ПАРТІЙНА СИСТЕМА РЕСПУБЛІКИ КІПР У ПЕРІОД ПІДГОТОВКИ ДО ВСТУПУ В ЄС ТА ЧЛЕНСТВА В ОРГАНІЗАЦІЇ

The modern world of policy is characterized by existence of the most various political systems. In this regard, it is appropriate to remind of classification of party systems of Dzhiovanio Sartori. In this classification first of all, a multi-party system with a dominant party draws attention. This system attracted our attention due to the fact that it is characteristic to many countries. Sartori distinguishes 3 modification of a multiparty system with a dominant party. He writes about a predominant party system, a dominant party system and an authoritarian dominant system [1, p. 260-261]. It should be noted that, in Dzh. Sartori opinion, these systems significantly different from each other. However, Sartori was able to reveal similarities. A convincing illustration of this fact is the process of formation of multi-party system in the former Soviet space. This will be illustrated below later. Number of researchers believe that the «one-party system derives its strength from the struggle with imperial, conservative and traditional forms of power. In modernizing societies multiparty systems are weak» [2, p. 419]. It should be noted that, regardless the form of domination, all the dominant party systems have similarities. This is because, these party systems decide essence common challenges. One of the such feature is the spread of patronage and orientations of cash bonds. The second feature is that the dominant parties often act as a center party. This creates more opportunities for ideological maneuvering. However, the dominant parties of different systems also have differences. The most important difference is the methods of dealing with political opponents. The predominant and dominant party systems prevail legitimate democratic mechanisms, like competition of authoritarian ideologies of dominant systems, which leads to a very tough fight. The second difference is, being the ruling party, the dominant party determines the structure of the executive branch. In the dominant authoritarian systems, as a rule, parties serve to enhance the influence of a small group. The third difference is that, in predominant party and dominant systems parties are usually used for the modernization political relationships. In authoritarian systems the dominant ruling party often use non-democratic practices and procedures to maintain the dominance of the ruling group. As stated above, we have paid so much attention to the multi-party dominant party because the party system functioning in the post-Soviet space are mostly the dominant party systems of various modifications. This conclusion is strongly supported by concrete analysis of the formation of parties and party systems in some countries of the former Soviet Union.

