The development and consolidation of the Lithuanian political party system

This article was downloaded by: [Vilinius University]On: 08 June 2012, At: 00:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Baltic StudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbal20

The development andconsolidation of the Lithuanianpolitical party systemJuratė Novagrockienė aa Lithuanian Academy of Law and the Institute ofInternational Relations and Political Science, VilniusUniversity

Available online: 28 Feb 2007

To cite this article: Juratė Novagrockienė (2001): The development and consolidationof the Lithuanian political party system, Journal of Baltic Studies, 32:2, 141-155

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01629770100000021

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbal20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01629770100000021

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2

THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSOLIDATION OF THE LITHUANIAN POLITICAL PARTY SYSTEM

Jurate Novagroclo'ene, Vilnius University

ABSTRACT. The consolidation of Lithuania's party system has proceeded in two phases. During the first phase from 1988 to 1992, the basis of a multiparty system was established. In the second phase, polarization has been reduced as the relevant parties in the system have begun to converge toward the middle of the political spectrum. However, continued high levels of voter volatility do not yet permit us to speak of a fully consolidated party system. Nonetheless, parties have become the only means by which political elites mobilize public support in efforts to gain access to public office.

T he formation and development of the party system of Lithuania is a major element in the investigation of the broader processes of

democratization and democratic consolidation. According to the conceptual framework offered by Linz and Stepan, "a full democratic transition, and especially democratic consolidation, must involve political society." Political parties and party systems are part of political society (Linz and Stepan). The key question motivating this article is to what extent has Lithuania's party system affected the consolidation of democracy in Lithuania. In addressing this question, I shall consider the distinction between a minimalist "electoral democracy" and the deeper institutional structure of liberal democracy (Diamond). The latter is the more durable and consequently the preferred form for a consolidated democracy.

Two distinct periods in the evolution of Lithuania's party system are evident. The first one coincides with the transitional period. During this period political differentiation on the elite and mass levels, the emergence of ideological identities, the formation of party organizational structures, and the beginnings of inter-party relations took place. Political differentiation involved the transition of society from relative political homogeneity to pluralism. The process interacted with two interrelated social-political changes: the emergence of programmatically distinct political movements, organizations and parties and the gradual consolidation of social group identities with these political structures. Hence, the characteristics of the Lithuanian political party system began to emerge measured in terms of fragmentation and dispersion along a left-right political continuum (polarization). At the same time the

JBS, Vol X'X'XII, No 2 (Summer 2001) 141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2

142 Jurate Novagrockiene

political differentiation of the population in terms of mode of political participation began to take shape.

Once the key task of the transitional period was resolved (destroying the former governing structure), the process of adjustment of the party system to the new political environment began. This launched the current (second) period in the development of the party system. In this period parties have been a major factor in routinizing and stabilizing the political process. Further, the party system as a whole has become more important than the activities of individual parties. At the same time, however, the second period has been marked by growing political apathy and increasing electoral volatility.

The First Period: The Origins of Multipartyism in Lithuania

Analyzing the political development in terms of an interplay between the transformation from political homogeneity to political diversity, the following three stages should be singled out. In the initial stage, between Summer 1988 and the restoration of the country's independence in March 1990, the basic preconditions were created which provided an impetus for the further political differentiation of society. New grassroots movements and various political organizations were established, traditional parties were reestablished, and the ruling Lithuanian Communist Party (LCP) was restructured. As a result of all this activity, the public was broadly mobilized. The second stage, Spring 1990 to Summer 1992, was marked by considerable tensions between opposing political forces as they vied for power in the new political environment. This was reflected in disagreements among the former leaders of the Saj~dis movement (which ultimately led to a split in the Sajftclis movement on the eve of the 1992 general election to the Seimas), the fragmentation of parties, and the creation of new parties on the basis of parliamentary factions. Public exhaustion with the process resulted in a decline in mass political activity and rising levels of distrust in the government. In the third stage, from Autumn 1992 to Winter 1993, the configuration of Lithuania's multiparty system became clearer concurrently with a process of deepening social stratification.

