DOCSLIB.ORG

Macro Report Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 3: Macro Report June 05, 2006

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Macro Report Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 3: Macro Report June 05, 2006 Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 1 Module 3: Macro Report Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 3: Macro Report June 05, 2006 Country: Poland Date of Election: 2005.09.25. Prepared by: Mikołaj Cześnik, Michał Kotnarowski, Paweł Grzelak, Radosław Markowski Date of Preparation: 16. December 2009 NOTES TO COLLABORATORS: . The information provided in this report contributes to an important part of the CSES project. The information may be filled out by yourself, or by an expert or experts of your choice. Your efforts in providing these data are greatly appreciated! Any supplementary documents that you can provide (e.g., electoral legislation, party manifestos, electoral commission reports, media reports) are also appreciated, and may be made available on the CSES website. Answers should be as of the date of the election being studied. Where brackets [ ] appear, collaborators should answer by placing an “X” within the appropriate bracket or brackets. For example: [X] . If more space is needed to answer any question, please lengthen the document as necessary. Data Pertinent to the Election at which the Module was Administered 1a. Type of Election [X] Parliamentary/Legislative [ ] Parliamentary/Legislative and Presidential [ ] Presidential [ ] Other; please specify: __________ 1b. If the type of election in Question 1a included Parliamentary/Legislative, was the election for the Upper House, Lower House, or both? [ ] Upper House [ ] Lower House [X] Both [ ] Other; please specify: __________ Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 2 Module 3: Macro Report 2a. What was the party of the president prior to the most recent election? SLD 2b. What was the party of the Prime Minister prior to the most recent election? SLD 2c. Report the number of cabinet ministers of each party or parties in cabinet, prior to the most recent election. (If one party holds all cabinet posts, simply write "all".) Ministers are considered those members of government who are members of the Cabinet and who have Cabinet voting rights. Name of Political Party Number of Cabinet Ministers Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej (SLD) 5 Unia Lewicy 1 Socjaldemokracja Polska (SdPl) 1 Independent 10 2d. What was the size of the cabinet prior to the election (total number of cabinet ministers detailed in 2c)? Please include only full ministers and the prime minister in the count. Ministers are considered those members of government who are members of the Cabinet and who have Cabinet voting rights. 17 3a. What was the party of the president after the most recent election? ???SLD 3b. What was the party of the Prime Minister after the most recent election? PiS 3c. Report the number of cabinet ministers of each party or parties in cabinet, after the most recent election. (If one party holds all cabinet posts, simply write "all"). Ministers are considered those members of government who are members of the Cabinet and who have Cabinet voting rights. Name of Political Party Number of Cabinet Ministers Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (PiS) 11 Partia Centrum 1 Independent 6 3d. What was the size of the cabinet after the election (total number of cabinet ministers detailed in 3c)? Please include only full ministers and the prime minister in the count. Ministers are considered those members of government who are members of the Cabinet and who have Cabinet voting rights. 18 Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 3 Module 3: Macro Report 4a. How many political parties received votes in the election? In this answer, we want political parties, not merely alliances or coalitions of political parties. Please include all parties that received votes, but do not include independents. Where coalitions are present, please count all member parties separately – for instance, a coalition of three parties would count as three parties in your answer, not as one party. 