View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DSpace at Waseda University ＜ ＞ Origins and Consequences of One-Party Dominance: Comparative Analysis of Ex-Yugoslav Countries Keiichi Kubo dominant party while Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro had or still have a dominant Introduction party. This article attempts to address following questions:What are the origins Since the dissolution of the former of one-party dominance in this region? Yugoslavia (Socialist Federal Republic of What are the factors that contributed to Yugoslavia), ex-Yugoslav countries have the maintenance of one-party dominance? followed divergent paths. For example, What are its consequences? Ex-Yugoslav while Slovenia successfully joined the EU countries have not been analysed from this in 2004,Bosnia-Herzegovina still remains theoretical perspective, and this article under the international administration and aims to add some empirical findings to the the future status of Kosovo remains un- existing literature and to contribute to the clear at the time of writing.Despite a large further understanding of the phenomenon amount of academic and journalistic that attracts increasing scholarly atten- works devoted to this region, much tion. remains to be done to analyse and explain This article consists of four parts. The commonalities and differences among ex- first part presents the definition of domi- Yugoslav countries, because much less nant party and applies this definition to effort has been made for the systematic ex-Yugoslav cases. Secondly, this paper comparative analysis of ex-Yugoslav coun- analyses the factors that contributed to the tries based on a single and coherent frame- emergence of dominant party. It will be work. argued that the two-ballot majority system This article thus attempts to conduct a (TBMS)played a significant role in con- comparative analysis of ex-Yugoslav coun- solidating the parliamentary dominance in tries to explain commonalities and differ- Croatia and Serbia. Another factor, how- ences from a perspective of the dominant ever, played an important role as well, party and democracy.These countries foll- namely the presence or absence of the issue owed divergent paths in this regard: that divides the ethnic majority group.The Slovenia and Macedonia have not had a third section analyses the maintenance of one-party dominance,examining the strat- ＊ Research Associate, Waseda University, JAPAN egies used by dominant parties and the behaviour of opposition parties. This sec- ⑶ Executive dominance:control of the exec- tion also attempts to explain why one- utive power.Here,“control”is defined by party dominance collapsed in Croatia and the party’s ability to impose and realize its Serbia in 2000.Finally, the consequences policy preferences as government policies. of one-party dominance will be discussed. This is achieved either by:(a)the forma- It will be argued that the one-party domi- tion of single-party government, enabled nance has had some negative effects on the by an absolute majority in the parliament quality of democracy, such as the exclu- or by a relative majority with the accep- sion of ethnic minority,the erosion of fun- tance of opposition parties (i.e. single- damental human rights and corruption. party minority government),or by(b)the The issue of the exclusion of ethnic minor- formation of coalition government in ities will be discussed separately since which smaller coalition partners are not there is an interesting difference between powerful enough to negotiate with the Croatia and Serbia on the one hand and dominant party over government policies Montenegro on the other. in key policy areas. Note that the defini- tion in the latter case is still somewhat 1. One-Party Dominance and vague and requires some qualitative judg- Ex-Yugoslav Countries ment on the power of the“dominant”party and other coalition partners. This vague- 1.1. Definition of One-Party Dominance ness suggests that we should be cautious if The definition of “dominance”is not a the party forms a coalition government, straightforward issue,as Bogaards (2004) but on the other hand we should not shows. This article takes a three- exclude the possibility that a party that dimensional definition following Boucek forms a coalition government becomes (1998), namely electoral, parliamentary, “dominant”(for a similar argument, see and executive. In other words, a party Pempel 1990, p.3). For example, the must achieve “dominance” in all of these Social Democrats in Sweden ruled either aspects in order to be judged “dominant”. alone as a minority government or in alli- In each dimension,“dominance”is defined ance with other parties such as Agrarians as follows: and Communists, but it is often regarded ⑴ Electoral dominance:largest share of the as a dominant party(Pempel 1990).In the votes received (not necessarily an absolute case of presidential or semi-presidential majority of votes) system,both the president and the govern- ⑵ Parliamentary dominance: largest