Individual NATO Research Fellowships (1994-1996)

The research reports reproduced here are the responsibility of the individual authors. Their reproduction does not imply any form of official or unofficial endorsement by NATO. The reports are offered in unedited form, as presented by their authors, with a view to make their findings available to a wide audience. Comparison and evaluation of democracy and democratic institutions in Slovak and Hungarian Republics after 1992 Ladislav Tolmáci (Slovakia) [Back to Index] Electoral systems and elections Electoral systems are rather different in both countries. The Slovak electoral system is proportional. It puts more emphasis on representativeness. This feature of the electoral system is a certain threat for stability of governments. The Hungarian system is a combination of individual districts and party lists. This combination supports governability and stability. The distortion is rather strong and is in favour of big parties. It allows them to form solid, stable governments. The Fundamental principles of the elections in Hungary are stated in the Constitution as follows: par 71. The members of Parliament, as well as the members of communal, city, and capital district councils (i.e. the members of local councils) are elected by the electorate/constituents on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, by direct and secret ballot. Members of the Council of the Capital are elected by capital district councils, and communal councils by direct and secret ballot. The election of Members of Parliament and of councils shall be regulated by special Act. The Fundamental principles of the elections in Slovakia are stated in the Constitution as follows: Article 74 The members (of Parliament) are elected by universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot. Any citizen who has attained 21 years of age and has permanent residency in the Slovak Republic is eligible to vote. Article 69 The mayor (in municipal elections) shall be elected by the local citizens in an election by universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot. Each party in Slovakia decides about its candidate list. Candidates are placed on the party list in order of preference. They do not need to be party members. Voters select a party list. They can either accept the top placed names or highlight four other names on the list. Comparison of basic features of the Slovak and Hungarian Parliaments: The Parliament of the Slovak Republic The Parliament of the Republic of Hungary Number of MPs 150.00 386 altogether 176 in individual districts 210 on party lists Number of territorial electoral lists 4.00 20.00 In case of applying the Hungarian model of elections in Slovakia it would result in much more decisive differences between parties in elections. Vice versa the Slovak model in Hungary would lessen the differences between the parties in general. The final results of Hungarian elections in 1990 and 1994 Illegible Table The final results of Slovak elections in 1992 and 1994 Area Better in Slovakia Better in Hungary Equal I. 3.00 2.00 42.00 II. 7.00 9.00 14.00 III. 2.00 28.00 14.00 The principal direction marking acts in both countries were the elections. All of them were exclusive. Before the Slovak elections in 1992 the political spectrum was very fragmented. This fragmentation was endorsed with very broad political aims of MDS (broad spectral, amorphous movement). The applied PR system restricted by 5% threshold was partially the reason for the rejection of party discipline. Six parties succeeded in the election, but they experienced considerable fragmentation, 18% of MPs changed factions or established a new one. The reasons of fragmentation were divers (the explanations are controversial). Personal disagreements versus lacking party discipline. The first National Council of the Slovak Republic was a boiling pot, which leaked. The stress was and still remains on the autonomy of the individual MPs. The Prime Minister did not succeed in a trial to cohere the amorphous MDS and Parliament. An important role in the breakdown of the first Parliament was played by the President (he also tried to keep the Parliament working, but on a base of a broad coalition - his ideas were different of Prime Minister's). It is necessary to conclude that at the end, after a vote of no confidence in Prime Minister, all parties longed for new elections. The Slovak elections in 1994 were as far as the campaign and results quite similar to the 1992 elections. Yet they differed a lot. The cohesion, and party discipline was really strong. Especially in the MDS. On the scene a new coalition (MDS, AWS, SNP) emerged with organised and disciplined voting. Party discipline overcame autonomy of MPs. It led to almost complete neglection of the presence of opposition in the Parliament, their proposals and suggestions included. After 1994 the National Council has occassionaly been addressed as a voting machine. It eliminated the controlling functions of the opposition to minimum. The two Hungarian elections differed from each other much greater extant then the Slovak ones. One of the reasons was, that the Hungarian Parliament had completed the whole four year cycle. The parties themselves have changed a lot from the elections in 1990, and similarly as it wsa in the 1990 election (when communists were replaced), there was a strong urge in public for a change in politics. In 1990, the new born parties (about 120) had four filtering mechanisms to overcome 750 local supporters for individual candidates party territorial lists required existing given number of individual party candidates party national list was determined with at least seven territorial party lists five per cent threshold. Only parties that were able to set a national list succeeded. There was the same number of parties (6) entering the Parliament as in the Slovak elections in 1992. In the 1994 elections, the parliamentary parties (membership, organisation, infrastructure etc.) were positioned at a much better position. They used their advantage to full extent. Only they were elected to the new parliament. The results of the election were much different of those in 1990. HSP achieved a triumphal victory (majority in the parliament). The second placed AFD confirmed its position from 1990. The rest of them were losers. The decisive victory of HSP caused two factors (at least according to the most widespread opinion), "bandwagon effect" and the negative campaign against the HSP.