18 4b. Please provide a source of data and link to a website with official, detailed election results (votes and seats) for all parties participating in the election. If the data is not available electronically, please provide the information in paper format if possible. http://www.pkw.gov.pl/pkw2/index.jsp?place=Menu01&news_cat_id=1818&layout=1 http://wybory2005.pkw.gov.pl/ http://www.wybory2005.pkw.gov.pl/SJM/PL/WYN/M/index.htm http://www.wybory2005.pkw.gov.pl/SNT/PL/WYN/M/index.htm 4c. Please list all parties who received at least 1% of the vote nationally, and the applicable electoral results for each, in the following table. Please indicate the source (even if the same as in Question 4b), and add additional rows to the table as necessary. Please provide party names both in English and in the original language, if applicable. Source: Number of % of Number of % of Party Name Votes Vote Seats Seats Komitet Wyborczy Ruch Patriotyczny 124038 1,05% 0 0,00% Komitet Wyborczy Polska Partia Pracy 91266 0,77% 0 0,00% Komitet Wyborczy Liga Polskich Rodzin 940762 7,97% 34 7,39% Komitet Wyborczy Partii Demokratycznej-demokraci.pl 289276 2,45% 0 0,00% Komitet Wyborczy Socjaldemokracji Polskiej 459380 3,89% 0 0,00% Komitet Wyborczy Prawo i Sprawiedliwość 3185714 26,99% 155 33,70% Komitet Wyborczy Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej 1335257 11,31% 55 11,96% Komitet Wyborczy Platforma Obywatelska RP 2849259 24,14% 133 28,91% Komitet Wyborczy Polskiej Partii Narodowej 34127 0,29% 0 0,00% Komitet Wyborczy Polskiego Stronnictwa Ludowego 821656 6,96% 25 5,43% Komitet Wyborczy Centrum 21893 0,19% 0 0,00% Komitet Wyborczy Platformy Janusza Korwin-Mikke 185885 1,57% 0 0,00% Komitet Wyborczy Wyborców- Ogólnopolska Koalicja Obywatelska 16251 0,14% 0 0,00% Komitet Wyborczy Polskiej Konfederacji - Godność i Praca 8353 0,07% 0 0,00% Komitet Wyborczy Samoobrona 1347355 11,41% 56 12,17% Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 4 Module 3: Macro Report Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej Komitet Wyborczy Partii Inicjatywa RP 11914 0,10% 0 0,00% Komitet Wyborczy Dom Ojczysty 32863 0,28% 0 0,00% Komitet Wyborczy Narodowego Odrodzenia Polski 7376 0,06% 0 0,00% Komitet Wyborczy Stronnictwa Pracy 1019 0,01% 0 0,00% Komitet Wyborczy Wyborców Społeczni Ratownicy 982 0,01% 0 0,00% Komitet Wyborczy Wyborców "Mniejszość Niemiecka" 34469 0,29% 2 0,43% Komitet Wyborczy Wyborców "Mniejszości Niemieckiej Śląska" 5581 0,05% 0 0,00% Total 11804676 100% 460 100% Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 5 Module 3: Macro Report 4d. What was the voter turnout in the election? 40.57% 4e. Please provide the following six statistics for the country at the time of the election studied, so that we may calculate voter turnout in various ways. Some definitions, where provided, are based on those developed by International IDEA. Total Population: . 38028391 Definition: The total population includes all inhabitants, of all ages, both citizens and non-citizens (including illegal aliens). Total Number of Voting Age Citizens: . 30293256 Definition: This number is meant to approximate the eligible voting population. Total Vote: . 12263640 Definition: The total number of votes cast in the relevant election. Total vote includes valid and invalid votes, as well as blank votes in cases where these are separated from invalid votes. Total Number of Invalid and Blank Votes: . 458964 . Voting Age Population: . 30293256 Definition: Includes all persons above the legal voting age. Number of Registered Voters: . 30229031 Definition: The figure represents the number of names on the voters’ register at the time that the registration process closes, as reported by the electoral management body. Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 6 Module 3: Macro Report 5. Ideological family of political parties. For this question, please use the same parties that were used in the CSES Module 3 respondent questionnaire, and label them the same way (A-I). Party Name Ideological Family A. Liga Polskich Rodzin National Parties B. Partia Demokratyczna demokraci.pl Left Liberal Parties C. Socjaldemokracja Polska Social Democratic Parties D. Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc National Parties/Conservative Parties (also slightly populist) E. Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej Social Democratic Parties F. Platforma Obywatelska Liberal Parties G. Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe Agrarian Parties H. Samoobrona Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej Agrarian Parties Ideological Party Families: (These are suggestions only. If a party does not fit well into this classification scheme, please provide an alternative and some explanation.) (A) Ecology Parties (F) Left Liberal Parties (K) Independents (B) Communist Parties (G) Liberal Parties (L) Agrarian Parties (C) Socialist Parties (H) Right Liberal Parties (M) Ethnic Parties (D) Social Democratic Parties (I) Christian Democratic Parties (N) Regional Parties (E) Conservative Parties (J) National Parties (O) Other Parties Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 7 Module 3: Macro Report 6a. Ideological Positions of Parties: Please indicate party positions on a left-right dimension (in the expert judgment of the CSES Collaborator). Please use the same parties that were used in the CSES Module 3 respondent questionnaire, and label them the same way (A-I). Left Right Party Name 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A. Liga Polskich Rodzin X B. Partia Demokratyczna demokraci.pl X C. Socjaldemokracja Polska X D. Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc X E. Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej X F. Platforma Obywatelska X G. Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe X H. Samoobrona Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej X Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 8 Module 3: Macro Report 6b. If you have asked respondents to rank political parties on an alternative dimension, other than the left-right dimension, please also provide your own rankings of the parties on this dimension. Please use the same parties that were used in the CSES Module 3 respondent questionnaire, and label them the same way (A-I). Name of dimension: liberal Label for left hand position: solidary Label for right hand position: Left Right Party Name 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A. Liga Polskich Rodzin X B.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Question of Kosovo Independence in Polish Political Debate
    POLISH POLITICAL SCIENCE VOL XXXVII 2008 PL ISSN 0208-7375 THE QUESTION OF KOSOVO INDEPENDENCE IN POLISH POLITICAL DEBATE by Renata Podgórzańska ! e proclamation of independence of Kosovo, although expected, had a destabi- lizing impact on the international situation. International community had various opinions on the decision of Kosovo authorities. 1 Numerous conditions in" uenced the positions of individual countries. Countries acknowledging independence of Kosovo, that is some EU countries and the United States, recognized the proclama- tion of independence of Kosovo as a # nal stage of the Yugoslavia’s break-up with the basis for peaceful cooperation on the Balkans. Whereas, countries opposing the secession of Kosovo found it against the international law. ! ey perceived this act as an example of western countries’ dominance and feared that it would form a danger- ous precedent threatening international stability and security. 2 1 Kosovo authorities paid no heed to the suggestions of Brussels encouraging to postpone the decision on independence until Serbia and Kosovo were admitted to the European Union. ! eir position, to a large extent was in" uenced by a failure in the attempts of the interna- tional community concerning the Kosovo status. See A. Balcer, W. Górecki, M. Kaczmarski, R. Sadowski, W. Stanisławski, Kosowo Proclaims Independence , “Best – Weekly OSW”, No. 41, 20.02.2008, http://osw.waw.pl/pub/BiuletynOSW/2008/0802/080220/best01.htm 2 On 17 February 2008 the Parliament of Kosovo passed a 12 point-declaration of inde- pendence during a special session (boycotted by 11 Serbian representatives). See: Kosova Declaration of Indipendance , http://www.assembly-kosova.org/common/docs/declaration_in- dipendence.pdf 128 Renata PODGÓRZAŃSKA Considering the reasons of the Kosovo’s secession, irrespective of political, legal and moral aspects of this decision, its potential outcomes shall be emphasized 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Otwarcie Posiedzenia Ślubowanie Poselskie Poseł Roman Kaczor
