The institutionalisation of post-communist parliaments: Hungary and Romania in comparative perspective

Parliamentary Affairs

Volumn 60, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 187-211

  Chiva, Cristina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249157082     PISSN: 00312290     EISSN: 14602482     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/pa/gsm012     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. T.F. Remington (ed.) Parliaments in Transition, Oxford: Westview Press, 1994;
2. A. Ágh (ed.) The Emergence of East Central European Parliaments: The First Steps, Budapest: Hungarian Centre for Democracy Studies, 1994;
3. D.M. Olson and P. Norton (eds.) The New Parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe, London: Frank Cass, 1996;
4. A. Ágh and G. Ilonszki, Parliaments and Organised Interests: The Second Steps, Budapest: Hungarian Centre for Democracy Studies, 1996;
5. Z. Mansfeldová, D.M. Olson and P. Rakušanová (eds.) Central European Parliaments: The First Decade of Democratic Experience and Future Perspectives, Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, 2004;
6. P. Kopecký, Parliaments in the Czech and Slovak Republics: Party Competition and Parliamentary Institutionalisation, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001;
7. D.M. Olson and W.E. Crowther (eds.) Committees in Post-Communist Democratic Legislatures: Comparative Institutionalisation, Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 2002.
8. See, for example, F. Millard, Elections, Parties and Representation in Post-Communist Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
9. M.S. Fish, 'Stronger legislatures, stronger democracies', Journal of Democracy, 17(1), 2006, p. 18 (original emphasis).
10. P. Kopecký, 'Power to the executive! The changing executive-legislative relations in Eastern Europe', Journal of Legislative Studies 10(2/3), 2004, pp. 142-153.
11. The argument presented here draws on a wide range of primary data and sources in Romanian, Hungarian and English. Unless otherwise stated, all data have been collected, processed and interpreted by the author.
12. N.W. Polsby, 'The institutionalisation of the US House of Representatives', American Political Science Review 62(1), 1968, pp. 144-168.
13. D. Judge, 'Legislative institutionalisation: a bent analytical arrow?', Government & Opposition 38(4), 2003, pp. 497-516.
14. Kopecký, Parliaments in the Czech and Slovak Republics, pp. 12-13.
15. D.M. Olson and P. Norton, 'Legislatures in democratic transition', in Olson and Norton (eds.), The New Parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe, p. 6.
16. H. Grabbe, 'Europeanisation goes East: power and uncertainty in the EU accession process', in K. Featherstone and C.M. Radaelli (eds.), The Politics of Europeanisation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 303-327;
17. P.G. Lewis, 'EU enlargement and party systems in Central Europe', Journal of Communist Studies & Transition Politics 21(2), 2005, pp. 171-199;
18. F. Schimmelfennig and U. Sedelmeier (eds.) The Europeanisation of Central and Eastern Europe, London: Cornell University Press, 2005.
19. Olson and Norton ('Legislatures in democratic transition', p. 6) suggest that other factors such as administrative structures and interest groups can have a considerable impact on a legislature's 'capacity to exert an independent influence in regime development and policy-making'. Nevertheless, these will not be explored here.
20. On the revolutions of 1989, see R. Tocombining double acute accentkés, Hungary's Negotiated Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996;
21. L. Bruszt and D. Stark, 'Remaking the political field in Hungary: from the politics of confrontation to the politics of competition', in Ivo Banac (ed.) Eastern Europe in Revolution, London: Cornell University Press, 1992, pp. 13-55;
22. K. Verdery and G. Kligman, 'Romania after Ceauşescu: post-communist communism?', in Banac (ed.) Eastern Europe in Revolution, pp. 117-147;
23. R.A. Hall, 'The Uses of Absurdity: the Staged War Theory and the Romanian Revolution of December 1989', East European Politics & Societies 13(3), 1999, pp. 501-542.
24. The number of seats in the Senate was 119 in the first legislature, 143 in the second and the third, 140 in the fourth and 137 after the 2004 elections.
25. On the adoption of Hungary's electoral system, see K. Benoit and J.W. Schiemann, 'Institutional choice in new democracies: bargaining over Hungary's 1989 electoral law', Journal of Theoretical Politics 13(2), 2001, pp. 153-182.
26. A. Grzymala-Busse, Redeeming the Communist Past: The Regeneration of Communist Parties in East Central Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002,
27. and the contributions in A. Bozóki and J.T. Ishiyama (eds.), The Communist Successor Parties of Central and Eastern Europe, London: ME Sharpe, 2002.
28. For an early comparison of the two, see G. Pop-Elecheş, 'Separated at Birth or Separated by Birth? The Communist Successor Parties in Romania and Hungary', East European Politics & Societies 13(1), 1999, pp. 117-147.
