DOCSLIB.ORG

How to Lose a Walk-Over Election?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How to Lose a Walk-Over Election? Blanks_06_orange.qxd 18-01-06 10:50 Side 1 De RAPPORT 2006:6 Fi farg © ISF 2006 Report 2006:6 Institute for Social Research Munthes gate 31 Postboks 3233 Elisenberg N-0208 Oslo www.socialresearch.no ISBN: 82-7763-228-2 ISSN: 0333-3671 M aterialet i denne rapporten er omfattet av åndsverklovens bestemmelser. Det er lagt u t på internett for lesing på skjerm og utskrifter til eget bruk. Uten særskilt avtale med ISF er enhver eksemplarfremstilling og tilgjengeliggjøring utover dette bare tillatt i den utstrekning det er hjemlet i lov. Utnyttelse i strid med lov eller avtale kan medføre erstatningsansvar, og kan straffes med bøter eller fengsel. Contents Abstract.............................................................................................. 5 1. Breaking records........................................................................... 7 2. Volatile voters............................................................................. 11 3. Turnout ....................................................................................... 15 4 From minority to majority government ...................................... 17 5 The election campaign................................................................ 19 6. The role of political leaders ........................................................ 23 7. Changes in the electoral system.................................................. 25 8. Concluding remarks.................................................................... 29 References........................................................................................ 31 Abstract This report examines the recent parliamentary election in Norway. In view of the fact that the Norwegian economy is booming, not least due to the revenues from the oil industry, common wisdom would imply that the ruling center- right government should have won the election easily. However, a new cen- ter-left coalition won by a narrow margin – establishing the first majority government in Norway in twenty years. The paradox was that the campaign did not focus on economic success, but rather on unsolved social problems related to care for the elderly, health institutions and education. In itself this may not be a sign of increasing dissatisfaction, but rather continuous wide- spread support for a universalistic welfare system based on social equality. However, previous studies indicate that the contrast between unsolved prob- lems and the increasing pile of money in the state owned oil fund generates political distrust. Thus, the electoral success of the populist Progress Party may be indicative of challenges every Norwegian government will have to face in the years to come. The article also outlines major changes in the elec- toral system introduced in the 2005 election. 1 Breaking records How was it possible for the center-right coalition government of the Conser- vative Party (Høyre), the Christian People’s Party (Kristelig Folkeparti) and the Liberal Party (Venstre) to lose the September 12th election? The state owned oil fund – based on revenues from the oil industry – had increased to more than 1200 billion Norwegian kroner (over 150 billion Euros), taxes had decreased by more than 20 billion kroner (2.5 billion Euros), the average monthly wages had increased by 20 percent in the last four years, and unem- ployment was below 5 percent. No wonder the United Nations had pointed to Norway as the best country in the world to live in. The favorable state of the economy – at the private as well as at the national level – would in most coun- tries have guaranteed a clear victory for the incumbent parties. How then, could they lose the election? In this article I will give an overview and an ini- tial analysis of the 2005 election, using data from official election statistics and opinion polls.1 Several of the last elections in Norway have been characterized as excep- tional (Valen 2003; Aardal 1998). This applies to the 2005 election as well. Two of the government parties, the Conservatives and the Christian People’s Party, hit rock bottom and received their lowest share of the votes ever. The only successful government partner was the tiny Liberal Party. In 2001 the Liberals had failed to reach the 4 percent electoral threshold for adjustment seats, but won two seats in Parliament and three seats in the cabinet! Before the 2005 