    str. str. TREŚĆ 2. posiedzenia Sejmu (Obrady w dniu 23 listopada 2007 r.) str. str. Otwarcie posiedzenia Poseł Jarosław Zieliński . 67 Ślubowanie poselskie Poseł Bartosz Arłukowicz . 68 Poseł Roman Kaczor . 3 Poseł Stanisław Kalemba . 68 Poseł Aleksander Sopliński . 3 Poseł Jerzy Budnik . 68 Zmiana porządku dziennego Poseł Andrzej Sośnierz . 69 Marszałek. 3 Poseł Stanisław Stec . 69 Punkt 1. porządku dziennego: Przedsta- Poseł Andrzej Grzyb . 69 wienie przez prezesa Rady Ministrów Poseł Andrzej Czerwiński . 69 programu działania Rady Ministrów Poseł Tadeusz Tomaszewski . 70 z wnioskiem o udzielenie jej wotum Poseł Franciszek Jerzy Stefaniuk. 70 zaufania Poseł Zbigniew Wassermann. 70 Prezes Rady Ministrów Donald Tusk. 4 Poseł Jakub Rutnicki. 71 Komunikaty Poseł Mariusz Błaszczak . 71 Sekretarz Poseł Monika Wielichowska . 27 Poseł Joanna Senyszyn . 71 Poseł Jolanta Szczypińska. 72 (Przerwa w posiedzeniu) Poseł Krystyna Łybacka . 72 Wznowienie posiedzenia Poseł Grzegorz Raniewicz . 72 Zmiana porządku dziennego Poseł Marek Suski . 72 Marszałek. 27 Poseł Stanisław Wziątek . 73 Punkt 1. porządku dziennego (cd.) Poseł Włodzimierz Witold Karpiński . 73 Poseł Zbigniew Chlebowski . 28 Poseł Antoni Macierewicz . 74 Poseł Małgorzata Sadurska. 31 Poseł Henryk Gołębiewski . 74 Poseł Ireneusz Raś. 74 (Przerwa w posiedzeniu) Poseł Jadwiga Wiśniewska . 74 Wznowienie posiedzenia Poseł Tomasz Garbowski. 75 Punkt 1. porządku dziennego (cd.) Poseł Anna Sobecka. 75 Poseł Jarosław Kaczyński . 31 Poseł Artur Ostrowski. 75 Poseł Wojciech Olejniczak . 37 Poseł Janusz Chwierut . 76 Poseł Jarosław Kalinowski . 41 Poseł Arkadiusz Mularczyk . 76 Prezes Rady Ministrów Donald Tusk. 44 Poseł Tomasz Lenz . 77 Poseł Bronisław Komorowski . 46 Poseł Henryk Milcarz . 77 Poseł Grażyna Gęsicka . 47 Poseł Jan Rzymełka. 77 Poseł Marek Borowski. 48 Poseł Łukasz Zbonikowski .
    [Show full text]
  • 13 Kampania Prezydencka 2010 W Polsce. Analiza Strategii I
    Paweł Jakubowski UMCS, Politologia, V rok; KUL, Prawo, IV rok KAMPANIA PREZYDENCKA 2010 W POLSCE. ANALIZA STRATEGII I TECHNIK WYBORCZYCH Presidential campaign 2010 in Poland – analysis of electoral strategies and techniques „Kto pierwszy rzuci kamieniem, ten poniesie konsekwencje, kto pierwszy zaatakuje, ten przegra” Adam Lipioski, wiceprezes PiS Uwagi wstępne Kampania wyborcza o urząd Prezydenta Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej odbywała się w specyficznej atmosferze. W obliczu tragicznej śmierci Lecha Kaczyńskiego 10 kwietnia 2010 roku należało dokonać przyspieszonych wyborów głowy państwa. W wyniku katastrofy obowiązki prezydenta tymczasowo objął marszałek Sejmu, Bronisław Komorowski, który w porozumieniu z klubami parlamentarnymi postanowił, iż wybory odbędą się 20 czerwca, a ewentualna druga tura 4 lipca 2010 roku. Partie polityczne nie były w pełni przygotowane na taką sytuację. Jedynie Platforma Obywatelska w rezultacie wewnątrzpartyjnych prawyborów w marcu 2010 roku, wyłoniła kandydata na stanowisko; został nim Bronisław Komorowski. Nieoczekiwane pełnienie obowiązków prezydenta i jednocześnie kandydowanie na ten urząd stało się wyzwaniem dla faworyta sondaży. 13 Paweł Jakubowski Wskutek tragedii Prawo i Sprawiedliwość zostało pozbawione mającego ubiegać się o reelekcję Lecha Kaczyńskiego, pozostawiając problem sukcesji w partii. Również Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej w katastrofie utracił Jerzego Szmajdzińskiego, wymienianego jako potencjalnego kandydata lewicy. Zamiar startowania w wyborach podjęło ostatecznie dziesięciu kandydatów. Pierwsza
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Poland's Right: from Reliance On
    THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLAND’S RIGHT: FROM RELIANCE ON HISTORICAL RIVALRIES TO STABLE PARTY PLATFORMS Ashley Karen Timidaiski A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Curriculum in Russian and East European Studies. Chapel Hill 2009 Approved by: Dr. Milada Anna Vachudova Dr. Graeme Robertson Dr. Chad Bryant ©2009 Ashley Karen Timidaiski ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT ASHLEY KAREN TIMIDAISKI: The Development of Poland’s Right: from Reliance on Historical Rivalries to Stable Party Platforms (Under the direction of Dr. Milada Anna Vachudova) Many predicted that Poland’s developing political party system would favor a strong right wing due to several preexisting qualities: Poland’s less oppressive communist regime, the strong presence of the Catholic Church in Polish society, and the power of Solidarity – Poland’s exceptionally