This paper describes and compares the parliamentary electoral systems of two successor states of Yugoslavia: Slovenia in the very North of the former federation and (North) Macedonia in the very South. Surprisingly, this comparison is rarely done, although both states have in common a relatively similar size and number of populations of around two million inhabitants.
This semester paper portrays that the design of an electoral system and historic legacies are important for a (transitional) democracy, but only till a certain, limited extent. Apart from relatively similar electoral systems in the here portrayed cases, the international and domestic as well as qualitative and quantitative studies showed, that political culture and how citizens and politicians are acting in a (democratic) states are also and probably more important than the design of an electoral system. Also, the EU integration process, lively EU membership and economic development could have an influence on functionality of transitional democracies. Especially, the differing partisanship culture is an interesting field of active citizenship behavior.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Description of the Electoral Systems in Slovenia and (North) Macedonia
3 Comparison of differing results of both systems
3.1 Number of party lists after national parliamentary elections
3.2 International indexes valueing the performance of the democracies
3.3 Domestic satisfaction with the respective politcal systems
4 Summery and Outlook
Objectives and Topics
This paper aims to provide a comparative analysis of the parliamentary electoral systems in Slovenia and (North) Macedonia, examining how their respective democratic frameworks influence political outcomes and public satisfaction despite their shared post-Yugoslav history.
- Comparative analysis of parliamentary electoral systems in two post-Yugoslav states.
- Evaluation of electoral system performance through international indices and democracy metrics.
- Investigation into political fragmentation and party system stability.
- Assessment of citizen involvement, active citizenship, and domestic satisfaction with political systems.
- Exploration of the impact of historical legacies and political culture on contemporary democratic functioning.
Excerpt from the publication
3.1 Number of party lists after national parliamentary elections
The Slovenian parliament is really fragmented and has been since their independence because of having a constant high number of parties, as it can be seen in table 1. On average 7.55 parties entered Slovenian parliaments, from that 6,44 with five or more seats. Also, the ideological range of parties jumped into the Slovenian parliament with conservative, left-populistic, left-liberal, social-democratic, extreme leftist, Christian-democratic, right-nationalistic and a pensioner’s party is much wider than in (North) Macedonia. Furthermore, it is not unusual, that strongly personalized, new and extremely young Slovenian parties entering the parliament by high or even highest share of votes. In the next elections these parties can be also punished massively by the Slovenian electorate. For example, the Party of Miro Cerar, which was founded just one month before the 2014 elections, won this election by 34,5% and lost in 2018 Icarus-like 24,7% finishing as forth party. Similar happened in 2011/2014 with the newly founded List Zoran Janković – Positive Slovenia, winning elections in 2011 by 28,5% and after losing 25,55% in the next election, even flying out of parliament.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter outlines the paper's goal to compare the electoral systems of Slovenia and (North) Macedonia, highlighting their shared history and divergent economic and political paths since 1991.
2 Description of the Electoral Systems in Slovenia and (North) Macedonia: This section details the technical specifications of both countries' PR systems, including seat allocation, constituencies, and how they handle minority representation.
3 Comparison of differing results of both systems: This central chapter analyzes the real-world outcomes of the electoral systems, focusing on party system fragmentation, international democracy rankings, and domestic citizen satisfaction.
3.1 Number of party lists after national parliamentary elections: This subchapter examines the high degree of fragmentation in the Slovenian parliament compared to the more stable party landscape in (North) Macedonia.
3.2 International indexes valueing the performance of the democracies: This part compares external evaluations of the two nations' democratic quality using data from Freedom House and the Economist Intelligence Unit.
3.3 Domestic satisfaction with the respective politcal systems: This subchapter utilizes data from the European Values Survey to gauge how citizens in both countries perceive and interact with their respective political environments.
4 Summery and Outlook: The conclusion synthesizes the findings, noting the crucial role of political culture over electoral design and suggesting future areas for qualitative research.
Keywords
Electoral systems, Slovenia, North Macedonia, Proportional representation, Party system, Democracy, Political satisfaction, Fragmentation, Post-Yugoslav states, Active citizenship, European Values Survey, Political participation, Institutional design, Comparative politics, Democratization.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper performs a comparative study of the electoral systems of Slovenia and (North) Macedonia, analyzing how their specific democratic designs influence parliament composition and citizen satisfaction.
What are the primary themes addressed?
The research focuses on the stability of party systems, democracy performance indicators, public political engagement, and the influence of historical political legacies.
What is the research goal of this work?
The goal is to determine why these two post-Yugoslav states exhibit significant differences in political fragmentation and citizen satisfaction despite having relatively similar electoral frameworks.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author uses a comparative approach, utilizing quantitative secondary data from the European Values Survey, Freedom House, and Transparency International supported by qualitative context analysis.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section analyzes legislative elections, international democracy indices, corruption perception, and indicators of domestic political interest and trust.
Which keywords define the research?
The study is characterized by terms such as electoral systems, political fragmentation, democracy indices, active citizenship, and systemic stability in post-socialist transition states.
How does the stability of the Slovenian party system differ from the Macedonian one?
The Slovenian parliament is notably more fragmented and prone to the rise and fall of new, personalized parties, whereas the Macedonian system tends to be more stable with fewer, more enduring major party blocs.
What role does political culture play according to the author?
The author concludes that political culture and how citizens interact with their state are often more decisive for democratic outcomes than the purely technical design of an electoral system.
What does the author suggest concerning Macedonian partisanship?
The author notes the unusually high party membership rates in Macedonia and hypothesizes that this may be linked to employment security within the public sector rather than purely ideological identification.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Carlo Hohnstedter (Autor:in), 2021, Electoral Systems in Slovenia and (North) Macedonia. A Comparison, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1259013
