Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:08:15.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The LDLP Faction in the Lithuanian Seimas, 1992–1996*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Terry D. Clark ,
Stacy J. Holscher  and
Lisa A. Hyland
Terry D. Clark
Affiliation:
Political Science at Creighton University, U.S.A.
Stacy J. Holscher
Affiliation:
Creighton University, U.S.A.
Lisa A. Hyland
Affiliation:
Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Study, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the 1992 elections to the national legislature, Lithuania became the first country in Eastern Europe to return its former communist party to power. Headed by Algirdas Brazauskas, the former First Secretary who had led the party in its split from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in December 1990, the party had rejected the Soviet past and renamed itself the Lithuanian Democratic Labor Party (LDLP). Declaring itself a social-democratic party, the LDLP supported democracy and a free market “with a human face.” In the 1992 elections the LDLP campaigned as a party of experienced, competent administrators capable of managing the reforms in such a way as to lessen their social impact. As a result the party won a resounding victory in the elections of that year to the national legislature, winning 73 of the 141 seats in the Seimas.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 227 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

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.)

References

Notes

1. A number of scholars have noted the greater stability within single-party, majority factions than in multiparty coalitions: Maurice Duverger, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activities in the Modern State (New York: John Wiley, 1967); Jean Blondel, “Party Systems and Patterns of Government in Modern Democracies,” Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1968, pp. 180–203; Robert Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1971).Google Scholar

2. “LDLP programos grupe teigia esanti galbejimosi ratas, o kiti partijos nariai isitikins, kad dar nekestama,” Lietuvos Rytas, 26 October 1993, pp. 1–2. Alfred Erich Senn, “Lithuania's First Two Years of Independence,” Journal of Baltic Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1994, pp. 81–88—discusses the early years of the LDLP faction in the Seimas.Google Scholar

3. For a history of the events leading up to and shaping the country's inter-war constitutional politics, see Malbone W. Graham, Jr, New Governments of Eastern Europe (New York: Henry Holt, 1927); Leonas Sabaliunas, Lithuanian Social Democracy in Perspective 1893–1914 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990); Alfred Erich Senn, “Comparing the Circumstances of Lithuanian Independence, 1918–1922 and 1988–1992,” Journal of Baltic Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1994, pp. 123–130.Google Scholar

4. For a concise description of the events surrounding inter-war Lithuania's constitution, see Edvardas Tuskenis, ed., Lithuania in European Politics: The Years of the First Republic, 1918–1940 (New York: St Martin's Press, 1997); V. Stanley Vardys and Judith B. Sedaitis, Lithuania: The Rebel Nation (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997).Google Scholar

5. For a historical description of the issues and events surrounding the promulgation of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, see Anatol Lieven, The Baltic Revolution (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992); Alfred Erich Senn, Gorbachev's Failure in Lithuania (New York: St Martin's Press, 1995); V. Stanley Vardys and Judith B. Sedaitis, Lithuania: The Rebel Nation (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997); Ole Norgaard with Dan Hindsgaul, Lars Johannsen and Helle Willumsen, The Baltic States after Independence (Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar, 1996).Google Scholar

6. For a definitive comparison of premier-presidentialism with US presidentialism and British parliamentarism see Matthew Soberg Shugart and John M. Carey, Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).Google Scholar

7. Novagrockiene, Jurate, “1996 m. Seimo rinkimai ir Lietuvos partines sistemos raida,” Politologija, Vol. 1, No. 9, 1997, pp. 106–117—calculates that the number of meaningful parties in Lithuania is between three and four. We use the rules for counting the number of effective parties in political party systems developed by Giovanni Sartori in Parties and Party Systems (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976). Novagrockiene discusses Sartori's typology for political parties in “Partines sistemas ir ju tipologija,” Politologija, Vol. 1, No. 6, 1995, pp. 54–72. Alfred Erich Senn discusses the early beginnings of the present party system in “Lietuvos partines sistemos formavimasis,” Politologija, Vol. 2, No. 8, 1996, pp. 3–12.Google Scholar

8. For a description of the phenomenon and its consequences in Russia see Jeremy Lester, Modern Tsars and Princes: The Struggle for Hegemony in Russia (New York: Verso, 1995).Google Scholar

9. Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties (New York: John Wiley, 1954).Google Scholar