large anti-communist opposition movement. However Poland’s Right remained weak and fragmented for over a decade after the transition from communism. This thesis posits that the weakness of Poland’s Right was due to their reliance on historical rivalries between the Solidarity-successor and Communist-successor parties as a campaign platform instead of creating a cohesive political ideology under unified leadership, as was exemplified by the failed right-wing coalition of the 1990s, Solidarity Electoral Action. In conclusion, it was not until the 2005 and 2007 elections, when the Right was forced to compete against each other, that the historical rivalry strategy was abandoned, resulting in two stable mass parties on the Right.
    [Show full text]
  • Similarities and Differences of Main Left-Wing Parties in Poland and Hungary : the Case of SLD and Mszp in Comparative Perspective (1989
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE Title: Similarities and differences of main left-wing parties in Poland and Hungary : The case of SLD and MSzP in comparative perspective (1989- 2014) Author: Sebastian Kubas Citation style: Kubas Sebastian. (2014). Similarities and differences of main left-wing parties in Poland and Hungary : The case of SLD and MSzP in comparative perspective (1989-2014). "Studia Politicae Universitatis Silesiensis" (T. 13 (2014), s. 83-101). Sebastian Kubas Similarities and differences of main left­‍wing parties in Poland and Hungary: The case of SLD and MSzP in comparative perspective (1989—2014) Abstract: The article presents Polish and Hungarian main left­‍wing parties in the period of political transformation. There are a few sections in the article that develop the research prob‑ lem: the genesis and development of the parties from 1989 to 2014, a comparative analysis of the two parties based on quantitative indices. One can say there are some similarities between SLD and MSzP. The parties were trans‑ formed from communist hegemon formations, then participated in free parliamentary elections with some successes, created several governments and both have recently faced considerable loss of support. SLD and MSzP belong to the parties that influenced Polish and Hungarian transformation greatly. Key words: political parties, Poland, Hungary, SLD, MSzP Introduction Some years have gone since central­‍right parties started to rule and domi‑ nate the state politics in Poland and Hungary. In Poland in 2005 Law and Justice (Pol. Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS) won the parliamentary elections, and then Civic Platform (Pol.
    [Show full text]
  • October 2003
    Poland, Country Information Page 1 of 38 POLAND COUNTRY REPORT OCTOBER 2003 Country Information and Policy Unit I SCOPE OF DOCUMENT II GEOGRAPHY III ECONOMY IV HISTORY V STATE STRUCTURES VIA HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES VIB HUMAN RIGHTS - SPECIFIC GROUPS ANNEX A: CHRONOLOGY OF KEY EVENTS ANNEX B: POLITICAL ORGANISATIONS ANNEX C: PROMINENT PEOPLE ANNEX D: REFERENCES TO SOURCE MATERIAL 1. SCOPE OF DOCUMENT 1.1 This country report has been produced by the Country Information and Policy Unit, Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Home Office, from information obtained from a wide variety of recognised sources. The document does not contain any Home Office opinion or policy. 1.2 The country report has been prepared for background purposes for those involved in the asylum / human rights determination process. The information it contains is not exhaustive. It concentrates on the issues most commonly raised in asylum / human rights claims made in the United Kingdom. 1.3 The country report is sourced throughout. It is intended to be used by caseworkers as a signpost to the source material, which has been made available to them. The vast majority of the source material is readily available in the public domain. These sources have been checked for currency, and as far as can be ascertained, remained relevant and up to date at the time the document was issued. 1.4 It is intended to revise the country report on a six-monthly basis while the country remains within the top 35 asylum-seeker producing countries in the United Kingdom. 2. GEOGRAPHY http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ppage.asp?section=188&title=Poland%2C%20Country%20Information..