29. A. Bozóki and J.T. Ishiyama, 'Introduction and theoretical framework', in Bozóki and Ishiyama (eds.), The Communist Successor Parties of Central and Eastern Europe, pp. 3-13.
30. The most recent name of the party is used throughout. For example, PUR (the Romanian Humanist Party) was renamed PC (the Conservative Party) in 2005. However, FIDESZ, which added Hungarian Civic Union (MPSZ) to its name in 2003, is referred to simply as FIDESZ.
31. Nevertheless, the profile of KDNP MPs in the 2006 National Assembly shows that the majority are, in fact, former FIDESZ MPs running on KDNP lists for the elections.
32. On FIDESZ's ideological conversion, see C. Kiss, 'From liberalism to conservatism: the Federation of Young Democrats in post-communist Hungary', East European Politics & Societies 16(3), 2002, pp. 739-763.
33. See also B. Fowler, 'Concentrated Orange: FIDESZ and the Remaking of the Hungarian Centre Right, 1994-2002', Journal of Communist Studies & Transition Politics 20(3), 2004, pp. 80-114.
34. On the 2000 elections, when PRM gained a quarter of seats in each of the two chambers, see G. Pop-Elecheş, 'Romania's Politics of Dejection', Journal of Democracy 12(3), 2001, pp. 156-169.
35. Fowler, 'Concentrated orange'.
36. C.M. Radaelli, 'The Europeanisation of public policy', in K. Featherstone and C.M. Radaelli (eds.), The Politics of Europeanisation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 30.
37. For other definitions of Europeanisation, see T.A. Börzel and T. Risse, 'Conceptualising the domestic impact of Europe', in the same volume, pp. 57-80.
38. Grabbe, 'Europeanisation goes east'.
39. P. Taggart and A. Szczerbiak, 'Contemporary Euroscepticism in the Party Systems of the European Union Candidate States of Central and Eastern Europe', European Journal of Political Research 43(1), 2004, pp. 1-27.
40. See also the contributors in Sedelmeier and Schimmelfennig, The Europeanisation of Central and Eastern Europe,
41. and in R.H. Linden (ed.) Norms and Nannies: The Impact of International Organisations on the Central and Eastern European States, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002.
42. Constitution of Hungary, available on the website of the Constitutional Court of Hungary (English version at www.mkab.hu/en/enpage5.htm).
43. Statement of Intent of the Legislative Proposal for Revising the Constitution of Romania, No. 227/2003 (17 March 2003), available at www.cdep.ro/proiecte/2003/200/20/7/em227.pdf (author's translation of the Romanian language original).
44. G. Pridham, 'Patterns of Europeanisation and Transnational Party Cooperation: Party Development in Central and Eastern Europe', in P.G. Lewis (ed.) Party Development and Democratic Change in Post-Communist Europe: The First Decade, London: Frank Cass, 2001, pp. 179-198.
45. See, for example, the statement of intent in European Parliament - Delegation to the Hungary - EU Joint Parliamentary Committee, Information Note on the Work of the EU-Hungary Joint Parliamentary Committee. Directorate General for External Policies of the Union, 23 June 2004, PE 342.076.
46. The number of laws and amendments passed by the Chamber of Deputies was 280 in 1990-1992, 625 in 1992-1996, 1125 in 1996-2000 and a staggering 2803 in 2000-2004. Negotiations with the EU were concluded in December 2004. Data from the legislative database of the Chamber of Deputies at www.cdep.ro.
47. The Hungarian National Assembly passed 796 laws and amendments in 1990-1994, 957 in 1994-1998, 860 in 1998-2002 an 1065 in 2002-2006. Data from www.mkogy.hu.
48. Tocombining double acute accentkés, Hungary's Negotiated Revolution.
49. A recent discussion of Hungary's post-communist constitution is I. Szikinger, 'Hungary's Pliable Constitution', in J. Zielonka (ed.) Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe - Volume I: Institutional Engineering, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 406-431.
50. For a discussion of the 1991 Constitution, see R. Weber, 'Constitutionalism as a Vehicle for Democratic Consolidation in J. Romania', in J. Zielonka (ed.), Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 212-43.
51. Lewis, 'EU Enlargement and party systems in Central Europe', p. 176.
52. J. Bielasiak, 'The institutionalisation of electoral and party systems in post-communist states', Comparative Politics 34(2), 2002, pp. 189-210;
53. S. Horowitz and E.C. Browne, 'Sources of Post-Communist Party System Consolidation: Ideology Versus Institutions', Party Politics 11(6), 2005, 689-706;
54. E. Bakke and N. Sitter, 'Patterns of Stability: Party Competition and Strategy in Central Europe since 1989', Party Politics 11(2), 2005, pp. 243-263;
55. I. van Biezen, Political Parties in New Democracies, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003;
56. T. Kostelecký, Political Parties after Communism, London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.
57. Since, as various commentators have noted, the effective number of parties does not constitute a very useful descriptor of party systems in Central and Eastern Europe, it is not used in this paper. See P.G. Lewis, Political Parties in Post-Communist Eastern Europe, London: Routledge, 2000, pp. 87-91.