The first stage was rooted in the turbulence in Lithuania encouraged by the course ofperestroika over the three years prior to the constituent election of February 1990. It was reflected in an increasingly active profile of mass activity and action. The growing evidence of popular dissatisfaction was expressed through the rise of an intellectual opposition, flourishing initiatives of various groups, and street demonstrations and rallies. However, the initial impetus for criticism was related to environmental problems.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2

Lithuanian Political Party System 143

The first movement of the Greens formed in 1987-1988. The Green movement brought forth urgent environmental problems, the solution of which embraced not only ecological and economic aspects but political aspects as well. Staunch supporters of Lithuania's democratic movement, the Greens were in favour of extensive democratic reconstruction and sovereignty for Lithuania. The predisposition to political action led to the establishment of the Green Party in July 1989.

The formation of Sqj~dis, the mass-based reform movement, began in Spring 1988. The Sqj~dis movement, with a clearly defined nationwide program of radical reform of the political and economic system, was marked by the promotion of a national ideology, mass solidarity, and in general, an emphasis on traditional and ethnocentric values. At roughly the same time a number of traditional parties formed outside the Saj~dis framework. The first of these, the Lithuanian Democratic Party (LDP), emerged in February 1989. While the party declared democracy as its main goal, this goal was overshadowed by the promotion of national liberation and the restoration of statehood. The activity of the Lithuanian Nationalists' Union (LNU) was renewed in April 1989. In May 1989, the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party (LSDP) was reconstituted. These three parties, the Social Democrats, the Nationalists, and the Democrats took part in Sqjfwlis's actions and shared its electoral program in February 1990.

Other parties formed as well. The Christian Democrats reconstituted their party at a conference held in Kaunas in January 1990. The Lithuanian Christian Democratic Party (LCDP) declared itself the successor of the ideas of the Lithuanian Christian democracy movement of the inter-war period, as well as of the Christian Democratic Union in exile. Furthermore, radical ex-dissident groups, like the Lithuanian Freedom League (LFL), the Lithuanian Union of Political Prisoners and Deportees (LUPPD), the Lithuanian Youth National Union 'Young Lithuania' ( 'YL') and the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), were established and entered the political arena in 1988. While the LUPPD became an active collaborator with Sqj~dis, the ultra-right stand of the LFL and the 'YL' did not find wider support among the population.

At the same time the Lithuanian Communist Party (LCP) gradually transformed into a normal, parliamentary party. On December 7, 1989, the constitutional articles on the monopoly of communist rule in Lithuania were annulled by the LSSR Supreme Council. In December 1989, the Twentieth LCP Congress adopted a new program that rejected communist ideology, declared the party's independence from Moscow, and proclaimed as its main aim the reestablishment of an independent Lithuanian state. Nearly 80,000 members registered as full-fledged members of the newly-formed independent LCP. However, the LCP

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2


membership dropped to 15,000 in two years' time. By late 1989, the LCP had become a competitor to SqjfMis, advocating a more moderate course toward Lithuania's independence and closer ties with the USSR.

An organizational and ideological alternative to Sajgdis and the independent LCP also took shape at this time. The core of this opposition was a party officially known as the LCP based on the CPSU platform. Orthodox communists established the LCP (CPSU) with an initial membership of 30,000 (Bernatonis and Kirkilas). The party adopted an active stand against the restoration of Lithuania's statehood. Less well- organized allies of the LCP (CPSU) were the Polish Union (PU) and the pro-Kremlin movement Yedinstvo. The Polish Union emerged in 1988 as an organization representing the cultural interests of the Polish ethnic minority. It became politicized by 1989 in response to the perceived threat of rising Lithuanian nationalism. Yedinstvo ("Unity" in Russian) was created by Soviet security agencies in 1989 as a platform for mobilizing opposition to Sajgdis.

The divorce of the LCP from the CPSU marked the real beginning of political pluralism in Lithuania. The main link in the centralized power structure was broken and the leading role of the LCP repealed in practice. In its place, there were three clearly defined politically salient forces: the Sajgdis movement, the independent LCP, and the LCP (CPSU). Prior to the February 1990 elections to the newly established republican legislature, the remaining parties carried on their activities either within Sajgdis or outside of it as largely unnoticed groups. Rather than being actual political parties, they were the manifestation of major disagreements among the movement's leaders. Nonetheless, despite their fragile organizational nature and weak ties with the population, they all contributed more or less to the formation of a united opposition to the rule of either the independent Lithuanian Communist Party or Moscow and the LCP (CPSU).

