DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Opinion Poll: Lithuania

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Opinion Poll: Lithuania Public Opinion Poll: Lithuania January 7–26, 2020 Detailed Methodology • The survey was conducted on behalf of the International Republican Institute’s Center for Insights in Survey Research by Norstat Eesti AS. • Data was collected between January 7 and January 26, 2020 through face-to-face interviews at respondents’ homes. • The sample comprised 1,007 residents of Lithuania, aged 18 and older. The sample is representative of the adult population of Lithuania by NUTS-3 region (Apskritys/Counties) and urbanicity, in accordance with the 2011 Census of Lithuania. • The survey’s response rate was 51 percent. The margin of error for the full sample is ±3.1 points at the 95 percent confidence level. • A multistage probability sampling method was used, employing a random route method for household selection and the Kish grid for respondent selection. • Stage 1: PPS stratification across ten NUTS-3 regions. • Stage 2: PPS stratification by urbanicity. • Stage 3: Random allocation of primary sampling units across settlements. • The sample is weighted for county, urbanicity, gender, age, nationality, and educational attainment level based on the results of the 2011 Census. • Interviews were conducted in Lithuanian. • Charts and graphs may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. • Cited bases are weighted. 2 Opinions of the National and Regional Context In general, would you say that Lithuania is headed in the right direction or in the wrong direction? 9% 39% 52% In the right direction In the wrong direction Don't know/Refused to answer 4 What is the most important problem facing our country today? (Spontaneous answers) Economy - cost of living, high prices 35% Economy - unemployment 10% Corruption 7% Government/Politics 7% Pensions 4% Poverty 4% Economy - other/general 4% Healthcare 3% Education 3% Migration 3% Brain Drain 3% Economy - small business opportunities/access to loans 3% Low wages 2% Internal conflicts 2% Social inequality 2% Social services/ benefits 2% Lack of unity 2% Environment 1% External conflicts/ War 1% Insecurity 1% Crime/Public Safety 1% Other 2% No problem 1% Don't know / Refused to answer 1% *Responses receiving less than 1% are 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% collapsed into Other. 5 How about at the European level? What is the biggest single problem facing Europe today, the one that you are most concerned about? (Spontaneous answers) Migration 17% Terrorism 9% Insecurity 7% Economy - cost of living, high prices 7% Internal conflicts 6% External conflicts/ War 5% Environment 4% Natural disasters 4% Economy - other/general 4% Corruption 3% Economy - unemployment 3% Illicit drugs 2% Crime/Public Safety 2% Government/Politics 1% Social services/ benefits 1% Pensions 1% Healthcare 1% Poverty 1% Lack of unity 1% Brain Drain 1% Other 3% No problem 4% Don't know / Refused to answer 14% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% *Responses receiving less than 1% are collapsed into Other. 6 How would you describe the current economic situation of your household? <1% 3% 6% 23% 68% Very Good Somewhat good Somewhat bad Very bad Don't know/Refused to answer 7 How likely or unlikely are ordinary people able to influence decisions made in Lithuania? Very Likely 7% Somewhat likely 27% Somewhat unlikely 40% Very unlikely 26% Don't know/Refused to answer 1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 8 How important or unimportant is it that all members of our country’s adult population, including women, young adults, minorities, and people with disabilities, are included in political decision-making? Very important 57% Somewhat important 34% Somewhat unimportant 7% Very unimportant 1% Don't know/Refused to answer 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 9 Do you think that today’s generation of young people has a good future in Lithuania or not? Young people (18-29) Base: n=165 Total population 2% 5% 45% 53% 39% Yes 56% No Don't know/Refused to answer 10 Did you vote in the Lithuanian parliamentary elections in 2016? 