Do you want to stay informed about this journal? Click the buttons to subscribe to our alerts.
A Typology of Postcommunist Successor Parties in Central and Eastern Europe and an Explanatory Framework for Their (Non-)Success
In: East Central EuropeAbstract
This article revisits the phenomenon of postcommunist successor parties – defined as the formal successor organizations of state-socialist ruling parties – in Central and Eastern Europe three decades after the transformative events of 1989–91 and two decades after the most recent period of sustained academic interest in the topic. The article begins with a critical reexamination of the late 1990s and early 2000s comparative politics literature on postcommunist successor parties, noting in particular its reliance on path dependency as well as subsequent empirical developments that cannot be explained by established approaches. From here, this article argues that major changes in the electoral fortunes of numerous successor parties since the mid-2000s require instead a relational perspective on party competition and interactions with competitor parties in the respective party systems, allowing for the identification of realigning elections in which successor parties are programmatically outflanked or crowded out on one or more issue dimensions by competitors or vice versa. The article applies this perspective to reexamine successor parties in six countries that exhibit a pronounced explanatory deficit vis-à-vis the previous literature: Czech Republic, (the former East) Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. In doing so, it draws on expert survey (ches) data and postelection studies on voter flows in addition to qualitative case analyses in order to demonstrate these interactions at work in critical phases of successor-party decline or growth.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Akcja Wyborcza Solidarność. 2004. “Program Akcji Wyborczej Solidarność.” In Wybory 1997. Partie i ich programy, edited by Inka Słodkowska and Magdalena Dołbakowska, 102–108. Warsaw: Instytut Studiów Politycznych PAN.
-
Bakker, Ryan, and Sara Hobolt. 2013. “Measuring Party Positions.” In Political Choice Matters: Explaining the Strength of Class and Religious Cleavages in Cross-National Perspective, edited by Geoffrey Evans and Nan Dirk de Graaf, 27–46. Oxford University Press.
-
Bakker, Ryan, Catherine de Vries, Erica Edwards, Liesbet Hooghe, Seth Jolly, Gary Marks, Jonathan Polk, Jan Rovny, Marco Steenbergen, and Milada Anna Vachudova. 2015. “Measuring Party Positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey Trend File, 1999–2010.” Party Politics 21, no. 1: 143–152.
-
Borbáth, Endre. 2018. “When the Post-Communist Left Succeeds: The 2016 Romanian Parliamentary Election.” In 2017 : Europe’s Bumper Year of Elections, edited by Brigid Laffan and Lorenzo Cicchi, 133–150.
-
Borbáth, Endre. 2019. “Romania – Polity Contestation and the Resilience of Mainstream Parties.” In European Party Politics in Times of Crises, edited by Swen Hutter and Hanspeter Kriesi, 214–235. Cambridge University Press.
-
Bozóki, András, and John T. Ishiyama, eds. 2002. “Introduction and Theoretical Framework.” In The Communist Successor Parties of Central and Eastern Europe, 3–13. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
-
Enyedi, Zsolt. 2015. “Plebeians, Citoyens and Aristocrats or Where Is the Bottom of Bottom-Up? The Case of Hungary.” In European Populism in the Shadow of the Great Recession, edited by Hanspeter Kriesi and Takis S. Pappas, 235–250. Colchester: ECPR Press.
-
Fidesz. 1998. “1998: A Fidesz – Magyar Polgári Párt választási programja (48 pont).” https://gondola.hu/cikkek/6328-1998__A_Fidesz_-_Magyar_Polgari_Part_valasztasi_programja.html.
-
Gherghina, Sergiu. 2013. “One-Shot Party Primaries: The Case of the Romanian Social Democrats.” Politics 33, no. 3: 185–195.