The population was also divided into three major groups: supporters of Sajgdis, the LCP, and the LCP (CPSU). The first two groups were distinguished by their support for independence and their condemnation of the LCP's past. Supporters of the LCP (CPSU) on the other hand were opposed to independence. Sqjgdis's support was drawn mainly from among Lithuanian nationals and some Russian-speaking groups. The independent LCP received a response from the greater part of more moderate Lithuanians and partly from ethnic minorities for its step-by- step course toward independence. Sctjgdis's radical independence program in particular resulted in the alienation of sizeable Russian and Polish groups. Although Saj~dis did not overtly distance itself from ethnic minorities, it did not win positive response among them. The interests of the Polish and Russian ethnic minorities, accounting for 7.0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2


and 9.2 percent of the total population respectively, largely became adherents of the LCP (CPSU), Yedinstvo and the Polish Union.

The parliamentary election of February 1990 ended the first stage in the emergence of Lithuania's multiparty system. The results of the election demonstrated a high degree of polarization of the population. At the same time it dramatically shifted the political balance of power. The Sqj~dis-backed candidates won fifty-one percent of the seats in the Supreme Council and became the parliamentary majority. Although it received seventy-two mandates out of the total 141, Sqj~dis was supported by ninety-five deputies, including nine members of the LSDP, four of the LGP, three of the LCDP, two of the LDP, and a few members of the independent LCP nominated by Sajfidis. The LCP and the LCP (CPSU) won forty-six and seven seats respectively. The results indicated that there were, in fact, two major competing forces -- the reformist LCP headed by former Communist Party chief Algirdas Brazauskas, and Sqj~dis embracing the radical break with Moscow proposed by its leader, Vytautas Landsbergis.

The second stage in the emergence of the country's multiparty system, between Spring 1990 and Summer 1992, was marked by the disintegration of the Saj~dis bloc. The first parliamentary faction -- the Saj£~dis Centre faction -- did not form until June 1990. Formed by moderates within Sq/~dis, its formation was opposed by a large number of right-wing deputies who viewed the move as an attempt to split the Sqj~dis movement. Indeed, the move presaged the fragmentation that was to come. In September, the Polish and the Leftist factions were formed. (The latter was the faction of the LCP, which had renamed itself the Lithuanian Democratic Labour Party [LDLP] in December 1990.) By late 1990, right-wing deputies formed the Sqj~dis joint faction, which was the largest in the legislature at the time. (Its membership later dropped to fifteen deputies.) The Liberal faction emerged in May 1990 and comprised ten deputies, of whom only six were members of the Liberal Union. The Faction of Moderates was formed in Autumn 1991 and the National Progress faction in March 1992 (Andriukaitis). By the end of 1991, there were nine factions in the Supreme Council.

These changes in the Parliament had serious implications for Sqj~dis. The movement itself split into separate opposing groups, to include the Lithuanian Liberal Union (LLU) and the Independence Party (IP). The latter left the movement at its Second Congress in April 1990. At the Third Congress in December 1991, Sqj~dis completely lost its identity as an umbrella organization, dissociating itself from liberal-left and centrist forces and labeling as "communists" all those who opposed reestablishing a strong presidency.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2


The political fragmentation resulted in a parliamentary crisis by Summer 1992 and the beginning of the third and final stage in the emergence of political pluralism and a multiparty system. Lacking a working majority, the legislature found itself in gridlock. To escape this dilemma a compromise was reached creating a new legislature, the Seimas, whose deputies would be elected on the basis of a mixed majoritarian-proportional electoral system. Seventy-one members of the Seimas would be elected in single mandate constituencies and seventy on the basis of a party-list vote. The threshold on the party-list vote for a single party was four percent and six percent for inter-party coalitions. A special threshold of two percent was introduced for ethnic minority parties. Elections to the new Seimas were scheduled for 25 October 1992.

In the run-up to the election, new political organizations formed on the basis of the existent parliamentary factions. The Moderate Movement, the Centre Movement, and the National Progress Movement emerged to fill gaps in the left-right continuum. Politicians from these factions expressed opposition to the policies of the SqjKdis. However, they declared their commitment to the principle of the division of power and democratic governance. Their fragile organizational structures did not permit them to strongly contest the 1992 Seimas elections.

