List of Members
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Slovenia Before the Elections
PERSPECTIVE Realignment of the party system – Slovenia before the elections ALEŠ MAVER AND UROŠ URBAS November 2011 The coalition government under Social Democrat Prime make people redundant. Nevertheless, the unemploy- Minister Borut Pahor lost the support it needed in Parlia- ment rate increased by 75 per cent to 107,000 over three ment and early elections had to be called for 4 Decem- years. This policy was financed by loans of 8 billion eu- ber, one year before completing its term of office. What ros, which doubled the public deficit. are the reasons for this development? Which parties are now seeking votes in the »political marketplace«? What However, Prime Minister Pahor overestimated his popu- coalitions are possible after 4 December? And what chal- larity in a situation in which everybody hoped that the lenges will the new government face? economic crisis would soon be over. The governing par- ties had completely different priorities: they were seek- ing economic rents; they could not resist the pressure of Why did the government of lobbies and made concessions; and they were too preoc- Prime Minister Borut Pahor fail? cupied with scandals and other affairs emerging from the ranks of the governing coalition. Although the governing coalition was homogeneously left-wing, it could not work together and registered no significant achievements. The next government will thus Electoral history and development be compelled to achieve something. Due to the deterio- of the party system rating economic situation – for 2012 1 per cent GDP growth, 1.3 per cent inflation, 8.4 per cent unemploy- Since the re-introduction of the multi-party system Slo- ment and a 5.3 per cent budget deficit are predicted – venia has held general elections in 1990, 1992, 1996, the goals will be economic. -
General Election in Slovenia
GENERAL ELECTIONS IN SLOVENIA 4th December 2011 European Elections monitor The Rightwing Opposition Forces forecast to win in the Slovenian General Elections on from Corinne Deloy translated by Helen Levy 4th December next. ANALYSIS On 4th December next Slovenia will be holding the first early general elections in its history. 1 month before This election follows parliament’s rejection on 20th September last of the confidence motion the poll presented by Borut Pahor’s government (Social Democratic Party, SD). 51 MPs of the Demo- cratic Party (SDS), the People’s Party (SLS), the Slovenian National Party (SNS), Zares (Z) and of the Democratic Pensioners’ Party (DeSUS) voted against the text, 36 members of the Social Democratic Party and of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDS) as well as three independent MPs voted in support. The Slovenian Parliament was dissolved on 21st October. Borut Pahor is the third Slovenian head of government to fall after Alojz Peterle (Slovenian Christian-Democrats) in 1992 and Janez Drnovsek (LDS) in 2000. After the announcement of the government’s collapse, President of the Republic, Danilo Türk left New York where he was attending the UN’s General Assembly to return to Ljubljana. “The vote of defiance has worsened the political crisis,” he declared, calling on all political parties to show courage rapidly in order to find solutions to the crisis in the interest of the Slovenian people. “The vote of defiance is good news because it will lead to a new government that will have wider public support, which is vital if the necessary decisions are to be taken,” declared Janez Sustarsic, professor at the Faculty of Management in Koper. -
Codebook Indiveu – Party Preferences
Codebook InDivEU – party preferences European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies December 2020 Introduction The “InDivEU – party preferences” dataset provides data on the positions of more than 400 parties from 28 countries1 on questions of (differentiated) European integration. The dataset comprises a selection of party positions taken from two existing datasets: (1) The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File contains party positions for three rounds of European Parliament elections (2009, 2014, and 2019). Party positions were determined in an iterative process of party self-placement and expert judgement. For more information: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/65944 (2) The Chapel Hill Expert Survey The Chapel Hill Expert Survey contains party positions for the national elections most closely corresponding the European Parliament elections of 2009, 2014, 2019. Party positions were determined by expert judgement. For more information: https://www.chesdata.eu/ Three additional party positions, related to DI-specific questions, are included in the dataset. These positions were determined by experts involved in the 2019 edition of euandi after the elections took place. The inclusion of party positions in the “InDivEU – party preferences” is limited to the following issues: - General questions about the EU - Questions about EU policy - Questions about differentiated integration - Questions about party ideology 1 This includes all 27 member states of the European Union in 2020, plus the United Kingdom. How to Cite When using the ‘InDivEU – Party Preferences’ dataset, please cite all of the following three articles: 1. Reiljan, Andres, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, Lorenzo Cicchi, Diego Garzia, Alexander H. -
