P

O
L
I
T
I
C
A
L

P
A
R
T
I
E
S

&
R
E
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
EUDO Observatory on Political Parties &
Representation (OPPR)
Directors: Luciano Bardi and Peter Mair
How to Create a Transnational Party System
A study prepared in the framework of the European Union Democracy
Observatory for the European Parliament (AFCO Committee)
Luciano Bardi, Edoardo Bressanelli, Enrico Calossi,
Wojciech Gagatek, Peter Mair, Eugenio Pizzimenti
Florence, July 2010
European Union Democracy Observatory (EUDO)
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute
Via delle Fontanelle, 19; I-50014 San Domenico di Fiesole; Italy
EUDOsecr@eui.eu; www.eudo.eu
E
U
D
O

R
e
p
o
r
t

2
0
1
0
/
2






DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES
POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS




How to create a Transnational
Party System



STUDY


Abstract

This study has been prepared by the Observatory on Political Parties and
Representation (OPPR), part of the European Democracy Observatory (EUDO)
at the European University Institute (EUI). It covers four aspects: 1) An
analysis of the political doctrine and programme of major political parties in
several Member States. 2) An examination of current procedures applied to
political parties to choose leaders for European Office. 3) The development of
proposals on how to help a European political party system evolve from
national structures strongly influenced by historical traditions and cultural
factors. 4) Suggestions regarding the extent to which the European electoral
system and different systems of party financing would have to be revised in
order to facilitate the above objectives.



PE 425.623
EN
This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on
Constitutional Affairs.



AUTHORS

Luciano Bardi
Edoardo Bressanelli
Enrico Calossi
Wojciech Gagatek
Peter Mair
Eugenio Pizzimenti



RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR

Mr Wilhelm Lehmann
Policy Department C - Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs
European Parliament
B-1047 Brussels
E-mail: poldep-citizens@europarl.europa.eu



LINGUISTIC VERSIONS

Original: EN
Translation of executive summary in: DE/FR/IT



ABOUT THE EDITOR

To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its newsletter please write
to: poldep-citizens@europarl.europa.eu

Manuscript completed in July 2010.
Brussels, European Parliament, 2010.

This document is available on the Internet at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the
author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European
Parliament.

Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized,
provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice
and sent a copy.


1



1hls reporL has been prepared by Lhe CbservaLory on ollLlcal arLles
and 8epresenLaLlon (C8), parL of Lhe wlder Luropean uemocracy
CbservaLory (LuuC) whlch ls based aL Lhe Luropean unlverslLy
lnsLlLuLe's 8oberL Schuman CenLre for Advanced SLudles ln llorence,
lLaly. LuuC's maln goal ls Lo produce a permanenL and perlodlc
assessmenL of democraLlc pracLlces wlLhln Lhe Lu and Lo LranslaLe
sclenLlflc and academlc research on key lssues ln Luropean democracy
lnLo pollcy-relevanL and publlcly-undersLandable ouLpuLs. LuuC
develops pracLlcal suggesLlons for lmprovlng democraLlc performance
ln Lhe Lu and offers experLlse, lnformaLlon, and pollcy reporLs Lo
relevanL Lu lnsLlLuLlons and oLher acLors. 1he C8 CbservaLory, ln
parLlcular, ls devoLed Lo Lhe sLudy of Luropean parLles and
represenLaLlve channels, agenda seLLers and gaLekeepers on Lhe
posslble road Lowards a full-fledged and effecLlve Luro-parLy sysLem.
1he C8 CbservaLory ls co-dlrecLed by rof. Luclano 8ardl and rof.
eLer Malr.
















2






1hls sLudy ls Lhe response Lo a Lender conLracL awarded ln
november 2009 by Lhe CommlLLee on ConsLlLuLlonal
Affalrs of Lhe Luropean arllamenL (conLracL
nl/C/AlCC/lC/2009-62), for Lhe provlslon of a sLudy on
Pow Lo CreaLe a 1rans-naLlonal arLy SysLem?". 1he
sLudy covers Lhe four aspecLs lndlcaLed ln Lhe Lender
appllcaLlon guldellnes:

1) An analysls of Lhe pollLlcal docLrlne and programme of
ma[or pollLlcal parLles ln as many Member SLaLes as
feaslble.

