| Sažetak | Rad se bavi istraživanjem učinaka personalizacije izbornog sustava prije svega na političke
stranke i kandidate za zastupnike. Pod personalizacijom izbornog sustava smatra se uvođenje
mehanizama u izborni sustav koji osiguravaju veću ulogu birača u izboru njihovih parlamentarnih
zastupnika. U radu su predstavljene četiri gusto opisane studije slučaja koje su služile kao temelj
za testiranje temeljne i pomoćnih hipoteza. Rad sadrži fokusiranu poredbenu analizu dometa
personalizacije izbornog sustava u odnosu na tri ključna slučaja (Austrija, Nizozemska i Finska),
kao i u odnosu na kontrolni slučaj Kosovo.
U radu je dokazano da snažni personalizirani izborni sustavi, koji imaju najveće vrijednosti
personalizacije, odnosno izmjerene vrijednosti utjecaja dva institucionalna potičuća mehanizma
koji su predstavljali nezavisne varijable ovog istraživanja (a. preferencijsko glasovanje unutar
razmjernog sustava stranačkih lista i b. procedura selekcije kandidata), dovode do personalizacije
političkih stranaka na razini zastupnika. Kroz dokazivanje pomoćnih hipoteza ispraćeni su
učinci personalizacije izbornog sustava na političke stranke, kandidate/zastupnike, birače
odnosno stranački/politički sustav.
U radu predstavljeni nalazi fokusirane poredbene analize potvrđuju da snažna personalizacija
izbornog sustava vodi personalizaciji izborne kampanje te smanjenoj ulozi političkih stranaka
u političkom životu. Smanjena uloga stranaka u kampanjama otvara prostor jačanju uloge
konkretnih donatora. Poslanici postaju nezavisniji u odnosu na stranku, ali s druge strane
otvoreni za utjecaje donatora svojih kampanja. Nemogućnost opoziva, odnosno tekovina da je
zastupnik, a ne stranka vlasnik mandata, dodatno ojačava poziciju zastupnika, a slabi poziciju
stranke. Pozicija zastupnika jača, kao i birača koji imaju u snažno personaliziranim izbornim
sustavima mogućnost presudnog utjecanja na to tko će ih zastupati u parlamentu, odnosno na
koga će privremeno prenijeti suverenitet kao njegovi nositelji. Finski primjer najbolje pokazuje
utjecaj snažne personalizacije izbornog sustava na političke stranke, kandidate i birače u
konsolidiranoj demokraciji.
Slučaj Kosova kao kontrolni slučaj govori da ukoliko izostane prevlast osobnog u odnosu na
stranačko u unutarstranačkim procesima, učinci snažnog preferencijskog sustava bit će umanjeni.
Izostanak vladavine prava utječe na ravnopravnost kandidata u predizbornim kampanjama, ali
snažno preferencijsko glasovanje umanjuje negativne efekte izostanka demokratskih procedura
unutar stranke te potiče daljnju demokratsku konsolidaciju u nekonsolidiranim demokracijama. |
| Sažetak (engleski) | The doctoral dissertation deals with research into the effects of personalization of the electoral
system primarily on political parties and candidates for deputies. The personalization of the
electoral system means the introduction of mechanisms in the electoral system that ensure a
greater role for voters in the election of their parliamentary representatives. I define the electoral
system as a “set of laws and party rules governing electoral competition between and within
the parties” (Cox 1997: 38). This wider definition of the electoral system gives us space to
build a more complete picture of the electoral system’s impact on political parties, candidates
and voters as main actors in the electoral process. The focus of the research is the relationship
between personal and party representation. In order to conduct a more comprehensive analysis
of the effects of personalization on political parties, the research framework is narrowed down
to list proportional electoral systems with preferential voting.
Contemporary liberal democracy is characterized by a highly personalized politics.
Governments are more recognizable by their leaders than by the parties that are the basis of their
constitution. This personalization trend is not characteristic exclusively of presidential systems,
but has become a feature of parliamentary political systems. In addition to personalization of the
party at the leader level, there is also the personalization of politics at the level of members of
parliament (MPs). In this paper, we only use the term ‘personalization of a party’ in reference to
personalization at the level of the MP. We will not deal with the question of the presidentialization
of political parties. Under the personalization of a political party at the level of MPs, we mean
strengthening the position of deputies in the intra-party decision-making process.
Thanks to the introduction of preferential voting in list proportional list systems, the group
of electoral systems in which voters play an important role in the selection of their
representatives has significantly expanded. Historically speaking, the representative position
has been strengthened by the accepted attitude that the MP, not the party, is the ‘owner of the
mandate’; preferential voting supports this. This paper deals with the personalization of politics
at the level of the representative—the political party. That is to say, it explores the question of
to what degree personalization of the electoral system affects the political party, its intra- and
its inter-party dimension. Moreover, the paper deals with personal and party representation, an
area that is a new field of interest for political scientists. Through this relationship, I explore the
effect of electoral systems on political parties, candidates and voters.
in developing this work, I was guided by the results achieved by Katz (1980, 1986) and Marsh
9
(1985) who first dealt with this issue. In his book A Theory of Parties and Electoral Systems
(1980), Katz took his first steps in the research of preferential systems. Five years later, Marsh
(1985) was dealing with differences between the preferential systems in Europe. In their works,
Katz and Marsh set forth the first hypotheses about the effects of preferential voting. Although
there has been a growing interest in research in this area over the last decade, no significant
progress has yet been made. Karvonen (2004) made a significant step in systematizing the
hypotheses of Katz and Marsh, and he added some more points. In his last paper on this subject
(2011), Karvonen was working within the same group of hypotheses, which were open to further
research. They are the basis of this research, with additional contributions. A major impetus for
this work was one of the most influential articles in this field, ‘Incentives to Cultivate a Personal
Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas’ by Carey and Shugart (1995), which examines
the question of the influence of electoral systems on the candidate’s electoral strategies—that
is, how electoral systems influence the pre-election roles of parties and their candidates. The
authors developed three variables: (1) lack of party leadership control over access to and rank
in ballots; (2) degree to which candidates are elected on individual votes independent of copartisans;
and (3) whether voters cast a single intra-party vote instead of multiple votes or a
party-level vote. By combining these three variables, there are up to thirteen combinations.
This approach set me up to explore the impact that personalization creates when it comes to the
relationship between the MP candidate and the party, or the MP and the party. Most authors
agree that the introduction of personalization of the electoral system significantly affects interparty
relations, which are sometimes reflected in a high degree of autonomy in campaigning
and even in the collection and spending of funds for funding of their personal campaign. The
bidding of candidates from the same party exercises a strong influence on intra-party relations,
and it often happens that rival relations within the parties remain in the shadow of rival relations
between the parties. |