    [Show full text]
  • Sprawozdanie Stenograficzne Z 36 Posiedzenia Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej
    S e j m Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej Kadencja VI Sprawozdanie Stenograficzne z 36 posiedzenia Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w dniu 19 lutego 2009 r. (drugi dzień obrad) Wa r s z a w a 2 0 0 9 str. str. TREŚĆ 36. posiedzenia Sejmu (Obrady w dniu 19 lutego 2009 r.) str. str. Wznowienie posiedzenia Poseł Romuald Ajchler . 145 Komunikaty Poseł Witold Klepacz . 145 Sekretarz Poseł Beata Bublewicz . 109 Poseł Elżbieta Streker-Dembińska. 146 Sprawy formalne Poseł Jerzy Wenderlich . 146 Poseł Joanna Senyszyn . 110 Poseł Stanisław Szwed . 146 Zmiana porządku dziennego Poseł Tadeusz Arkit. 147 Marszałek. 110 Poseł Henryk Gołębiewski . 147 Punkt 12. porządku dziennego: Informa- Poseł Krystyna Grabicka. 148 cja rządu na temat planów i działań Poseł Artur Ostrowski. 148 rządu, zmierzających do zabezpiecze- Poseł Robert Telus. 148 nia narodowej gospodarki i polskich Poseł Krzysztof Sońta . 149 obywateli przed skutkami – narastają- Poseł Jan Kulas . 149 cego na światowych rynkach finanso- Poseł Tadeusz Tomaszewski . 150 wych – kryzysu Poseł Marek Polak . 150 Minister Finansów Jan Vincent-Rostowski. 110 Poseł Artur Górski. 151 Poseł Zbigniew Chlebowski . 113 Poseł Jacek Osuch . 151 Poseł Aleksandra Natalli-Świat . 115 Poseł Dariusz Bąk . 151 Minister Pracy i Polityki Społecznej Poseł Tadeusz Woźniak . 152 Jolanta Fedak. 117 Poseł Piotr Polak . 152 Poseł Wojciech Olejniczak . 118 Poseł Jan Religa. 153 Minister Finansów Jan Vincent-Rostowski. 120 Poseł Izabela Leszczyna . 153 Poseł Aleksandra Natalli-Świat . 121 Poseł Maria Zuba . 154 Poseł Wojciech Olejniczak . 122 Poseł Jarosław Rusiecki . 154 Poseł Jerzy Wenderlich . 123 Poseł Krzysztof Lipiec . 155 Poseł Stanisław Żelichowski . 123 Poseł Krzysztof Popiołek. 155 Poseł Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski. 125 Poseł Lech Sprawka.