1% 28% Yes No Don't know/Refused to answer 71% 11 For which party did you vote? (Respondents who voted in the 2016 elections, n=716) Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union 25% Homeland Union- Lithuanian Christian Democrats 17% Social Democratic Party of Lithuania 11% Labour Party 5% Liberal Movement 5% Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania- Christian Families Alliance 3% Party Order and Justice 2% Lithuanian Freedom Union (liberals) 2% Lithuanian Green Party 2% The Anti-Corruption Coalition of N. Puteikis and K. Krivickas 1% The Way of Courage <1% Don't know / Refused to answer 28% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 12 If parliamentary elections were held this Sunday, how likely would you be to vote in this election? I would vote for sure 58% I would probably vote 17% I probably wouldn't vote 11% I wouldn't vote for sure 12% Don't know/Refused to answer 3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 13 If the following parties/coalitions would run candidates in these elections, for which party would you vote? Homeland Union- Lithuanian Christian Democrats 12% Decided voters, n=432 Social Democratic Party of Homeland Union- Lithuanian Christian Democrats 27% Lithuania 9% Social Democratic Party of Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Lithuania 20% Union 6% Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union 14% Labour Party 5% Labour Party 10% Party Order and Justice 3% Party Order and Justice 6% The Anti-Corruption Coalition of N. Puteikis and K. Krivickas 2% The Anti-Corruption Coalition of N. Puteikis and K. Krivickas 6% Liberal Movement 2% Liberal Movement 5% Electoral Action of Poles in 2% Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania- Christian Families… Lithuania- Christian Families… 5% Lithuanian Freedom Union Lithuanian Freedom Union (liberals) 2% (liberals) 3% Lithuanian People's Party 1% Lithuanian People's Party 2% Lithuanian Green Party <1% Lithuanian Green Party 1% Lithuanian List <1% Lithuanian List <1% The Way of Courage <1% The Way of Courage <1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Would not vote 17% *Decided voters are those who named a valid political Don't know/Refused to answer 40% party. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 14 If the following parties/coalitions would run candidates in these elections, for which party would you vote? If parliamentary elections were held this 3% Sunday, how likely would you be to vote in 23% this election? I would/probably would vote 75% I wouldn't/probably wouldn't vote Don't know/Refused to answer Likely voters, n=752 Decided and likely voters, n=389 Homeland Union- Lithuanian Homeland Union- Lithuanian Christian Democrats 15% Christian Democrats 29% Social Democratic Party of Lithuania 10% Social Democratic Party of Lithuania 19% Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union 7% Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union 14% Labour Party 5% Labour Party 10% Party Order and Justice 3% Party Order and Justice Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania- 6% Christian Families Alliance 3% Electoral Action of Poles in 5% Liberal Movement 3% Lithuania- Christian Families… The Anti-Corruption Coalition of N. Liberal Movement 5% Puteikis and K. Krivickas 2% The Anti-Corruption Coalition of N. Lithuanian Freedom Union (liberals) 2% Puteikis and K. Krivickas 4% Lithuanian People's Party 1% Lithuanian Freedom Union (liberals) 4% Lithuanian Green Party <1% Lithuanian People's Party 1% The Way of Courage <1% Lithuanian Green Party 1% Lithuanian List <1% The Way of Courage <1% Would not vote 4% Lithuanian List <1% Don't know/Refused to answer 44% *Decided and likely voters are those who would or probably would vote, and who also named a valid 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% political party. 15 Do you believe that democracy is the best possible form of government for Lithuania or not? Yes, it is the best possible 9% form of government for our country. 7% No, there are other forms of government that could be equally good for our country. 19% No, there are other forms of government that are better than democracy. 65% Don't know/Refused to answer 16 Some people argue that the party choices in our country’s politics are too limited and that new political forces should provide other alternatives in future elections. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Strongly agree 15% Somewhat agree 34% Somewhat disagree 20% Strongly disagree 28% Don't know/Refused to answer 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 17 Some people argue that the party choices in our country’s politics are too limited and that new political forces should provide other alternatives in future elections. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Youth 18-29 25% 36% 14% 19% 6% n=165 All Respondents 15% 34% 20% 28% 4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don't know/Refused to answer 18 Media Preferences From which source do you get most of your daily social and political news? Public television and radio broadcasters, such as LRT, LRT radio 45% Online news sources, such as online newspapers websites and blogs 32% Commercial television and radio broadcasters, such as TV3, LNK, M-1, RC 14% Social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn 4% Offline sources, such as interactions with family, friends, or colleagues 2% Major newspapers, such as Lietuvos rytas, Verslo žinios, Respublika, Kauno diena 2% Don't know/Refused to answer 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 20 How reliable or unreliable do you find the following sources of news: Very reliable Somewhat reliable Somewhat unreliable Very unreliable Don't know/Refused to answer National Public TV/ Radio 23% 58% 13% 3%4% National commercial TV/ Radio 13% 56% 23% 4%4% Western TV/Radio 8% 37% 15% 4% 36% Russian TV/Radio 3% 16% 28% 21% 32%
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lithuania Political Briefing: the Polls Indicate a Change of Governing Coalition After the Parliamentary Elections Linas Eriksonas
    ISSN: 2560-1601 Vol. 32, No. 1 (LT) September 2020 Lithuania political briefing: The polls indicate a change of governing coalition after the parliamentary elections Linas Eriksonas 1052 Budapest Petőfi Sándor utca 11. +36 1 5858 690 Kiadó: Kína-KKE Intézet Nonprofit Kft. [email protected] Szerkesztésért felelős személy: CHen Xin Kiadásért felelős személy: Huang Ping china-cee.eu 2017/01 The polls indicate a change of governing coalition after the parliamentary elections On 11 October Lithuania will hold the first round of the parliamentary elections. The second round will take place two weeks later, on 25 October. The increasing number of infected cases by COVID-19 coincided with the final month of the election campaign. It put restrictions on the way the political campaign has been led by the participants of the elections such as obligatory wearing of the masks when meeting the voters, preventing the effective use of face- to-face contact and door-to-door canvassing in political campaigning. Below is an overview of the political landscape within which the elections are taking place, outlining the voter preferences for and their sympathies towards the main political parties and indicating the possibilities for different yet highly unpredictable electoral outcomes. The results of the latest polls are briefly discussed, identifying the main difficulties in using the poll data for a more reliable prediction of the election results. The Lithuanian political scene is roughly divided into two halves. The governing coalition represents one half. It is led by the Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union with two minor coalition partners (Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania – Christian Families Alliance and the Social Democratic Labour Party).
    [Show full text]
  • Codebook Indiveu – Party Preferences
    Codebook InDivEU – party preferences European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies December 2020 Introduction The “InDivEU – party preferences” dataset provides data on the positions of more than 400 parties from 28 countries1 on questions of (differentiated) European integration. The dataset comprises a selection of party positions taken from two existing datasets: (1) The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File contains party positions for three rounds of European Parliament elections (2009, 2014, and 2019). Party positions were determined in an iterative process of party self-placement and expert judgement. For more information: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/65944 (2) The Chapel Hill Expert Survey The Chapel Hill Expert Survey contains party positions for the national elections most closely corresponding the European Parliament elections of 2009, 2014, 2019. Party positions were determined by expert judgement. For more information: https://www.chesdata.eu/ Three additional party positions, related to DI-specific questions, are included in the dataset. These positions were determined by experts involved in the 2019 edition of euandi after the elections took place. The inclusion of party positions in the “InDivEU – party preferences” is limited to the following issues: - General questions about the EU - Questions about EU policy - Questions about differentiated integration - Questions about party ideology 1 This includes all 27 member states of the European Union in 2020, plus the United Kingdom. How to Cite When using the ‘InDivEU – Party Preferences’ dataset, please cite all of the following three articles: 1. Reiljan, Andres, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, Lorenzo Cicchi, Diego Garzia, Alexander H.
