![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
Despite a sustained effort, international assistance to political parties has failed to make a significant impact on parties in Georgia and Ukraine: political parties in these countries have remained far removed from the type of stable, democratic, and representative organisation that is commonly aimed for by party assistance. This study argues that domestic constraints on the development of stable and democratic parties have invalidated the assistance effort to such an extent that the assistance has become highly ineffectual. A large degree of volatility in party politics, reflected primarily in a high turnover rate of parties, has rendered much of the assistance provided throughout the years futile. The less-than-democratic political context in Ukraine (until 2005) and in Georgia moreover produced political parties that were inherently unsuitable to receive party assistance, because essentially they were not interested in transforming into stable democratic parties. Since the domestic constraints on party development which have spoiled assistance to political parties in Georgia and Ukraine – weak party (system) institutionalisation and a less-than-democratic political context – are present in many countries where party assistance is provided today, there is reason for concern about the overall effectiveness of party assistance.
Notes
Lane and Ersson, ‘Party System Instability in Europe: Persistent Differences in Volatility between West and East?’.
See, for instance, Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, A Framework for Democratic Party-Building; Saxer, ‘Parteiförderung als Element der Demokratieförderung’; United States Agency for International Development, Political Party Development Assistance; United States Agency for International Development, USAID Political Party Assistance Policy.
Dolidze, ‘Political Parties and Party Development in Georgia’.
ARD, Democracy and Governance Assessment of Georgia, v.
Author's translation of ‘Politieke partijen bestaan eigenlijk nauwelijks in Georgië. Politieke bewegingen zijn feitelijk min of meer loyale clans rondom individuen.’ Verheije et al., Van partij naar partij: Nederlandse ondersteuning van politieke partijen in Europese landen in transitie, 59.
Wilson and Birch, ‘Political Parties in Ukraine. Virtual and Representational’.
D'Anieri, Understanding Ukrainian Politics. Power, Politics, and Institutional Design, 43.
Slomczynski, Shabad and Zielinski, ‘Fluid Party Systems, Electoral Rules and Accountability of Legislators in Emerging Democracies: The Case of Ukraine’, 93.
Topolyanskiy, Nukonets. Partiia Yushchenko tikho umiraet.
International Republican Institute, Ukraine Work Plan 2006, 4.
Ibid., 2.
Author's translation of: ‘Die Parteien der Ukraine tragen noch immer starken Projektcharakter. Sie sind in erster Linie personenzentrierte Netzwerke, die stark mit ökonomischen Interessen ihrer Betreiber verflochten sind’. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, International Parteienzusammenarbeit der KAS. Globales Engagement für Frieden und Demokratie, 32.
Carothers, Confronting the Weakest Link, 112–41.
Tarkhan-Mouravi, ‘Politicheskie Partii v Gruzii. Zatiunuavsheesia Stanovlenie’, 243.
Dolidze, ‘Political Parties and Party Development in Georgia’, 2.
Usupashvili, ‘An Analysis of the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections in Georgia: A Case Study, November 2003–March 2004’, 98.
Wheatley, Georgia from National Awakening to Rose Revolution: Delayed Transition in the Former Soviet Union, 155–9.
Wilson and Bilous, ‘Political Parties in Ukraine’, 693; D'Anieri, Understanding Ukrainian Politics. Power, Politics, and Institutional Design, 43.
Riabchuk, ‘Ukraine: Lessons Learned from Other Postcommunist Transitions’, 44.
Van Zon, ‘Neo-Patrimonialism as an Impediment to Economic Development: The Case of Ukraine’, 17.
Author's translation of: Полiтичнi партiï, як виявилося, позбавленi широкоï социальноï бази, ïx iдеологiя та програми неадекватно вiдбивають поточну ситуацiю i не вiдповiдають завданням розвитку суспiльства, партiï не мають у своєму розпорядженнi механiзмiв реалiзацiï притарманних ïм функцiй та завдань. Romaniuk and Shveda, Partii ta Elektoralna Politika, 239.
Gel'man, ‘Party Politics in Russia: From Competition to Hierarchy’.
Greene, Creating Competition: Patronage Politics and the PRI's Demise.
For a discussion of the phenomenon of spoiler parties, see Wilson, ‘Ukraine's New Virtual Politics’.
Birch, ‘The Parliamentary Elections in Ukraine’, 526.
Kubicek, ‘Problems of Post-post-communism: Ukraine after the Orange Revolution’.
Strom, ‘A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties’.
Wolinetz, ‘Beyond the Catch-All Party: Approaches to the Study of Parties and Party Organisation in Contemporary Democracies’, 149–50.
Geddes, ‘Why Parties and Elections in Authoritarian Regimes?’.
For a discussion of semi-presidentialism, see Shugart, ‘Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive and Mixed Authority Patterns’.
For a classification of semi-presidential systems, see Elgie, ‘Variations on a Theme’, 102–5.
Ibid., 102.
For example, Fish, Democracy Derailed in Russia: The Failure of Open Politics; Ishiyama and Kennedy, ‘Superpresidentialism and Political Party Development in Russia, Ukraine, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan’.
Shugart, ‘The Inverse Relationship Between Party Strength and Executive Strength: A Theory of Politicians’ Constitutional Choices'.
Croissant, Electoral Politics in Southeast and East Asia: A Comparative Perspective, 354; Kitschelt and Smyth, ‘Programmatic Party Cohesion in Emerging Postcommunist Democracies: Russia in Comparative Context’.
Membership of Georgian parties has been recorded at 2.6%. See Nodia and Pinto Scholtbach, The Political Landscape of Georgia, 105. Only 1% of Ukrainians were members of a political party in 2000 according to Carson, Attitudes toward Change, the Current Situation, and Civic Action in Ukraine, 38. On levels of identification with parties in Georgia, see IRI, The Gallup Organisation and IPM, ‘Georgian National Voter Study’, 67; On levels of identification with parties in Ukraine, see Kubicek, ‘The Limits of Electoral Democracy in Ukraine’, 126.
For example, Doherty, Promoting Democracy in Difficult Settings, 4; USAID, OECD/DAC Peer Review of the United States, 27.
Author's interview, NIMD, The Hague, April 2007.
Author's interview, IRI Ukraine, Kyiv, March 2008.
Author's interview, Party of the Regions, Kyiv, March 2008.
Freedom House Freedom in the World reports can be consulted at http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15 (accessed December 13, 2009).
D'Anieri, Understanding Ukrainian Politics. Power, Politics, and Institutional Design, 69; Way, ‘Kuchma's Failed Authoritarianism’, 4.
Wheatley, Georgia from National Awakening to Rose Revolution: Delayed Transition in the Former Soviet Union, 218.
King, ‘Potemkin Democracy: Four Myths about Post-Soviet Georgia’, 100.
See http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=47&nit=452&year=2008 (accessed November 11, 2009).
United States Agency for International Development, USAID Political Party Assistance Policy, 9.
United States Agency for International Development, Political Party Development Assistance, 1.
See Doherty, Promoting Democracy in Difficult Settings, 4; Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, International Parteienzusammenarbeit der KAS. Globales Engagement für Frieden und Demokratie, 76.
Author's telephone interview, NIMD, January 2009.
Author's interview, IRI Ukraine, Kyiv, May 2007.
See ‘“Tsina” vyborchoi kampanii-2007: xto finansuie ukrainskii partii’, http://www.newsru.ua/arch/ukraine/03jul2007/lapsha.html (accessed December 9, 2009).
National Democratic Institute, USAID Workplan Georgia August 1, 2001–July 31, 2002, 8.
Black, Jay and Keshishian, USAID/Caucasus/Georgia Civil Society Assessment, iii.
Barca, Skoczylas and Ingraham, Transforming Elections in Ukraine. An Assessment of Progress Made in Elections Administration and the Challenges Ahead, 25.
Mitchell, Uncertain Democracy. U.S. Foreign Policy and Georgia's Rose Revolution, 58.
Author's interviews with former and current Socialist Party of Ukraine activists, Kyiv, 2007–2008.
Mitchell, Uncertain Democracy. U.S. Foreign Policy and Georgia's Rose Revolution, 94.
See OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report. Available from http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2008/09/32898_en.pdf (accessed December 19, 2009).
Author's interviews, Party of Regions, Kyiv, March 2008.
Author's interview, IRI Ukraine, Kyiv, March 2008.
Author's interviews with Batkivshchyna and Socialist Party of Ukraine activists, Kyiv, 2007–2008.
Author's interview, People's Union Our Ukraine, October 2007.
Author's interviews with representatives from several Georgian and Ukrainian parties, 2007–2008.
Author's interview, KAS Germany, Berlin, May 2007; Author's interview, NDI Ukraine, March 2008.
Black, Jay and Keshishian, USAID/Caucasus/Georgia Civil Society Assessment, iii.
Ibid., 2.
United States Agency for International Development, A Study of Political Party Assistance in Eastern Europe and Eurasia, x.
Roberts, Evaluation of the National Democratic Institute (NDI) in Kyrgyzstan, February 23–March 10, 2001, 30.
Nelson and Katulis, Armenia Political Party Assessment, 27.
Ibid., vii.
Only the NIMD programme in Georgia has been halted, in 2008. The decision to halt this programme, however, had to do primarily with a shift of priorities of the OSCE, which had provided funding for the programme.
Carothers, ‘Stepping Back From Democratic Pessimism’.
On parties in Africa, see Basedau and Stroh, ‘Measuring Party Institutionalisation in Developing Countries’. On parties in South East Asia, see Ufen, ‘Political Party and Party System Institutionalisation in Southeast Asia’. On parties in Latin America, see Sanchez, ‘Transformation and Decay’.
The countries where party assistance is carried out are listed on the websites of the main providers. See http://www.fes.de/sets/s_fes_i.htm, http://www.kas.de/wf/en/71.4782/, http://www.iri.org/, http://ndi.org/wherewework, http://nimd.org/page/nimd_programmes (accessed December 15, 2009). Most of these countries are associated with weak party system institutionalization and are characterized by a less-than-democratic political context (see http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2009 (accessed December 9, 2009)).