Introduction The roots of the Lithuanian party system can be traced back to the Lithuanian ‘Singing revolution’ of 1988-1991. The longstanding monopoly of the Lithuanian Communist Party was broken in 1988 when the Lithuanian liberation movement Sąjūdis was formed. It was a broad umbrella-type organization which played a crucial role in the process of democratic transformation in Lithuania and which later gave birth to several influential Lithuanian parties. The main ideological adversary of Sąjūdis was the Lithuanian Communist Party (later transformed into the Lithuanian Democratic Labour Party), even though the positions of the two forces were quite similar regarding some issues. During the first free elections in 1990 both Sąjūdis and the Lithuanian Communist Party were in favour of more political and economic sovereignty for Lithuania. The position of Sąjūdis, however, was much more determined than that of the Communist Party. After the declaration of independence on 11 March 1990, the main division between the two political forces was regarding the question of the speed at which economic and political reforms should be introduced, and relations with Russia. The Lithuanian Communist Party advocated a step-by-step reform policy and good relations with Russia, while Sąjūdis aimed at forcing events and increasing political and economic distance between Lithuania and the former Soviet Union. Before the early parliamentary elections of 1992, Sąjūdis began disintegrating as some of its activists created their own parties. The bigger party, led by Vytautas Landsbergis, the main architect of Lithuanian independence, continued to exist under the label of Sąjūdis, and later transformed into the Homeland Union (Lithuanian Conservatives). Although the party lost the elections, a two-block structure of the party system was maintained with the ex-communist Labour Democrats on the left of the party spectrum and the Homeland Union (Lithuanian Conservatives) on the right. The other two parliamentary parties with a much smaller share of seats were the Lithuanian Christian Democrats on the right and the Lithuanian Social Democrats on the left. This simple structure of the Lithuanianparty system continued to exist after the 1996 elections and this relative stability allowed some scholars to conclude that the process of structuring the Lithuanian party system was over (see Žeruolis, 1998). Even though electoral volatility was quite high in comparison with Western European countries, low fragmentation and a bipolar pattern of party competition remained irrespective of somewhat successful attempts of the Centre Union to change the dominant conflict axis by forming a ‘third force’. The parliamentary elections of 2000, however, destroyed that apparent stability as two new players – the New Union (Social Liberals) and the Lithuanian Liberal Union – emerged on the political scene, expelling the Christian Democrats and the Centre Union from the political game. As it appeared later, this was only the beginning of the decay of the ‘traditional parties’. Despite the growth of the economy and the consolidation efforts of the main parliamentary parties (especially the merger of the Labour Democrats and Social Democrats), turmoil in the Lithuanian party system has been increasing as the elections to the European Parliament (EP) and the parliamentary elections of October 2004 have demonstrated. Three new parties managed to cross the threshold and win seats in the European Parliament and in the new parliament, including the Labour Party, which was founded only eight months before the European Parliament elections. The Labour Party, led by a businessman of Russian origin, was able to win about 30 per cent of the votes in the European Parliament elections and 28 per cent of the votes in the subsequent national parliamentary elections. Recent elections have revealed that the Lithuanian party system is undergoing a dramatic structural change, as ex-communist and ex-Sąjūdis parties have lost their dominant positions, party system fragmentation is increasing and electoral volatility is growing with every election. Therefore, the development of the Lithuanian party system must be divided into two stages: (1) formation of the party system in 1989-1998, and (2) destabilization of the party system, apparent since 2000. Consequently, the intention is not only to describe the development and characteristics of the Lithuanian party system, but also to analyse the destabilization of the Lithuanian party system in the last consecutive elections. The Formation of the Lithuanian Party System The first parties (apart from the Lithuanian Communist Party) emerged in postSoviet Lithuania in 1989. Most of theses new organizations claimed to be the descendants of pre-war Lithuanian parties (e.g., Social Democrats and Christian Democrats). In fact, however, the continuity is only symbolic because the leaders, the organization and the electorate of the parties have changed beyond recognition. The first free elections to the Supreme Soviet of Lithuania in 1990 were dominated by Sąjūdis and the Lithuanian Communist Party. Most candidates of new parties, as well as some reform-orientated Communist Party members and independents, were supported by the Sąjūdis. In the elections, Sąjūdis candidates won theabsolute majority and formed the government. Soon after the declaration of independence, the huge economic problems of the country and internal political disagreements disrupted the unity of the Sąjūdis and the Supreme Soviet. This invoked the second wave of creating parties, mainly on the basis of parliamentary groups. Finally, the fragmentation of the Supreme Soviet had become so high that it had to dissolve itself and to declare early elections. Before the elections, an agreement on a new Constitution and a new electoral law was reached among the main political forces. As a compromise, a semipresidential institutional design with a directly elected, though rather weak president, was adopted. Furthermore, a mixed electoral system combining singlemember districts and multi-member districts was introduced. Under the law, 71 members of the Seimas (the parliament of Lithuania) are elected in single-member districts by a majority system and 70 members are elected by proportional representation. This kind of a mixed system was in fact favourable to the largest parties, as was the national threshold of 4 per cent, which was later increased to five.1 The parliamentary elections of 1992 and the presidential elections of 1993 were successful for the ex-communist Lithuanian Democratic Labour Party (LDDP). By gaining about 43 per cent of the votes in multi-member districts, the LDDP won the absolute majority of seats in parliament (see Table 4.1) and could form a single-party government. Moreover, the leader of the party, Algirdas Brazauskas, won the presidential elections. Sąjūdis (later reorganised into the Homeland Union/Lithuanian Conservatives) remained the second largest party in the parliament, despite the defeat, and returned to power in 1996 by winning 70 seats in the parliament. Rather than forming a single-party government, the Conservatives created a governing coalition with the Christian Democrats, often regarded as the ‘younger sister’ of the Homeland Union. The Democratic Labour Party and Social Democrats formed a leftist opposition, while the Centre Union put itself in a vague position vis-a-vis the government. Destabilization of the Party System after 2000 The parliamentary elections of 2000 were a turning point in the development of Lithuania’s party system. The combined number of seats of the Homeland Union and the Democratic Labour Party decreased from 72.5 in 1992 to 42.6 in 2000 (Jurkynas, 2003), while the newcomers, the New Union (Social Liberals) and the Liberal Union, received almost 45 per cent of the seats in parliament. Moreover, the Lithuanian Christian Democratic Party and the Centre Union failed to cross the threshold and get seats in the multi-member districts.