Opinion polls of the time indicated great dissatisfaction with government in general. In August 1992, forty percent of the inhabitants had confidence in the government while fifty-four percent were dissatisfied with the scope of democracy and government policies (Mulvinas). Not surprisingly, this contributed to political apathy among some. Ten percent of the population indicated a great interest in politics, while forty-nine percent had either a slight interest or no interest at all. The numbers wanting a change were also rising. If in January 1992, the number of people supporting the election accounted for fifty percent, their percentage already reached seventy in JulyJ All these signs clearly demonstrate the population's growing disillusionment with and desire to change government policies.

Indeed, the general election of 1992 resulted in a fundamental change in the balance of political power with the weight shifting from the radical right to the left. The LDLP now enjoyed a parliamentary majority, having received 42.62 percent of the party-list vote. In opposition were Sajgdis in a right-wing coalition with the LCDP and the LNU on one side and the Centrists and the Social Democrats on the other. The same result occurred in the presidential election of 14 February 1993, when the leader of the LDLP, Algirdas Brazauskas, won by a landslide gathering 60.17 percent of the votes against Stasys

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2


Lozoraitis, who was supported by political forces from the right and centre.

The most important outcome of the election was the greater clarity it gave to the shape of Lithuania's party system. (See Figure 1 .) The system was marked by a distinct fragmentation of political forces with several parties and movements distributed along the left-right spectrum. A high degree of polarization was evident as well. The two largest political forces -- the LDLP (with 42.6 percent of the party-list vote) and Sqjgdis (21.6 percent of the party-list vote) -- were at opposite ends of the spectrum. They both had a wide network of branches throughout Lithuania, and a considerably stable electorate. Relations between the two parties were marked by confrontation. However, the LDLP was further isolated by the anticommunist campaign during the elections. Even parties on the left refused to join in a coalition with it.

Figure 1. Left-Right Distribution of Lithuania's Political Parties, 1992

LDLP LSDP TPJ LChDP Sajftdis 'YL' Left ~ • Centre • • Right

PU Centre LLU. LNJ LP LDP IP LFL Movement

The emergence of pluralistic politics and a multiparty system brought the first period of the development of Lithuania's party system to a conclusion. The great accomplishment of this period was the dismantling of the homogeneous social and political system and its replacement with pluralist politics. However, the specific features of democratization in Lithuania during this first period of party development were primarily affected by the striving for the reestablishment of statehood. Nationalism, at the initial stage of democratization was the necessary condition for public mobilization. As a result, the crucial issues of democracy and the formation of a multiparty system were subordinated to the task of reestablishing independence. Further, during this period, Lithuania's political parties paid little attention to public support for their programmatic and ideological goals. However, the overwhelming LDLP victory in the legislative elections of 1992 forced them to orient more toward the electorate and become "vote maximizing" parties.

It might even be argued that discussion of pluralist politics was no more than political rhetoric during the first period of party development. While democracy and a multiparty system were presented as the only

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2


alternative to the Communist one-party regime, neither the public nor the political elite had any practical experience with these concepts. Indeed, pluralism in particular was met with some degree of opposition. This may partially account for the formation of parties lacking any real mass support base, as well as a polarized party system characterized by an unwillingness to compromise and political extremism.

This argument brings into question the conventional view that the creation of a two-party system as a guarantor of political stability was the goal of the political elites during the period from 1990 to 1993. The concept of a two-party system is based on the pragmatic ideal of "ideological convergence." According to this ideal, two main parties contest for the votes of the electorate at the centre of the political spectrum, each being assured of voters on the extreme closest to them. As a consequence, the parties are transformed into broad coalitions with centrifugal tendencies, avoiding extremist rhetoric and goals. However, such an ideal two-party system is not possible unless there is a broad ideological consensus within the electorate that tends to cluster near some centre or median position. The party system that had emerged by 1993 in Lithuania, however, demonstrated none of these characteristics. The bimodal concentration of electors at the extreme poles of the continuum shows that with any of the two parties winning elections, the winner will pursue the policy opposite that of the defeated party (See Figure 2). Fortunately, there is evidence that this tendency to polarization has been decreasing in the present (second) period of the consolidation of the party system. In 1993 and 1994 the voting outcomes show a gradual change in the distribution away from the extremes. The axis of the centre is somewhat increasing and the political space is extending.