Slovenian Democratic Path After European Union Accession
The Difficult Look Back: Slovenian Democratic Path after European Union Accession MIRO HAČEK Politics in Central Europe (ISSN: 1801-3422) Vol. 15, No. 3 DOI: 10.2478/pce-2019-0023 Abstract: In the third wave of democratic changes in the early 1990s when the Central and Eastern European (CEE) political landscape changed radically and the democrati‑ sation processes started in the eastern part of the continent, Slovenia was one of the most prominent countries with the best prospects for rapid democratic growth. Slove‑ nia somewhat luckily escaped the Yugoslav civil wars and towards the end of the 20th century was already on the path towards a stable and consolidated democracy with the most successful economy in the entire CEE area. After the dissolution of Yugoslavia, Slovenia had a simple and straight ‑forward political goals, i.e. to join the European union as soon as possible, thus consolidating its place among the most developed countries within the region. After some setbacks, this goal was accomplished in (so far) the biggest enlargement to the Union in May 2004. But what happened after Slovenia managed to successfully achieve its pair of major political goals? In this chapter, we search for an answer to this question and find out why Slovenian voters are increas‑ ingly distrustful not only of political institutions, but why so ‑called new political faces and instant political parties are so successful and why Slovenian democracy has lost a leading place among consolidated democracies in CEE. Keywords: Slovenia; European Union; membership; distrust; democracy. Introduction After declaring its independence from former Yugoslavia in 1991, the Republic of Slovenia expressed its willingness and objective, both in its strategic develop‑ ment documents and at the highest political levels, to become a full member of POLITICS IN CENTRAL EUROPE 15 (2019) 3 419 the European Union (EU).1 As the crucial developmental documents2 indicate, the optimum long ‑term development of the Slovenian economy is inextricably tied to Slovenia’s full membership in the EU. -
Populism Report Slovenia
2018 POPULISM REPORT SPECIAL EDITION: SLOVENIA Tamás BOROS Botond BőTöS Published by: fEPS – foundation for European Progressive Studies Rue Montoyer 40, 4th fl oor – 1000 Brussels, Belgium T: +32 2 234 69 00 Email: [email protected] Website: www.feps-europe.eu Policy Solutions Revay utca, 10 – 1065 Budapest, Hungary T: +36 1 4 748 748 Email: [email protected] Website: www.policysolutions.eu Copyright: FEPS and Policy Solutions, October 2018 Responsible editors: Ernst STETTER, FEPS Secretary General Tamás BOROS, Co-Director of Policy Solutions Maria FREITAS, FEPS Policy Advisor Authors: Tamás BOROS, Botond BőTöS Proofreader and consultant: Gábor GYőRI This study does not represent the collective views of FEPS and Policy Solutions. The responsibility of FEPS and Policy Solutions is limited to approving its publication as worthy of consideration of the European progressive movement. With the fi nancial support of the European Parliament. This report does not represent the European Parliament’s views but only of the respective authors. IN THE STRANGLEHOLD OF POPULISM: SLOVENIA In many respects, the Slovenian parliamentary elections of June 2018 followed a different trajectory than the election results of the neighbouring countries in Central and Southern Europe. In Italy, Austria, Hungary and Croatia, rightwing populist forces gained power, and the public mood in these countries shifted visibly to the right. At first glance, it appears that Slovenian domestic politics did not succumb to the populist climate that prevails in the southern and eastern segments of the European Union. The domestic political landscape remained unchanged: similarly to the election results seen over the past decades, the votes cast were distributed between the right and left at a ratio of 40-60, respectively, while voter turnout (51%) declined. -
Module 2 Sweden Election 2002
MODULE 2 SWEDEN ELECTION 2002 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Swedish data set for CSES module 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The election was held on September 15, 2002. Local and regional elections were held at the same time. The Swedish election study is separated into two samples, one pre election sample and one post election sample. The CSES module 2 is included in the post election part of the study. The CSES Module 2 data set include 1 060 respondents. Due to Swedish data laws the respondents in the Swedish election study 2002 were asked if they agreed to that their answers would be a part of international data set accessible on the Internet. Among the respondents there were 6 percent (70 respondents) which disagreed to this. The table below show the proportion of respondents that agreed and did not agreed in different social and political groups. For example the results shows that women, elderly, persons living outside large towns or cities and low educated people were somewhat more negative to that their answers would be accessible on the Internet. agree data on disagree data Internet on Internet sum percent n gender male 95 5 100 574 female 92 8 100 556 age 18-22 97 3 100 238 23-60 94 6 100 660 61-85 90 10 100 232 rural/urban rural area 91 9 100 189 small village 92 8 100 238 suburb to large town or city 93 7 100 235 large town or city 96 4 100 467 education low 89 11 100 205 middle 95 5 100 560 high 97 3 100 358 political interest -