The chapter propose to consider contemporary process of European integration as a stage of a longer socio-political process that was initiated with the cultural change that took place during the Enlightenment. This process is determined in its substance by the intellectual categories underpinning modern intellectual culture. Today they inspire transgressive postmodern development of the culture. The chapter describes the way in which, implementation of this modern intellectual agenda predetermines trajectory of political development resulting in contemporary European integration. At first it demonstrates the way in which the agenda was aimed at the reconstruction of premodern society and resulted in the emergence of the modern nation-state. However, the modern state by no means appeared to be the accomplishment of this process. Instead, it has been continuing and contemporary achieved its new transgressive stage resulting in creation of postmodern supranational political structures gradually dominating over the modern nation-states. The chapter identifies striking similarities between the process of the formation of modern nation states and the contemporary formation of the postmodern supra-national state. It analyses process of European integration demonstrating the quest towards providing EU with the autonomous democratic legitimacy. Subsequently, this would allow to marginalise member states and the principle of conferral granting EU in the future with the unconstrained power to legislate. Advancement of this tendency is demonstrated in the European Parliament’s proposal for the amendment of the EU Treaties as adopted in November 2023. The chapter propose to consider contemporary process of European integration as a stage of a longer socio-political process that was initiated with the cultural change that took place during the Enlightenment. This process is determined in its substance by the intellectual categories underpinning modern intellectual culture. Today they inspire transgressive postmodern development of the culture. The chapter describes the way in which, implementation of this modern intellectual agenda predetermines trajectory of political development resulting in contemporary European integration. At first it demonstrates the way in which the agenda was aimed at the reconstruction of premodern society and resulted in the emergence of the modern nation-state. However, the modern state by no means appeared to be the accomplishment of this process. Instead, it has been continuing and contemporary achieved its new transgressive stage resulting in creation of postmodern supranational political structures gradually dominating over the modern nation-states. The chapter identifies striking similarities between the process of the formation of modern nation states and the contemporary formation of the postmodern supra-national state. It analyses process of European integration demonstrating the quest towards providing EU with the autonomous democratic legitimacy. Subsequently, this would allow to marginalise member states and the principle of conferral granting EU in the future with the unconstrained power to legislate. Advancement of this tendency is demonstrated in the European Parliament’s proposal for the amendment of the EU Treaties as adopted in November 2023.

Constitutionally, the system of government chosen by the Indonesian nation is a presidential system of government with a multi- party system. This kind of government system makes the President shackled by political parties when he wants to form a cabinet which is actually his prerogative. Related to this, this article discusses the problem of how the zaken map of the multi-party presidential system in the perspective of scientific expertise or scientific approach/expertise approach can be carried out side by side with the interests of coalition political parties in Indonesia. By using normative juridical analysis, it is concluded that the zaken map of the multi-party presidential system in the perspective of scientific expertise or scientific approach/expertise approach can be carried out side by side with the interests of coalition political parties in Indonesia with a minimum ratio of 32.35% (thirty-two point thirty-five percent). ) filled in by experts/professionals and the rest can be handed over to the political party supporting the president/vice president as a manifestation of “rewarding politics”

The German party system has changed since the 1980s. The relatively stable ‘two-and-a-half party’ system of the 1960s and 1970s has become a fluid five-party system. This development can generally be attributed to changes on the demand and supply sides of party competition and to the changing institutional framework. The European integration process is part of this institutional framework and this chapter deals with the question of whether it has influenced the development of the party system at the national level. To systematically analyse the possible impact, eight party-system properties are distinguished: format, fragmentation, asymmetry, volatility, polarization, legitimacy, segmentation, and coalition stability. The analysis shows that one cannot speak of a Europeanization of the German party system in the sense of a considerable impact of the European integration process on its development. Up to now, the inclusion of Germany in the systemic context of the EU has not led to noticeable changes of party-system properties. On the demand side of party competition, this is due to the fact that the EU issue does not influence the citizens' electoral decisions. On the supply side, the lack of Europeanization can be explained mainly by the traditional, interest-based pro-European élite consensus, the low potential for political mobilization around European integration, and the marginal role of ethnocentrist–authoritarian parties.

Parties and Elections in America: The Electoral Process, <i>by L. Sandy Maisel</i>

Within the varied literature that has addressed the relationship between European integration, on the one hand, and the character and development of parties and party systems, on the other, three related concerns have been prominent. In the first place, and often reflecting the earliest tradition of research in this area, scholars have sought to trace the origins and development of transnational — and specifically trans-European — party federations, seeing in these nascent organizations the potential for the emergence of genuine political parties at the European level. The pioneering work in this regard was carried out by Pridham (1975) and Pridham and Pridham (1981) in the period surrounding the introduction of direct elections to the European Parliament, and was subsequently further developed by scholars such as Bardi (e.g., 1994) and Hix (e.g., 1995). Second, reflecting a more recent phase of research, scholars have been concerned to analyze the shape and dynamic of the parties and the party systems as they function within the European Parliament. This remains a key and quite dominant strand of contemporary research, with the focus being constantly expanded and reconstituted on the basis of new data derived from roll-call analysis, patterns of alignment, and the shifting memberships of federations and parliamentary fractions. The literature here is also enormous, with pioneering work being carried out by Bardi (1989) and Attinà (1990), and with the more sophisticated recent work being well represented in the collection of papers edited by Marks and Steenbergen (2004).KeywordsPolitical SystemEuropean LevelPolitical CompetitionParty SystemNational PoliticsThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Comment on “Deep Economic Integration: Is Europe a Blueprint?”

