1 Duverger, M., Political Parties, London, Methuen, 1954.Google Scholar

2 The HSP can be regarded as a potential exception, since associate organizations (trade unions, etc.) might be directly represented with voting rights in the National Council (Országos Választmány) of the party.

3 The organizational density, i.e. proportion of members to voters of a given party was between 5 – 6% on the average by the end of 1991. This is lower than the Western European average (13%) during the 1980s, but similar or higher than in Spain, Greece, Portugal, France and the Netherlands. See Gallagher, M., Laver, M. and Mair, P., Representative Government in Western Europe, New York London, McGreaw‐Hill, Inc. 1992, p. 122.Google Scholar

4 The stability of the party system is, partly, due to the gradual transition process and the character of the previous regime. The gradual transition gave room for the division of the opposition, so by the time of the election the competition between the anti‐communist parties became the main dimension of the political scene. See A. Körösényi, ‘The Decay of the Communist Rule in Hungary. The Phases of the transition from 1985 to 1990′, in Bozóki‐Körösényi, A. and Schöpflin, G. (eds), Postcommunist Transition. Emerging Pluralism in Hungary, London, Pinter, New York, St Martin's, 1992, p. 1‐12.Google Scholar

5 The 2,119 votings in the period between 2 May 1990 and 30 December 1990 were taken into consideration. Figures show the averages of daily averages.

6 I. Kukorelli, ‘Változások a parlamenti ülésrendben’, in Kurtán, S., Sándor, P. and Vass, L. (eds), Magfarország pclitikai ékönyve 1992, Economix‐DKMKA, 1992, pp. 63 ‐ 7;Google Scholar and HVG, 14 March 1992, p. 8.

7 The most important ones were the ‘constructive vote of non‐confidence’ and the lack of responsibility of Cabinet ministers to parliament (1990 summer Constitutional Amendments).

8 A. Körösényi, ‘New Parties in New Parliament’, paper prepared for an International Research Project ‘The Future of Democracy in Eastern Europe. Phase One: Parliaments and the Transition Towards Democracy’ organized by the Department of Political Science, University of Leiden, The Netherlands.

9 Hanyecz, I. and Perger, J., ‘A többpárti parlament számokban, 1990′, in Kurtán, S., Sándor, P. and Vass, L. (eds), Magyarország and Politikai Éokönyve, DKMKA‐Economix Rt., 1992, p. 104.Google Scholar According to another analysis the level of party unity in 1991 parliamentary voting behaviour was similarly high as in 1990. See Kurtán, Sándor, Pártok és törvények, Denwkrácia Kutatások Magyar Központja Alapitoány, Mühtlymunkák és adatkozlések, No. 5, Budapest, 1991.Google Scholar

10 See the results of the MKI opinion surveys: Magyar Hirtap, 28 March 1990, p. 5; and opinion surveys made by GALLUP‐Budapest, Research Report, 20 March 1990. In fact, two small extra‐parliamentary parties, the hardliner communist HSWP and the Hungarian Social Democratic Party had a blue‐collar constituency. But since they were not able to pass the 4 per cent threshold at the elections they could not get into parliament.

11 The Hungarian Socialist Party was formed by the reformer wing of the former ruling communist party, the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party (HSWP). The HSWP survived the transition as the party of the communist hardliners, but was not able to reach parliamentary representation.

12 The Alford‐index showed −2 in March 1989 and + 7 in March 1990. Source: Bruszt, L. and Simon, J., A nagy átalakitás 1989‐91, Budapest, MS, p. 36.Google Scholar

13 The loss of the old unions was estimated between 1 – 2 million of the former 4.4 million members by September 1991. In the meantime the total membership of new unions had not exceeded 0.5 million.

14 A five party (HDF‐SHP‐CDPP‐AFD‐FYD) Bill aimed to weaken the ex‐communist unions (MSZOSZ) and favour the new ‘independent’ unions through the redistribution of the property of the MSZOSZ to the new unions.

15 Hanich, A., A Kisgazdapártról, MS, 1992.Google Scholar

16 The 200,000 ethnic Germans (Schwabians) are the strongest linguistic‐national minority; they compose 2 per cent of die total population. The strongest ethnic minority group, however, is the 500,000 – 600,000 Gypsy population (5 – 6%). They are regarded as an ethnic minority group, which has not achieved a national minority status. Since 1989 various Gypsy organizations have been formed in order to gain special minority rights, but this issue is not part of mainstream politics in Hungary. The demands of ethnic groups to have special parliamentary representation, however, may be a serious political issue by the time of the election.

17 Angelusz, R. and Tardos, R., ‘Pártpolitikai mélyrétegek’ and Kurtán, S., Sándor, P. and Vass, L. (eds), Magyarország Politikai Évkönyve, Ökonömia Alapitvány‐Economix Rt., 1991, p. 655.Google Scholar

18 Körösényi, A., ‘The Revival of the Past or New Beginning? The Nature of Post‐Communist Polities’, Political Quarterly, Vol. 62, No. 1, 01–03 1991.Google Scholar

19 Tóka, G., ‘Az összes választási eredmény elemzése’, Gyekiczki András (szerk.): Hoi tart a szabad gondolat?, Budapest, Politikai Tanulmányok Intézete Alapitvány, 1991, pp. 169‐74.Google Scholar

20 Tomka, M., Magyar katolicizmus, 1991, Országos Lelkipásztori Intézet, Katolikus Társadalomtudományi Akadémia Budapest, 1991, p. 49.Google Scholar

21 The AFD is divided on the question whether the party should join the Liberal or the Socialist International, Népszabadság, 5 February 1992. They gained an observer status in both Internationals in 1992.

22 Schöpflin, G., ‘The Prospects for Democracy in Central and Eastern Europe’, Volten, P., (ed.)‐ Uncertain Futures: Eastern Europe and Democracy, New York, IEWWS, 1990.Google Scholar

23 Kolosi, T., Szelényi, I., Szelényi, Sz. and Western, B., The Making of Political Fields in Post‐Communist Transition, paper presented at ASA 1990 Convention in Washington, D.C.Google Scholar See revised version in Bozóki, A., Körösényi, A. and Schöpflin, G. (eds), Post‐Communist Transition. Emerging Pluralism in Hungary, London, Pinter, New York, St Martin's Press, 1992, pp. 132‐62.Google Scholar

24 Mair, P., ‘Electoral Markets and Stable States’, Moran, M. and Wright, M., (eds), The Market and the State, London, Macmillan, 1991, pp. 119‐37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 G. Tóka, “The Impact of the Religion Issue on Electoral Preferences in Hungary, 1990‐1991′, paper presented at the DVPW congress at Hanover 7‐11 October 1991; and a previous paper by the same author: ‘Determinants of Party Preference and Electoral Results in Hungary’, discussion paper presented at the seminar on Overcoming Obstacles to Democratization and Institution Building in Europe, The Hague, Netherlands, Institute for East‐West Security Studies, November 9‐11, 1990.

26 Bruszt, L. and Simon, J., ‘The Development of Party Preferences in Hungary’, Szoboszlai, G. (ed.), Demokratikus ÅtmeneUk. A Magyar Politikatudományi Tanaság Évkönyvt, 1991, Budapest, 1991, p. 179;Google Scholar Bruszt, L. and Simon, J. ’A választások éve a közvéleménykutatások tükrében, in Kurtán, S., Sándor, P. and Vass, L. (eds), Magyarország Politikai Évkönyve 1991, Ökonómia Alapitvány‐Economix Rt., p. 612.Google Scholar

27 Körösényi, A., ‘The Revival of the Past or New Beginning? The Nature of Post‐Communist Polities’, Political Quarterly, Vol. 62, No. 1, 01–03 1991.Google Scholar

28 For the general critique of the sociological approach see Sartori, G., ‘From the Sociology of Politics to Political Sociology’, in Lipset, S. M. (ed.), Politics and the Social Sciences, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 65‐100.Google Scholar

29 Tóka, G., ‘Az összes választási eredmény elemzése’, Gyekiczki, A., (ed.), Hoi tart a szabad gondolat?, Budapest, 1991, pp. 168‐75.Google Scholar

30 The Alford‐index showed −2 in March 1989 and + 7 in March 1990. (Source: Bruszt, L. and Simon, J., A nagy átalakitás 1989 – 91, Budapest, MS, p. 36.Google Scholar) In most of the Western democracies the Alford‐index is well over 15. See Lane, J.‐E. and Ersson, O. S., Politics and Society in Western Europe, London, Sage, 1991, p. 94.Google Scholar

31 A. Körösényi, ‘Revived of the Past or New Beginning? The Nature of Post‐Communist Polities’, Political Quarterly, op. cit.

32 Tóka, G., Elméletek a magyar vátaszto'i magatartásról, MS, 11 1990.Google Scholar

33 Simon, J., ‘“Non‐voters” voting (1991)’, in Bruszt, L. and Simon, J., The Chai Citizens’ Political Orientations During the Transition to Democracy in Hungary, Budapest, Inst of Political Science of Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1991, p. 63.Google Scholar

34 The short history of Hungarian multi‐party competition of the 1988 – 90 pre‐election period was a multi‐polar one, where the HS(W)P, the HDF and the AFD formed the three main poles. From the marginalization of the HS(W)P, however, the competition tended to be a bipolar pattern, where the political contest was dominated by the Hungarian Democratic Forum – Free Democrats competition. Therefore the prospects for bipolar or multipolar party competition are still unclear.

35 Sartori, G., Parties and Party Systems, Volume I, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1976.Google Scholar

36 Downs, A., An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York, 1957, pp. 117 – 21.Google Scholar

37 Tóka, G., ‘Az összes választási eredmény elemzése’, in Gyekiczki, A. (ed.), Hoi tart a szabadgondolat?, Budapest, 1991, pp. 168‐75.Google Scholar