The Second Period: Toward Consolidation of Lithuania's Party System

The two main features of the second period of the consolidation of the party system have been continued fragmentation and a reduction of polarization. Fifteen new political parties were registered from 1995 to the Seimas elections of 1996. Among these are the Lithuanian Polish Electoral Action (LPEA), which was founded on the basis of the Polish Union, the Lithuanian Women's Party (LWP), the Economy Party (EP), the Justice Party (JP), the Socialist Party (SP), the Lithuanian Russian Union (LRU), the Lithuanian Reform Party (LRP), and the Lithuanian Peoples' Party (LPP). None of these parties, with the exception of the LWP, have played a significant role in the policy process.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2


Figure 2. A Comparison of Vote Distribution in the 1992, 1993, and 1994 Elections to the Seimas

45~

40

35

3O

25-

30-

15

10

5.

0

19~ --- 199~ . . . . 1994

\ \ 2a~ . . . . . . . ' " , \ \ \ l z 2 ~

"'~\ . ' ' 7 _ .-"" "~.

P t - - - ~ . . . . . . . . I P - - - -

~ ~ ~ HJ/L~UrLooa

. . . . I

Sources: Materials of the Central Electoral Commission, 1992; Baltic-Omnibus, 1993; Lithuanian Political Culture.

Lithuanian Political Culture

Despite this, both the level of fragmentation of the party system and the number of parties participating in elections have remained relatively stable. The fragmentation index (Taagepera and Shugart) in the Seimas elected in 1992 was 0.68; in that of 1996 it was 0.70. Officially, nine parties and twenty-one movements and public organizations participated in the elections in the 1992 elections to the Seimas. Of that number, twenty-two participated in elections for the first time. Twenty-eight of thirty-three registered parties participated in the 1996 elections. Twenty- four participated in the party-list vote. In the 1992 elections, eleven parties and movements won seats to the Seimas; in 1996 fourteen of them did. (See Table 1.)

Furthermore, not all parties are significant when analyzing competition and configuration of the party system. It is important to estimate the number of relevant or effective parties. These are the ones that are politically influential. In other words, they are the parties that win a greater number of places in the Parliament and are consequential in terms of possessing the potential to effect the government formation process.

After the 1992 elections, the LDLP, Saj~dis, and the Christian Democratic Party were the relevant political parties in the system. The index for the number of effective parties for this period is 3.00. 2 In the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2

150 JuraM Novagrockiene

1996 elections, five parties -- the Homeland Union (Conservatives of Lithuania), the successor to Sq]ftdis, the Christian Democrats, the Centrist Union, the Social Democrats, and the LDLP won eighty-seven percent of the seats in the Seimas. Nonetheless, the index for the number of effective parties increased, although marginally, to 3.36. The small increase in this indicator confirms the tendency of the party system toward a moderate multiparty system.

Table 1. Participation of Parties and Political

Movements in the Seimas Elections of 1992 and 1996

Election year

The number of The number of parties and parties and movements movements participating in participating in the the party-list single-mandate vote district races

The number of parties and movements participating in elections for the first time

The number of parties and movements winning seats to the Seimas

1992 17 lists 21 22* 7 1996 24 lists 28 9 14

*These are parties, public movements and organizations that did not participate in the 1990 elections.

This tendency can be observed as well in the 1995 local elections, a critical point in the evolution of the party system. The results confirmed that the era of 'extraordinary politics' (Balcerowicz) had ended and that parties had to change their tactics in their relations with rivals and electors. In other words, they had to make a transition from policies based on symbols and rituals to those relying on negotiation and compromise. Further, they had to orient their platforms to more broadly appeal to the general public on policy instead of ideological issues. The very character of party competition had changed.Much of this is owing to a change in the electoral law for the municipal councils. Prior to 1995, public organizations not registered as political parties could nominate candidates. This had the effect of reducing the incentives for party organizational activities and diminishing the ability of the local councils to organize their work effectively. The Law on Public Organizations adopted in 1995 stipulated that organizations nominating candidates had to have the legal standing of a political party. Perhaps even more importantly, a proportional representation (party-list) system was introduced for local elections. This encouraged a large number of movements and organizations to finally make up their minds concerning their political activity. It also stimulated the strengthening of party organizations and coalitional activity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2