Under authoritarian rule, South Korean politics was dominated by one dominant political party, although others formally existed. In post-democratisation South Korea, two main political parties have dominated the political landscape, alternating between government and opposition. Commonly referred to as conservatives and progressives, the organisations' official names have changed frequently. Political rebranding has accompanied the process of fission and fusion of political organizations, both before and after elections. These remain largely leader-led and leader-centred, displaying a high level of factionalism and personalism. Although formally a multi-party system, Korea's party system has been de facto a dual-dominant party one, characterised by a low level of institutionalisation. Its key features are deeply rooted cleavages such as regionalism and ideology, with generation, class and gender emerging in recent years. Similarly to other democratic countries, even in Korea the role of political parties has changed in recent years. Although it is still consequential for political representation and government formation (and crucial to governability), new forms of political participation now bypass and challenge political parties, transforming Korean democracy. Calls for direct participation have grown over time and new forms of online activism have emerged, often playing crucial roles in parliamentary and presidential elections. New electoral laws were introduced in late 2019 to increase the representation and visibility of traditionally under-represented groups in Korean society (women, minorities, refugees, migrant workers) and also to establish, substantially, a fully-fledged multi-party system.

Political campaigns are much more attack-filled in some countries than in others. What accounts for it? One answer hinges on the country’s party system. We propose that two-party systems encourage more negativity than multiparty systems because parties in a multiparty system (1) must maintain good relationships with parties with which they may want to enter into coalition and (2) run the risk of supporters of the attacked party moving to support a third party. We test the relationship between party system and attack behaviour in New Zealand, which in 1996 changed from a single-member district, first-past-the-post system to a mixed-member proportional system. The result was a more fragmented party system, resulting in coalition and minority governments. Analysing over 250 adverts and party election broadcasts aired from 1969 to 2011, we find that advertising has become more positive since 1996, suggesting that party systems affect the tone of election campaigns.

There are numerous studies of the effects of partisan cues in established party systems, but almost none on how they affect voting in new party systems. This lacuna might stem from untested assumptions that partisan cues are un-influential where parties lack multigenerational psychological bonds with citizens and long-standing records. Alternatively, we theorize that even in new party systems, voters use partisan cues to assess candidates’ capabilities, preferences, and electoral viability. We test this theory through an experiment in which we varied inclusion of party identifiers on mock ballots in Uganda, where the multiparty system was only 5 years old. We find that partisan cues increased selection of major-party candidates over independents, casting of straight-ticket ballots, and votes for copartisans. Our results challenge the common assumption that partisan labels are irrelevant in new party systems. Partisan cues can influence political decision making, even when party systems are young.

One of the agendas and results of the I-IV Amendment to the 1945 Constitution is to strengthen the Presidential system. Strengthening the presidential system synergized with reforming the party and election system must be carried out in order to achieve the objectives of governance and institutions in the framework of Indonesia 2045. The 2019 elections are simultaneously legislative and presidential elections as stipulated in Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections. The purpose of this article, the first simultaneous election should be legislative, presidential and regional head elections simultaneously. Secondly, there are 4 (four) objectives: 1). Effectiveness and efficiency, 2). Righteous democracy, 3). creating a solid and effective government, 4). period (periodization) that is more organized. Using the optics of constitutional law studies, and socio-legal, strengthened and enriched historical studies of presidential, party and election systems in Indonesia and comparisons with the United States, Brazil, Argentina. There are seven recommended strategies offered in the article: 1) Synergizing the Presidential Election, Legislative Elections and Regional Head Elections simultaneously in 2029, 2) Preparing the Draft Law for Regional Head Election Courts, 3) Making a blueprint of the Presidential Institution Bill, 4). Simplify party systems with an electoral threshold, 5). Simplify the number of parties in parliament with parliamentary threshold, 6). Implement a threshold presidential order to create balance in a multi-party presidential system, 7). Make changes to the Election Law and Evaluate the Proposal Election system with the Sainte-Lague calculation method.

One of the most striking political developments of the past two decades has been the heightened interest at both a practical and theoretical level in new institutional arrangements that may be driv...

Slovenia: Between Bipolarity and Broad Coalition-Building

Based on the content of European Election manifestos, the article shows that parties play an important role in presenting to the people a European view on issues, in discussing transnational and the core EU issues and in offering the voters different choices on the EU and European integration. While there is a greater variance of party positions on the left–right dimension than on the pro-/anti-EU dimension, most party systems nevertheless provide good choice options on the EU dimension as well. Compared to the ‘old EU’, party systems in the accession countries offer a greater variance in programmatic pro-anti-EU positions.