
(September 17, 1993), 28-33.
8. See Kjell Engelbrekt and Rada Nikolaev, "Bulgaria: Socialist Party Elects New Leader," RFE/RL Research
Report, 1 (January 17, 1992), 30.
9. Juan J. Linz, "The Perils of Presidentialism," Journal of Democracy, I (Winter 1990).
10. Matthew Sobert Shugart and John M. Carey, Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral
Dynamics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 223.
11. On the political consequences of electoral laws, see Maurice Duverger, "What Is the Best Electoral System?,"
in Arend Lijphart and Bernard Grofman, eds., Choosing an Electoral System: Issues and Alternatives (New York:
Praeger, 1984); Maurice Duverger, Political Parties (New York: Wiley, 1954); Douglas Rae, The Political
Consequences of Electoral Laws (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967). On the effects of electoral laws on party
organization, see especially Schlesinger; also, Angelo Panebianco, Political Parties: Organization and Power
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
12. Not all proportional representation systems produce "ideologized" parties. For example, the single transferable
vote system (STV) employed in Ireland and Malta and in the Estonian transitional election of 1990 tends to localize
and personalize politics. In Ireland it has resulted in internally diverse political parties and the dominance of the
164
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
John T. Ishiyama
electoral component of the major Irish parties. For a description of STV and its effects, see R. S. Katz, A Theory of
Parties and Electoral Systems (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980).
13. The index of proportionality and its complement D are most often used to measure the Duverger "mechanical
effect" of electoral rules, which refers to the tendency of certain electoral systems to reward larger parties and penalize
smaller ones. However, one of the key weaknesses of this measure is its sensitivity to the number of parties competing.
Nonetheless, these measures are most commonly used and will be employed here. See Richard Rose, "Electoral
Systems: A Question of Degree or Principle?," in Lijphart and Grofman, eds., pp. 73-83; Rein Taagepera and
Matthew Shugart, Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1989), pp. 260-263.
14. Michael G. Roskin, "The Emerging Party Systems of Central and Eastern Europe," East European Quarterly,
27 (March 1993), 58.
15. CTK, November 4, 1990, in Foreign Broadcast Information Service-Eastern Europe (FBIS-EEU), Nov. 5,
1990, p. 22.
16. The expectation that the party would benefit from economic difficulties was expressed, for example, at a meeting
of the central committee of the CPCS, when during a discussion centered around "winning the people's trust" one
unidentified speaker proclaimed: "Let us not reckon, for example, that when the workers find themselves in
difficulties, they will not be drawn to the Communist Party." Rude Pravo, Sept. 3, 1990, pp. 1-2, in FBIS-EEU Sept.
11, 1990, p. 12.
17. Donald L. Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), pp. 303-304.
18. Statement reported in Moscow TASS, Dec. 1, 1990, in Foreign Broadcast Information Service-Soviet Union
(FBIS-SOV), Sept. 10, 1990.
19. Gary W. Cox, "Electoral Equilibrium under Alternative Voting Institutions," American Journal of Political
Science, 31 (February 1987), 82-108.
20. Ibid.
21. These data were taken primarily from English-language sources, particularly RFE/RL Research Reports,
1992-1994, FBIS-EEU Daily Reports, 1990-1993, FBIS-Soviet Union, 1990-1991, and FBIS-Central Eurasia Daily
Reports, 1992-1993.
22. Jan Obrman "Czech Opposition Parties in Disarray," RFE/RL Research Report, 2 (April 16, 1993), 1-5; Sharon
Fisher, "Is Slovakia Headed for New Elections?," RFE/RL Research Report, 2 (August 13, 1993); Jiri Pehe,
"Czechoslovakia's Changing Political Spectrum," RFE/RL Research Report, 1 (January 31, 1992).