The 1995 local elections also demonstrated decreasing polarization of the party system. This trend in the development of the party system continued in the Seimas elections in 1996. Figure 3 demonstrates that the two main poles on opposite ends of the left-right political spectrum are being "pushed" by the new parties toward the centre. On the left the LDLP is being "pushed" toward the centre by the LSDP, the LPPU, the LPEA and the Socialist Party. On the right the Homeland Union is being "pushed" toward the centre by the 'YL', the LNU, and the LDP. The centre-right is occupied by the Christian Democrats.

Figure 3. Vote Distribution in the 1995 Municipal Elections and December 1995 Legislative Elections

a a a a

16 i

14 115

12 ;,

i o ]

' 1 , 1.4

4 2

VP ~ L[~Op ~ CS L~b. t MP ~ I ~ ' TS/L,K T$ Lan~ S.

Source: "Final results of Municipal elections, 1995," Lietuvos Aidas, 19 January

1995.

At the same time, centrist parties are staying in the centre as is the case with the Centre Union, or they are moving to the right (e.g. the Liberal Union). The Women's Party, which occupies a position on the left-centre, given its moderate attitude could be a potential ally not only of the centre, but also of the left-centre and right-centre. All of this is creating greater "crowding" in the centre and on the centre-right.

Electoral Volatility

In fully consolidated party systems, the identity of social groups with particular parties is fairly stable. Consequently, new parties have difficulties establishing themselves. This is not yet the case in Lithuania where voter volatility remains high. This is largely owing to the fact that the public has little experience in competitive, multiparty elections and that there is widespread disappointment with both the political elites and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2


the ineffectiveness of democratic institutions. As a consequence, as demonstrated by the previous discussions, new parties form with great regularity, particularly just prior to elections. Further, each election thus far has resulted in a radical change in the balance of political forces in the Seimas. In 1992, the LDLP won a majority; in 1996, a right-wing coalition uniting the Homeland Union and Christian Democrats was voted into power.

Although the Homeland Union won a plurality in the 1996 Seimas elections, the party succeeded only because of the loyalty of its electorate (in sharp contrast to all other parties), which constituted fifteen percent of all voters. Other parties experienced voter apathy and lack of party loyalty. The LDLP lost the greatest number of votes. The LSDP also lost votes compared to 1992. Only the Centre Union saw a significant increase in its vote totals. (See Table 2.) Three times as many votes were cast for parties failing to achieve the five percent threshold in the party- list vote than in the 1992 elections. (The percent of such votes increased from 12.47 percent in 1992 to 35.93 percent in 1996.) The votes for these parties in particular demonstrates public disappointment with current parties and a search for political alternatives.

Part of this volatility is stimulated itself by party fragmentation. As Pedersen notes, "If system parameters begin to change and its quantitative expansion is considerable, it creates an unstable situation. Especially if several new parties begin to compete at the same time" (Pedersen). In such a case the situation facing the older and the newly formed parties differs. The earlier established parties maintain the core of their electorate while the newer parties must target independent, dissatisfied and new voters. Further, the newly established parties usually bring to politics less experienced members who are not well prepared for the 'normal' rules of the game during the election campaign. Often such leaders focus on narrow problems and are inclined to escalate them. This reduces the potential for cooperation and coalitional activity with the more established parties following the elections.