share ment should be under control of the same of the seats in the parliament. This could party, because “［d］ivided government be either:(a)an absolute majority in the signals the absence of dominance” parliament,or(b)a relative majority(less (Bogaards 2004,p.175).The “policy pref- than 50％ but the largest among all erences of the dominant party”could be parties) that could allow the party to those of just one faction in the party when dominate the government formation and there are many factions that compete with policy making. each other within the party over the con- Keiichi Kubo: Origins and Consequences of One-Party Dominance tent of policies. This means that the pres- sary to ask why the alternation in power ence of multiple factions within the domi- was possible. The analysis of the Serbian nant party does not lead to the disqualifi- case will show that some additional fac- cation of that party as dominant (see tors were necessary for opposition parties Bogaards 2004,p.183). to achieve the alternation in power, even In addition, temporal dimension is also though election results certainly triggered important, because winning elections just the collapse of one-party dowinance. once and forming a singe-party govern- For the operationalization of dominant ment after elections is not enough to be authoritarian party, this article follows regarded as “dominant”party.As Pempel Bogaards (2004).In other words,the Free- has argued,a party that is to be regarded dom House scores for political and civil as dominant “must be at the core of a liberties are used to see whether a country nation’s government over a substantial is “free”,“partially free”,or “not free”.A period of time,not simply for a few years” dominant party that is found either in (Pempel 1990, pp.3-4). Therefore, this “free” countries or in electoral democ- article includes the temporal dimension of racies of “partially free”countries would dominance:following Bogaards, this arti- be judged as a dominant party.A dominant cle will speak of a dominant party only party found in “partially free” or “not when one party achieves dominance in the free” countries that are not electoral three dimensions discussed above through democracies would be judged as a domi- three consecutive multi-party elections nant authoritarian party. (Bogaards 2004,p.175). In the context of ex-Yugoslav cases, a 1.2. Ex-Yugoslav Cases:Divergence distinction between dominant party and after the Dissolution of Yugoslavia dominant authoritarian party is important. Which countries among ex-Yugoslav According to Bogaards, the dominant countries have had or still have a domi- authoritarian party system is a system in nant/dominant authoritarian party? This which one-party dominance is maintained article examines five countries, namely by extra-democratic means. This means Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, that the authoritarian dominant party and Macedonia. Bosnia-Herzegovina is “does not allow for competition on an excluded from the present analysis not equal basis”(Bogaards 2004, p.178) and only because it experienced a full-blown therefore, by construction, alternation in civil war (1992-1995) which obviously power becomes “only a theoretical possi- disrupted regular elections in this country bility” (Bogaards 2004, p.178). Among but also because it is still under the aus- our cases,the case of Serbia indeed shows pices of the international community that opposition parties faced difficulties in (almost an international protectorate)and achieving the alternation in power even has not recovered full sovereignty at the when they received enough votes to do so time of writing. This article will treat (see below). Concerning the dominant Serbia and Montenegro as separate cases authoritarian party, therefore, it is neces- even though they composed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1992 to 2002 that Slovenia has not had a dominant and composed a state-union “Serbia and party system. Montenegro” from 2002 to 2006. It is Macedonia is a clear-cut case of the because there is no party system of its own absence of a dominant party,because there at the federal level and because these two is simply no party that has managed to republics have had completely different secure the largest share of seats in the party systems: the collapse of one-party parliament and the office of prime minister dominance in Serbia in 2000,for example, through three consecutive elections. The did not lead to the collapse of one-party alternation in power has occurred three dominance in Montenegro. In addition, times during the period from 1990 until Montenegro has already achieved a quasi- 2006(in 1998,2002 and 2006).Macedonia independence (though not recognized has managed to maintain the inter-ethnic internationally)since 1998:for example,it power sharing (between Macedonians and now has a different currency(EURO is the Albanians)in the government despite sev- only official currency in this country while eral alternations in power.