Децентралізація як виклик для партійної системи України

Олена Стойко

Анотація


There is no empirical evidence of the negative impact of decentralization on the characteristics of the party system, especially when it comes to the process of party system nationalization in young democracies. In new democracies with non-uniform functional cleavages  a high level of decentralization may prevent the formation of a nationalized party system. Political decentralization creates opportunities for the formation of a special, subnational party system that determines selective competition in a particular region. At the same time, financial decentralization expands access to resources (financial, land, etc.) for subnational political actors, which in turn strengthens their positions and makes them independent from the center (administrative, political, financial).

However, it is obvious that political decentralization affects the degree of party system nationalization which manifests itself in the phenomenon of regional or ethnoregional parties. Thus, the emergence of ethnoregional parties in Europe is directly or indirectly connected with decentralization processes.

In Ukraine, even before the beginning of the active phase of decentralization, local elections in October 2015 recorded the territorial fragmentation of the party system of Ukraine, for which there are no legislative prerequisites.

Parties that have managed to become members of regional councils can be classified into five types:

1)  parties of the leader’s type, whose leaders were once elected in a majority district;

2)  post-Maidan parties, wchich are the result of the revitalization of civil society;

3)  pro-government parties, in the lists of which local officials are widely represented;

4)  lobbying, defending the interests of large businesses at the local level, because the deeper  is decentralization, the more powers will be transferred to local authority;

5)  genuine ethnic parties, represented only by “KMKS”; the Party of Hungarians of Ukraine.

Even more alarming trends for the party system nationalization were revealed by the recent elections held in the united territorial communities (UTC), formed during the implementation of the territorial reform.

The election results in the UTG not only do not reflect, and in some moments even contradict the party structure in parliament, and the results of opinion polls on parliamentary elections.At first glance, the results of the elections in the UTC can be ignored, since they are not representative for the whole country – they cover only about 5% of all voters in Ukraine. In addition, they are held by proportional, and not mixed, as a parliamentary election, system, which can also affect the obtained results. However, together with the results of the 2015 local elections they indicate a tendency towards the denationalization of the party system: the emergence of regional political parties not represented in the national parliament, which can consciously be limited to the local level of politics. The reason is that the deepening of financial and land decentralization will provide them with the necessary resources, at least in the near future.


Ключові слова


nationalization; party system; decentralization; ethnoregional party; local election

Повний текст:

