The Emergence of New Small Parties

CEU eTD Collection

THE in partial fulfillment for the degree of Master of Arts inPublic Policy THE

EMERGENCE

CASES AND Supervisor: Professor Agnes Batory Central European University

Department of Public THE OF Budapest, Hungary

REPUBLIC

Iva Popova

Submitted to CZECH OF 2013 By

NEW

REPUBLIC

SMALL Policy

BULGARIA

PARTIES

–

CEU eTD Collection

CEU eTD Collection Signature: (printedName letters): Date: This revisions. final is trueincluding ofthethesis, a copy requireme the of part as accepted been degreeacademic ornon has which material no contains thesis This made. been has acknowledgement due where except person other any by published previously sol the am I that declare hereby Popova………………………………. ………………Iva undersigned the I, Author’s Declaration

ato o ti tei. o h bs o m kolde hs hss otis o material no contains thesis this knowledge my of best the To thesis. this of author e

- degree program, inEnglish otherlanguage. degree orinany ……v Popova…………………………………………… …………Iva …………Iva … 31

December 2013………………………………………………December Popova……………………………………………

t o ay other any of nts

CEU eTD Collection

CEU eTD Collection be reasons the identifying by process this analyze to is paper this of purpose The fractions. different into transform or arena political the from dissolve fast equally which parties, political small new of multi with democracies parliamentary are countries the Currently to 1990s. early transition the in and period past democracy communist similar experienced They Union. European the of members European Eastern Central are Republic Czech the and Bulgaria of Republic Abstract hind its existen - party systems. In their recent history they history recent their In systems. party

ce and compare and itin ce

Bulgaria and Bulgaria and Republic. the Czech

both experience the phenomenon of fast emergence emergence fast of phenomenon the experience both i

countries, as well as as well as countries, CEU eTD Collection Appendix Conclusions 3:Analysis Chapter Chapter 1:Liter Chapter Introduction Abstract Table of Contents Party Ab QuestionsInterview ListInterview regularities? 3.4. consistencies? 3.3. W 3.2. 3.1. 2.7. 2.6. 2.5. 2.4. 2.3. 2.2. 2.1. 1.3. 1.2. 1.1. 3.3.3. 3.3.2 3.3.1. 3.2.2. 3.2.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.1.

...... 2: Methodology hy istrend?hy therea Is ChallengesMethodological Analysis Collection and Data Method ofProcessTracing for Method Quantitative Comparison Selection Case Final the forSelecting cases two comparison theparametersSetting for caseselection Theory Cleavage democraciesYoung effect Party system tendencies after the fallofCommunism thevolatility and Regarding the there Are away: Regarding process ofany patterns/recurring fading empirical the Regarding emergence parties: there of Are new patterns/recurring any empirical

...... breviations and Translationsbreviations and there a trend?there a

......

...... Structural changes happened theCzech in What Republic? happened Bulgaria? in What RepublicCzech Bulgaria Filling the Void Filling the Disillusionment withthestatusquo

...... ature Review

......

...... 41 40 38 38 36 33 32 30 29 29 28 27 27 25 25 25 25 23 22 20 19 17 15 11 10 . . 8 7 4 4 1

CEU eTD Collection References

......

CEU eTD Collection do these parties preferences their of processes These followed Republic theirquickthe Czech by dissolution? research often W surprisingly performing elections. years, eight last the in rise the on were parties small where region the their in th stagesof one be to appears parties small different of emergence the and building through democracy went countries CEE years 20 than more last the Throughout then immensely in begun. had choice free of era the that confirming society, the 2002 (Bielasiak functions behaviors. voters’ various to led which of fall the after partie political of study The Introduction hat can also can hat

o ee al t mk i it primn i te olwn eetos Hr cms the comes Here elections. following the in parliament into it make to able even not

question:

n nmru nw cos perd c appeared actors new numerous and (Nova

be observed in both in observed be ) . “

communism in the early 1990s. The transition to democracy brought new trends, new brought democracy to transition The 1990s. early the in communism Various s Various come andcome go be will k 2000 k

ew democraciesew What enables this enables What occurrence

) addressedin . Republic of Bulgaria and the Czech Republic are two of those countries those of two are Republic Czech the and Bulgaria of Republic . mall parties mall s in Central and Eastern Europe became a topic of serious discussions serious of topic a became Europe Eastern and Central in s ”

, the reasons behind the support of the voters voters the of support the behind reasons the , on a regular basis. regular on a

in Europe and in Europe

countries is that usually these usually that is countries

this thesis work thesis this rapid emergence of new small political parties in Bulgaria and and Bulgaria in parties political small new of emergence rapid

began to raise offering representation to different groups groups different to representation offering raise to began Rapidly ,

1 the oes ee moee wt te eiin maker decision the with empowered were voters

amn cran position certain laiming

in an attempt to answer the main question why why question main answerthe to attempt an in debate debate their isaround significance ongoing.

The role of small parties increased increased parties small of role The

parties equally abruptly fade away fade abruptly equally

n h politic the on e common threats in in threats common e n h vltlt in volatility the and

well al al

during

arena main

in ,

CEU eTD Collection be cannot parties new addition, In elections. before shortly emergence its is Republic Czech to referred when det be to important highly is First,it topic. the into introduced so, do to order In research. sce political the on factor th for causes the are what cases, as selected ex will thesis the of parts following The funding. for space leaving sides, the to abide po foreign and domestic its shaping and Republic Czech the and Bulgaria governing Somehow research like sounds demands, people’s addressing as much “messiah appea they as parties, different for vote to opportunity vot in volatility significant to leads which change for need open the be to seems parties small of emergence the for reason primarily in qualitative with combination conclusions several in to led which Republic, Czech the and Bulgaria from experts with interviews used is analysis comparative of method The issue. and primary T e pcfcte o te issue the of specificities he

”, who promises to solve the problematic issues i issues problematic the solve to promises who ”, hwd ht ot ml pris i piaiy t bann th obtaining at primarily aim parties small most that showed eodr research secondary

in this paper. The basic feature of a new party in the cases of Bulgaria and the and Bulgaria of cases the in party new a of feature basic The paper. this in several clarifications need to be presented, in order for the audience to be properly be to audience the fororder presented,bein to need clarifications several ne in the countries and how is everything related to the findings of this this of findings the to related everything is how and countries the in ne

il be will

rig o add to trying r peeecs uig consecutive during preferences ers

xlrd and explored personal ambitions and opportunity opportunity and ambitions personal plain in detail why detail in plain e emergence of small parties, small of emergence e

value 2

a noble motive noble a

o the to justified n the countries the n o a regular a on r

Bulgaria and the Czech Republic were Republic Czech the and Bulgaria already ermined what what ermined ih xmls rm h conducted the from examples with

in these democratic societies, the societies, democratic these in

xsig literature existing

elections. in short period of time of period short in

e generous state subsidy. subsidy. state generous e

basis promoting another another promoting basis why they cannot remain cannot they why does “new” party mean, party “new” does o eei fo state from benefit to epe ae the have People

oeig the covering - person . licies

. As As . The

CEU eTD Collection of questiontheemergence research small regarding theparties and inBulgaria Republic. Czech mandates two and fast created 2009 and (2005 Bulgaria examples as used be will elections (2005 years 8 last the is thesis the in covered be will which period the dif of part were they when actions, past political individual their for responsible them hold usually voters and (ibid) parties new those enter figures political new only that case the ac past their for reproached . They will be analyzed and related to the interviews, in an attempt to answer the main main the answer to attempt an in interviews, the to related and analyzed be will They equally, - 2013)

). These four elections provide elections four These). ute xlie n h ehdlg part Methodology the in explained further , rapidly vanished rapidly t ions, since they don’t have such have don’t they since ions,

i bt countries both n ,

or no longer no or 3

late

relevant examples of new parties, which were which parties, new of examples relevant – exist in their initial form for more than more for form initial their in exist

post h Ceh eulc 20 ad 00 and 2010) and (2006 Republic Czech the

- ( Communism and more specifically the specifically more and Communism Tóka

1998). However, it is not always not is it However, 1998). Therefore, . ferent party. Second, party. ferent

w p two arliamentary

one - CEU eTD Collection first time) the at Czechoslovakia (still Republic’s Czech the of case The surprising. extremely Socia the of victory the speaking historically so system, the within institutionalized and established be to time more need parties political that showed well very time same the at but society, the for disappointment major a as came result This 36.2%. with second came protests, the of at figures Union main the The of some 2002). were members (Bielasiak whose Forces, votes Democratic the of 47.2% with elections the won regime) its against Communis the of name given newly the was (this Party Socialist Bulgarian the still however, implemented, was system electoral 2013 May (inter 90.3% of level record the at was turnout voter the when 1990 June 10 on Bulgaria in elections democratic first the was this of example appropriate very A time. peoples’ as building, party in difficulties serious experienced democracies fragile the that surprising not is It theformer in Communist of world.” consolidation democracy institutionaliza the Therefore, well. function to democracies for essential is parties political and systems electoral of Bielasiak “The development byJack whoexplained: (2002), acknowledged were these democracies most the of Two systems. electoral and institutions new as well as economies market free their establishing in way long the began democracies new The life. political of characteristics all covered 1990s of beginning the in CEE in occurred that changes The 1.1. Review 1:Literature Chapter

Party system after the the after system Party icr dsr fr hne aeilzd ahr ucl, u ntos ulig eurd more required building nations but quickly, rather materialized change for desire sincere

as part of the research process research the of part as in f ibe ate wti well within parties viable of tion t party that ruled for the last more than four decades and people were people and decades four than more last the for ruled that party t fall ofCommunism fall

). The political structure had already changed and the new the and changed already had structure political The ). 4

- salse eetrl ue i ciia t the to critical is rules electoral established list Party followed certain logic and was not was and logic certain followed Party list

and the volatility tendencies volatility the and important aspects for the functioning of of functioning the for aspects important

view with Maria Divizieva on 19 on Divizieva Maria with view

CEU eTD Collection differen in support their affects which preferences, their changing of tendency a follow voters that evidence is there also but positions, party different identify to able somewhat st Bielasiak tendencies. volatility voters’ the for reasons the of some shows again which years, those in parties of large number of emergence the explains That come.” to time some for polities new the shaping features well on post the that argue not did who (1999) systems party of analysis Toka’s and Kitschelt, Markowski, Mansfeldova, used He systems. defined as more states discussed the perceive scholars that explains author the perspective, structure the to comes it When support. could society the than parties, more by determined was rise w voters, the for unexpected confusing rather as Bielasiak rather This makers. decision of role the try to wanted just they if as programmes, party defined any without fast, raised actors political new therefore public, not did ideologies of existing the state when fragile regime, old the the fall on the after emphasizes right author democracy the theory, rasa tabula the discussing When (ibid). the on focuses one polit new of latter concretion the whereas tendencies, formation party weak to leading experience democratic of lack the on emphasizes one former The perspective. structure the and perspective di processes the explain that theories two isolated post the of capacity the of terms In number of seats inparliament. ( Forum Civic the as regime, change the of supporters the for favorable more was 1990 June in elections democratic - communist party systems are consolidated but rather that: “citizens and politicians learn to act act to learn politicians and “citizens that: rather but consolidated are systems party communist - nesod self understood newly formed movement during the Velvet Revolution) won 36% and comfortable and 36% wonRevolution) Velvet the during movement formed newly esd n h fc ta crety dfeet eerh hw ta pol are people that shows research different currently, that fact the on ressed ical projects around “well around projects ical - neet i nw eorce quite democracies new in interests

- omns sae t etbih ibe at sses Bielasiak systems party viable establish to states communist ith high percentage of volatility between elections, with elections, between volatility of percentage high ith 5 - defined issues represented by established parties” established by represented issues defined

frnl, u thoroughly but fferently, ail, porsig twr durable “toward progressing rapidly,” –

eetos The elections. t h tbl rasa tabula the ersn the represent CEU eTD Collection already andestablished can democracies intoday’s these beseen tendencies of that than larger is parties electoral of number effective the as voters, among volatility existence the determined Bielasiak actors relevant the identifying after framework, system party Sartori’s applying after Therefore, history. in stages transition previous to compared larger is countries communist parties of number the is sh issue the on Research author. the by further discussed systems party stable the characterizes that factor important Another aftertheelections change summarized:of (ibid).Bielasiak theregime Cze the whereas preferences, voters’ in volatility high of trend the followed Bulgaria Communism of fall the after that note to interesting is it Republic Czech the and Bulgaria Comparing partes. opposition the and parties established existing s the with region, the in volatility high the explained Bielasiak Therefore, changed. be to had that quo status the with frustration their express to wanted society the as parties, new for vol of analysis deeper author’s The thedesireconfirming itstoinitiate party for importance new party explaining formation and projects. theories, both by upon touched was preferences support party their in showed voters that volatility iapa a val cnedr. h rslig oaiiy n te exten the and volatility resulting The postcommunist countries signify thelack ofaninstitutionalized partysystem. contenders. viable as disappear parties other and support, electoral minor previously increase greatly or scene political the on appear whi in system party Such swingsinsupportare possible precisely because theimpact policy mitigated of not is by a strong

of conditions for extreme pluralism in these new democracies. This reality stimulated reality This democracies. new these in pluralism extreme for conditions of h oes dniy ih n ae oa t seii pris Ised pris often parties Instead, parties. specific to loyal are and with identify voters ch atility among voters showed that the fast transition led to support to led transition fast the that showed voters among atility ch Republic had the lowest volatility rates in the first four first the in rates volatility lowest the had Republic ch 6

ows that the number of new parties in post in parties new of number the that ows political inCEE. arena

ie utprim f the of multipartism sive

ig between wing

CEU eTD Collection decision a reach offi the of benefit the business. a thantostart party, a form is it to easier Bulgaria saidin paper) who that research this of purposes the for 2013 May in (interviewed comment Pardew’s James by illustrated completely seems party a creating creatio for incentives strong creates which cost, low of rather at achievable procedure the and simplified rather are parties political both in entry, of cost low the with Starting parties. small new numerous of existence the explain can degree high a to and countries both in reality current the represent emphasizes Tavits that factors three The high”. is the perc and ofhigh thebenefit office is thecost oflow, when entry is Republic Czech the and Bulgaria of cases the to manner relevant 2008). (Tavits arena the party the to on actors new contrast of proliferation in any hardly democracies is there CEE where democracies new established the in exception than common rather considered successful and progress The West. the of democracies established already the in one new the than higher way of be to seems acceptance projects political and environment the where democracies, new mostly are CEE in countries Wes to compared CEE in parties small new of number higher way is there why reason the that is paper this of hypothesis the of one Therefore, arena. political the at effectiveness their also but parties, formed newly of number the only not determines which place, taking is process the where democracy of type the is literature politics party the in discussed is t section, previous the of logic the Following 1.2.

Young democracies effect Young democracies Ta -

making level, there is the motivation of acquiring the state subsidy. It is accrued to accrued is It subsidy. state the acquiring of motivation the is there level, making vits countries the articles of the Constitution and the pieces of legislation that address address that legislation of pieces the and Constitution the of articles the countries

outlines the major reasons for emergence of new parties very precisely and in a in and precisely very parties new of emergence for reasons major the outlines ce, in addition to the general prestige of being in politics and attempting to attempting and politics in being of prestige general the to addition in ce,

performance during elections of the new parties can be be can parties new the of elections during performance he main difference when the emergence of new parties new of emergence the when difference main he 7

en uoe s h fc ta the that fact the is Europe tern –

“new party entry is more likely more is entry party “new eived level of electoral viability level ofelectoral eived n of new parties. new of n When itcomes to When

This can be can This

CEU eTD Collection The society. the in cleavage certain representing population, the of demands and needs the corresponding but voters, and niche their find parties small new how of example clear a is theory This entities. party different support usually which areas, rural and cities smaller and Republic Czech cities capital between differentiation the to well very corresponds cleavage center/periphery The parties. new of creation the observe we when relevant considered be can cleavages three first the Republic, Czech the and Bulgaria of case the emergence party of analysis further for ground the lay which cleavages, major four differentiate who (1967) Rokkan and Lipset an of piece classic The 1.3. parties the expectation with options ofrulingelites. better new solutions and thenew by offered new smaller towards votes of redistribution and preferences voting in volatility high the explains more is parities ruling the with disappointment of level the where democracies, new s of creation the to relation in (2008) no but Last subsidies. state of privilege the lost and terms consecutive two for support required the maintain to able not were which parties, small the of some of away fading fast the explain can subsidy state of lack the Therefore, parties. o preservation the for role important very a plays subsidy the that show to comes which irrelevant”, from far is development their and parties of financing state of availability the between a emergenc as the for incentive strong considered be also can and office the of benefit the clearly shows subsidy state for provide overcome thatif threshold Thisrather low 2013). (Bertoa Spirova Republic and support theCzech in in elections during support voters 1% than more gained have that parties

Cleavage Theory Cleavage alysis that is referred when cleavage theory is being implemented is that of that is implemented being is theory cleavage when referred is that alysis

–

center/periphery, land/industry, owner/worker and c and owner/worker land/industry, center/periphery, e of new parties. Bertoa and Spirova added that: “The relationship “The that: added Spirova and Bertoa parties. new of e mall parties go back to back go parties mall t least, the high levels of electoral viability discussed by Tavits Tavits by discussed viability electoral of levels high the least, t

Sfa n Pau) n bg iis n ugra n the and Bulgaria in cities big and Prague) and (Sofia 8

the fluctuations of voting preferences in preferences voting of fluctuations the Bulgaria and 1.5% voters 1.5% and Bulgaria hurch/state. In In hurch/state.

visible, which visible, f these small these f

to CEU eTD Collection types opportunity of an parties have ofthetwo votes towin each supporting positions. the and Bulgaria in population pro both that interesting is the that showing countries, both in elections two It last the in success experienced parties Eurosceptic preferences. voters’ to comes it when crucial diffe of position the and integration European of process the makes Bulgaria), and Republic the Czech the both joined (including enlargements two CEE last the with in Union European countries most that fact The region. the in processes integration European the explain to it use (2000) Wilson and Marks theory, cleavage the of application the to back Going ofpartiesthe case inCEE. in theory cleavage the of implementation the to value adds and region the of specificities the depicts majo the forming is that case micro each to given is attention special where party between relationship major The countries. European importan the post region: s major three outlines author the where work, (2002) Sitter’s N.in discussed counties are CEE in applied theory when cleavage Rokkan’s and Lipsetof limitations - communist right and the development of relatively stable party systems. Also, systems. party stable relatively of development the and right communist the importance of parties, the contest driven development of parties, willing to define the define to willing parties, of development driven contest the parties, of importance the e f h vtr’ oaiiy hc ses o e ifrn fo te ca the from different be to seems which volatility voters’ the of ce

Czech Republic still is not united in its opinion of the union and bothand union the of opinion its in united not is still Republic Czech 9

- voter is also being put into the center, center, the into put being also is voter pecificities of the party politics in the in politics party the of pecificities rent new parties on this matter this on parties new rent

r picture. This approach approach This picture. r

Sitter stresses on stresses Sitter - European and and European e of se

Western

CEU eTD Collection by common will Idifferent cases, both in a condition isolating by than phenomenon,” given the of effect) (or cause the is agree, instances investigation under phenomenon the of instances more or two “if Mill, to according Since, difference. of method the on based analysis comparative a conduct to order in most differ that cases the choose will I cases, like th of causation the for account could that differences drastic similar to cases of number the format the to 1971), (Lijphartresources and time limited with cases of smallnumber a research to way best Since analysis. for available cases of number small the of because largely difficult is states between phenomena political comparing speaking, Methodologically toeasier isolatethenecessary conditions for this event. politica different with countries different two in occur to found is phenomenon same the if because, countries different of parties level national compare to important national cross a for clues provide not would state single a within parties political small of dissolution and development the comparing countries; different in parties national like between be must analysis the c parties political to refers hand at question the Since mechanism. causal this for responsible are that conditions the isolate to necessary is rapid it dissolution, their and parties political small of development the stimulates what determine to order In Chapter 2: Methodology

select two cases to compare in order to isolate the causal mechanisms or conditions that facilitate that conditions or mechanisms causal the isolate to order in compare to cases two select diss olution, ofsmall parties (Mill

asl ehns, u rte o toe pcfc oiia pris I ohr od, t is it words, other In parties. political specific those on rather but mechanism, causal ion, and abrupt dissolution, of small political parties. Firstly, I will systematically re systematically will I Firstly, parties. political small of dissolution, abrupt and ion, have only one circumstance in common, the circumstance in which alone all the all alone which in circumstance the common, in circumstance one only have

cases for comparison: the states for comparison should not have any have not should comparison for states the comparison: for cases

1898). 1898).

able to determineto able

ompeting in national parliamentary elections, parliamentary national in ompeting

a method of comparative analysis is the is analysis comparative of method a the causation of theof causation the e phenomenon. Secondly, from these from Secondly, phenomenon. e l actors, history, etc., it will be be will it etc., history, actors, l

formation, followedformation,

I chose I duce CEU eTD Collection they didnot experience a political regime under the rule another;of they were not part of an empire. 1 exp have comparison for selected cases the independence. that important is it 2007), ( society civil and political on effect significant a having as II, War World and I War state independent or statehood,” “interwar attributed have scientists political Furthermore, independent. newly ways, many in are, they that fact the account into take must one Consi society. civil on (Gershman society Firstly, bo influences, somewh of group a from comparison difference misconstru d strong, have may that cases any to important disregard is it question, in phenomenon the of causation the isolate and observe to order In 2.1.

Although the Czech andSlovak Republics were not independent each of other during the interwar period,

Setting the parameters for case selection forcase parameters the Setting s ne ainl oiia pris ant e ul eaie wtot h considera the without examined fully be cannot parties political national ince d o cuain Namely causation. for ed th currently historically. and 1

2004) it is also important to consider major factors that may have had an impact an had have may that factors major consider to important also is it 2004) dering the history of the states within the current parameters for selections, for parameters current the within states the of history the dering

i i iprat o eet h to ae fr h mto of method the for cases two the select to important is it ,

vret atr o pltcl nlec ta cud be could that influence political of factors ivergent 11 at homogenous cases, which cases, homogenous at

od ewe World between hood have similar political political similar have recd interwar erienced Pop tion of civil civil of tion

- Eleches

CEU eTD Collection 1990), Hungary, Poland and Romania. 2 devo that states the Similarly analysis. for cases separate as states these include will analysis this Slovakia, and Republic Czech the into transformed restricts post to specific is parties political small of dissolution and creation rapid the of phenomenon the that shown been has it since Secondly, of NorthUniversity ChapelCarolina, 2013 Hill, Figure

Those includedstates theSoviet Union,Alban 1 :

InterwarMapof Europe

h cs slcin o omr asw at states. Pact Warsaw former to selection case the

- communist states of Central and Eastern Eastern and Central of states communist ia (until 1968), Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany (until lved from the FUSSR will also be included as separateas included be also will FUSSR the from lved 12

ic, n 94 Czechoslovakia 1994, in Since, uoe this Europe,

CEU eTD Collection (cross level Union European the at exist that parties political that possible is it Furthermore, influence. profound this experience and countri the of policies public in changes massive to led membership EU for conditions and Rules criterionThe will that next 2013Encyclopædia Inc., Britannica, Figure becountries will inEurope included. cases.

Sedelmeier 2005 Sedelmeier

2 utemr, ic ti i a aayi o post of analysis an is this since Furthermore, : Warsaw Pact countries: es and also accounte also and ). Therefore).

be applied tothe mentioned applied be cases d for drastic restructuring of government institutions (Schimmelfennig (Schimmelfennig institutions government of restructuring drastic for d

- ainly wti te U alaet my ae so have may parliament) EU the within nationally, , it is important to exclude any national political systems that did not did systemsthat political national any exclude to important is it ,

- omns cutis n uoe ol FUSSR only Europe, in countries communist

is membership to the European Union.is theEuropean membership to e fet n the on effect me

CEE

CEU eTD Collection OnlineNations Pro Figure the EU. is it Thus, parties. national small these of development 3 : Map of the Mapof EuropeanUnion:

ject, 2012. Note: Croatia is currently is Croatia Note: ject, 2012.

a a member state. 14

vital

that all cases analyzed are members of members are analyzed cases all that

CEU eTD Collection combined EU, the in the Since systems. political affect that indicators on based system ranking rough a employ will I parameters, the by narrowed cases of group the within most the differ that cases the choose to order In account forcannot thephenomenon cle is it since isolate, to easier is phenomenon this facilitating condition the phenomenon, same the experience still th occu indicate will it cases, both in found be can condition the within different most the are that cases 2.2. narrowedThese have acceptable criteria the cases for to: selection Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia group case this in left USSR the of members former society, civil of institutionalization other and structures state of development the on impact enormous an such had Union Soviet the since Finally, In order to conduct a comparative analysis using the method of difference, it is important to select to important is it difference, of method the using analysis comparative a conduct to order In      

rrence for the phenomenon (Mill 1898). So 1898). (Mill phenomenon the for rrence

Selecting the two cases for comparison for cases two the Selecting Slovakia Romania Poland Hungary RepublicCzech Bulgaria discussed cases discussed

ih h pltcl hnead eeomn o tee tts Tu, n re t slc the select to order in Thus, states. these of development and change political the with h suy f h frain f sm of formation the of study the r ht h ohr odtos te ns ht r s dfeet ewe te w cases) two the between different so are that ones (the conditions other the that ar

— are all post all are have been been e have - , communist coun communist

since they since they are not the samebothcases. in xcluded. above all political parties within these countries is largely largely is countries these within parties political all , if two cases are chosen that are very different, but different, very are that chosen are cases two if ,

mentioned tries that have been relatively recently acceptedrecently relatively been have that tries t hs odto my con fr the for account may condition this at

eeto prmtr. f specific a If parameters. selection

selected selected – CEU eTD Collection Finally, (6). inclusion social in last and (1) development economic in first be could country one Thus, last. in least the with Similarly place. wi cases the example, For highest the to according group. the within ranked be will cases the indicators, whic d it democraticdevelopment,of aspect each valuationof rough a indicators theseonly isof each Though business, indicators thatmea included I have a starting as issues same the of many with deal to has party political a starting since Lastly, freedom. is press free a Dev Human the from scores as well as indicators, transpar of indication an as Index sphere set a selected have I indicators, general these on Based development. democratic s and institutions, government of transparency econo to related indicators include usually researchers differ, may dealing indicat upon diffi a is countries of development the Measuring on based them rank will indicators development. of theirpolitical I cases, of group selected this within different most the are that cases oes offer a rough rubric which helps the helps which rubric rough a offer oes css r t are cases h

– with

D pr aia as capita per GDP

ors that can definitively determine the development of a state. Parti state. a of development the determine definitively can that ors the

integral to any any to integral , the country with the most pres most the with country the ,

eortc eeomn wti te eetd ae. huh h seii variables specific the Though cases. selected the within development democratic e ot ifrn, wl use will I different, most he

I will average the internal ranking scores and give each country a final ranking. final a country each give and scores ranking internal the average will I

GDP per capita per GDP

young n in an iao o eooi development, economic of dicator ny f oenet institutions, government of ency

democracy (Sen 1999) I have also added also have I 1999) (Sen democracy —

firstplace sure business easeofdoing the country. ineach

rank

ca icuin (WorldSavvy.org inclusion ocial s freedom would be in first place first in be would freedom s of set each to According system. ranking rough a 16 cult and controversial practice. T practice. controversial and cult elopment index to represent to index elopment ing of ing

— and the least,whi the and

each of these cases. In order to determine to order In cases. these of each i dvlpet srcue and structure development, mic

oet ad oil exclusion social and poverty

h Cruto Perceptions Corruption the ch would be in be ch would

an indicator for press for indicator an social

cularly, this paper is paper this cularly,

03 n measuring in 2013) of data within each within data of here are no agreed no are here , and the country the and , inclusion.

l e ranked be ll the last sixth last the

Since CEU eTD Collection comparison. Bulgaria and ranking these to overall according that, indicates internal The indicators. of number a on based ranking internal an assigned then me mentioned above The 2.3. the discussed cases is process this Though ranking. final the in weight undue sam the of some on draw may example, for scores, is of some endogene danger there Thirdly, sets. data several on dependent highly research my making points, data few very using Secondly, wealth. of sources or time over growth economic about information more give not of picture accurate an illustrate s has clearly methodology This analysis. chosenbe for comparative will thecountriessixth and infirst toranking, place The and countries beorderedaccording then will

Final Case

is the is

, allowing forof theselection most different cases. the least. Therefore, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic are likely the best cases for cases best the likely are Republic Czech the and Bulgaria Therefore, least. the Selection thod is implemented is thod ity with some ity with ofthe variables

F country. the within reality the vrl als Frty a mnind te aa rvdd a not may provided data the mentioned, as Firstly, faults. everal variables, the Czec the variables,

in Table 1. The cases are listed alphabetically, and and alphabetically, listed are cases The 1. Table in 17

h Republic is Republic h e statistics, thus giving the additional indicator additional the giving thus statistics, e – rough

social inclusionscoressocial andpressfreedom or example, the GDP per capita does capita per GDP the example, or , it does provide a gene a provide does it ,

the most democratically developed democratically most the

ral picture of picture ral

I am I CEU eTD Collection Table business” or start a business, Bulgaria is one of the easiest. Though Hungary beats out Bulgaria in Bulgaria out beats Hungary Though easiest. the of one is Bulgaria business, a start or business” comparisons.differenceWh of method Cze the that evidence similar provide 2, Table in illustrated rankings, business doing of ease rankings, development democratic the to addition In in capita dollars.*****Gross per US Domestic Product, Report,Development 2012. Development.” Human “Low representing 186 and Development” Human High **** 2012. Eurostat, exclusion. social or poverty of risk at is that population the of percent the Represents *** 2012. Borders,2011/2012. Reporterswithout Index Press Freedom the rankingsfrom overall **Represents countrythat a iscorrupt perceived as100. highly and * Slovakia Romania Poland Hungary Republic Czech Bulgaria this ranking as the “easiest” place to do business, this ranking combined with that of the of that with combined ranking this business, do to place “easiest” the as ranking this

Figure represents overall ranking in the Corruptions Perceptions Index from 0 from Index Perceptions Corruptions the in ranking overall represents Figure 1

:Comparison Democratic of Development

ersns h oeal akn wti te ua Dev Human the within ranking overall the Represents

Country 16932,00 12708,00 12622,00 18608,00 7943,00 6986,00

GDP per capita***** Economy

2 5 3 4 1 6 GDP per capita Internal ranking Inst 62 66 41 46 49 75 ile the Czech Republic is by far the most difficult place to “doto themostplace far bydifficult is RepublictheCzech ile

CPI Score* itutions 5 1 2 3 6 4

ch Republic and Bulgaria are appropriate are Bulgaria and Republic ch CPI Internal Ranking 18

47 24 40 14 80 25

Transparency International,2013. Press

Press Freedom** World Bank,World 2012 5 2 4 1 6 3 Press Freedom Internal

ranking elopment Index, 1 representing “Very “Very representing 1 Index, elopment 0,044% 0,026% 0,032% 0,015% 0,049% 0,021% Poverty/Social exclusion*** Demographics

5 3 4 1 6 2 Poverty/Social exclusion

- Internal Ranking 100, where 0 means 0 where 100,

Though Human Human Though 56 39 37 28 57 35

HDI score**** cases for for cases democratic 5 4 3 1 6 2

HDI Internal Ranking Overall the the 25 30 13 13 17 7 Internal Ranking overall

score CEU eTD Collection determined. be develo the on impact an have to seem that each within conditions common are there If compared. and examined be will case each of conditions level country the trend, a such is there that shown is it If dissolution. then tre a been has there whether determine to compared be will cases two the of parties political national The parties. political national their involving developments and trends compare to order in chosen been have Republic Czech the and Bulgaria of cases The 2.4. Table for cases best the cases. comparison from theselected are Republic Czech the and Bulgaria that suggests still ranking development Country conducting business.conducting Bank, 2012. World hardest. the being ** Corporation DoingBusinessInternational Finance databases. Project, 2012. paid and cost, days, of number Business” a “Starting The difficult. Econ * Republic Czech Poland Slovakia Romania Bulgaria Hungary

Economies are ranked 1 ranked are Economies 2 : Ease ofBusiness: Doing Quantitative Method forComparison Method Quantitative

omies are ranked from1 ranked omies are

pment and dissolution of small political parties, then a causal mechanism may mechanism causal a then parties, political small of dissolution and pment h rnig vrgs countries’ averages ranking The

- 189, - 189, 1 189, - in minimum capital. Data is compiled from World Bank and and Bank World from compiled is Data capital. minimum in 1 140 124 80 65 58 54 Business*Starting a

being the easiest economy in which to do business, and 189 and business, do to which in economy easiest the being

akn icue idctr sc a nme o procedures, of number as such indicators includes ranking

being the easiest to start a business, and 189 business,and theeasiest a start being to

akns n 0 ifrn tpc rltd to related topics different 10 in rankings nd of small party rapid emergence and emergence rapid party small of nd 68 48 43 73 57 52 ** Business doing of Ease

being the mostthe being CEU eTD Collection anal the of part second the question, relevant the examine properly can that data quantitative reliable or clear no is there Since countries?” both in phenomenon this facilitated have conditions “what or “why?” of question important to and difficult proceed will I present, is phenomenon the that shown been has it Once 2.5. isphenomenon i the if determine to Database Election European the from data analyze will I method. quantitative na small of dissolution subsequent T 2013Wikipedia, Figure he first part of the analysis focuses on determining on focuses analysis the of part first he

4 : The Czech : Republic Bulgaria and Method of Process Tracing ofProcess Method

n factpresent inbothcountries.

inl oiia pris It parties. political tional

ysis will be conducted using qualitative methods. In methods. qualitative using conducted be will ysis 20

whether there has been a rapid emergence and emergence rapid a been has there whether il e odce truh simple a through conducted be will challenge

h more the CEU eTD Collection the that possibility the strengthening hypotheses, and literature existing with them qualify then will I phenomenon, fac that conditions the are regularities these whether determine to order In systematic. or “ dissolution and development the to related patterns established any are there if determine to collected information the analyze will I Secondly, be accounted for,already subsequent simplifying my analysis. current by frame conceptual this Within contrasted standards. developmental then and chosen, been have histories political similar with cases analysis: the in set been has framework conceptual the extent, large a To 2011). meriti as seen topics the link and “identify or framework, conceptual predetermined a within analysis the conduct will I Firstly, (1979). Waltz of influences definitional of framework a within data analyze will I analysiscomparative will be. two a of conclusions the reliable more the investigation, the in included evidence of types more of methods mentioned, as because, analy comparative also but phenomenon), the could, of them cause of the one any be (since theoretically, possible as factors many as consideration into take to only not evide of types various consider to me allow will it because instance this in tool useful a is investigator” the by posed hypotheses and questions research of light in analyzed and selected evidence diagnostic of examination “systematic or tracing, political describing to contribute decisive “can since it tracing system process chosen of I touse have a this instance, recurring empirical regularities empirical recurring sis are highly limited due to the to due limited highly are sis re is a causal mechanism (Waltz mechanism causal a is re and social phenomena and to eva to and phenomena social and

,” which can be used to examine whether a connection is coincidentalis connection a whether examine usedto be can which ,”

process tracing as tracing process of small political parties. Waltz (1979) calls these patterns these calls (1979) Waltz parties. political small of nce for the comparison (Collier comparison the for 21

1979). During this final stage, it will be important be will it stage, final this During 1979).

small number of cases examined, therefore, examined, cases of number small work, many potentially influential factors can can factors influential potentially many work, luating causal claims” (Collier claims” causal luating described by Collier (2011) supported by supported (2011) Collier by described

ng analytic attention” ( attention” analytic ng shaping

2011). This is important, is This 2011).

down of cases for cases of down

2011). Pro 2011). ilitate the ilitate ly bothly Collier - case

cess the

CEU eTD Collection experts Czech while Bulgarian, were interviewed inEnglish.in interviewed were experts Bulgarian email. over or person, in interviewed standardize a asked were They elections. 3 a asked were and academics to politicians former from r Experts Republic. Czech the and Bulgaria in experts with interviews of series a conducted var analyze will I “snapshots,” these assemble to order In evidencetowhyprovide as parties the lost power. electio the following events the parties. the Similarly, of development the explain will elections the to up leading events office, into voted re the While elections. (Collier analysis specific of snapshots “good provide to order in information background and events dep is tracing processof method the within analyzed data the etc.,intention, motivation, itis impossible tocol poli As 2.6. if present.phenomenon O parties. whether determine occur to phenomenon il relationships these whether determine to

Experts were selected according to publications related to the research question or direct participation in theinparticipationdirect or questionresearch the topublications related toaccording selectedwere Experts

already ia peoea Mroe, ic m rsac qeto my agl icue usin of questions include largely may question research my since Moreover, phenomena. tical

Data Collection and Analysis and Data Collection r if if r

etoe, ti dfiut o olc dt i odr o efr a oprtv aayi of analysis comparative a perform to order in data collect to difficult is it mentioned, X

2011). In this instance, the snapshots in time are focused around the national national the around focused are time in snapshots the instance, this In 2011). s eesr fr t for necessary is

always facilitates the development and subsequent dissolu subsequent and development the facilitatesalways , or simply necessary (Van Evera (Van necessary simply or , ut o te lcin so wehr ml pris ee ail fre and formed rapidly were parties small whether show elections the of sults

e hnmnn o cu, but occur, to phenomenon he d set of questions that can be found in the appendix. Experts were Experts appendix. the in found be can that questions of set d

ns utae atr ta ae ufcet odtos o the for conditions sufficient are that factors lustrate –

lect such data without large without such data lect specifical 22

1997). In other words, it is important to to important is it words, other In 1997). y sasos ewe el between snapshots ly,

tnadzd e o questions. of set standardized endent on careful description of related of description careful on endent os documents ious

o awy poue h same the produce always not

field Therefore, research. Adtoal, have I Additionally, . tion of small political small of tion ections

moments” for moments” 3

– Though

should ange

CEU eTD Collection available enough soon for inclusion in this paper. 4 elections. yea few every election major a only usually is wh tracing process the limits resource constraints and time to due Furthermore, decades. two over little a for configuration current their Republ Czech the Bulgaria, time. over trend robust a assess to difficult is it analysis, for span time short the to due Secondly, paper this of scope the beyond testing myfinal interestingHowever, provide theory would research. additional is this constraints, resource and time to due However, cases. other to theory final my apply or comparison, for cases more include would I results, my of validity countries two in instances issue validity a encounters parties political of comparison national cross a Firstly, phenomena. political comparing to challenges many are there mentioned, already As 2.7. withthe documents.together the versus interviews person in 1999 Knight and for (Arksey questionnaire justification main the is questions) to answer dialogue a for allowed t interviews between person in questions, of set provided a to responded experts

Though there were also were there Though

Methodological Challenges Methodological

hem 4 , only elections from the past eight years will be analyzed in depth. This short time frame frame time short This depth. in analyzed be will years eight past the from elections only ,

n msl. hs rcns o rsos” atrd by captured response” of “richness This myself. and

parliamentary electionparliamentary c n al f h post the of all and ic on t going ich is best done over a over done best is ich

o e plcbe n te cutis I odr o teghn the strengthen to order In countries? other in applicable be ). Answers to these questions were catalogued and analyzed and catalogued were questions these to Answers ).

in both countries in 2013, the data for this election was not was election this for data the 2013, in countries both in rs, that limits the scope of the analysis to about four about to analysis the of scope the limits that rs, 23 - communist

longer period of time (Collier time of period longer

democraci

– a dialogue (not just a static static a just (not dialogue a

s n CEE in es is

the comparison of two two of comparison the

2011). Since there Since 2011).

ae xse in existed have use of a a of use .

CEU eTD Collection from information the should the gathered interviews. andqualify ground anal framework, conceptual the this, for provide cannot own, its on and, factors external by (Spradley an social educational, cultural, different by framed are answers interview of interpretation response, the of meaning the hearing on based is interviewing since importantly, Most ques the example, influen is dialogue the within transmitted information the Specifically, analysis. this in present are data interview using to challenges common is process interview the during gathered information since Finally,

1979). Therefore, the information gathered from the interviews may be highly influenced highly be may interviews the from gathered information the Therefore, 1979). in poie my ae udd h rsodns o nwr n priua way. particular a in answer to respondents the guided have may provided tions

ss f uniaie aa s el s nlss f documentation of analysis as well as data quantitative of ysis ced b ced y many factors that may affect its final analysis. For analysis. final its affect may that factors many y 24

complete

analysis. In order to account for for account to order In analysis. foundational to this analysis, the analysis, this to foundational

other understandings other CEU eTD Collection 5 part becameEuropeancountry inofthe Union 2004 during CEEthe big enlargement. regime fell, there CzechRepublic The wasCommunist regime(1948 41 foryears under 3.1.2. European 2013Database, Election Table of different p parts are who parliament of members 240 are There citizens. the from directly elected are mandate) where democracy t of part became country The 2005). (Spirova economy market free and democracy to transition of period a years 45 for regime Communist under was Bulgaria 3.1.1. 3.1. Analysis 3: Chapter

Year * Party Party abbreviations and translations can befound inthe annex.

2009 2005 2001 1997 1994

: Voting : Results National in Bulgarian Parliamentary Elections

Bulgaria trend? a Is there Czech Republic Czech he European Union in 2007, along with Romania with along 2007, in Union European he GERB - - - -

116 olitical parties totheolitical enter parl thethreshold orcoalitions and

BSP

wasa of toperiod transition markets democracy(Tavitsopen and 2011). The 125 oh h peiet 5 er mnae ad h uiaea primn ( years (4 parliament unicameral the and mandate) years (5 president the both 40 82 48 58

DPS

38 34 21 19 15

- - - ATAKA

21 21

S SD 137

15 20 51 69

- - - - S RZ 25

(1944

- - - V NDS

5 - . The country is multi is country The .

120 1989) and when the regime fell, there was there fell, regime the when and 1989)

- - - - B DS

- - - - v EvroLe

1989)whenthe and iament is 4%. 14

- - - - - S BN party parliamentary party

- - - B BB

12 13

- - - - - BZNS DP

CEU eTD Collection

workin this 6 the and Affairs.Public party Green the TOP09, Democrats, Christian were arena the on actors new major the new that shows table This table. the from omitted were 5% than less with parties Other Parliament. in seats hold to able be to threshold 5% the reached have that parties political includes only table above The European 2013Database, Election Table 2013). Senate of (websites year) 2 every replaced are them of 1/3 where term, year (6 representatives 81 with Senate a and term) year (4 representatives 200 with Deputies bi the multi is country The

Since Bulgaria hasaunicameral parliamentary system, the Senate theC of Election Year 4 - : Voting : Results in Czechthe Republic

cameral parliament are elected directly from the citizens. The parliament has a Chamber of Chamber a has parliament The citizens. the from directly elected are parliament cameral

2010 2006 2002 1998 1996 1992 1990 parties took a significant number of seats in the Chamb the in seats of number significant a took parties ; the

------OF 49.5

Chamber of Deputies represents enough the participation of small parties in the government.

- KSCM party parliamentary democracy where both the president (5 years mandate) and mandate) years (5 president the both where democracy parliamentary party 11.27 12.81 18.51 11.03 10.33 14.05 13.24

- - - - - MORSL

10.03 5.87

CSL KDU 14.28 8.08 6.28 8.42 4.39 7.23

Political Party (percentage of votes) - 9

26 CSSD 26.44 22.09 32.32 30.21 32.31 6.53 4.11

- ODS 29.62 29.73 20.22 35.38 24.48 27.74

the Czech Chamber of Deputies and the and Deputies of Chamber Czech the

- - - 09 TOP - - -

16.71 er of Deputies in 2006 and 2010 2010 and 2006 in Deputies of er

zech Republic will not

- SZ 6.52 2.44 6.29 2.37 1.12

4.1

- - - VV - - - 10.88

- ODA - - -

6.36 5.93 0.51 be covered

------US 8.6

– - - RMS

0.97 8.01 5.98

3.9 1

CEU eTD Collection have stay and constantwhich support, clearer goals. agenda with and bigger somewhat are parties, the that confirms again once and Bulgaria in situation current the summarizes opinion This be can May 2013) described: in (interviewed Pardew J. by commented Bulgaria in parties political strong current the Furthermore, promises.huge and talking populist through result impressive this reach to managed who person charismatic very f a was party this 39.72% won party new small rather abeing which (GERB) Bulgaria of Development European for Citizens were winner big the 2009 In 2005). form (Savkova undesired an coalition power its of lot a lost elections, previous the in party new small a was which NMSS that fact the is conclusion main Bulgaria in population Turkish the by supported party strongestethnic the considered (Liberal, (Liberals) II Simeon Movement National (Socialists), Bulgaria for Coalition between coalition a through formed was government The fragmented. rather 2005 In 3.2.1. W 3.2.

hy is there a trend? a is there hy What happened in parties with various personalities and agendas pop upin their place. Simeon, Kostov, based: personality are pers parties the small Borisov...When the right, the On suicide. committed UDF sig lost The afterwards. fighting internal destructive and UDFpower in whengovernance bad with the itself destroyed but right, center the on party primary the be Bulgaria) in community Turkish the to association its of because case agenda clear a has it years, 100 for around been has It BSP. the party, national oneonly has Bulgaria me, To t wenty

and it has an effective national organization and national leadership. (The MRF is a special a is MRF (The leadership. national and organization national effective an has it and

- and voters support, therefore they were second power in these elections and had had and elections these in power second were they therefore support, voters and w pris n caiin etrd h primn ad h pltcl rn seemed arena political the and parliament the entered coalitions and parties two raction that separated from separated that raction Bulgaria?

onality is no longer favored by the voters, the party fades as well and new and well as fades party the voters, the by favored longer no is onality of the votes (Savkova and Stoyanov 2009). It is interesting that interesting is It 2009). Stoyanov and (Savkova votes the of

NMSS and the prime the and NMSS 27

n Mvmn fr ihs n Freedoms and Rights for Movement and t f t oiia nm (S) and (BSP) enemy political its of ht - a was Borissov Boyko minister . The UDF had the potential to potential the had UDF The

) . The. to

CEU eTD Collection authors the all, in All VV). and 09 (TOP created (KDU representation their lost which parties, two with quo status the of change somewhat the described by turbulent as seen was elections the of outcome The with:votes intheChamber and (Hloušek 20% with Party Democratic theCivic 22%,followedby with Social Democratic place thefirst PartyCzech held 2010 In clarifying which help would proportional ormajoritarian, roleofparties the themajor (ibid). The (ibid). the namely continued, decade or minority of “succession last the for politics Czech defining deadlock” political “pattern overa The time. first the for alone, parliament into it made party Green the that was news big the but threshold, the make not did Democrats Christian the and party Communist the like parties Smaller 2006). (Hanley support) enough won SZ and CLS ones mentioned already the to addition (in Deputies of Chamber the into it made Democratic closesupport Theparty Social asa and than expected. came second total offive parties a In 3.2.2.

06 h Cvc Dem Civic the 2006

- S ad Z ad h vr scesu etac o to e sal ate, hc wr just were which parties, small new two of entrance successful very the and SZ) and CSL What happened in the Czech Republic? Czech What happened in the governance and the impossibility of reaching a clear governing majority.” (SZ) Party Green the and Union DemocraticChristianand(ODS), Party Democratic Right seats. 100 won (KSČM), Moravia and Bohemia “ one of the major issues was the absence of European issues in any o any in issues European of absence the was issues major the of one T e zc l Czech he lcin rie sm mjr sus s o hte te lcoa sse sol b more be should system electoral the whether to as issues major some raised elections f, aey h Ceh oil eortc at (SD ad omns Pry of Party Communist and (ČSSD) Party Democratic Social Czech the namely eft,

cas opsto center (opposition ocrats Kaniok weak majority governments sustained by unstable left unstable by sustained governments majority weak

2010). The authors commented on the interesting distribution of distribution interesting the on commented authors The 2010). -

lo o 10 et. hs iuto ol eaebtd h faiiy of fragility the exacerbated only situation This seats. 100 won also 28 defined the elections as somewhat positive, as the as positive, somewhat as elections the defined -

ih pry wn h eetos n gie more gained and elections the won party) right

ll assessment of the 2006 elections was that the that was elections 2006 the of assessment ll - ig n cnrs parties centrist and wing lue ad Kaniok and Hloušek - CzechoslovakPeoples’Party(KD

f the discussions. The The discussions. the f - righ ’s -

–

report. They’ve They’ve report. Civic the namely

t co t KSCM, KDU KSCM, - operation” operation”

U - ČSL) - CEU eTD Collection parties smallerDissolutionentitiesthe into of bigger New the political systems in changes 3.3.1. void. political Eachfill of a their with these categories, respective sub categories the within fell themesthese speaking, Broadly phenomenon. political the describe to theories and themes recurring Howe occurred. expertise had and nationalities parties these of emergence rapid the why describing theories of plethora a offered interviewees broadly, more sometimes and elections, two rapidly parties these were only es Not parties. political small of emergence an indeed, was, there 2005 of period the between countries both in elections parliamentary of Analyses empirical 3.3. the government. left traditional tablished, but they also gained a significant number of seats in parliament. In reference to these to reference In parliament. in seats of number significant a gained also they but tablished,  

interviewees mentioned examples like NMSS, UDF, etc. which seem to be having prosper having be to seem which etc. UDF, NMSS, like examples mentioned interviewees dissolu of phenomenon The Structural changes e the Regarding the political system and bring back the faith inindividual the faith system bring back the political and politicians. “political the that she achieved, be to this for order In elections. following the before party the of long focuson to have who Bulgaria, Maria consistencies - iiiv cmetd n h ne o cag o te etlt o pry edr in leaders party of mentality the of change of need the on commented Divizieva right axis was broken which could have been a potential good sign for the stability of stability the for sign good potential a been have could which broken was axis right

of structural changes, disillusionment with the status quo, and attempts to attempts and quo, status the with disillusionment changes, structural of nomadism” needs to be overcome, which would probably affect positively affect probably would which overcome, be to needs nomadism” – ? mergence

ranging from profe from ranging tion of bigger bigger of tion

f e parties new of - term tasks, instead of quick win, followed by dissolution by followed win, quick of instead tasks, term 29 ssional politician to academic to politician ssional

ate i seii fr ugra n al the all and Bulgaria for specific is parties

: Are there any patterns/recurring patterns/recurring any there Are : - themes arediscussed below. e, ept te variation the despite ver,

–

there were several were there - 2010 show that show 2010 suggested

CEU eTD Collection May in interview an real one only within country, two is misrepresentation this Bulgaria, In making. and they ( past” the in power in been already have who parties large the of any with happy not are “voters Currently, countries. often is old, this the with Republic, disappointment Czech to the related and specifically Bulgaria of systems parliamentary the to regards With world. the in change political major all, not if most, for accounts quo status the with Disillusionment 3.3.2. Government new for parties subsidies  

from both countries. Dr. Sean Hanley commented on the small parties in the Czech Republic theCzech in parties small the on Hanley commented Sean Dr. countries. both from interviewees the all by discussed elaborately was parties small for subsidies of question The to serious crash inter instead but them, of ahead future Tomov. commented vote), cents/per euro (0.85 outrageous is example for rece threshold 1% the passed have that parties the all Bulgaria in generous: extremely is subsidy the currently the that appears It ca deposits election and “ that: Disillusionment status the with

hi itrss r nt dqaey ersne wti te tutr o pltcl decision political of structure the within represented adequately not are interests their I thin I In the Czech Republic thethresholdIn 1.5% ishigher theCzech littlebit a k on the whole proliferation is related to the change in rules concerning electoral concerning rules in change the to related is proliferation whole the on k 2013). In addition to the limited scope of representation, the individuals that are are that individuals the representation, of scope limited the to addition In 2013). Nikolay Vassilev during an interview in May 2013 May in interview an during Vassilev Nikolay es during elections. es during left party with limited supp limited with party left mpaign funding”.

ive 12 leva (6 euro)/pervote (6 leva 12 ive quo - od Frty Blai i peoiaey center a predominately is Bulgaria Firstly, fold.

- party clashes were the reason for splitting, which led led which splitting, for reason the were clashes party

establish political parties of their respective respective their of parties political establish ort –

the rest is fragmented (Pardew fragmented is rest the

which compared to Germany Germany to compared which ). Generally, voters feel that feel voters Generally, ).

the sociologist the

Tsvetozar Tsvetozar during - right right CEU eTD Collection 7 Disappointmentwith the old parties established devel economic deliver to failed corrupt, as “viewed are and effectively” govern to “fail office to elected

Information provided during the interviews the during provided Information opment, ruleoflaw allowed the and 3) 2) 1)

T find an party and the big p D been inthe past ( power already have who parties large the of any with happy not are Voters . . .

henomenon of ‘newness’” ( ‘newness’” of henomenon hose alternatives areeitherhose parties votingfor alternatives ora new isillusionment with existing partie existing with isillusionment When voters have supported new parties (1998, 2006, 2010) it has been been has it 2010) 2006, (1998, parties new supported have voters When parties aga votes protest are they cases, some In Agrarians). the Sometimes novelty of means a as voters by “chosen often small are parties resources” limited (often) and parties) established from difference of “lack their Despite electorate pu enough accumulate to abilities parties' new the to related turn in elected.Thisis being of chance a stand and credible politically are question in parties new the that perception a t related

(Pardew) ” (Han

o dissatisfaction with one or both of the main established parties and and parties established main the of both or one with dissatisfaction o

(Hanely) , these parties represent a very specific agenda (the Green Party, Green (the agenda specific very a represent parties these , ley)

Vassilev)

mafias to flourish” (ibid . An . An beexample can

alternative thesmall party in (P blicity and resources to get their m their get to resources and blicity

organization Cisar) 31

s prompts a “search for new alternatives…the new for “search a prompts s and v and , experience, clear programme (or real real (or programme clear experience, , oters are disappointed or disgusted with with disgusted or disappointed are oters

VV ).

in the Czech Republic. negative/protest vote ardew)

protesting and/or as a a as and/or protesting essage across to the to across essage inst the established the inst

in CEU eTD Collection Excitem Desirefor Adequate representation 3.3.3.

Filling Void the ent/enthusiasmindividuals for follow individual follow M 1) ( is there thus accountability, 2) 1) Strmiska)

I deological void deological . . . . Tee ar “There any voters are not strongl not are voters any

Bulgaria. (Pardew)Bulgaria. in voters disgusted the capture can who someone for opportunity great a is not are Bulgarians of lot a parliament, in not are which parties for voted but did who those of 25% the and vote not did who voters eligible of 50% the away take you if election, last the In center voidonthe a right(Pardew) Bulgaria in parties political small of number The has 15 has electo Bulgarian the of aspects Some party” political (Hanley)a with strongly identify who voters few very there Europe Eastern and Central undecided are “they

- aonig rbes oh ih rpeetto quality’ ‘representation with both problems amounting e 20

% it can always count on in an an in on count always can it %

– a space for space a

– messiah

more generally in t in generally more y associated with a party, therefore are more are therefore party, a with associated y 32

new parties or at least fo least at or parties new

rate are very predictable. BSP probably probably BSP predictable. very are rate

represented in this parliament. There parliament. this in represented he Czech Republic as elsewhere in elsewhere as Republic Czech he election. The MRF vote is fairly is vote MRF The election. represents an attempt to fill to attempt an represents r new party projects” party new r

likely to likely

and

CEU eTD Collection from difference establishedreal parties) and(often) limitedresources.” of lack their “to to attributed be usually can failure r other no have parties these failure credibility, and promises new of basis the on elected show been has as Since, damaging. particularly be can parties political conside electorate unf Though the promises, their keep personalities this fell,and wasnotsurprising. not could they dissolution: quick their regarding opinions fewer were parties,theresmall of theemergence for to account offeredwereof theories number large a Whereas empirical regularities? 3.4.

the only foundation on whi on foundation only the eadn te rcs of process the Regarding ulfilled election promises can be taken for g for taken be can promises election ulfilled and join the political jointhe aren and try to willing people more makes party, a creating of process easy relatively The 3) thecountrylife in 2)

“ rs it the norm from politicians politicians from norm the it rs . M

any new potential leaders are willing to try to become a factor in the political the in factor a become to try to willing are leaders potential new any personality party, the represents who individual the of appeal the is it cases, some In center 3 has probably Ataka fixed.

- ecord to refer to. According to Hanley to According to. refer to ecord right butmajorparty fixed (Pardew) without a ” (Vassilev) ch the parties were established, were parties the ch cult if you will if will cult you (P

a (Stoyanovich) a fading away: Are there any patterns/recurring patterns/recurring any there Are away: fading

33 - ardew)

5 – %. That leaves a majority of Bulgarians on the on Bulgarians of majority a leaves That %.

organization nufle poie md b nwy formed newly by made promises unfulfilled h fiue o opee omtet made commitments complete to failure the ranted in the study of politics of study the in ranted

, experience, clear programme (or programme clear experience, , with with

(interview in May 2013) May in (interview no , hs sal ate were parties small these n, n -

existing

historical legacy, historical –

much of the of much , this this ,

a CEU eTD Collection tapping. 8 ofBulgaria: the case once them disappoint to sure are that parties oldthe to back them drive and voters disappoint to only party, established the by left disillusionment of void the fill to emerges party new a cycle: a in stuck be to seem parties political these way, this In voters favoredby longer (Pardew based personality ( ‘newness’…tends of phenomenon “the reason, this For dissatisfaction. with associated often are personalities (Pardew power in effectively govern not do they when down go personalities Since disillusionment. of state a into back sink voters politicians, existing to similar be to shown is vis newly (or new in personified hope and enthusiasm shown, have I As personality. of cult the assets: election their d the for reason major second The party top their delegitimizedcompletely with associated scandals corruption affairs”), “public meaning literally Věci of example (Strmiska undermined and/ it change to new give to and parties established the substitute to neither r voters Once parties. established the from themselves damagi More

Cisar For example,For party boss Vít Bárta s interview ’s

ng to the party image than the inability to fulfill promises is the inability to inability the is promises fulfill to inability the than image party the to ng veřejné: though they ran on a platform of transparency and credibility (their name (their credibility and transparency of platform a on ran they though veřejné: . hs s la i te ae f ugra te ml pris n h ri the on parties small the Bulgaria: of case the in clear is This ). ible) public figures often attracts often figures public ible) or to open a distinctly new path,” their major platform resting on “n on resting platform major their path,” new distinctly a open to or –

Kostov, Simeon Kostov, –

their existence. interview in May in interview

was associated with several scandals including bribing MPs and illegal wire ’s interview ownfall of newly developed political parties also rests on one of one on rests also parties political developed newly of ownfall

II, Borisov II,

the first point (unfulfilled promises) thus amplifying public public amplifying thus promises) (unfulfilled point first the 8

2013). This can be seen in the Czech Repu Czech the in seen be can This 2013). ).

more. As Pardew points out, this cycle can be seen in seen be can cycle this out, points Pardew As more.

34 –

voters to new parties. However, when when However, parties. new to voters

faded when the respective personalities were no were personalities respective the when faded ealize that these parties “ parties these that ealize

life to the established par established the to life

o ok n tr only” term one work to ’s interview ’s have not been able been not have h wih are which ght ty system, nor system, ty b differentiate ), the fall of fall the ), lic with the with lic this person this wes is ewness” leaders

CEU eTD Collection parties for thenew. i see to voters of curve learning the examine to be would research for topic interesting and paper, this of scope the beyond is this Though decisions. political worse p the Though loe te ais o luih A iecatd ouain hn he te ot n ao o the of favor personality onthe right. in out them threw then population party, disenchanted default A flourish. to mafias the allowed center a for develop economic deliver to failed corrupt, is as viewed became They effectively. Bulgaria in it see I as trend The arties are stuck in a cycle, it is really the voters that are trapped between a bad and a and bad a between trapped are that voters the really is it cycle, a in stuck are arties

the BSP. The BSP then govern then BSP The BSP. the

effectively and the cycle repeated itself with a new a with itself repeated cycle the and effectively - ih pry o i a eeto ad al o govern to fail and election an win to party right f they continue to trade in old old in trade to continue they f ment, rule of law and law of rule ment, CEU eTD Collection E lead the of popularity the as away, fading quick the explains countries. the of front in riddles political complicated the all solve and come will Third for becausesmallincentive parties ofthesubsidy tobecreated strong. tobevery appears the that, me convinces field the in specialists with discussion The subsidy. state receiving for allows the enter to not if elections during votes enough get to hoping niche, particular a fill can they that decide backgrounds various with people different and stage political the of infinity of feeling the creates parties small new of number high the Second, political trust,onisgain later through visible which votes duringelections. adequately very use politicians arena. political the in offered is that change any support to willingness show and quo status the with dissatisfied emerg parties First,new conclusions.particular following the to lead which trends several show interviews conducted the from findings primary T countries. the in elections parliamentary two last the particularly is and Communism of fall the after started It decades. last the in Republic theCzech Bulgariaand spread in widely thatis phenomenon a parties is small ofnew The emergence Conclusions xamples of small parties who are led by messiah leaders are numerous and they usually achieve very achieve usually they and numerous leadersare messiah by led are parties who small of xamples , both Bulgaria and the Czech Republic nations are looking for the figure of the leader, who leader, the of figure the for looking are nations Republic Czech the and Bulgaria both ,

hs xlis h hg vltlt i vtn peeecs n bo in preferences voting in volatility high the explains This

e easily because there is need for change. The population in both countries is is countries both in population The change. for need is there because easily e

this fact and exercise their creativity in political promises in order to to order in promises political in creativity their exercise and fact this 36 parliament, at least to reach the minimum level that level minimum the reach to least at parliament,

e ehd f comparison of method he r olpe, o os h pry itself. party the does so collapses, er

h countries. th

This reason also reason This ,

s el s the as well as

tangible since tangible

New CEU eTD Collection is now which the when moment the until quickly fall and rise to continue predic definite with engage not did parties small new of future the to comes it When for determinant are thesuccess afterelections. duringand qualities its therefore party, any of future the for key is platform the of role The decisions. political po of only solutions,instead offerwill actual which platform, d usually elections before sim pretty countriesinboth parties smallof such away fading thequick to it comes When their disappearance. to leads which elections, the in reelected not are they parliament, the enter to manage they if even lon maintain not could general in parties such that shows Republic Czech the and from leadof usually formation.themselves tothe new creation which Theexamples political Bulgaria the in figures strong several between created conflict the is this behind reason the Usually, fragments. several in party existing already of breakup the also is parties new of creation the for reason obvious an Naturally, (significantRepublic ex elections during results impressive ilar. The major one is the fact that usually parties that are formed rather quickly shortly quickly rather formed are that parties usually that fact the is one major The ilar. here inthenearhere future.

party who seek dominance. They form different circles of influence around around influence of circles different form They dominance. seek who party amples: Verjene). TOP09 Veci and nt ae h necessary the have on’t

– in, u te overall the but tions,

ugra sgiiat xmls NS, EB ad Czech and GERB) NMSS, examples: (significant Bulgaria , the experts who took part of the interview process interview the of part took who experts the , 37

oiia eprec t cet sal ad feasible and stable create to experience political

inting out the weaknesses of the currentweaknessesthe out the of inting opinions show that these parties will will parties these that show opinions party oe i cmltl changed, completely is model –

the reasons are alsoare reasons the g political life and life political g CEU eTD Collection 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

(Interviews period7May inthe conducted List Interview Appendix Strmiska, Ph.D. Maxmilian Maria Divizieva Kopecek, Ph.D. Lubomir Andrysova Lenka Kolev Kolyo Pardew W. James Dimitrova Boryana Adelina Marini Name

Social Studies; Social Facultyof Science; Political of Professor the Department at partyof NMSS political Minister Member inBulgaria; of CabinetChief ofthe Prime Masaryk University; Brno ofSocial Faculty Studies; Institute Science; ofPolitical International Science and Department of Political Associate professor the at LIDEM party political of member Parliament; intheCzech Deputie of ofMember theChamber Agency Studies Research Social and Marketing Political, sociologistChief atMediana Diplomat US Social Research and Agency Research Alpha at partner Managing Insidemedia EU online Editor Position - in

- chief

Masaryk

–

Marketing

–

21 May 2013)

–

Former USAmbassadorto Previous (ifrelevant) position 2009) Administrative (2005 Reform Administration and Formerof DeputyMinisterState party (until2012) political Former Verejne of member Veci Bulgaria (2002

- 2005)

Bulgaria Bulgaria Bulgaria country Discussed Republic Czech Bulgaria Republic Czech Republic Czech Bulgaria

CEU eTD Collection 13. 12. 11. 10. 9.

TomovTsvetozar Dr. SeanHanley Peter Stoyanovich Ph.D. Ondrej Cisar, Nikolay Vassilev

Agency – sociologist atSkala Managing College London Studies; UniversityEuropean of School LecturerSenior inthe Minister of Culture Prague CharlesScience; University; Department of Political Associate Profe Republic;Czech Academy ofSciences of the Institute ofthe ofSociology Review”,Sociological Editor party political MemberCapital; of NMSS atExpat partner Managing University; Brno

Political and Social Research and Political -

- chief of “Czech ofchief “Czech Slavonic EastSlavonic and

ssor atthe

(2005 Administrativeand Reform Minister of Administration State Communications MinisterTransport and of 2003); Minister (2001 of Economy (2001 Former DeputyPrime Minister party (2007 political ofFormer Gergiovden leader - -

2009) 2005);

(2003 - 2010) - 2005);

Republic Czech Bulgaria Bulgaria Republic Czech Bulgaria

CEU eTD Collection stay usually parties, 1 for which than in parliament notmore trend this that think you do and future near the for predictions your are What 8. passed partygenerous that state every the support for 1%voters’ support threshold? followingsupport elections? each party in different to tend who voters undecided of preferences voting the in volatility the explain you would How 6. country? p the are What 5. the part ofEuropean represented managea Parliament party? country ifthey tobecome in setting agenda the influence to ability their in confidence more have parliament in parties and parties) representative MS their supporting families party EU (large EU the entering between correlation a is there think you Do 4. process? making the decision atmosphere political in difference the between for reasons potential the are what you, to According 3. factorchoice that is Europeans)? always important tocontemporary creation the influencing factor a as choice) voting actual no party, ruling (one past communist the find you Do 2. away, politicalhistoryequally abruptly fade Bulgarian/Czech recent inthe (last 8years)? 1. Questions Interview 7. Do you think 7. Doyou How would you explain the quick emergence of a a of emergence quick the explain you would How

Bulgaria and the old established democracies in terms of allowing new actors to influence to actors new allowing of terms in democracies established old the and Bulgaria of new parties (confidence that there will always be at least some voters’ support/the support/the voters’ some least at be always will there that (confidence parties new of

that a possible incentive for the creation of small parties in the country might be the be countrymight ofinthe small parties for the creation incentive possible that a tnil rvn icnie bhn te oes spot o sal ate i the in parties small for support voters’ the behind incentives driving otential

h goig ubr f e pris D nwy lce small elected newly Do parties? new of number growing the 40

large number of rather small parties, which also which parties, small rather of number large - 2 terms, continue will toexist?

of emerging of new of emerging of

CEU eTD Collection Translations and Abbreviations Party                                 

SNK US KAN Ceskoslovenskych Podnikatelu, Zivnostnikua Rolniku) SCPZR Strana) Narondne Socialni SD SZZJ ODA CSS VV SZ TOP 09 SZV ODS CSSD uniedemokraticka KDU samosprávnou (Hnutíza Silesia demokracii MORSL KSCM OF BBB BNS EvroLev DSB ATAKA DPS the same.Vtori), acronym vazhod) i stabilnost NDSV Balgariya) na GERB SDS BSP DEU RMS Suveren. SPOZ SNK ED - - - LSNS - -

- -

Green PartyGreen (Strana zelenych) - Freedom Union (Unie Svobody) Freedom (Unie Union - - - - - Civic Forum (Obcanskéfórum)Civic

Public AffairsPublic (Veci verejne) -

- - -

- -

Czechoslovak SocialistCzechoslovak Party strana (Ceskoslovenská socialistická)

- Bulgarian Socialist PartyBulgarian Socialist Socialisticeska (Balgarska Partija) -

CSL CSL Union of Democratic Forces (Suyuz na demokratichnite Forces ofna Union sili) Democratic (Suyuz

Movement for Freedoms Rights and (Dviz - Alliance of zemedelcuAlliance Farmers venkova) theCountryside(Spojenectví a and Bulgarian Bulgarian People's Union (Balgarski Union Sajuz) Bulgarian People's Naroden Balgarija) Silna Bulgaria (Demokratiza astrong Democrats for

- Republicans ofSladek(Republikani Miroslav Miroslava Sladek)

Association of Independents (Sdruzeni nezavislych)Association (Sdruzeni of Independents Civic Democratic Democratic Party demokratickastrana)Civic (Obcanska

- Movement of Guaranteesjistoty) Pensionerszivotni Social za (Strana for - Democratic Union unie) Democratic (Demokratické Club of Active Non ofActive Club Democratic (Obcanska Civic demokraticka ealianceAllianc Czech Social Democratic strana Party (Ceská demokratická) sociálne

- Party of Civic RightsParty ofCivic - - Moravia and Communist ofBohemia Party Citizens for European Development of Bulgarian (Grazhdani za evropeysko razvi evropeyskoza (Grazhdani Bulgarian of Development European for Citizens

- - - -

- "Tradition Responsibility "Tradition Responsibility

h Ntoa Mvmn fr tblt ad rges Ncoan diei za dvizenie (Nacionalno Progress and Stability for Movement National The Sovereignty National Union (NatsionalenSayuzNational Attack Ataka)

Euroleft (Evrolevitsa) - at o Cehsoa Eternus Sal uiess a Businesses Small Entrepreneurs, Czechoslovak of Party (HSD SNK European Democ

re Democrats Free Christian Democratic Union and Czechoslovak People's Party (Krestanska a a (Krestanska Party People's Czechoslovak and Union Democratic Christian

Business BlockBusiness (Bulgarska biznesblok) - SMS) -

- Ceskoslovenska strana l

former National Movement Simeon II (Nacionalno Dvizenie (Nacionalno II Simeon Movement National former -

Jana Bobosikova Bloc

Movem

- partisans (Klub Angazovanych Nestraniku) partisans (KlubAngazovanych - – iea Sca Ntoa Pry Soon Demokrati (Svobodni Party National Social Liberal

Zemanovci (Strana (Strana PravZemanovci Obcanu

Democracy Autonomous for ent

rats (SNKEvropští demokraté) Prosperity (Tradice Odpovednost Prosperita 09) 09"

41 - idova)

Spolecnost Slezsko) a pro Moravu

(Suverenita (Suverenita henie za prava isvobodi) za henie

blok J.Bobosikove)

–

) Zemanovci)

Party for Moravia and Moravia for Party

nd Farmers (Strana (Strana Farmers nd

- - Liberalni

Simeon

tie CEU eTD Collection

  

Other RZS Party suyuz (Naroden BZNS,DP -

Order, Lawfulness, ispravedlivost) zakonnost Justice (Red, -

Popular Union of the Bulgarian Agrarian National Union and the and Union of AgrarianDemocratic theBulgarian National Union Popular -

BZNS, DP) BZNS,

CEU eTD Collection Science Political southeastern 1 International Europe.” Review and central in democracy to transition in parties political and elections “Free Stanislaw. Gebethner, 381 in formation government and “Europeanization Obert. multi Peter and Müller, Jochen Marc, Debus, Senatehttp://www.senat.cz/indexCzech C (1992,Constitution ofamendment Republic last theCzech 2009) Constitution of Republic ofamendment last Bulgaria(1991, 1997) 830. 823 (2011): 44/4 Politics and Science Political PS: Tracing.” Process “Understanding David. Collier, eastern in democracy to transition the and NationalitiesEurope.” Papers 38 legitimacy regimes, “Communist Monica. Ciobanu, Politics, Vol. 189 No.2(Jan.,Comparative 2002): 34, Inst “The Jack Bielasiak, Leiden ofScience, 29, Department Political University(2013) No. Parties, Political of Regulation Legal the on Series Paper Working Europe” Eastern in Survival Casal, Fernando Bértoa Journal agendas.” ofpolicy Policy Public (2006):959 13, No.7 European Green Christoffer R., Frank Baumgartner, Central in E Strategy and Competition Party Stability of “Patterns Sitter. Nick and Elisabeth, Bakke, with resource introductory An scientists: social for Sage (1999). examples.” “Interviewing T. P. Knight, and H. http://worldsavvy.org/monitor/ Arksey, at: online Available Monitor. 30Aug (Accessed: 2013). Savvy World 2013. index 2012.“Democracy astandstill.”Democracy at The Economist Intelligence(2013). Unit “Czech References zech of Deputieszech Chamber http://www.psp.cz/sqw/hp.sqw 4April (Accessed: 2013) urope since 1989.” Party 1989.” urope since PoliticsNo.2(2005):243 11, -

403. - level sys level Republic MonthlyRepublic January The review: 2012.” Economist Intelligence (2012): 11 Unit

tems: Evidence from the Czech Republic.” European Union Politics 12, No. 3 (2011): (2011): 3 No. 12, Politics Union European Republic.” Czech the from Evidence tems:

ttoaiain f lcoa ad at Sses n otomns States” Postcommunist in Systems Party and Electoral of itutionalization n Mra prv “e a usd o Prs! ulc udn ad Party and Funding Public Perish! or Subsidy a “Get Spirova Maria and , No. 1 (2010): 3 , No.1(2010): - eng.php 4April2013) (Accessed: - Pedersen, and Bryan D. Jones. “Comparative studies of studies “Comparative Jones. D. Bryan and Pedersen, 43 - 21

- 210. - 263.

8, No. 4 (1997): 381

- 974.

- 399.

index.php index.php -

14.

- CEU eTD Collection Freeperspectives. 7. Vol. press (1967). Cross alignments: voter and systems Party eds. Rokkan, Stein and Martin, Seymour Lipset, Woodhous J. Edward Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice and Edward, Charles Lindblom, Science Political American The method. comparative 65(3), (1971):682Review, the and politics Comparative A. Lijphart, per Comparative west: and east Politics Society (2001): and 2,No.3 European 481 parties “European G. Paul Lewis, No. 2(2008):151 10, Balkans the and Europe Southern of Journal democratization.” and Europeanization of patterns “Cha G. Paul Lewis, electoral on cleavages of effects democracies.”politics Journal innew of American Science51,Political No.3 (2007):602 dissimilar The diversity? in “Divergence Jóhanna. Birnir, Kristín Bi “New Pelova. Elections.” InBulgarian Parliamentary AIP Conference Galina and Yanev, Kostadin Mihail, Konstantinov, system.”electoral InAIPProceedings, (2009):235 1184 Conference Vol. Bo K. Juliana and Pelova, B. Galina M., Mihail Konstantinov, Publishing Group (2002). Longman edition). classics (Longman policies public and alternatives, Agendas, W. John Kingdon, t cleavage, and Jae Kim, Fisher, (eds) (2007) Miller andSidney Analysis, Policy Public of Handbook Cycle” Policy the of “Theories Wegrich Kai and Werner Jann, thethird and Union Martin.York:Palgr TheHolland, world.New European University ofSussex (2010). 28 May Election, Parliamentary Kaniok Petr and V. Hloušek, Parties Elections European andReferendums2006” Network,University ofSussex (2006). No27 Briefing “Election Sean Hanley, Political the The at Democracies: given Emerging in Remarks Party Challenge.” Wilton Park, UK(March 200 Change Society.” Political Civil Sustainable and “Achieving Parties on conference Political of Relationship “The C. Gershman, - n ad Mahn and On, he number he parties.” Socialof political Forces No.3(1992):575 70, - 165 gs n h pry oiis f h nw U ebr tts n eta Europe: Central in states member EU new the of politics party the in nges

- -

693. em h. A hoy f minor of theory “A Ohn. Geum

- Eeto Bifn No57 Briefing “Election Hall (1968). (1968). Hall - 9 00 Erpa Pris lcin ad eeedm Network, Referendums and Elections Parties European 2010” 29

–

Europe and the Czech Parliamentary Elections of 2 of Elections Parliamentary Czech the and Europe

4). 44

- 494.

Proceedings, Vol. Proceedings, Vol. 1293 243 (2010): –

. h policy The e. h bec o Erp ad h Czech the and Europe of Absence The - at pritne eeto rls social rules, election persistence: party neva. “Mathematics of the Bulgarian the of “Mathematics neva. - pcie. Prpcie on Perspectives spectives.” 246. ‐ Proportional Methods for for Methods Proportional - aig rcs. o. 4. Vol. process. making ave (2002). ave

- 599.

- 619.

- 252. - national national

- 3 June 3

CEU eTD Collection J. The New ethnographicSpradley, interview. York: and Holt,Rinehart Winston (1979) in Party PoliticsNo.5(2005):601 11, Trends Organizational Bulgaria in Parties “Political Maria. Spirova, JournalNo.7 Research47, “Bulgaria.” ofPolitical Maria. European Spirova, Ea Europe, in change system party and No. 3, PoliticsPerspectives Society 425 onEuropean and 3(2002): strategy party “Cleavages, Nick. Sitter, University Politics, Party parties” political new for formula College London(2012)18: 465 winning a as “Newness Allan Sikk, Developmen A. Sen, accession the on EU the of impact The countries University Press Cornell (2005):210 Conclusions: U. Sedelmeier, and F., Schimmelfennig, No61 Election” European PartiesNetwork andReferendums Parliamentary Elections (2009) Briefing “Election Stoyanov Dragomir and Lyubka Savkova, PartiesEuropean Elections ReferendumsNetwork, and University ofSussex (2005) No21 Briefing “Election Lyubka Savkova, (2007): 9 Pop Services Risk Political Czech Republic Politic 8 (2010): 2 no. Presence New The Above.” from Parties Political Czech of Formation “The Jiri. Pehe, Sociological “Opposition No.1(2000): Agreement” 36, Czech Vol. Review, 27 R “The Setting Miroslav. Agenda Novak, How of Study A Policy: Public and Political StudiesNo.4(2010):Matters.” 33, Scandinavian 356 Attention “Political B. Peter Mortensen, Ev of Principles the of View Connected a Being Inductive, and Ratiocinative Logic: of System S. J. Mill, British integration.” European (2000):433 JournalNo.3 Science30, ofPolitical Wilson. J. Carole and Gary, Marks, - 12. idence and theMethodsidence and Investigation. ofLongmans, (1898) Scientific Green ‐ Eleches, G. Historical legacies and post and legacies Historical G. Eleches,

al Risk Services Risk al Bulgaria 08 - 926.

t as freedom. Press. Oxford University (1999). elevance of Small Parties: From a General Framework to the Czech Czech the to Framework General a From Parties: Small of elevance - – 486.

Country Report, East 2012 NY, Syracuse, -

622.

“The past in the present: a cleavage theory of party response to to response party of theory cleavage a present: the in past “The –

Country Report, NY, Syracuse, East 2012 – - ‐

255. communist regime change. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 69(4), Politics, of Journal change. regime communist uoe n te alaetr Eeto i Bulgaria” in Election Parliamentary the and Europe 45

- 380.

- 451. –

uoe and Europe oprtv Perspective.” Comparative

- 8 (2008):929 - -

47. 459.

t n West.” and st

h Bulgarian the - 934.

CEU eTD Collection Kenneth N. TheoryWaltz, York:McGraw ofInternationalPolitics. New Politic of Students for University Press (1997). Methods to Guide Stephen. Evera, Van Comparative integration.” European Politics 7,No. European on 179 2 (2009): competition party structure accession EU and transition Liesbet and A., Milada Vachudova, 3 No. 46, Studies Political democracies.” new in (1998): 589 loyalty voter and appeals “Party Gábor. Tóka, 2013) site web Parliament European The CommissionThe site European web Journal Science55, ofPolitical 4(2011):PostcommunistAmerican no. 923 Europe.” Margit. Tavits, new in parties new of success and emergence British Science38, ofPolitical democracies.” Journal No.1(2008):113 the making: the in systems “Party Margit. Tavits, Po in Performance Electoral and Strength Organizational Party Success: for “Organizing Margit. Tavits, stcommunist Europe.” The No.1(2012):83 stcommunist Journal ofPolitics 74, Europe.”

- 610.

Pwr ihn ate: h Srnt o te oa Pry n M Idpnec in Independence MP and Party Local the of Strength The Parties: within “Power

–

– http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en (Retrieve date: 5 Jan 5 date: (Retrieve http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en oge “otomns pltc i a antc il: How field: magnetic a in politics “Postcommunist Hooghe. -

http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm (Retrieve date: http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm 5 Ja 212.

l cec. taa N: Cornell NY: Ithaca, Science. al - 97. - 133 -

Hill Hill (1979).

936.

n 2013)