    [Show full text]
  • Similarities and Differences of Main Left -Wing Parties in Poland
    Studia Politicae Universitatis Silesiensis 2014, T. 13 ISSN 1895-3492 (wersja drukowana) ISSN 2353-9747 (wersja elektroniczna) Sebastian Kubas Similarities and differences of main left­‍wing parties in Poland and Hungary: The case of SLD and MSzP in comparative perspective (1989—2014) Abstract: The article presents Polish and Hungarian main left­‍wing parties in the period of political transformation. There are a few sections in the article that develop the research prob‑ lem: the genesis and development of the parties from 1989 to 2014, a comparative analysis of the two parties based on quantitative indices. One can say there are some similarities between SLD and MSzP. The parties were trans‑ formed from communist hegemon formations, then participated in free parliamentary elections with some successes, created several governments and both have recently faced considerable loss of support. SLD and MSzP belong to the parties that influenced Polish and Hungarian transformation greatly. Key words: political parties, Poland, Hungary, SLD, MSzP Introduction Some years have gone since central -right parties started to rule and domi‑ nate the state politics in Poland and Hungary. In Poland in 2005 Law and Justice (Pol. Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS) won the parliamentary elections, and then Civic Platform (Pol. Platforma Obywatelska, PO) achieved electoral victory twice. In Hungary Fidesz won in 2010 and 2014. It would be interest‑ ing to define past and contemporary position of the left side of both political scenes as the one which makes the opposition now. It seems that Poles and 84 Systemy polityczne Hungarians have recently preferred more traditional and conservative values and do not support social­‍democratic appeal.
    [Show full text]
  • Wznowienie Posiedzenia Powołanie Sekretarzy Sekretarz Poseł Beata Bublewicz...5 Punkt 3. Porządku Dzien
    str. str. TREŚĆ 2. posiedzenia Sejmu (Obrady w dniu 10 listopada 2005 r.) str. str. Wznowienie posiedzenia Poseł Joanna Senyszyn. .47 Powołanie sekretarzy Poseł Krzysztof Tchórzewski . .47 Sekretarz Poseł Beata Bublewicz . .5 Poseł Łukasz Maria Abgarowicz . .48 Punkt 3. porządku dziennego: Przedstawienie Poseł Jarosław Zieliński . .49 przez prezesa Rady Ministrów programu Poseł Kazimierz Plocke . .50 działania Rady Ministrów z wnioskiem o Poseł Artur Zawisza . .51 udzielenie jej wotum zaufania Poseł Stanisław Łyżwiński. .51 Prezes Rady Ministrów Poseł Jolanta Szczypińska . .52 Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz . .5 Poseł Beata Mazurek . .52 Sekretarz Poseł Beata Bublewicz . .13 Poseł Małgorzata Gosiewska . .53 Poseł Monika Ryniak . .53 (Przerwa w posiedzeniu) Poseł Aleksandra Natalli-Świat . .53 Wznowienie posiedzenia Poseł Maria Zuba . .53 Zmiana porządku dziennego Poseł Bożenna Bukiewicz . .54 Punkt 4. porządku dziennego: Przedstawiony Poseł Arkady Fiedler . .54 przez Prezydium Sejmu projekt uchwały w Poseł Jacek Krupa. .54 sprawie uczczenia przez Sejm Rzeczypospoli- Poseł Ireneusz Raś . .55 tej Polskiej Święta Niepodległości Poseł Andrzej Markowiak . .55 Punkt 3. porządku dziennego: Przedstawienie Poseł Renata Rochnowska . .55 przez prezesa Rady Ministrów programu Poseł Mirosław Krajewski . .55 działania Rady Ministrów z wnioskiem o Poseł Piotr Gadzinowski. .56 udzielenie jej wotum zaufania (cd.) Poseł Jan Kochanowski . .57 Poseł Jarosław Kaczyński. .14 Poseł Wojciech Wierzejski . .57 Poseł Donald Tusk . .16 Poseł Wiesław Woda. .57 Poseł Jarosław Kaczyński. .19 Poseł Zygmunt Wrzodak . .58 Poseł Katarzyna Maria Piekarska. .20 Poseł Izabela Kloc . .58 Poseł Andrzej Lepper . .20 Poseł Beata Kempa. .58 Poseł Wojciech Olejniczak . .22 Poseł Anna Paluch . .59 Poseł Roman Giertych . .25 Poseł Małgorzata Stryjska . .59 Poseł Waldemar Pawlak . .26 Poseł Teresa Ceglecka-Zielonka. .59 Poseł Przemysław Edgar Gosiewski .
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix Question Wording and Experimental Instruments
    Brader and Tucker Unreflective Partisans? Appendix: Question Wording and Experimental Instruments Note: This appendix presents the English-language translations of all questions and instruments. Respondents were interviewed in the dominant language of their country. In Moldova, respondents could choose to be interviewed in either Romanian or Russian. QUESTION WORDING Party Identification Please tell me, is there any one among the present parties, movements, and associations about which you would say, “This is my party, my movement, my association”? [yes/no] [IF YES] Which party, movement, or association is that? Please name it for me. To what degree does this party, movement, or association reflect your interests, views, and concerns? [it reflects them completely, it reflects them partially] [IF NO] Please tell me, does there exist a party, movement, or association which more than the others reflects your interests, views, and concerns? [yes/no] Which party, movement, or association would that be? Please name it for me. Great Britain Please tell us, is there any one political party in Britain today about which you would say, "This is my party"? [yes/no] [IF YES] Which party is that? To what degree does this party reflect your interests, views, and concerns? [it reflects them completely, it reflects them partially] [IF NO] Please tell us, is there a party in Britain today that more accurately reflects your interests, views, and concerns than other parties? [yes/no] Which party would that be? Bulgaria Generally speaking, do you usually identify
    [Show full text]
  • Party Leadership in Poland in Comparative Perspective
    DOI:10.1515/curie-2015-0023 ANNALES UNIVERSITATIS MARIAE CURIE-SKŁODOWSKA LUBLIN – POLONIA VOL. XXII, 1 SECTIO K 2015 Opole University MICHAŁ RADECKI Party leadership in Poland in comparative perspective ABSTRACT The aim of this paper is to analyse leadership in Polish political parties in comparative perspective. In the further parts of this paper, the methods of leader selections, their competitiveness, as well as reasons for their stepping down are discussed. Similarly to the western political parties, the Polish ones have been changing their methods of leadership selection. So far each time it has consisted in a formal increase in the inclusiveness of the selection. The reasons for transferring the rights relating to the leadership selection to party members were brought closer to the premises typical for Westminster democracies rather than the consensual ones. The analysis of the Polish case shows that the internal elections have been characterized by different levels of competitiveness. Key words: party leadership, leaders, intra-party democracy, political parties, Poland INTRODUCTION A rise in the significance of political party leaders has become a clear and ba- sically uncontested trend in contemporary democracies. Their status as heads of governments is growing, they are expanding their autonomy within their own parties, and also – although to a lesser extent – it is on them that election campaigns tend to concentrate [Poguntke, Webb 2005: 337 ff.]. Although the name of the phenomenon introduced in the literature (i.e. ‘presidentialisation’) met with criticism, the very fact itself of power concentration in the hands of political leaders appears not to raise any stronger controversy [Dowding 2013].
    [Show full text]
  • CSESIII Parties and Leaders Original CSES Text Plus CCNER Additions
    CSESIII Parties and Leaders Original CSES text plus CCNER additions (highlighted) =========================================================================== ))) APPENDIX I: PARTIES AND LEADERS =========================================================================== | NOTES: PARTIES AND LEADERS | | This appendix identifies parties active during a polity's | election and (where available) their leaders. | | The party labels are provided for the codes used in the | micro data variables. Parties A through F are the six | most popular parties, listed in descending order according | to their share of the popular vote in the "lowest" level | election held (i.e., wherever possible, the first segment | of the lower house). | | Leaders A through F are the corresponding party leaders or | presidential candidates referred to in the micro data items. | This appendix reports these names and party affiliations. | | Parties G, H, and I are supplemental parties and leaders | voluntarily provided by some election studies. However, | these are in no particular order. | | If parties are members of electoral blocs, the name of | the bloc is given in parentheses following the appropriate | party labels. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> PARTIES AND LEADERS: AUSTRALIA (2007) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01. PARTY B Liberal Party John Howard 0101 Peter Costello 02. PARTY A Australian Labor Party Kevin Rudd 0201 Julia Gillard 03. PARTY C National Party Mark Vaile 0301
    [Show full text]