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Article
    5 Comment & Analysis CE JISS 2008 Czech Presidential Elections: A Commentary Petr Just Again after fi ve years, the attention of the Czech public and politicians was focused on the Presidential elections, one of the most important milestones of 2008 in terms of Czech political developments. The outcome of the last elections in 2003 was a little surprising as the candidate of the Civic Democratic Party (ODS), Václav Klaus, represented the opposition party without the necessary majority in both houses of Parliament. Instead, the ruling coalition of the Czech Social Democratic Party (ČSSD), the Christian-Democratic Union – Czecho- slovak Peoples Party (KDU-ČSL), and the Union of Freedom – Democratic Union (US-DEU), accompanied by some independent and small party Senators was able – just mathematically – to elect its own candidate. However, a split in the major coalition party ČSSD, and support given to Klaus by the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (KSČM), brought the Honorary Chairman of the ODS, Václav Klaus, to the Presidential offi ce. In February 2007, on the day of the forth anniversary of his fi rst elec- tion, Klaus announced that he would seek reelection in 2008. His party, the ODS, later formally approved his nomination and fi led his candidacy later in 2007. Klaus succeeded in his reelection attempt, but the way to defending the Presidency was long and complicated. In 2003 members of both houses of Parliament, who – according to the Constitution of the Czech Republic – elect the President at the Joint Session, had to meet three times before they elected the President, and each attempt took three rounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Hostile Measures in Europe
    Russia’s Hostile Measures in Europe Understanding the Threat Raphael S. Cohen, Andrew Radin C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1793 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0077-2 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2019 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report is the collaborative and equal effort of the coauthors, who are listed in alphabetical order. The report documents research and analysis conducted through 2017 as part of a project entitled Russia, European Security, and “Measures Short of War,” sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Eurosceptics in Lithuania: on the Margins of Politics? Unikaite-Jakuntaviciene, Ingrida
    www.ssoar.info Eurosceptics in Lithuania: On the Margins of Politics? Unikaite-Jakuntaviciene, Ingrida Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Unikaite-Jakuntaviciene, I. (2014). Eurosceptics in Lithuania: On the Margins of Politics? European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities, 3(4), 1-21. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-403079 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY-NC-ND Lizenz This document is made available under a CC BY-NC-ND Licence (Namensnennung-Nicht-kommerziell-Keine Bearbeitung) zur (Attribution-Non Comercial-NoDerivatives). For more Information Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden see: Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.de European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities EQPAM Volume 3, No.4, October 2014 ISSN 2285 – 4916 ISSN-L 2285 - 4916 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Eurosceptics in Lithuania: On the Margins of Politics? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ingrida Unikaitė-Jakuntavičienė Department of Political Science Vytautas Magnus University Lithuania Date of submission: June 17th, 2014 Revised version: October 7th, 2014 Date of acceptance: October 10th, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Abstract The first eurosceptic ideas were articulated in Lithuania during the European Union accession referendum campaign in 2003, but they were almost inaudible through the chorus of pro-European voices. Different kinds of eurosceptic arguments were expressed, such as a fear of identity loss or critics of the government ―buying votes‖. However, there were just a few political actors expressing these views, and the relevant political parties were absent among this group.
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Diversity and the Number of Religious Parties Around the World
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Queen's University Research Portal Religious Diversity and the Number of Religious Parties Around the World Raymond, C. (2018). Religious Diversity and the Number of Religious Parties Around the World. Paper presented at European Consortium for Political Research General Conference, Hamburg, Germany. Document Version: Other version Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights Copyright 2018 The Author. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected]. Download date:09. May. 2019 Religious Diversity and the Number of Religious Parties Around the World Christopher D. Raymond Lecturer in Politics Queen’s University Belfast [email protected] Key Words Religious parties; religious diversity; religious markets; party system fragmentation; social cleavages Abstract Arguing that religious diversity creates incentives for political cooperation, recent research questions the assumption that religious diversity leads to more fragmented party systems and finds a negative association between religious diversity and the fragmentation of vote shares.