The Case of Four New Successful Parties in Slovenia
158 POLITOLOGICKÝ ČASOPIS / CZECH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 2/2017 A Hint at Entrepreneurial Parties? The Case of Four New Successful Parties in Slovenia ALENKA KRAšOVEC* Abstract Since the 2011 elections several new Slovenian parties have recorded exceptional results and two newcomers even received a plurality vote in the 2011 and 2014 elections. Some scholars believe that, along with the successful new parties, a new party model has also developed. Therefore, we employed several key dimensions to find out whether four Slovenian new successful parties (List of Zoran Janković – Positive Slovenia, Citizen List of Gregor Virant – Citizen List, Party of Miro Cerar – Party of Modern Centre, and Alliance of Alenka Bratušek – Alliance of Social-Liberal Democrats) have exhibited elements of entrepreneurial parties. Analysis of several dimensions (party origin, resources in election campaign, party organisation and electoral appeals) reveals many similarities among the four parties but also that they can be classified as entrepreneurial parties (mainly when the minimal conceptualisation of this party model is used) only in some fragments and with some important reservations. Key words: political party; entrepreneurial party; new party; electoral success; Slovenia DOI: 10.5817/PC2017-2-158 1. Introduction In the last two elections in Slovenia, several new political parties recorded very good, even exceptional, electoral results. According to several scholars (e.g. Harmel, Robertson 1985; Lucardie 2000; Krouwel, Lucardie 2008; Bolleyer 2013), the success of new parties is in- fluenced by many determinants. We shall briefly present the most important ones in the Slovenian case, but above all the article will deal with the question of whether successful newcomers exhibit some common characteristics, particularly those typical of the entrepre- neurial party model. -
Slovenia by Damjan Lajh
Slovenia by Damjan Lajh Capital: Ljubljana Population: 2.0 million GNI/capita, PPP: US$26,470 Source: !e data above was provided by !e World Bank, World Development Indicators 2011. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Electoral Process 1.75 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Civil Society 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.75 1.75 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Independent Media 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 Governance* 2.25 2.25 2.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a National Democratic 2.00 Governance n/a n/a n/a 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Local Democratic 1.50 Governance n/a n/a n/a 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Judicial Framework 1.75 and Independence 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.75 1.75 Corruption 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.50 Democracy Score 1.83 1.79 1.75 1.68 1.75 1.82 1.86 1.93 1.93 1.93 * Starting with the 2005 edition, Freedom House introduced separate analysis and ratings for national democratic governance and local democratic governance to provide readers with more detailed and nuanced analysis of these two important subjects. -
Instructions for Authors
Comparison of Communication of Political Parties over the Internet in Slovenia and Croatia Petra Koruga1, Miroslav Bača2, Tomislav Fotak3 ABSTRACT In the past decades, information and communication technologies affect all aspects of our lives, including politics. Political parties use the Internet to communicate with their potential voters. This paper will give a short introduction to communication over the Internet in general, description of political parties in question, and the main part of the paper is the analysis and comparison of communication of Slovenian and Croatian political parties over the Internet. Special attention will be payed to communication using social networks, such as Facebook or Twitter. Key Words: Internet, communication, social networks, political parties, Slovenia, Croatia Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, web sites 1 INTRODUCTION Political communication is an interactive process regarding the transfer of information between politicians, media and public. Political election campaigns are organized so that they inform, persuade and mobilize. Campaigns in general can be best understood as an organized effort to inform, persuade and mobilize. The legal rules of the game determine the overall context, and that context is determined by the structure of mass media (LeDuc, Niemi and Norris, 2001). Internet, Social networks, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube… Those are relatively new terms in politics. New concepts, media and new opportunities to communicate ideas and messages, but still under-exploited channels for communication with the public. While the practice of using the Internet in political campaigns goes back to the nineties, only in recent years, with the emergence of new tools and social networks, real strength of this medium is demonstrated. -
Codebook: Government Composition, 1960-2019