58. Interestingly, the number of organisations representing national minorities has grown in Romania, from 14 in 1990 to 35 in 2000, decreasing slightly to 28 in 2004.
59. If we take into account electoral coalitions, the numbers for 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004 are 7, 6, 4 and 4, respectively. For a list of the principal coalitions, see the notes to Table 1.
60. A. Sikk, 'How unstable? Volatility and the Genuinely New Parties in Eastern Europe', European Journal of Political Research 44(3), 2005, pp. 391-412.
61. Horowitz and Browne, p. 691.
62. Lewis, Political Parties in Post-Communist Eastern Europe, pp. 123-49.
63. For the distinction between 'hard' and 'soft' Euroscepticism, see Taggart and Szczerbiak, 'Contemporary Euroscepticism in the party systems of the European Union candidate states of Central and Eastern Europe'. See also P. Kopecký and C. Mudde, 'The Two Sides of Euroscepticism: Party Positions on European Integration in East Central Europe', European Union Politics 3(3), 2002, pp. 297-326.
64. Taggart and Szczerbiak, 'Contemporary Euroscepticism'.
65. L. Ştefan, Patterns of Political Elite Recruitment in Post-Communist Romania, Bucharest: Ziua, 2004, p. 148.
66. This is a percentage of the raw data provided by Ştefan: 106 respondents of a total of 174 mentioned 1990, 1991 and 1992 as the year when they were recruited (p. 137).
67. The low incumbency rate in the second parliament is due to the difference in the number of seats gained by MSZP: 33 in 1990 and 209 in 1994. In fact, virtually all MSZP MPs in the 1990-1994 parliament were re-elected to the second.
68. Incumbency rates in the fourth and fifth legislatures, respectively, were as follows: FIDESZ - 79.27 and 70.21%; MDF - 70.83 and 72.73%; SZDSZ - 90.00 and 75.00%.
69. The differences between the Romanian and Hungarian legislatures in relation to incumbency are significant. Yet, these differences should not be overstated: since the Hungarian parliament's incumbency patterns are unparalleled across Central and Eastern Europe, the Romanian case proves to be the rule rather than the exception.
70. G. Ilonszki, 'Parliament and Parliamentarians in Hungary in a Comparative Perspective', in Ágh (ed.), The Emergence of East-Central European Parliaments, p. 246.
71. For an analysis of the Romanian legislature until the mid-1990s, see W.E. Crowther and S.D. Roper, 'A Comparative Analysis of Institutional Development in the Romanian and Moldovan Legislatures', in Olson and Norton (eds.) The New Parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe, pp. 133-160.
72. Stan shows that, during the period between 1 February and 30 September 2000, the legislature achieved a quorum in only 24% of meetings, effectively suspending legislative activity. As a result, the government resorted with increased frequency to issuing emergency ordinances: 684 ordinances were passed by the CDR-led executive, more than three times the number issued by the PDSR-led Vǎcǎroiu government in 1992-1996. See L. Stan, 'Comparing Post-Communist Governance: a Case Study', Journal of Communist Studies & Transition Politics 18(3), 2002, p. 93. During the previous Iliescu administration, parliament had achieved a quorum in 70% of meetings during a similar 7-month interval (pp. 92-93).
73. D.M. Olson and W.E. Crowther, 'Committees in New Democratic Parliaments: Indicators of Institutionalisation', in Olson and Crowther (eds.), Committees in Post-Communist Democratic Parliaments, p. 6.
74. Ibid., p. 14.
75. The Hungarian Parliament comprised 19 committees (bizottsá gok) in 1990-1994 and 1994-1998, 23 in 1998-2002 and 26 in 2002-2006. Since the election of the fifth post-communist legislature, the number of committees has been reduced to 18. The Romanian Chamber of Deputies had 12 commissions (comisii) in 1990-1992, 14 in 1992-1996, 15 in 1996-2000 and 17 in 2000-2004 and in the current legislature. In addition, there are a number of joint standing commissions with the Senate.
76. For a discussion of the first and second Hungarian legislatures, see G. Ilonszki, 'A Functional Clarification of Parliamentary Committees in Hungary, 1990-98', in Olson and Crowther, Committees in Post-Communist Democratic Parliaments, pp. 21-43.