    [Show full text]
  • Lithuania's New Parliament: Tackling Emigration Will Be a Key Priority For
    Lithuania’s new parliament: Tackling emigration will be a key priority for the country’s new MPs blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/11/14/lithuanias-new-parliament-tackling-emigration-will-be-a-key-priority-for-the-countrys-new-mps/ 14/11/2016 Members of the Lithuanian parliament are being sworn in today following elections in October. Ingrida Unikaitė-Jakuntavičienė presents an analysis of the election result, which saw the Lithuanian Peasant and Greens Union make surprising gains to become the country’s largest party. She writes that addressing high levels of emigration among young Lithuanians will be one of the main aims for the party’s members as they enter parliament. On 14 November, the newly elected Lithuanian Parliament ( Seimas) holds its first parliamentary session, where members are sworn in and the Chairman of the Parliament is elected. The 141 members were elected in two rounds of elections on 9 and 23 October, with 71 of them being elected in single- member constituencies by majority vote and the remaining 70 in a nationwide constituency based on proportional representation. Polling from July to September indicated that the governing Social Democratic Party of Lithuania (LSDP) enjoyed a lead with around 16 percent of support, while the other two largest parties were closely behind and had a roughly equal chance of finishing second: the Homeland Union (from 10 to 14 percent) and the Lithuanian Peasant and Greens Union ( from 12 to 14 percent). But the election itself produced an altogether different result. In the first round, the Homeland Union, who articulate a broadly conservative platform, led with 21.7 percent of the proportional representation vote share and 20 seats, leaving the Lithuanian Peasant and Greens Union just behind in second place (21.5 percent, 19 seats) and the Social Democratic Party of Lithuania in a distant third place (14.4 percent, 13 seats).
    [Show full text]
  • Lithuania#.Vdw8cigfozm.Cleanprint
    https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/lithuania#.VdW8CIgFozM.cleanprint Lithuania freedomhouse.org After winning reelection in May 2014, President Dalia Grybauskaitė announced a “blacklist” of prominent individuals suspected to be involved in corruption. The eight vice-ministers included all rapidly resigned. Tensions with Russia surrounding the invasion of Crimea influenced developments in Lithuania in 2014. In March, authorities issued a three-month ban on broadcasts of Russian television channels. Political Rights and Civil Liberties: Political Rights: 38 / 40 (+1) [Key] A. Electoral Process: 12 / 12 Lithuania’s 1992 constitution established a unicameral, 141-seat Parliament (Seimas), with 71 members elected in single-mandate constituencies and 70 chosen by proportional representation, all for four-year terms. The prime minister is named by the president, but is subject to confirmation by the parliament. The president is directly elected, and may serve up to two five-year terms. In 2012 parliamentary elections, the Social Democratic Party of Lithuania (LSDP) finished first with 38 seats; the Homeland Union–Lithuanian Christian Democrats (TS-LKD) captured 33 seats; the Labor Party (DP) took 29 seats; the Order and Justice Party (TT) won 11 seats; the Liberal Movement (LRLS) captured 10 seats; and the Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania (LLRA) won 8 seats. LSDP leader Algirdas Butkevičius became the prime minister and assembled a four-party coalition comprising the LSDP, the DP, the TT, and the LLRA. Parliamentary elections were largely free and fair, though there were some reports of irregularities, including alleged bribery and forged ballots. In August 2014, the LLRA resigned from the ruling coalition, largely because it was not granted the minister of energy position.