election, they appealed to government supporters to help the party cross the threshold. The Liberals succeeded and got 5.9 percent, increasing their representation from 2 to 10 seats. ——————— 1. I would like to thank Elisabeth Bakke, Rune Karlsen and Guro Stavn for most useful com- ments on earlier drafts. More extensive data from the Norwegian Election Studies will be available later. See http://www.socialresearch.no/page/Research/Menu_research_fields/7981/8066. Official election results are found at http://odin.dep.no/krd/html/valgresultat2005/frameset.html. 8 How to lose a walk-over election? The Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet) reached an all time high, receiving 22.1 percent of the votes and 38 seats in Parliament. For a populist party in Western Europe this is a fairly high level of support. It seems that the best way to win an election is to lose the previous one – and vice versa. For in- stance, in the 2001 election Labor (Arbeiderpartiet) reached its lowest level since the 1920s, but appeared as one of the winners of the 2005 election.2 The Conservatives lost heavily in 1997, gained in 2001 and lost again in 2005. Table 1 and Table 2 show the results of the 2005 election in percent and num- ber of seats. Table 1. Storting Elections 1989-2005. Support in percent 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 Average Red Election Alliance 0.8 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 Socialist Left 10.1 7.9 6.0 12.5 8.8 9.1 Labor 34.3 36.9 35.0 24.3 32.7 32.6 Liberal 3.2 3.6 4.5 3.9 5.9 4.2 Christian 8.5 7.9 13.7 12.4 6.8 9.9 Center 6.5 16.7 7.9 5.6 6.5 8.6 Conservative 22.2 17.0 14.3 21.2 14.1 17.8 Progress 13.0 6.3 15.3 14.6 22.1 14.3 Coastal Party 0.4 1.7 0.8 1.0 Others 1.4 2.6 1.2 2.6 1.1 1.8 Turnout 83.2 75.8 78.3 75.5 77.4 78.0 Table 2. Storting Elections 1989-2005. Allocation of Seats 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 Average Red Election Alliance 0 1 0 0 0 0.2 Socialist Left 17 13 9 23 15 15.4 Labor 63 67 65 43 61 59.8 Liberal 0 1 6 2 10 3.8 Christian 14 13 25 22 11 17.0 Center 11 32 11 10 11 15.0 Conservative 37 28 23 38 23 29.8 Progress 22 10 25 26 38 24.2 Coastal Party - - 1 1 0 0.4 Others 1 - - - - 0.2 Total 165 165 165 165 169 The three incumbent parties, the Conservatives, the Christian People’s Party and the Liberals jointly won 26.8 percent of the votes and 44 seats of a total of ——————— 2. However, although the 2005 result represented an increase of more than 8 percentage points from the previous election, it was Labor’s second worst result since 1930. The election campaign 9 169, compared to 37.5 percent and 62 of 165 seats in the 2001 election. Their minority government therefore had to step down, and was replaced by a ma- jority government consisting of Labor, the Socialist Left Party (Sosialistisk Venstreparti) and the Center Party (Senterpartiet). The red-green alliance won 48 percent of the votes and 87 seats, and was the first majority government to take office in twenty years. 2 Volatile voters High volatility has been a distinguishing mark of Norwegian politics since the mid 1980s. Figure 1 shows the aggregate volatility since World War II, using the well known Pedersen index (Pedersen 1979). The 1973 election was an earthquake, following in the wake of the disruptive EEC-referendum in 1972. From a record high aggregate volatility of 20.4 percent in 1973, the system returned to “normal” in 1985 with only 4.4 percent volatility. However, the volatility has since then increased. The 2005 level of 18.8 percent almost ri- vals the 1973 record. Figure 1. Aggregate volatility in Norwegian parliamentary elections 1945- 2005 25 20,4 20 18,8 16,3 16,1 15,1 15,5 15 14,7 11,2 10 6,6 6,8 5 5,4 5 4,4 3,5 2,3 0 45-49 53-57 61-65 69-73 77-81 85-89 93-97 01-05 49-53 57-61 65-69 73-77 81-85 89-93 97-01 12 How to lose a walk-over election? Panel data confirm the pattern at the individual level. From 20 percent volatil- ity in 1985, there was an increase to 30 percent in 1989 and 37 percent in 2001 (Aardal 2003).3 Opinion polls, using recall data, indicate even higher individual volatility in 2005.4 Hence, there is no doubt that Norwegian voters have “begun to choose” (Rose & McAllister 1986), but they are not necessar- ily making erratic or accidental choices. Previous research shows that Norwe- gians are to a large extent influenced by underlying ideological orientations and even position in the social structure when they decide which party to vote for, or which party to switch to (Aardal 2003; Aardal & Waldahl 2004; Aardal & Van Wijnen 2005). Let us take a closer look at the direction of changing party preferences. Even though the respective party leaders claimed that the center-right coali- tion was a success, and that the relationship between the parties was amicable, there were signs of political strain, in particular between the Christian Peo- ple’s Party and the Conservatives. The transition matrices from the MMI polls show that the Christian People’s Party lost quite a few voters to Labor and to the Center Party. This indicates that some Christian voters may have felt that the party had moved too much to the right during the companionship with the Conservatives.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kunnskapsdepartementets Historie
    1814–2014 Kunnskapsdepartementets historie KIM GUNNAR HELSVIG 1811 Det Kgl. Frederiks Universitet etableres i Christiania 1814 1. departement opprettes. 1818 1. departement skifter navn til Kirke- og undervisningsdepartementet. 1821 Stortinget etablerer Oplysningsvæsenets Fond. 1826 Første lærerseminar opprettes. 1827 Lov om allmueskolen på landet. 1845 Skoleavdelingen i Kirke- og undervisningsdepartementet får konsulentstilling. 1848 Lov om allmueskolen i byene. 1851 Hartvig Nissen etablerer Selskabet til Folkeoplysningens Fremme. 1860 Lov om allmueskolen på landet. 1865 Hartvig Nissen utnevnes til den første ekspedisjonssjefen i Kirke- og undervisnings- departementets skoleavdeling. 1869 Lov om offentlige skoler for den høyere almenndannelse innfører inndelingen i 6-årig middelskole og 3-årig gymnas. 1882 Kvinner får rett til å ta examen artium. 1884 Kvinner får adgang til universitetet og dermed rett til å ta embetseksamen. 1889 Folkeskolelovene åpnet muligheten for høyere utdannelse for alle, både i byene og på landet. 1890 Kvinner får adgang til offentlige lærerskoler. Den første normalplanen for folkeskolen. 1896 Gymnaslovene etablerte en allmenn høyere skole med to hovedlinjer, real- og engelsklinjen. 1897 Norges landbrukshøgskole opprettes. 1905 Universitetet får sin egen rektor ved Lov om Det Kgl. Frederiks Universitet. 1910 Norges tekniske høgskole opprettes. 1911 Departementet nedsetter den såkalte enhetsskolekomiteen. 1912 Kristine Bonnevie blir Norges første kvinnelige professor. 1814–1914 1922 Norges lærerhøgskole opprettes. Normalplan for landsfolkeskolen. 1925 Normalplan for byfolkeskolen. 1931 Lærerorganisasjonenes skolenemnd nedsettes. 1936 Lov om folkeskolen på landet og Lov om 1940 april Rektor ved Universitetet i Oslo Didrik Arup Seip blir sjef for Kirke- folkeskolen i kjøpstedene. og undervisningsdepartementet under Administrasjonsrådet. 1940 september Professor ved Norges tekniske høgskole Ragnar Skancke blir Kirke- og undervisningsminister i Reichskommisar Terbovens nye regjering.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses
    Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. ABSTRACT THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND HISTORY OF THE NORWEGIAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH FROM THE 1840s TO 1887 by Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik Snorrason Adviser: Jerry Moon ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Dissertation Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND HISTORY OF THE NORWEGIAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH FROM THE 1840s TO 1887 Name of researcher: Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik Snorrason Name and degree of faculty adviser: Jerry Moon, Ph.D. Date completed: July 2010 This dissertation reconstructs chronologically the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Norway from the Haugian Pietist revival in the early 1800s to the establishment of the first Seventh-day Adventist Conference in Norway in 1887. The present study has been based as far as possible on primary sources such as protocols, letters, legal documents, and articles in journals, magazines, and newspapers from the nineteenth century. A contextual-comparative approach was employed to evaluate the objectivity of a given source. Secondary sources have also been consulted for interpretation and as corroborating evidence, especially when no primary sources were available. The study concludes that the Pietist revival ignited by the Norwegian Lutheran lay preacher, Hans Nielsen Hauge (1771-1824), represented the culmination of the sixteenth- century Reformation in Norway, and the forerunner of the Adventist movement in that country.
    [Show full text]
  • This File Was Downloaded from BI Open Archive, the Institutional Repository (Open Access) at BI Norwegian Business School
    This file was downloaded from BI Open Archive, the institutional repository (open access) at BI Norwegian Business School http://brage.bibsys.no/bi. It contains the accepted and peer reviewed manuscript to the article cited below. It may contain minor differences from the journal's pdf version. Sitter, N. (2006). Norway’s Storting election of September 2005: Back to the left? West European Politics, 29(3), 573-580 Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380600620700 Copyright policy of Taylor & Francis, the publisher of this journal: 'Green' Open Access = deposit of the Accepted Manuscript (after peer review but prior to publisher formatting) in a repository, with non-commercial reuse rights, with an Embargo period from date of publication of the final article. The embargo period for journals within the Social Sciences and the Humanities (SSH) is usually 18 months http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/journal-list/ Norway's Storting election of September 2005: Back to the Left? Nick Sitter, BI Norwegian Business School This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in West European Politics as Nick Sitter (2006) Norway's Storting election of September 2005: Back to the Left?, West European Politics, 29:3, 573-580, DOI: 10.1080/01402380600620700, available online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402380600620700 In September 2005, after four years in opposition, Jens Stoltenberg led the Norwegian Labour Party to electoral victory at the head of a ‘red–green’ alliance that included the Socialist Left and the rural Centre Party. This brought about the first (peace-time) Labour-led coalition, the first majority government for 20 years, and the first coalition to include the far left.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origin, Development, and History of the Norwegian Seventh-Day Adventist Church from the 1840S to 1889" (2010)
    Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Dissertations Graduate Research 2010 The Origin, Development, and History of the Norwegian Seventh- day Adventist Church from the 1840s to 1889 Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik Snorrason Andrews University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations Part of the Christian Denominations and Sects Commons, Christianity Commons, and the History of Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Snorrason, Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik, "The Origin, Development, and History of the Norwegian Seventh-day Adventist Church from the 1840s to 1889" (2010). Dissertations. 144. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/144 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. ABSTRACT THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND HISTORY OF THE NORWEGIAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH FROM THE 1840s TO 1887 by Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik Snorrason Adviser: Jerry Moon ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Dissertation Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND HISTORY OF THE NORWEGIAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH FROM THE 1840s TO 1887 Name of researcher: Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik Snorrason Name and degree of faculty adviser: Jerry Moon, Ph.D. Date completed: July 2010 This dissertation reconstructs chronologically the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Norway from the Haugian Pietist revival in the early 1800s to the establishment of the first Seventh-day Adventist Conference in Norway in 1887.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Manchesterhive.Com at 09/23/2021 12:29:26PM Via Free Access Austria Belgium
    Section 5 Data relating to political systems THE COUNTRIES OF WESTERN EUROPE referendum. The constitutional court (Verfassungsgerichtshof ) determines the constitutionality of legislation and Austria executive acts. Population 8.1 million (2000) Current government The 1999 Capital Vienna election brought to an end the Territory 83,857 sq. km 13-year government coalition GDP per capita US$25,788 (2000) between the Social Democratic Party Unemployment 3.7 per cent of of Austria (SPÖ) and Austrian workforce (2000) People’s Party (ÖVP), which had State form Republic. The Austrian been under considerable strain. When constitution of 1920, as amended in the two parties failed to reach a 1929, was restored on 1 May 1945. On coalition agreement, Austria found 15 May 1955, the four Allied Powers itself short of viable alternatives. The signed the State Treaty with Austria, record gains of the radical right ending the occupation and Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) had recognising Austrian independence. changed the balance of power within Current head of state President the party system. The other two Thomas Klestil (took office 8 July numerically viable coalitions – 1992, re-elected 1998). SPÖ/FPÖ or ÖVP/FPÖ – had been State structure A federation with nine ruled out in advance by the two provinces (Länder), each with its own mainstream parties. An attempt by the constitution, legislature and SPÖ to form a minority government government. failed. Finally, a coalition was formed Government The president appoints the between the ÖVP and FPÖ under prime minister (chancellor), and, on Wolfgang Schüssel (ÖVP) and the chancellor’s recommendation, a reluctantly sworn in by President cabinet (Council of Ministers) of Klestil on 5 February 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • “Norway Is a Peace Nation”
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives “Norway is a Peace Nation” Discursive Preconditions for the Norwegian Peace Engagement Policy Øystein Haga Skånland M.A.Thesis, Peace and Conflict Studies Faculty of Social Science UNIVERSITY OF OSLO 20th June, 2008 ii Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Halvard Leira for his insightful feedback, suggestions, and encouraging comments. Without him keeping me on track and gently prodding me in the right direction, carrying out the analysis would undoubtedly have been an overwhelming task. I am also grateful to Iver B. Neumann, who has read through and given valuable comments on a draft in the finishing stages of the process. I would also like to thank Prof. Jeffrey T. Checkel for an excellent introduction to social constructivism in International Relations, Prof. Werner Christie Mathisen for his course on textual analysis, and Sunniva Engh for introducing me to Norwegian development aid history. You have all inspired me in the choice of perspective and object of study. Writing this thesis would not be possible without support and encouragement to overcome the many small and big challenges I have encountered. I am indebted to my fellow students, particularly Jonathan Amario and Ruben Røsler; my friends; and my parents. Last, but not least, Synnøve deserves my most heartfelt thanks for her patience and loving support. All the viewpoints presented, and all errors and inconsistencies, are solely my own responsibility. Øystein Haga Skånland Oslo, June 2008 iii Table of Content Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Version 2.8 (Presentert DSS)
    Concentration of power in cabinets: Exploring the importance of the political context Kristoffer Kolltveit, PhD Candidate, Department of political science, University of Oslo Abstract. Weakening of the cabinet collective and strengthening of prime ministers in parliamentary democracies have often been explained by the personality of state leaders or long-term changes like increased fragmentation of public sector, internationalisation and mediatisation of politics. This article points to other, more contingent explanations for changes in the executive centre. The argument is that the number of parties in cabinet, the fragility of the coalition, and the cabinet’s parliamentary basis, also affect the need for political coordination and thus the concentration of power in cabinet. The impact of long-term societal changes on the concentration of decision-making power in cabinet thus depends on factors in the domestic political context. The argument is substantiated through a qualitative case study of Norway. Based on semi-structured interviews the study shows that different features of cabinet help explain the concentration of power seen in the last four Norwegian cabinets. ! Note to reader: This is an early draft of the final article in my article-based PhD- thesis. One of the other articles focuses on how presidentialisation tendencies in Norwegian coalitions instead might be described as concentration of power as core ministers, party leaders and parliamentary leaders still are important actors in the decision-making processes in cabinet. In order to avoid overlap, this article has a more explanatory focus. I am therefore particularly interested in and grateful for, feedback on how this present article can be framed to further strengthen the theoretical argument of the importance of short-term explanations and interlinkage with long-term explanations, and perhaps tone down the Norwegian case more.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaker's Bios
    An Inclusive, Global Strategy to #LeaveNoOneBehind during and after COVID-19 Speaker’s Biographies Speaker Biography Danilo Türk President of Slovenia Danilo Türk (1952) has a BA in Law from the University of (2007-2012) Ljubljana in 1975, an MA from the University of Belgrade Club de Madrid President (1978), and a PhD from the University of Ljubljana. In 1983 he became Director of the Institute on International Law at the University of Ljubljana. He was member of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, a UN body of independent experts. In that capacity he served, in 1986- 1992, as the UN Special Rapporteur on the realisation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In 996-1997 he also served as member of the Human Rights Committee. In 1990-1991 he took part in the drafting of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia by preparing the draft chapter of the Constitution related to human rights and fundamental freedoms. From 1992 to 2000, Mr. Türk was the first Slovene Permanent Representative to the UN in New York and represented Slovenia on the UN Security Council in 1998 - 1999. In 2000 he was invited by Mr. Kofi Annan, the then Secretary –General of the UN, to serve as UN Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs (2000 – 20005). In 2005 he returned to Slovenia as Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana. In 2007 he was elected President of the Republic of Slovenia from 2007 to 2012. He became member of the Club de Madrid in 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenger Party List
    Appendix List of Challenger Parties Operationalization of Challenger Parties A party is considered a challenger party if in any given year it has not been a member of a central government after 1930. A party is considered a dominant party if in any given year it has been part of a central government after 1930. Only parties with ministers in cabinet are considered to be members of a central government. A party ceases to be a challenger party once it enters central government (in the election immediately preceding entry into office, it is classified as a challenger party). Participation in a national war/crisis cabinets and national unity governments (e.g., Communists in France’s provisional government) does not in itself qualify a party as a dominant party. A dominant party will continue to be considered a dominant party after merging with a challenger party, but a party will be considered a challenger party if it splits from a dominant party. Using this definition, the following parties were challenger parties in Western Europe in the period under investigation (1950–2017). The parties that became dominant parties during the period are indicated with an asterisk. Last election in dataset Country Party Party name (as abbreviation challenger party) Austria ALÖ Alternative List Austria 1983 DU The Independents—Lugner’s List 1999 FPÖ Freedom Party of Austria 1983 * Fritz The Citizens’ Forum Austria 2008 Grüne The Greens—The Green Alternative 2017 LiF Liberal Forum 2008 Martin Hans-Peter Martin’s List 2006 Nein No—Citizens’ Initiative against
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomy of Minority Governments
    Indiana Journal of Constitutional Design Volume 3 Article 1 10-17-2018 Taxonomy of Minority Governments Lisa La Fornara [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijcd Part of the Administrative Law Commons, American Politics Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Comparative Politics Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, International Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Legislation Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, Rule of Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation La Fornara, Lisa (2018) "Taxonomy of Minority Governments," Indiana Journal of Constitutional Design: Vol. 3 , Article 1. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijcd/vol3/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Journal of Constitutional Design by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Taxonomy of Minority Governments LISA LA FORNARA INTRODUCTION A minority government in its most basic form is a government in which the party holding the most parliamentary seats still has fewer than half the seats in parliament and therefore cannot pass legislation or advance policy without support from unaffiliated parties.1 Because seats in minority parliaments are more evenly distributed amongst multiple parties, opposition parties have greater opportunity to block legislation. A minority government must therefore negotiate with external parties and adjust its policies to garner the majority of votes required to advance its initiatives.2 This paper serves as a taxonomy of minority governments in recent history and proceeds in three parts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Centre for European and Asian Studies
    Nick Sitter, PSA 2004, p.1 The Centre for European and Asian Studies REPORT 2/2004 ISSN 1500-2683 Beyond Government and Opposition? The European Question, Party Strategy and Coalition Politics in Norway Nick Sitter A publication from: Centre for European and Asian Studies at Norwegian School of Management Elias Smiths vei 15 PO Box 580 N-1302 Sandvika Norway Paper prepared for the UK Political Studies Association conference, 2004 BEYOND GOVERNMENT AND OPPOSITION? THE EUROPEAN QUESTION, PARTY STRATEGY AND COALITION POLITICS IN NORWAY Nick Sitter Department of Public Governance, The Norwegian School of Management BI The British application for membership of the European Economic Community in July 1961 came less than two months before the election that cost the Labour party its parliamentary majority and inaugurated four decades of minority and coalition government. Not only did the British application place the controversial question of whether to apply for EEC membership on the Norwegian Labour (and now minority) administration’s agenda, it introduced a question that has cast a shadow over coalition politics ever since. Participation in European integration has long divided both the centre-right and centre-left wings of the party system, and with the 2005 election a year and a half away it continues to do so more than ever. With the leaders of the two mainstream centre-left and -right parties both declaring that application for membership of the European Union is more important than coalition politics, and their respective potential coalition partners prioritising opposition to EU membership, the scene is set for intense coalition games and negotiations in the run-up to the 2005 elections and in all likelihood yet another minority government that builds alliances in different directions on economic and foreign policy questions.
    [Show full text]