23. In the Baltic states there were considerable differences in the kinds of electoral rules employed. In Latvia
traditional Soviet rules (absolute majority in one seat districts) were used, whereas in Estonia the single transferable
vote system was employed for the 1990 supreme council elections. The single transferable vote system is a variation
of proportional representation.
24. See John T. Ishiyama, "Founding Elections and the Development of Transitional Parties: The Cases of Estonia
and Latvia, 1990-1992," Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 26 (September 1993).
25. Ibid.
26. See Rustow, p. 355; Linz; Huntington, pp. 583-585. See also Guillermo O'Donnell and Philippe C. Schmitter,
"Convoking Elections (and Provoking Parties)," in Guillermo O'Donnell, Philippe C. Schmitter, and Laurence
Whitehead, eds., Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Prospects for Democracy, vol. 4 (Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1986), p. 8.
27. Richard Gunther, "Electoral Laws, Party Systems and Elites: The Case of Spain," American Political Science
Review, 83 (September 1989), 845.
28. Karen Dawisha, Eastern Europe, Gorbachev, and Reform: The Great Challenge, 2nd ed. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990), ch. 5.
29. See Vojtech Mastny, "Eastern Europe and the West in Perspective of Time," Sarah Meiklejohn Terry, "The
Future of Poland: Perestroika or Perpetual Crisis?," and Charles Gati, "Reforming Communist Systems: Lessons from
the Hungarian Experience," all in William E. Griffith, ed., Central and Eastern Europe: The Opening Curtain
(Boulder: Westview Press, 1989).
30. H. Gordon Skilling, "Czechoslovakia between East and West," in Griffith, ed., pp. 259-261.
31. Louisa Vinton, "Pawlak and Kwasniewski: How 'Postcommunist' Are They?," RFE/RL Research Report, 2
(October 29, 1993), 29.
32. Gazeta Wyborcza, Mar. 3, 1994, quoted in Louisa Vinton, "Power Shifts in Poland's Ruling Coalition,"
RFE/RL Research Report, 3 (March 18, 1994), 14.
165
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Comparative Politics January 1995
33. Anna Sabbat-Swidlicka, "Pawlak to Head Poland's 'Postcommunist' Government," RFE/RL Research Report, 2
(October 29, 1993), 26-27.
34. Louisa Vinton, "Poland Goes Left." RFE/RL Research Report, 2 (October 8, 1993). 22.
35. Ibid., pp. 22-23.
36. CTK, Oct. 7. 1990.
37. Jiri Pehe, "Changes in the Communist Party," Report on Eastern Europe, 48 (November 30, 1990).
38. Jan Obrman, "Czech Opposition Parties in Dissarray," RFE/RL Research Report, 2 (April 16, 1993), 2.
39. Ibid.
40. Milada Anna Vachudova, "Divisions in the Czech Communist Party," RFE/RL Research Report, 2 (September
17. 1993), 30-32.
41. Obrman, pp. 1-5.
42. Vachudova, p. 31.
43. Ibid., pp. 28-30.
44. Ibid., p. 31.
45. Kjell Engelbrekt, "Bulgaria's Communists: Coming or Going?," RFE/RL Research Report, 2 (May 21, 1993).
46. With the change of the party's name from the Bulgarian Communist party to the Bulgarian Socialist Party party
congresses were also renumbered to represent the party's continuity with the precommunist Bulgarian Socialist Party.
47. Kjell Engelbrekt and Rada Nikolaev, "Bulgaria: Socialist Party Elects New Leader," RFE/RL Research Report,
I (January, 1992), 29.
48. Englebrekt, pp. 40-41.
49. Quoted in ibid., p. 41.
50. Ibid.
51. See National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and International Republican Institute, The October
13, 1991 Legislative and Municipal Elections in Bulgaria (Washington, D.C.: National Democratic Institute for
International Affairs, 1992), pp. 25-26.
52. Engelbrekt, p. 37.
166
This content downloaded from 129.120.246.11 on Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:40:04 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions