Agrar Lipset and Rokkan2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Shifting parties, constant cleavage Party system formation along the urban-rural cleavage in post-communist Lithuania Master thesis Svenn Arne Lie Department of Comparative Politics University of Bergen May 2006 ii Abstract When studying the party system formation in post-communist Lithuania, the Western European theoretical framework is a useful, although not sufficient tool to understand this process. Weak alignments between voters and parties and unstable party systems have made it difficult to apply the Western European theoretical framework because it prerequisites a high degree of party institutionalisation. In addition to unstable electoral support for the established parties, new parties successfully emerge, but disappear, then change name, splinter and merge with other parties. This thesis introduces the Reversed cleavage model, which is an attempt to study cleavages in a post-communist setting, exemplified with the urban-rural cleavage in Lithuania. Instead of focusing upon continuous representation of political parties, the Reversed cleavage model applies cleavage continuity as a point of departure. The unstable party system in Lithuania is thereby not related to voters’ missing perception of cleavages, but to the parties’ inability to establish long-lasting alignments with the electorate. Party system formation along the urban- rural cleavage in post-communist Lithuania, is explained by shifting parties and constant cleavage. Keywords: Party system formation, Lithuania, urban-rural cleavage, Reversed cleavage model iii Acknowledgements A thank to my supervisor Professor Lars Svåsand for structuring my ideas and supplying me with interesting literature and perspectives on the topic. Also, thanks to Professor Frank Aarebrot for keeping the flow of new ideas constant. Bjarte Folkestad’s knowledge and personal interest in this topic has been of indispensable value. Salutes to his eternal defend of the Periphery. A special thank to Gintare Malinauskaite, Helena Novikova, Mindaugas Jurkynas and Jurgita Januleviciute for helping me with Lithuanian translations, contacts and access to datasets. Ola Toft-Eriksen is appreciated for his contributions on the thesis’ structure and layout. Most of all, I would like to thank myself and the effects of social distribution. Bergen, May 2006 Contents LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES.................................................................................................................. IV ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................................................................................V INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................1 THE REVERSED CLEAVAGE MODEL......................................................................................................................2 Urban-rural cleavage in Lithuania ................................................................................................................2 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ..................................................................................................................................3 CHAPTER 1 CLEAVAGES, INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS AND AGENCY..........................................5 1.1 THE LIPSET AND ROKKAN CLEAVAGE MODEL .......................................................................................5 1.1.1 The cleavage concept.......................................................................................................................7 1.1.2 Parties’ ability to survive...............................................................................................................10 1.2 CRITIQUE OF LIPSET AND ROKKAN......................................................................................................13 1.2.1 Actors and structures.....................................................................................................................13 1.2.2 Post Lipset-Rokkan critique...........................................................................................................14 1.2.3 Other considerations......................................................................................................................17 1.3 ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS ............................................................................................................19 1.3.1 Institutional factors........................................................................................................................20 1.3.2 Agency............................................................................................................................................22 CHAPTER 2 THE EFFECTS OF COMMUNISM.....................................................................................25 2.1 PARTY FORMATION IN A POST-COMMUNIST CONTEXT .........................................................................25 2.1.1 Party defection...............................................................................................................................25 2.2 THE COMMUNIST HERITAGE ................................................................................................................26 2.2.1 Modernisation approach................................................................................................................27 2.2.2 Missing middle approach...............................................................................................................30 2.3 ARE THERE POST-COMMUNIST CLEAVAGES? .......................................................................................35 2.3.1 Why cleavages are problematic in a post-communist setting ........................................................37 CHAPTER 3 THE REVERSED CLEAVAGE MODEL............................................................................39 3.1 BUILDING A MODEL FOR POST-COMMUNIST LITHUANIA ......................................................................39 3.2 THE REVERSED CLEAVAGE MODEL......................................................................................................39 3.2.1 Parties are shifting.........................................................................................................................40 3.2.2 Cleavages are constant..................................................................................................................41 3.3 ANALYTICAL ADVANTAGES ................................................................................................................45 CHAPTER 4 THE URBAN-RURAL CLEAVAGE IN LITHUANIA.......................................................47 4.1 PARTY SYSTEM FORMATION IN LITHUANIA .........................................................................................47 4.1.1 Political parties..............................................................................................................................47 4.1.2 Post-communist cleavage structure ...............................................................................................55 4.2 URBAN-RURAL CLEAVAGE, ACCORDING TO LIPSET AND ROKKAN ......................................................59 4.2.1 Agrarian parties, according to Lipset and Rokkan........................................................................60 4.3 URBAN-RURAL CLEAVAGE IN LITHUANIA?..........................................................................................62 4.3.1 Lipset and Rokkan’s presuppositions in Lithuania ........................................................................63 4.3.2 Urban-rural cleavage as other cleavages?....................................................................................67 CHAPTER 5 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................69 5.1 DATA...................................................................................................................................................69 5.1.1 Urban-rural cleavage ....................................................................................................................69 5.2 DEFINING AGRARIAN PARTIES .............................................................................................................70 5.2.1 Agrarian parties according to the Reversed cleavage model ........................................................71 CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................................73 6.1 URBAN-RURAL CLEAVAGE IN THE 1996-ELECTION?............................................................................73 6.1.1 Correlation results.........................................................................................................................74 6.2 URBAN-RURAL CLEAVAGE IN THE 2000-ELECTION?............................................................................76 ii 6.2.1 Correlation results......................................................................................................................... 76 6.3 URBAN-RURAL CLEAVAGE IN THE 2004-ELECTION?............................................................................ 78 6.3.1 Correlation results......................................................................................................................... 79 6.3.2 Regression results.........................................................................................................................