The ideological institutionalization of the Romanian party system.

• Author: Gherghina, Sergiu
• Position: POLSCI PAPERS - Report

Introduction

Twenty years after the fall of communism and the rebirth of multiparty politics in Central and Eastern Europe, the party systems evolved from high levels of fragmentation and volatility characterizing the 1990's (Mair 1997; Rose et al. 1998; Lewis 2000; Birch 2001; van Biezen 2003) to a general continuity and stability visible in the most recent decade (Kolarova 2002; Enyedi 2006; Rose and Munro 2009). The Hungarian and the Czech party system appear to be the least electoral volatile (Sikk 2005; Tavits 2005), whereas in longitudinal terms starting with the third elections in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia (Sitter 2002), and with the fourth in Romania (Gherghina 2009). In this entire process of stabilization, the ideological stances of political parties and their positioning in the political space play relevant roles. Kitschelt (1992) argues that the dynamics of post-communist politics indicates, from the beginning, a clear orientation towards the spatial dimension of party competition. The major explanations provided by previous studies for the electoral instability of post-communist parties partially or totally touch upon the role played by spatial positions in achieving specific electoral outcome: the initial institutional choices (Elster et al. 1998 ; Kostelecky 2002; Birch 2003), the structure of cleavages and the incumbency effect to be reflected in the socio-economic conditions (Evans and Whitefield 1993; Bielasiak 1997; Tworzecki 2003), and new party entries (Spirova 2007; Tavits 2008; Rose and Munro 2009). On the other hand, there is evidence that the citizens of these countries use pure value-based voting to attach party loyalties (Toka, 1998). Whitefield (2002) finds evidence for the social and ideological divisions in the post-communist societies, with socio-demographic factors making a difference in/when choosing ideologies.

The Romanian party system witnessed a relatively slow but solid stabilization, being positioned between the extreme cases of fast (e.g Czech Republic and Hungary) and slow and tedious institutionalization (Bulgaria and Poland). Therefore, its investigation provides relevant information on the dynamics of party politics within moderated cases. Three further particular elements of the Romanian party system make it relevant for scrutiny and highlight an apparent paradox. First, it displays a continuous decrease in the number of successful political competitors. The May 1990 elections allowed 16 political parties to get into Parliament (second Chamber), the 1992 elections reduced this number to seven, in the 1996 elections there were six parties, one less in 2000, whereas for the 2004 (19) and 2008 this number stabilized to four. (20) Second, the number of entries in the Romanian party system is very small. Three out of four parties from the current legislature are in Parliament from their initial creation, whereas the last entry in the range of successful competitors was registered in 2000 (due to a coalition with the social-democrats). With newly created parties having little if any chances to enter the system, we can expect a sharp ideological separation between the existing actors, clear positioning in the ideological space (to maximize their votes). Third, the contemporary development of the party system partly contradicts such an expectation and reveals the necessity of continuous ideological clarifications among the political parties. The Democrat Liberal Party, one of the three main actors in the current party system undergoes ideological changes following its shift from social-democracy to conservatism in 2005. Moreover, the system currently faces the creation of a new leftist party, based on a group of independent MP's, who left the liberal and social-democratic opposition and now support the government. Whether we speak of major ideological shifts of parties or individual transfers from one party with a particular ideology to another, the poor politicians' attachment to particular ideologies impedes the creation of electoral loyalties among voters on the long-run (Mair 1997). The direct consequence of this situation is a volatile situation at the level of representation where political identities and organizational loyalties are recomposed every electoral cycle (Roberts and Wibbels 1999, 575).

Summing up, a puzzle is visible: the Romanian party system gains stability although there is an apparent quest of some political parties for their ideological identity. Is there any stability in terms of ideological competition going on in Romanian politics? This article seeks an answer to this question, by revealing the evolution of the Romanian party system from an ideological perspective. In doing so, we aim to determine the degree of ideological institutionalization during the two decades of post-communism. Our enquiry is theoretically driven and we use process-tracing as major methodological tool. The unit of analysis is the ideological family (i.e. a concept situated between parties--legally "palpable" structures--and a party system--purely theoretical structure). In an ideological family there can be one or several parties and in any viable party system there should be at least two ideological families. We analyze the entire post-communist period, starting with the first free elections in 1990 and ending with the most recent 2008 elections.

The article begins with a review of the concept of institutionalization, identifying the position of the current article in the existing theoretical debates. The second section presents the methodological framework of the analysis, with an emphasis on the used tools. The analysis from the third section uses process-tracing to explain the Romanian electoral results. Finally, the conclusions summarize the main findings and open the floor for further research.

The Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

The institutionalization is considered either a dichotomous phenomenon that may appear or not (21) (Sartori 1976) or a process through which parties and party systems transform and make steps towards becoming institutionalized or the reverse (Mainwaring and Torcall 2006, 206). Huntington (1965; 1968) defines institutionalization as "a process through which organizations acquire value and stability". Following this line of argument, institutions can be regarded as stability conducive mechanisms, having the capacity to derive stable outcomes (Shepsle 1989). stability represents one key assumption within the current study and can refer both to internal aspects, to be found in the formal institutionalization of parties, and to external aspects related with the effect that party institutionalization has on voters. Three pillars reflect diverse party features that are relevant in the formal institutionalization process. Thus, the regulative pillar refers to constraints and regulations coming from the institution towards its members. Through these, the party establishes rules, monitors activities, and sanctions behavior. The normative pillar includes both values and norms (22) on which the party was built and wants to be perpetuated or adjusted. When norms and values are attributed to certain specific actors: these institutionalized positions become roles (Scott 2001, 55). The cultural-cognitive pillar implies "the shared conceptions that constitute the nature of social reality and the frames through which meaning is made" (Scott 2001, 57).

Mainwaring and Scully (1995) argue that institutionalization is "the process by which a practice or organization becomes well established and widely known, if not universally accepted". With respect to party institutionalization, Huntington (1968) identifies four dimensions: adaptability, complexity, autonomy and coherence. Adaptability refers to the capacity of a party to resist in time and to survive its leaders. Organizational complexity refers to the number of subunits. Autonomy deals with the degree of differentiation between the party and the behavior of other social subgroups. Coherence regards the capacity to reach consensus and to resolve the disputes inside the party.

Panebianco (1988) sees institutionalization as a "solidification" of a political organization, which becomes "valuable in itself", and its survival becomes the "goal" of its followers. Institutionalization should be understood as the process by which the party becomes established in terms both of integrated patterns of behavior and of attitudes, or culture. We suggest further that it is helpful to distinguish between internal and externally related aspects of this process. Internal aspects refer to developments within the party itself; external aspects have to do with the party's relationship with the society in which it is embedded, including other institutions. Within each of these aspects there will be a structural and an attitudinal component." (Randall and Svasand 2002, 12) In the life of an organization there are three phases: genesis, institutionalization and maturity (Panebianco 1988, 19). The particular combination of organizational factors from the genesis phase influences both the degree of institutionalization and the forms of institutionalization. Thus, some parties become strong institutions, others hardly institutionalize at all. (Panebianco 1988, 19).

Randall and Svasand (2002) believe the term systemness, in Panebianco's understanding, overlaps with the concepts of complexity and coherence, as understood by Huntington, wile autonomy is regarded in the same manner by both authors. Janda (1980) does not consider autonomy to be an essential feature of institutionalization of parties, bringing as an example the Labour Party in the UK, which exists in strong connection with the unions. The alternative concept put forward by Janda is "external institutionalization", by which a party becomes a point of reference in the actions of all other social and political actors. Levitsky (1998)...