Suchergebnisse

This paper focuses on the political evolution and behavior of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) from 1991 to 1995. In particular, it addresses two questions. What has the KPRF done to adjust to new political circumstances? Was the `strategy' successful and did it explain KPRF electoral gains in the parliamentary elections of 1995? The paper concentrates on one aspect of this adjustment process - comparing the KPRF's candidate recruitment behavior for the State Duma elections of 1993 and 1995. However, rather than describe what the party has done in terms of candidate recruitment, I derive a set of theoretical expectations from both the general literature on party behavior in the West and in Eastern Europe, and analyze the candidate recruitment behavior of the KPRF as an empirical test of these expectations. Second, this paper assesses the extent to which the types of candidates the party recruited for the single-mandate districts in 1995 affected the probability of their winning election.

Abstract.In postcommunist politics many of the 'new national right' political formations in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have joined forces with the communist successor parties. Such a combination is, on the surface, a baffling mixture; how is it possible that two fundamentally different ideological approaches (nationalism and internationalist socialism) can coexist and actively cooperate to form such a potent political force? What are the conditions under which such political cooperation emerges?This article attempts to answer the above questions by, first, empirically testing the effects of several factors which might explain postcommunist–nationalist political cooperation. Second, the quantitative analysis is buttressed with a comparison of the Hungarian and Russian cases. The analysis indicates that the most important variable associated with the emergence of postcommunist–nationalist political cooperation is the effect of previous regime type.

This article focuses on the development and "success" of the ex-communist parties in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. It begins by testing the effects of several commonly cited variables that have been employed to explain the development and achievements of the ex-communist parties in post-communist politics. Second, it offers an alternative explanation that focuses on regime type, the presence of left-wing competitors, and the success of the ex-communist parties, and identifies three modal patterns of development: ex-communist parties that emerged from patrimonial communist systems (as in Russia and Bulgaria), ex-communist parties that emerged from national consensus systems (as in Hungary and Poland), and ex-communist parties that emerged from bureaucratic authoritarian systems (as in the Czech Republic). According to the author, ex-communist parties that evolved from national consensus regimes are more likely to survive the passage of time than those that emerged from other types of regimes.

Der Autor untersucht die Gründe für das Entstehen unterschiedlicher Wahlsysteme in den postkommunistischen Ländern Osteuropas und argumentiert, daß die Art des jeweiligen demokratischen Wahlsystems im Wesentlichen davon abhing, wer zu dem Zeitpunkt der Systemtransformation die Regierungsmacht innehatte und ob die Kommunistische Partei und die Oppositionsführer in den jeweiligen Ländern sich selbst als Regierungspartei betrachteten oder eher als Massenbewegung.(SWP-Drh)

Development and success of formerly communist parties in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Case studies illustrate parties emerging from patrimonial communist systems, national consensus systems, and bureaucratic authoritarian systems.