The Presidential Institution in Bulgaria, Albania and Romani: An Attempt at Comparison"

Bulgaria, Albania and Romania are all parliamentary republics with a president as head of state. Although the Albanian president is elected by Parliament, he is arguably the strongest of the three, both in terms of the powers allowed by the provisional constitution and of Mr. Berisha's political practice. The constitutional reform underway in the country will however change the status quo. In Bulgaria and Romania the presidents are elected directly by popular vote, but their powers are relatively small as compared to the democratic legitimisation implied by direct elections. Actual presidential powers should however be assessed with caution as some of them are set by law or interpretations of constitutional texts, rather than by the constitutions themselves. There is also variation in the degree to which the presidents in office have exploited their constitutional powers or taken their role as non-aligned political brokers seriously. Mr. Berisha, in particular, was in control of party politics throughout his presidency and was one of the most polarising influences on public opinion. The excessive political polarisation in all three countries has however its own logic and power. Thus Mr. Zhelev invariably supported the emergence of a political centre in Bulgaria, but this did not succeed and the policy was as damaging to his political career as the fight with would-be centrists was to Berisha's. Political practice in all three countries seems to need a presidential figure. This adds flexibility to a situation governed by hostile and mutually suspicious parties, stuck parliaments and weak or inexperienced governments. The presidents also command considerable influence on public opinion. Public opinion in Bulgaria, for example, largely supports the idea of greater power for the president, in contrast with the opinions of constitutionalists and other law-makers in the country. Under the legacy of the past, the people have a love-hate relationship with such paternalist figures. Presidents personalise politics in the public mind, but they can also become scapegoats for political failures.

Imparted Montana Values and the Election

A Montana Public Radio Commentary from Evan Barrett.

Campaigning Against Europe? The Role of Euroskeptic Fringe and Mainstream Parties in the 2009 European Parliament Election

In this article, we analyze political parties' campaign communication during the 2009 European Parliamentary election in 11 countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). We study which types of issues Euroskeptic fringe and Euroskeptic mainstream parties put on their campaign agendas and the kind and extent of EU opposition they voice. Further, we seek to understand whether Euroskeptic and non-Euroskeptic parties co-orient themselves toward each other within their national party systems with regard to their campaigns. To understand the role of Euroskeptic parties in the 2009 European Parliamentary elections, we draw on a systematic content analysis of parties' posters and televised campaign spots. Our results show that it is Euroskeptic parties at the edges of the political spectrum who discuss polity questions of EU integration and who most openly criticize the union. Principled opposition against the project of EU integration, however, can only be observed in the UK. Finally, we find indicators for co-orientation effects regarding the tone of EU mobilization: In national political environments where Euroskeptic parties strongly criticize the EU, pro-European parties at the same time publicly advance pro-EU positions.

In search of the "why" behind campaign professionalisation: explaining the degree and profile of campaign professionalisation by an empirical analysis of 23 Swiss cantonal election campaigns

