Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:58:45.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Slovak Parliamentary Election of September 2002: Its Systemic Importance*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Geoffrey Pridham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Concept of ‘Critical Elections’ is Justifiably Used in Two eventualities: when there is a significant turning-point arising from a particular election, such as dramatic changes in party strengths which are subsequently consolidated and affect the structure of the party system (e.g. the replacement of one party by another as major opposition or government party); and, when in new democracies an election has a decisive effect in confirming or diverting from the democratization path. It may of course be that the latter incorporates the former.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , 2003 , pp. 334 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2003.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This article draws on material collected during a three-week field trip to Slovakia in September 2002 for the author's Leverhulme Fellowship project on EU Enlargement and Democratization: Slovakia in comparative perspective.

References

6 See the analysis of former communists in Slovak life by Nicholson, Tom, ‘Communists lose ideology war but win decade of Slovak peace’, The Slovak Spectator, 2-8 12 2002, pp. 10–11 Google Scholar.

7 O'Donnell, G., Schmitter, P. and Whitehead, L. (eds), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Prospects for Democracy, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986, Part IV, p. 59 Google Scholar

8 Rustow, D., ‘Transitions to democracy: toward a dynamic model’, Comparative Politics, 04 1970, p. 360 Google Scholar.

10 Pridham, G., ‘Coalition behaviour in new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe: the case of Slovakia’ in The Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 06 2002, esp. pp. 92ffGoogle Scholar.

11 See Haughton, T., ‘HZDS: the ideology, organisation and support base of Slovakia's most successful party’ in Europe-Asia Studies, 07 2001, esp. pp. 748–51Google Scholar.

12 See Pridham, G., ‘Complying with the European Union's democratic condi-tionality: transnational party linkages and regime change in Slovakia, 1993-1998’ in Europe-Asia Studies, 11 1999, pp. 1221–44Google Scholar.

16 Bútorová, Z., Gyárfášová, O. and Velšic, M., ‘Public opinion’ in Slovakia 2000, pp. 214–15Google Scholar.

17 Gyárfášova, and Velšic, , ‘Public opinion’ in Slovakia 2001, p. 202 Google Scholar.

18 Easton, D., A Systems Analysis of Political Life, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1965, pp. 269, 273–4Google Scholar.

19 Huntington, S., The Third Wave: Democratisation in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1991, pp. 266–7Google Scholar.

22 Sme, 31 May 2002. This turned out to be broadly true according to exit polls on election day, for the SDL obtained 18.4% of its 1998 electorate, while the share going to Smer was 25.3% and to the communist KSS 13.8% (a marked increase on the May survey), while parties that received under 10% of the SDL vote were in descending order the SDA, ANO, the SDKÚ, the KDH and the HZDS (details broadcast by TA 3, 21 September 2002).

23 Sme, 16 March 2002 and 17 May 2002.

24 Sme, 18 September 2002; Pravda, 19 September 2002.

25 This was especially true of Sme, which provided issue-by-issue coverage of party programmes. But it has to be remembered that such papers were not widely read throughout Slovakia.

26 Sme, 28 August 2002 and 6 September 2002. See analysis of the party programmes in Mesežnikov, G. (ed.), Volby 2002: Analyza Volebnych Programov Politickych Strdn a Hnuti, Bratislava, Institute for Public Affairs, 2002 Google Scholar.

30 It was well known that Mečiar's HZDS in particular benefited from a low turnout because of its electorate's commitment to vote. A study in early April made this clear, giving it more than a 4% vote differential between a turnout of 85% and 65% ( Sme, 5 April 2002).

31 Sme, 8 August 2002. The European Commission provided 荤100,000 for helping NGOs to boost turnout (interview with Eric van der Linden, head of EU delegation to Slovakia, , The Slovak Spectator, 8-14 04 2002)Google Scholar. Van der Linden commented on the purpose of this programme: ‘Let's be honest, there's not perfect neutrality – there's a lot at stake in this election, possibly more than in 1998’, although he was strict about not attending any party-political occasions (interview, Bratislava, 19 September 2002).

32 Interview with Pavol Demes, director for Central & Eastern Europe of the German Marshall Fund, Bratislava, 20 September 2002; Sme, 8 August 2002.

33 Pontis Foundation, Rock Volieb '02 Campaign – Summary Sheet, Bratislava, 2002, p. 3 Google Scholar. Rock Volieb aimed at promoting turnout among young people as ‘they typically represent the most progressive portion of the population, as well as the country's future leadership’. The name deliberately played on different meanings – rock music, the word ‘year’ (rok in Slovak) of elections and the idea to ‘rock the elections’ (ibid, pp. 21-22).

36 See for example the article in Národná Obrada, 17 09 2002 Google Scholar on why Mečiar was ‘nervous’ in this campaign. Whatever the causes, he clearly did not have a good election.

37 See, for example, Pravda, 4 July 2002; Sme, 26 July 2002; Pravda, 16 August 2002; and, Národná Obrada, 3 September 2002 (with an editorial on the kampaň bez temy).

42 Sme, 22 May 2002.

43 e.g. Sme, 26 August 2002.

44 Sme, 19 September 2002; discussion with Robin Shepherd The Times Moscow correspondent, seconded to Bratislava for the election.

47 Nový Čas, 23 September 2002.