-
Grzymała-Busse, Anna. 2002. Redeeming the Communist Past: The Regeneration of Communist Parties in East Central Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
-
Grzymała-Busse, Anna. 2018. “Victims of Their Own Success: The Paradoxical Fate of the Communist Successor Parties.” In Life after Dictatorship: Authoritarian Successor Parties Worldwide, edited by James Loxton and Scott Mainwaring, 145–174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Haughton, Tim. 2004. “Explaining the Limited Success of the Communist-Successor Left in Slovakia: The Case of the Party of the Democratic Left (sdl’).” Party Politics 10, no. 2: 177–191.
-
Hübner, Wolfgang, and Tom Strohschneider. 2007. Lafontaines Linke. Ein Rettungsboot für den Sozialismus? Berlin: Karl Dietz.
-
Ishiyama, John T. 1999. “The Communist Successor Parties and Party Organizational Development in Post-Communist Politics.” Political Research Quarterly 52, no. 1: 87–112.
-
Katz, Richard S., and Peter Mair. 1995. “Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party.” Party Politics 1, no. 1: 5–28.
-
Kim, Seongcheol. 2017. “Between Milieu and Vacuum: Organizational, Programmatic, and Electoral Strategies of the Former Party of Democratic Socialism (pds) and the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (ksčm) Reexamined.” Politologický časopis 24, no. 3: 302–329.
-
Kim, Seongcheol. 2020. “Between Illiberalism and Hyper-Neoliberalism: Competing Populist Discourses in the Czech Republic.” European Politics and Society 21, no. 5: 618–633.
-
Kitschelt, Herbert. 1995. “Formation of Party Cleavages in Post-Communist Democracies: Theoretical Propositions.” Party Politics 1, no. 4: 447–472.
-
Kitschelt, Herbert. 2002. “Constraints and Opportunities in the Strategic Conduct of Post-Communist Successor Parties: Regime Legacies as Causal Argument.” In The Communist Successor Parties of Central and Eastern Europe, edited by András Bozóki and John T. Ishiyama, 14–40. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
-
Komunistická strana Čech a Moravy. 2002. “Volební program ksčm.” https://web.archive.org/web/20020612030512/http://www.kscm.cz/show.php?leve_menu/aktuality/volby_2002/vp_2002.htm.
-
Komunistická strana Slovenska. 2002. “Volebný program Komunistickej strany Slovenska.” https://web.archive.org/web/20021108161131/http://www.kss.sk/program.php.
-
Kunštát, Daniel. 2013. Za rudou oponou: Komunisté a jejich voliči po roce 1989. Prague: Sociologické nakladatelství.
-
Loxton, James. 2018. “Introduction: Authoritarian Successor Parties Worldwide.” In Life after Dictatorship: Authoritarian Successor Parties Worldwide, edited by James Loxton and Scott Mainwaring, 1–49. Cambridge University Press.
-
Magyar Szocialista Párt. 1994. “Az mszp 1994. évi választási programja.” https://gondola.hu/cikkek/4816-Az_MSZP_1994__evi_valasztasi_programja.html.
-
Magyar Szocialista Párt. 2002. “Az mszp 2002. évi választási programja.” https://gondola.hu/cikkek/8792-Az_MSZP_2002__evi_valasztasi_programja.html.
-
Marušiak, Juraj. 2006. “Fenomén strany Smer: medzi ‘pragmatizmom’ a sociálnou demokraciou.” Středoevropské politické studie 8, no. 1: 19–55.
-
Neugebauer, Gero, and Richard Stöss. 1996. Die pds. Geschichte. Organisation. Wähler. Konkurrenten. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.
-
Neugebauer, Gero, and Richard Stöss. 2003. “Die pds in Not.” In Die Parteien nach der Bundestagswahl 2002, edited by Oskar Niedermayer, 125–158. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.
-
Niedermayer, Oskar. 1998. “Die Stellung der pds im ostdeutschen Parteiensystem.” In The Party of Democratic Socialism in Germany : Modern Post-Communism or Nostalgic Populism?, edited by Peter Barker, 18–37. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
-
Orenstein, Mitchell. 1998. “A Genealogy of Communist Successor Parties in East-Central Europe and the Determinants of Their Success.” East European Politics and Societies 12, no. 3: 472–499.
-
Ost, David. 2005. The Defeat of Solidarity: Anger and Politics in Postcommunist Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
-
Patton, David F. 1998. “Germany’s Party of Democratic Socialism in Comparative Perspective.” East European Politics and Societies 12, no. 3: 500–526.
-
Pop-Eleches, Grigore. 1998. “Separated at Birth or Separated by Birth? The Communist Successor Parties in Romania and Hungary.” East European Politics and Societies 13, no. 1: 117–147.
-
Pop-Eleches, Grigore. 2008. “A Party for All Seasons: Electoral Adaptation of Romanian Communist Successor Parties.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 41, no. 4: 465–479.
-
Prawo i Sprawiedliwość. 2005. “iv Rzeczpospolita. Sprawedliwość dla Wszystkich.” http://old.pis.org.pl/dokumenty.php?s=partia&iddoc=3.
-
Rovny, Jan, and Jonathan Polk. 2017. “Stepping in the Same River Twice: Stability amidst Change in Eastern European Party Competition.” European Journal of Political Research 56, no. 1: 188–198.
-
Rybář, Marek, and Kevin Deegan-Krause. 2008. “Slovakia’s Communist Successor Parties in Comparative Perspective.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 41, no. 4: 497–519.
-
Snegovaya, Maria. 2022. “How Ex-Communist Left Parties Reformed and Lost.” West European Politics 45, no. 4: 716–743.
-
Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej. 1993. “Wybory ’93. O czym wyborca powinien wiedzieć.”
-
Spoločná voľba. 1994. “Nádej Slovenska. Volebný program.”
-
Szczerbiak, Aleks. 2007. “‘Social Poland’ Defeats ‘Liberal Poland’? The September–October 2005 Polish Parliamentary and Presidential Elections.” Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 23, no. 2: 203–232.
-
Varga, Mihai. 2014. “Hungary’s ‘Anti-Capitalist’ Far-Right: Jobbik and the Hungarian Guard.” Nationalities Papers 42, no. 5: 791–807.
-
Waller, Michael. 1995. “Adaptation of the Former Communist Parties of East-Central Europe: A Case of Social-Democratization?” Party Politics 1, no. 4: 473–490.
-
Ziblatt, Daniel, and Nick Biziouras. 2002. “Doomed to Be Radicals? Organization, Ideology, and the Communist Successor Parties in East Central Europe.” In The Communist Successor Parties of Central and Eastern Europe, edited by András Bozóki and John T. Ishiyama, 287–302. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 356 | 356 | 33 |
| Full Text Views | 24 | 24 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 47 | 47 | 0 |
A Typology of Postcommunist Successor Parties in Central and Eastern Europe and an Explanatory Framework for Their (Non-)Success
In: East Central EuropeAbstract
This article revisits the phenomenon of postcommunist successor parties – defined as the formal successor organizations of state-socialist ruling parties – in Central and Eastern Europe three decades after the transformative events of 1989–91 and two decades after the most recent period of sustained academic interest in the topic. The article begins with a critical reexamination of the late 1990s and early 2000s comparative politics literature on postcommunist successor parties, noting in particular its reliance on path dependency as well as subsequent empirical developments that cannot be explained by established approaches. From here, this article argues that major changes in the electoral fortunes of numerous successor parties since the mid-2000s require instead a relational perspective on party competition and interactions with competitor parties in the respective party systems, allowing for the identification of realigning elections in which successor parties are programmatically outflanked or crowded out on one or more issue dimensions by competitors or vice versa. The article applies this perspective to reexamine successor parties in six countries that exhibit a pronounced explanatory deficit vis-à-vis the previous literature: Czech Republic, (the former East) Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. In doing so, it draws on expert survey (ches) data and postelection studies on voter flows in addition to qualitative case analyses in order to demonstrate these interactions at work in critical phases of successor-party decline or growth.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 356 | 356 | 33 |
| Full Text Views | 24 | 24 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 47 | 47 | 0 |