Conclusion

The formation and development of the party system in Lithuania has been a complex process, effected by both the process of political and economic reform as well as the legacy of the communist past. The main tendency in the evolution of the Lithuanian party system has been toward the political centre and moderate competitiveness (a reduction in ideological confrontation and extremism). This has been further attended by a decrease in polarization and a strengthening of the salient parties in the system.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2


Table 2. The Number of Votes Cast for Parties and the Number of Seats

Gained in the Seimas, 1992 and 1996 Party-List Vote

1992 1996

Party/coalition

LDLP

FU / Homeland Union

LChDP/LUPPD/LDP

LChDP

LUPPD

LSDP

Polish Union/LPEA

Lithuanian

Commonwealth

Lithuanian Freedom

League

Lithuanian Freedom

Union

Centre movement/CU

ChDU

'Young Lithuania'/

Chemobyl movement

Liberal Union

Patriots' Union

National Progress

Movement

LNU/LDP

I/LNP

~ocial Justice

Vlovement

VIoderate Movement

Women's Party*

Alliance of Ethnic

Minorities

Peasants' Party

Russians' Union

Party of Economy

Party of Social Justice

Votes Seats in % non- Votes Seats in % non-

(%) Seimas represented (%) Seimas represented

votes, votes.

12.47 35.93

42.61 36 9.51 10/2=12

20.52 17 29.79 33/37=70

12.22 10

5.86 5

2.07 2

0.22 0

9.91 11/5=16

1.49 0/1

9.52 7/5=12

3.01 0/1

1.15 0 0.92 0

0.32 0 1.50 0

2.57

3.27

625 1.50

0.09

0.90

8.13 9/4=13

3.08 0/1

3.82 0/1

1.86 0/1

0.29 0

1.87 0 2.09 0/1/2=3

0.53 0

0.70

3.68 0/1

2.45 0

1.68 0/1

1.64 0

1.20 0

0.89 0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2

154

Socialist Party Republican Party National Progress Movement Party of Life's Logic People's Party

Jurate Novagrockiene

0.73 0

0.37 0

0.29 0

0.25 0 0.19 0

Source: "Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo rinkimt~ rezulta~ daugiamandateje rinkimu apygardoje. - LR VRK sprendimas," Valstybes Zinios, no. 111, 16 November t996.

The prerequisites for consolidation of the party system have been gradually forming. Nevertheless, the continued changes in the social structure resulting from the economic reform together with changing election laws as yet makes it impossible to predict the exact structure of the party system from one election to the next. The former in particular has had a significant influence on the party system. The clarity in political views present during the first period of party development related to the transition from the authoritarian system has given way to the present system in which parties are not yet clearly with the economic interests of specific social groups. The Electorate is still deciding which parties best represent their interests.

Nonetheless, the current status of the Lithuanian party system permits us to speak of a consolidated electoral democracy in which elites form parties from among which the electorate chooses for political office. Parties are the only mechanism by which this is done. Further, leaders of even the most radical parties publicly promise to follow the rules of democracy and admit that the only way to change power is by elections. Hence, democracy has become "the only game in town" for Lithuania's political elites. However, the lack of institutional routinization on the mass level does not permit us yet to speak of a consolidated liberal democracy. Routinization of the party system will require identification of public groups with relevant parties based on effective elite-mass interaction through the medium of political parties. Elites are key to this process. That remains the challenge of the Lithuanian party system.

Notes 1. Data of the Centre of Public Opinion of the Institute of Philosophy,

Sociology and Law. Vilnius, 1989-1994. 2. The estimation is based on the situation immediately following the Seimas

elections in 1992.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2


Works Cited

Andriukaitis, Vytenis. "Demokratijos perspektyvos Lietuvoje." Politika 1.4 (1992): 25-28.

Balcerowicz, Leszek. "Understanding Postcommunist Transition." Ed. Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner. Economic Reform and Democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.

Bernatonis, Juozas and Gediminas Kirkilas. "The Lithuanian Democratic Labour Party on the Eve of Parliamentary Elections." Lithuania Today. September 1992.

Diamond, Larry. "Introduction: In Search of Consolidation." Ed. Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner, Yun-han Chu, and Hung-mao Tien. Consolidation of the Third Wave Democracies. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.

Linz, Juan J. and Alfred Stepan. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.

Mulvinas, Kestutis. "Vox populi." Respublika. 20 August 1992. Pedersen Morgens N. "Changing Patterns of Electoral Volatility in European

Party Systems, 1948-1977." Ed. Hans Daalder and Peter Mair. Western European Party System. Continuity and Change. London: Sage Publications, 1983.

Taagepera, Rein and Matthew S. Shugart. Seats and Votes. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vili

nius

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:14

08

June

201

2

The development and consolidation of the Lithuanian political party system

Documents

Transcript of The development and consolidation of the Lithuanian political party system