![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
In post-communist Slovakia, in the early stage of party system development, parties used patronage as the principal tool to boost their organizational development. From the late 1990s onwards, the importance of state subventions has increased dramatically. Parties still widely enjoy the benefits brought about by patronage; however, it has either decreased or been used more proportionally. Important distinctions are found between patronage practices within the vertical and horizontal state administration. The chief explanation rests in the need for parties to strengthen regional party organizations by allocating to their representatives positions within the vertical (regional) state administration.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to Petr Kopecký, Tim Haughton, Darina Malová, Erik Láštic and Peter Učeň for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this essay. This study is part of the research project ‘Political Institutions and Political Elites after Slovakia's Accession to the European Union’, funded by the Slovak Scientific Grant Agency (VEGA No. 1/1296/04).
Notes
1. See Richard S. Katz and Peter Mair, ‘Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party’, Party Politics, Vol.1, No.1 (1995), pp.5–28.
2. See, for example, Richard Gunther and Larry Diamond, ‘Types and Functions of Parties’, in Larry Diamond and Richard Gunther (eds.), Political Parties and Democracy (Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001).
3. The Communist Party of Slovakia was a territorial branch of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (KSČ). The KSČ was federalized in 1991, with the Party of Democratic Left as its Slovak component and the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (KSČM) constituting its Czech equivalent; in 1992 the federation of the two parties was dissolved.
4. The VPN and OF used the communist-era constitutional provisions and, on the basis of an agreement with the communist regime representatives, nominated (‘co-opted’) their own people into the federal and state parliaments even before the free elections were held. These ‘co-optations’ were made possible because many members of these legislatures were forced to give up their parliamentary seats.
5. Darina Malová and Kevin Deegan Krause, ‘Parliamentary Party Groups in Slovakia’, in Knut Heidar and Ruud Koole (eds.), Parliamentary Party Groups in European Democracies: Political Parties Behind Closed Doors (London: Routledge, 2000).
6. The ZRS was a member of the 1994–98 coalition government.
7. The PSNS was a breakaway faction from the Slovak National Party (a junior coalition member in 1994–98); the SF split from the Slovak Democratic and Christian Union (the senior coalition member since 2002) in 2003.
8. The SOP became a member of the government in 1998; the KSS was elected to the parliament for the first time in 2002.
9. For the argument see Paul G. Lewis, ‘Party Funding in Post-Communist East–Central Europe’, in Peter Burnell and Allan Ware (eds.), Funding Democratization (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), p.150.
10. Author's interview with Braňo Ondruš, deputy chairman of the Party of Democratic Left, 2001.
11. Geoffrey Pridham, ‘Transnational Party Links and Transition to Democracy: Eastern Europe in Comparative Perspective’, in Paul G. Lewis (ed.), Party Structure and Organization in East–Central Europe (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1996), p.201.
12. See Erik Láštic, ‘Parties and Government in Slovakia: A Fatal Attraction?’, in Ol’ga Gyarfášová and Grigorij Mesežnikov (eds.), Party Government in Slovakia: Experience and Perspectives (Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 2004), pp.101–12.
13. See Shaun Bowler, Elisabeth Carter and David M. Farrell, ‘Changing Party Access to Elections’, in Bruce E. Cain, Russell J. Dalton and Susan E. Scarrow (eds.), Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp.81–101.
14. For a detailed discussion of the financial consequences of the change see Láštic, ‘Parties and Government in Slovakia’.
15. According to a HZDS deputy the party voted against the proposal primarily because it was proposed by the government: see Zuzana Petková, ‘Na stranícke účty dajú l′udia miliardu’, Pravda (Bratislava), 5 Feb. 2005.
16. The creation of a new parliamentary party group in the period between elections requires approval by parliament; the new party group must consist of at least eight parliamentarians.
17. KDH was a founding member of the Slovak Democratic Coalition; however, owing to a new electoral law that effectively banned coalition of parties from taking part in the elections, the SDK was transformed into a new party and contested elections on behalf of the founding parties. The KDH parliamentary faction was restored in 2000 after its members left the SDK parliamentary party group.
18. See Petr Kopecký, ‘Political Parties and the State in Post-Communist Europe: The Nature of Symbiosis’, in this collection.
19. See Milan Čič and others, Komentár k Ústave Slovenskej Republiky (Martin: Vydavatel’stvo Matice slovenskej, 1997).
20. See Informácia o predložení výročných finančných správ politických strán a politických hnutí za rok 1998: Materiál č. 256 (Bratislava: Národná Rada SR, June 1999).
21. See Zuzana Wienk, ‘Financovanie politických strán’, in Emília Sičáková-Beblavá (ed.), Korupcia a protikorupčná politika na Slovensku (Bratislava: Transparency International Slovensko, 2005), pp.173–87.
22. See ‘Strany si pridelili opät′ viac peňazí’, in SME, 5 Feb. 2005.
23. See Jon Pierre, Lars Svasand and Andreas Widfeldt, ‘State Subsidies to Political Parties: Confronting Rethoric with Reality’, West European Politics, Vol.23, No.3 (2000), pp.1–24.
24. See Wienk, ‘Financovanie politických strán’, p.184.
25. See Emília Sičáková-Beblavá and Daniela Zemanovičová, Politické strany a financie: tajomstvo alebo dôvera? (Bratislava: Transparency International Slovensko, 2002), esp. pp.23–8.
26. See Wolfgang C. Müller, ‘Patronage by National Government’, in Jean Blondel and Maurizio Cotta (eds.), The Nature of Party Government: A Comparative European Perspective (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000), pp.141–60.
27. See Connor O'Dwyer, ‘Runaway State Building: How Political Parties Shape States in Postcommunist Eastern Europe’, World Politics, Vol.56, July 2004, p.521.
28. Láštic, ‘Parties and Government in Slovakia’, p.108.
29. See Anna Grzymała-Busse and Pauline Jones Luong, ‘Reconceptualizing the State: Lessons from Post-Communism’, Politics and Society, Vol.30, No.4 (2002), pp.529–54.
30. See Anna Grzymała-Busse, ‘Political Competition and the Politicization of the State in East Central Europe’, Comparative Political Studies, Vol.36, No.10 (2003), pp.1123–47, and O'Dwyer, ‘Runaway State Building’.
31. O'Dwyer, ‘Runaway State Building’, pp.531–4.
32. See for example ‘SDL′: Slovensko ohrozujú akčné pät′ky’, SME, 17 Jan. 1995; ‘Šimko prečítal v NR SR zoznam akčných pätiek vládnej koalície’, SME, 13 May 1995.
33. Viktor Nižňanský, ‘Verejná správa’, in Martin Bútora (ed.), Slovensko 1996: Súhrnná správa o stave spoločnosti a trendoch na rok 1997 (Bratislava: Inštitút pre verejné otázky, 1997), pp.59–70.
34. Mária Ondruchová, Organizácia politických strán a hnutí na Slovensku (Bratislava: Inštitút pre verejné otázky, 2000), p.52.
35. See ‘Kňažko uskutočnil personálne zmeny a tvrdí, že budú verejné konkurzy, HZDS hovorí o čistkách’, SME, 6 Nov. 1998.
36. See ‘Okresné úrady sú zrušené, nahradia ich iné’, SME, 15 Dec. 2003.
37. ‘Koaličné strany si rozdelili úrady práce’, Pravda (Bratislava), 30 July 2004.
38. O'Dwyer, ‘Runaway State Building’.