PDF

Пристатейна бібліографія ГОСТ


  1. Tiebout Ch. M. A pure theory of local expenditures. The Journal of Political Economy. 1956. Vol. 64. № 5. Р. 416–424.
  2. Weingast B. R. The economic role of political institutions: Market-preserving federalism and economic development. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. 1995. Vol. 1. Р. 1–31.
  3. Sabatini Ch. Latin America’s lost illusions: Decentralization and political parties. Journal of Democracy. 2003. Vol. 14. № 2. Р. 138–150.
  4. Lalander R. O. Decentralization and the Party System in Venezuela. Iberoamericana. Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies. 2003. Vol. 33. № 1. Р. 97–121.
  5. Ryan J. J. Decentralization and democratic instability: The case of Costa Rica. Public Administration Review. 2004. Vol. 64. № 1. Р. 81–91.
  6. Bizberg Ilan Behind the Scenes – Clientele and Citizens in the Mexican Political Transition. Iberoamericana. 2001. Vol. № 2. Р. 87–105.
  7. Biezen van I., Hopkin J. Party organisation in multi-level context. Devolution and electoral politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006. Р. 3–22.
  8. Jones M., Mainwaring S. The nationalization of parties and party dystems: An empirical measure and an application to the Americas. Party Politics. 2003. Vol. 9. Р. 139–166.
  9. Caramani D. The nationalization of politics: The formation of national electorates and party systems in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 368 р.
  10. Bochsler D. The nationalization of political parties: A triangle model, applied on the Eastern and Central European Countries. CEU Political Science Journal. 2006. Vol. 1. № 4. Р. 6–37.
  11. Tiemann G. Wahlsysteme, Parteiensysteme und politische Repräsentation in Osteuropa. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2006. 222 р.
  12. Thorlakson L. An institutional explanation of party system congruence: Evidence from six federations. European Journal of Political Research. 2007. Vol. 46. № 1. Р. 69–95.
  13. Lago-Peñas I., Lago-Peñas S. Decentralization and the nationalization of party systems. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 2011. Vol. 29. № 2. Р. 244–263.
  14. Chhibber P. K., Kollman K. The formation of national party systems: Federalism and party competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton; NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. 272 р.
  15. Bunce V. Subversive institutions: The Design and the Destruction of Socialism and the State. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 224 р.
  16. Brubaker R. Nationalism reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 216 р.
  17. Kymlicka W. Is federalism a viable alternative to secessionism? Theories of secession. New York: Routledge Press, 1998. Р. 111–150.
  18. Riker W. Federalism: Origin, operation, significance. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1964. 202 р.
  19. Roeder P. Where nation-states come from: Institutional change in the age of nationalis. Princeton; NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. 440 р.
  20. Snyder J. From voting to violence. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2000. 220 р.
  21. Stepan A., Linz J., Yadav Y. Crafting state nations. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011. 297 р.
  22. Lustick І., Miodownik D., Eidelson R. Secessionism in multicultural states: Does sharing power prevent or encourage It? American Political Science Review. 2004. Vol. 98. № 2. Р. 209–229.
  23. Miodownik D., Cartrite B. Does political decentralization exacerbate or ameliorate ethnopolitical mobilization? Political Research Quarterly. 2010. Vol. 63. № 4. Р. 731–746.
  24. Sorens J. The cross-sectional determinants of secessionism in advanced democracies. Comparative Political Studies. 2005. Vol. 38. № 3. Р. 304–326.
  25. Brancati D. Peace by design: Managing intrastate conflict through decentralization. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. 314 р.
  26. Lublin D. Dispersing authority or deepening divisions? Decentralization and ethnoregional party success. The Journal of Politics. 2012. Vol. 74. № 4. Р. 1079–1093.
  27. Фінансова децентралізація: результати та перспективи. URL: http://decentralization.gov.ua/news/8342 (дата звернення: 28.02.2018).
  28. Оцінка громадянами ситуації в країні, ставлення до суспільних інститутів, електоральні орієнтації. URL: http://razumkov.org.ua/napryamki/sotsiolohichni-doslidzhennia/otsinka-hromadianamy-sytuatsii-v-kraini-stavlennia-do-suspilnykhinstytutiv-elektoralni-oriientatsii (дата звернення: 12.02.2018).
  29. Про політичні партії в Україні: Закон України від 05.04.2001 р. № 2365-III. Голос України. 2001. 12 травня.
  30. КВУ назвав ТОП-10 партій із найбільшими фракціях в облрадах. URL: http://www.cvu.org.ua/nodes/view/type:news/slug:kvu-nazvav-top-10-partii-iz-naibilshymy-fraktsiiakh-v-oblradakh (дата звернення: 27.02.2018).
  31. Перші вибори в об’єднаних територіальних громадах: хто і де переміг. URL: http://ukrreporter.com.ua/politic/poglyad/pershi-vybory-v-ob-yednanyh-terytorialnyh-gromadah-hto-i-de-peremig.htm (дата звернення: 12.01.2018).
  32. Рейтинг підтримки партій і політичних лідерів. 2017, грудень. URL: http://kiis.com.ua/?lang=ukr&cat=reports&id=730&page=1 (дата звернення: 12.01.2018).
  33. Ставлення громадян України до суспільних інститутів, електоральні орієнтації. URL: http://razumkov.org.ua/napryamki/sotsiolohichni-doslidzhennia/stavlennia-hromadian-ukrainy-do-suspilnykh-instytutiv-elektoralni-oriientatsii-2 (дата звернення: 12.01.2018).




Copyright (c) 2018 Олена Стойко

Creative Commons License
Ця робота ліцензована Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.