10. Alfred Erich Senn, Gorbachev's Failure in Lithuania (New York: St Martin's Press, 1995), pp. 116–126.Google Scholar

11. Jursenas made this statement during a round-table with participants of the International Political Science Association (IPSA) convention, Vilnius, Lithuania, 12 December 1996.Google Scholar

12. Simenas, Albertas, “Formation of the Market Economy in Lithuania,” in Antanas Buracas, ed., Lithuanian Economic Reforms: Practice and Perspective (Vilnius: Margi Rastai, 1997).Google Scholar

13. “LDLP programos grupe teigia esanti galbejimosi ratas, o kiti partijos nariai isitikins, kad dar nekestama,” Lietuvos Rytas , 26 October 1993, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

14. Rose, Richard, VILMORUS, Baltic Data House, and Saar Poll, “New Baltic Barometer III,” Studies in Public Policy , No. 284, (Glasgow: Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, 1997).Google Scholar

15. Cioffi-Revilla, Claudio, “The Political Reliability of Italian Governments: An Exponential Survival Model,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 2, 1984, pp. 318–337; Eric Browne, John P. Frendreis and Dennis W. Gleiber, “The Process of Cabinet Dissolution: An Exponential Model of Duration and Stability in Western Democracies,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 80, No. 3, 1986, pp. 628–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Axelrod, Robert, Conflict of Interest: A Theory of Divergent Goals with Applications to Politics (Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1970); Michael Taylor and V. Herman, “Party Systems and Government Stability,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 65, No. 1, 1971, pp. 28–37; Michael Laver, “Dynamic Factors in Government Coalition Formation,” European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1974, pp. 259–270; Paul Warwick, “The Durability of Coalition Governments in Parliamentary Democracies,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1979, pp. 465–498; Eric Browne and John Dreijmanis, eds, Government Coalitions in Western Democracies (New York: Longman, 1982); Bernard Grofman, “The Comparative Analysis of Coalition Formation and Duration: Distinguishing Between-Country and Within-Country Effects,” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1989, pp. 291–302; Peter Van Roozendaal, “The Effect of Dominant and Central Parties on Cabinet Composition and Durability,” Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1992, pp. 5–36.Google Scholar

17. John D. Robertson, “The Political Economy and the Durability of European Coalition Cabinets: New Variations on a Game Theoretic Perspective,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 45, No. 4, 1983, pp. 932–957; Eric Browne, John P. Frendreis and Dennis W. Gleiber, “An ‘Events’ Approach to the Problem of Cabinet Stability,” Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1984, pp. 167–197; John D. Robertson, “Toward a Political-Economic Accounting of the Endurance of Cabinet Administrations: An Empirical Assessment of Eight European Democracies,” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 28, No. 3, 1984, pp. 693–709; Eric Browne, John P. Grendreis and Dennis W. Gleiber, “The Study of Cabinet Dissolutions in Parliamentary Democracies,” Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1986, pp. 619–628; John D. Robertson, “Economic Polarization and Cabinet Formation in Western Europe,” Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1986, pp. 533–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Michael Laver and Kenneth Shepsle, “Government Coalitions and Intraparty Politics,” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1990, pp. 489–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. For a description of this attempt, see Saulius Girnius, “Political Turmoil in Lithuania,” Transition, Vol. 3, No. 27, 1994, pp. 18–21.Google Scholar

20. See L. Talat-Kelpsa, “Pusiau prezidentismo link,” Politologija, Vol. 1, No. 7, 1996, pp. 93–111; L. Talat-Kelpsa, “Prezidentas ir parlamentas: reiksme valstybes politiniam stabilimui,” Politologija, Vol. 1, No. 9, 1997, pp. 133–141—for an analysis of the political and constitutional risks involved.Google Scholar

21. We argue that these specific provisions are far more prejudicial to the stability of the Lithuanian political system than the general tension inherent in the relationship between the President and Seimas or the President and the Prime Minister identified in L. Talat-Kelpsa, “Pusiau prezidentismo link” and “Prezidentas ir parlamentas.”Google Scholar

22. L. Talat-Kelpsa, in “Pusiau prezidentismo link” and “Prezidentas ir parlamentas,” argues that the Lithuanian President has indeed adapted the French practice in instances of cohabitation.Google Scholar