    [Show full text]
  • Far from Stability: the Post-Election Landscape in Bulgaria Dariusz Kałan
    No. 50 (503), 15 May 2013 © PISM Editors: Marcin Zaborowski (Editor-in-Chief) . Katarzyna Staniewska (Managing Editor) Jarosław Ćwiek-Karpowicz . Artur Gradziuk . Piotr Kościński Roderick Parkes . Marcin Terlikowski . Beata Wojna Far from Stability: The Post-Election Landscape in Bulgaria Dariusz Kałan Early parliamentary elections not only will not help restore political stability in Bulgaria but also could further deepen the chaos because of the high dispersion of votes and the expected difficulties with creating a coalition. For a country immersed in crisis, maintaining the post-election stalemate is particularly not beneficial because of the deteriorating economic situation and growing public pressure. Regardless of which party will return to power, one should not expect a significant improvement in Bulgaria’s image in the EU or a positive settlement of the most important issues, including the country’s rapid accession to the Schengen area. Although the winner of the early parliamentary elections of 12 May was the centre-right Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB, 30% of votes), for all four parties that exceeded the 4% electoral threshold, the results can be seen as satisfactory. GERB, the ruling party in 2009–2013, won for the second time in a row during unfavourable economic and social situations. The similar support for the Bulgarian Socialist Party (27%), which received more than 600,000 additional votes than in 2009, is because of the mobilisation of its permanent electorate and generational changes in the party. Also, for the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (11%), which represents the Turkish minority, and the nationalist Attack party (7%), the results are a confirmation of their stable positions on the political scene.
    [Show full text]
  • WHY COMPETITION in the POLITICS INDUSTRY IS FAILING AMERICA a Strategy for Reinvigorating Our Democracy
    SEPTEMBER 2017 WHY COMPETITION IN THE POLITICS INDUSTRY IS FAILING AMERICA A strategy for reinvigorating our democracy Katherine M. Gehl and Michael E. Porter ABOUT THE AUTHORS Katherine M. Gehl, a business leader and former CEO with experience in government, began, in the last decade, to participate actively in politics—first in traditional partisan politics. As she deepened her understanding of how politics actually worked—and didn’t work—for the public interest, she realized that even the best candidates and elected officials were severely limited by a dysfunctional system, and that the political system was the single greatest challenge facing our country. She turned her focus to political system reform and innovation and has made this her mission. Michael E. Porter, an expert on competition and strategy in industries and nations, encountered politics in trying to advise governments and advocate sensible and proven reforms. As co-chair of the multiyear, non-partisan U.S. Competitiveness Project at Harvard Business School over the past five years, it became clear to him that the political system was actually the major constraint in America’s inability to restore economic prosperity and address many of the other problems our nation faces. Working with Katherine to understand the root causes of the failure of political competition, and what to do about it, has become an obsession. DISCLOSURE This work was funded by Harvard Business School, including the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness and the Division of Research and Faculty Development. No external funding was received. Katherine and Michael are both involved in supporting the work they advocate in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Brazauskas in Power: an Assessment
    Brazauskas in Power: An Assessment * JULIUS SMULKSTYS The victory of Lithuania's Democratic Labor Party (LDDP) in the parliamentary elections of October and November 1992 was lamented by many in the West as the return of the former Communists to power in a country that had played a major role in the dismantling of the Soviet Union. If just a few years ago Lithuania had been the trailblazer in the struggle for independence and democracy, now it seemed to be the leader in efforts to reverse the trends that began in 1988. But to those familiar with the recent history of Lithuania, the election results had no such ominous implications. They merely reflected the growing sophistication of the voters and their reliance on democratic institutions to settle political differences and to redirect as well as to reaffirm economic, social and political reforms. It was the case of a young democracy coming into its own. As in other former republics of the Soviet Union, democratization in Lithuania had to overcome numerous obsta- cles—the most visible ones being the absence of democratic political culture, relentless pressure from Moscow and the resultant siege-like atmosphere, and the rapidly deteriorating economic conditions. One of the important forces that helped to preserve fledgling democratic institutions was the Communist Party of Lithuania (Lietuvos Komunistų Partija—LKP) and its successor, Lithuania's Democratic Labor Party. Without their early commitment, the struggle for democracy and indepen- dence in Lithuania would have been much more difficult. The meaning of the 1992 elections, therefore, can only be fully evaluated and understood in the context of the party's role in promoting change, a role that originated six years ago.
    [Show full text]