Die Organisation und die strategische Kommunikation von Wahlkämpfen haben sich in den letzten Jahrzehnten in den meisten westeuropäischen Staaten gewandelt, so auch in der Schweiz. Die Kommunikationswissenschaft hat dafür den Begriff der „Professionalisierung“ geprägt und Eigenschaften zusammengetragen, die zu einem „professionalisierten“ Wahlkampf gehören – wie z.B. die Beauftragung von externen Expertinnen und Experten oder die direkte Ansprache von Wählerinnen und Wählern („narrowcasting“). Welche Hintergründe diese Professionalisierung aber hat und wie das Phänomen nicht nur praktisch zu beschreiben, sondern auch theoretisch zu begründen ist, wurde bisher kaum diskutiert. Hier setzt die vorliegende Dissertation an. Basierend auf einer Analyse von 23 Wahlkämpfen aus den Kantonen Aargau, Appenzell Ausserrhoden, Bern, Neuchâtel und Zürich mithilfe der Methode Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) kommt sie zum Schluss, dass die Professionalisierung der Wahlkämpfe vor dem theoretischen Hintergrund des soziologischen Neo-Institutionalismus als Anpassung von Wahlkämpfen an sich verändernde Bedingungen, Erwartungen und Anforderungen in den wichtigsten Anspruchsgruppen oder „Umwelten“ für den Wahlkampf (Wählerinnen und Wähler, Mitglieder, Medien, andere Parteien) definiert werden kann. Daraus folgt, dass es nicht nur „die“ Professionalisierung gibt, sondern dass jeder Wahlkampf an jene Umwelten angepasst wird, wo diese Anpassung den Wahlkampfverantwortlichen am dringlichsten erscheint. Daher sollte Professionalisierung mit vier einzelnen Messinstrumenten bzw. Professionalisierungsindices – einem pro Umwelt – gemessen werden. Misst man Professionalisierung wie bisher üblich nur mit einem einzigen Messinstrument, gibt der resultierende Wert nur ein ungenaues Bild vom Grad der Professionalisierung des Wahlkampfs wieder und verschleiert, als Anpassung an welche Umwelt die Professionalisierung geschieht. Hat man ermittelt, wie professionalisiert ein Wahlkampf im Hinblick auf jede der vier relevantesten Umwelten ist, können dann auch zuverlässiger die Gründe analysiert werden, die zur jeweiligen Professionalisierung geführt haben. Die empirische Analyse der kantonalen Wahlkämpfe bestätigte, dass hinter der Professionalisierung in Bezug auf jede der vier Umwelten auch tatsächlich unterschiedliche Gründe stecken. Wahlkämpfe werden in Bezug auf die Ansprache der Wähler angepasst („professionalisiert“), wenn sie in urbanen Kontexten stattfinden. Den Wahlkampf im Hinblick auf die Mitglieder zu professionalisieren ist besonders wichtig, wenn die Konkurrenz zwischen den Parteien gross ist oder wenn eine Ansprache der Gesamtwählerschaft für eine Partei wenig gewinnbringend erscheint. Die Professionalisierung des Wahlkampfes in Bezug auf die Medien erfolgt dann, wenn er eine grosse, regional stark verteilte oder aber eine urbane Wählerschaft ansprechen muss. Für die Professionalisierung der Wahlkämpfe gegenüber anderen Parteien kann kein aussagekräftiger Schluss gezogen werden, da nur wenige der untersuchten Kantonalparteien ihre Wahlkämpfe überhaupt im Hinblick auf andere Parteien professionalisierten, indem sie die gegnerischen Wahlkämpfe beobachteten und den eigenen wenn nötig entsprechend anpassten.

Pre-Election Positions and Voting Behaviour in Parliament: Consistency among Swiss MPs

This article examines the determinants of positional incongruence between pre-election statements and post-election behaviour in the Swiss parliament between 2003 and 2009. The question is examined at the individual MP level, which is appropriate for dispersion-of-powers systems like Switzerland. While the overall rate of political congruence reaches about 85%, a multilevel logit analysis detects the underlying factors which push or curb a candidate's propensity to change his or her mind once elected. The results show that positional changes are more likely when (1) MPs are freshmen, (2) individual voting behaviour is invisible to the public, (3) the electoral district magnitude is not small, (4) the vote is not about a party's core issue, (5) the MP belongs to a party which is located in the political centre, and (6) if the pre-election statement dissents from the majority position of the legislative party group. Of these factors, the last one is paramount.

How parties justified the 2014 EP election debate. A comparative analysis in six EU countries

On the role of parties as important channels for people to voice their preferences there is a sound consensus in the literature. Traditional socio-economic concerns have been more and more displaced by culturally fought issues such as immigration and European integration. Scholarly works, however, have paid less attention how, if at all, parties combine different cultural issues. The primary aim of the analysis is to investigate if and under which conditions parties link immigration and European integration issues to address the growing discontent in the population with these issues. Our expectation is that parties endorse different strategies depending on the party competition, in particular the presence of a populist challenger. The analysis is based on a quantitative content analysis of press releases and newspapers articles published in the 12 weeks preceding the 2014 EP election in five European countries (Austria, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom).