Political Preferences and Party Development in Post-Communist States: A New Approach with an Illustration of the Russian Case

By Myth, Regina | Demokratizatsiya, Spring 2012 | Go to article overview

Political Preferences and Party Development in Post-Communist States: A New Approach with an Illustration of the Russian Case


Myth, Regina, Demokratizatsiya


Abstract: In the wake of the collapse of communist regimes between 1989 and 1991, political scientists turned their attention to explaining the variation in the development of political parties and party systems as a means of exploring the variation in regime outcomes. These efforts waned as parties and other representative institutions appeared to be weak and unrelated to patterns of democratic consolidation, backsliding, or a return to authoritarian rule. This article summarizes the progress scholars made in exploring both party and party system development and the link between those developments and regime outcomes and suggests a way forward that highlights the role that parties might play in linking voters and government through their impact on legislative decision-making.

Political party formation emerged as a core element of theories of democratization developed to describe the third and fourth waves of transitions from authoritarian rule. In the first decade of post-Communist cases, party development became a central focus of research. (1) However, despite both the diverse approaches and sheer volume of work focused on party development, scholarly analyses got bogged down in attempts to understand the mechanisms that drive political party and party system consolidation in new democratic regimes. As a result, students of democratization missed a unique opportunity to clarify the common mechanisms that link partisan development to regime outcomes, including the nature of state-society relations.

As theoretical development stalled, and parties seemingly became marginal for governance, students of party politics adopted new research agendas. The dense cluster of party-based studies conducted in the 1990s gave way to a much more limited set of studies in the next decade. Yet, during this period, party organizations continued to evolve across the region while the relationship between party development (or the lack of party development) and regime outcomes became more evident. The variation in outcomes over this period is remarkable. In East Europe, there was a rise of moderate right parties rooted in nationalist appeals that reshaped the political landscape and a move toward consolidated systems in some states. (2) In 1999, the partisan chaos in Russia gave way to a hegemonic organization, United Russia, an organization that evolved over time. (3) In other states, such as Moldova and Latvia parties systems remained inchoate while in Estonia and Lithuania there were movements toward consolidation by the mid-2000s. Viewed through a longer lens, these developments in parties and party systems map to the variation in regime outcomes--or the level of democratic consolidation--achieved by individual states since the collapse of communist authoritarianism.

Arguably, scholars abandoned the study of parties just as parties became more important political players, shaping both variation in the trajectory of democratic consolidation and variation in the nature of statesociety relations across the region. Moreover, the study of parties in the post-Communist context failed to address critical questions defined in the broader literature: how different preference structures influence party development, how elites tap into mass sentiment to define clear policy agendas, and whether or not parties that embody alternative linkage structures can evolve into accountable and responsible representative institutions.

This article draws on both intellectual history and the intersection between party development theory and democratic consolidation theory to reconsider why the institutional approach promulgated to study party development in the 1990s fizzled. I argue that in adapting an institutional framework to understand post-communist outcomes, scholars generally failed to accurately assess both the importance and variation in preference structures across these cases. In other words, we failed to understand what voters, politicians, and social actors wanted from their new regimes and how parties come to aggregate individual preferences in order to achieve those goals. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Political Preferences and Party Development in Post-Communist States: A New Approach with an Illustration of the Russian Case
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.