Codebook: Government Composition, 1960-2019 Codebook: SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPARATIVE POLITICAL DATA SET – GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION 1960-2019 Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann The Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set provides detailed information on party composition, reshuffles, duration, reason for termination and on the type of government for 36 democratic OECD and/or EU-member countries. The data begins in 1959 for the 23 countries formerly included in the CPDS I, respectively, in 1966 for Malta, in 1976 for Cyprus, in 1990 for Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, in 1991 for Poland, in 1992 for Estonia and Lithuania, in 1993 for Latvia and Slovenia and in 2000 for Croatia. In order to obtain information on both the change of ideological composition and the following gap between the new an old cabinet, the supplement contains alternative data for the year 1959. The government variables in the main Comparative Political Data Set are based upon the data presented in this supplement. When using data from this data set, please quote both the data set and, where appropriate, the original source. Please quote this data set as: Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann. 2021. Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set – Government Composition 1960-2019. Zurich: Institute of Political Science, University of Zurich. These (former) assistants have made major contributions to the dataset, without which CPDS would not exist. In chronological and descending order: Angela Odermatt, Virginia Wenger, Fiona Wiedemeier, Christian Isler, Laura Knöpfel, Sarah Engler, David Weisstanner, Panajotis Potolidis, Marlène Gerber, Philipp Leimgruber, Michelle Beyeler, and Sarah Menegal. -
Macro Report August 23, 2004
Prepared by: Date: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 2: Macro Report August 23, 2004 Country: Sweden Date of Election: 15/9 2002 NOTE TO COLLABORATORS: The information provided in this report contributes to an important part of the CSES project. Your efforts in providing these data are greatly appreciated! Any supplementary documents that you can provide (e.g., electoral legislation, party manifestos, electoral commission reports, media reports) are also appreciated, and may be made available on the CSES website. Part I: Data Pertinent to the Election at which the Module was Administered 1. Report the number of portfolios (cabinet posts) held by each party in cabinet, prior to the most recent election. (If one party holds all cabinet posts, simply write "all".) Name of Political Party Members of parlament LEFT PARTY (VÄNSERPARTIET) 43 SOCIAL DEMOCRATS (SOCIALDEMOKRATERNA) 131 CENTRE PARTY (CENTERPARTIET) 18 PEOPLE’S PARTY LIBERALS (FOLKPARTIET LIBERALERNA) 17 CONSERVATIVE PARTY (MODERATA SAMLINGSPARTIET) 82 CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS (KRISTDEMOKRATERNA) 42 GREEN PARTY (MILJÖPARTIET DE GRÖNA) 16 1a. What was the size of the cabinet before the election? 349 members of parlament All ministers Social Democrats – 22. 2. Report the number of portfolios (cabinet posts) held by each party in cabinet, after the most recent election. (If one party holds all cabinet posts, simply write "all"). Name of Political Party Members of parlament LEFT PARTY (VÄNSERPARTIET) 30 SOCIAL DEMOCRATS (SOCIALDEMOKRATERNA) 144 CENTRE PARTY (CENTERPARTIET) 22 PEOPLE’S PARTY LIBERALS (FOLKPARTIET LIBERALERNA) 48 CONSERVATIVE PARTY (MODERATA SAMLINGSPARTIET) 55 CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS (KRISTDEMOKRATERNA) 33 GREEN PARTY (MILJÖPARTIET DE GRÖNA) 17 2a. What was the size of the cabinet after the election? 349 members of parlament All ministers Social Democrats – 22. -
Kristdemokraterna: Bäst När Det Gäller – Men Hur Länge? Marie Demker
Kristdemokraterna: Bäst när det gäller – men hur länge? Marie Demker Christian Democrats – Best When it Counts, But for How Long? The Christian Democrats succeeded to keep up their parliamentary position after the 2014 national parliamentary election despite a string of disappointing opinion polls. The party has changed its leader since the election. The former leader Göran Hägglund was popular among the Christian Democratic voters but he did not manage to prevent the loss of voters since the successful 1998 election. The party has been shaken by several ideological conflicts. Hägglund was challenged from the inside during the last parlia- mentary term but won the leadership election and was reelected at the party’s Riksting in 2012. The Swedish Christian Democrats have developed from a small Christian protest party with an unclear position regarding Left and Right to a (still) small Conservative party and coalition partner in three Liberal-Conservative governments since 1991. The party stands on a shaky voting foundation, and has to appeal to a broader and more mainstream non-socialist group of voters in order to be able to cross the four percent parliamentary threshold. The parliamentary group has been active on a broad range of issues with a social conservative profile. In office the Christian Democrats have been active mostly on matters regarding welfare and health care since they have mainly been managing the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Christian Democratic values – as they are interpreted in a European framework – are not widely distributed among voters and are only superficially established in Sweden. The party’s future depends on whether it manages to keep the older groups of adherents – mainly churchgoers – and at the same time attract newer groups with more mainstream traditional Conservative values.