2) An examlnaLlon of currenL procedures applled Lo
pollLlcal parLles Lo choose leaders for Luropean Cfflce.

3) 1he developmenL of proposals on how Lo help a
Luropean pollLlcal parLy sysLem evolve from naLlonal
sLrucLures sLrongly lnfluenced by hlsLorlcal LradlLlons
and culLural facLors.

4) 1he developmenL of suggesLlons regardlng Lhe exLenL
Lo whlch Lhe Luropean elecLoral sysLem and dlfferenL
sysLems of parLy flnanclng would have Lo be revlsed ln
order Lo faclllLaLe Lhe above.


















3
1A8LL CI CCN1LN1S

"#$%&'()$*&#++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,
-+ ./0 1&2*$*)32 4%&(56 *# $/0 7(%&503# 13%2*380#$9 1&2*): 1&6*$*&#6 3#'
"'0&2&;*)32 <&/0%0#)0 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -=
1.1 1PL CLlC? CCPLSlCn Cl 1PL CLl1lCAL C8CuS............................................... 11
1.1.1 1he formaLlon of Lhe pollLlcal Croups and Lhelr 'pollLlcal afflnlLles' """"""""""""""""""##
1.1.2 arLy famllles ln a changlng conLexL """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#$
1.2 8LSLn1A1lCn Cl 1PL uA1A................................................................................. 13
1.2.1 LuromanlfesLo ro[ecL""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#%
1.2.2 Lu rofller"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""#&
1.3 LMl8lCAL AnAL?SlS.............................................................................................. 17
CCnCLuulnC 8LMA8kS............................................................................................... 29
>+ <3#'*'3$0 ?020)$*&# 3#' .%3#6@#3$*&#32*63$*&#++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ,=
2.1 ln18CuuC1lCn ...................................................................................................... 40
2.2 1WC ulMLnSlCnS Cl AnAL?SlnC 1PL CAnuluA1L SLLLC1lCn 8CCLuu8L ...... 41
2.2 WPC uLCluLSu ln nA1lCnAL A81lLS? ................................................................ 42
2.2.1 ulfferenLlaLlon by counLry"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""''
2.2.2 ulfferenLlaLlon by pollLlcal afflllaLlon """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'(
2.3 lS Lu8CLAn lnlLuLnCL lMC81An1? ................................................................ 48
CCnCLuSlCn................................................................................................................ 30
A+ ./0 B&20 &C D3$*&#32 .%3'*$*&#6++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ EA
3.1 ln18CuuC1lCn ...................................................................................................... 33
3.2 1PL nuM8L8 Cl A81lLS A1 nA1lCnAL Anu Lu8CLAn LLvLL .......................... 34
3.3 LLCAL S1A1uS Cl 1PL CLl1lCAL A81lLS............................................................. 38
3.4 ln1L8nAL C8CAnlSA1lCn ..................................................................................... 60
3.3 CAMAlCn 8AC1lCLS ........................................................................................... 62
,+ ./0 F3%8&#*63$*&# &C 7(%&503# 720)$&%32 G3H 3#' $/0 I*#3#)*#; &C
117G6++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ JK
4.1 ln18CuuC1lCn ...................................................................................................... 67
4.2 1PL PA8MCnlSA1lCn Cl Lu8CLAn LLLC1C8AL LAW........................................ 68
4.3 1PL llnAnClnC Cl LLs....................................................................................... 74
4.3.1 ubllc flnanclng and organlsaLlonal change: quld prlus? """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""&(
4.3.2 arLy flnanclng schemes ln Lurope: a synLheLlc overvlew"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""&)
4.3.3 ubllc fundlng ln Lhe Cld Lurope""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""&*
4.3.3 ubllc fundlng ln Lhe new Lurope"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""")+
4.3.4 1he fundlng Lo parLles aL Luropean level""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""")'
4.3.3 CrganlsaLlon of ollLlcal arLles aL Luropean Level""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""))
4.4 Slgnlflcance of Lhe LuroparLy SLaLuLe".................................................................. 92
<&#)2(6*&#9 .%3#6#3$*&#32 13%$*06 3#' 3 .%3#6#3$*&#32 13%$: ?:6$08+ LK
B05&%$M6 ?(883%: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-=A
B7I7B7D<7? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-=J


4
Introduct|on


arLles are mulLl-faceLed acLors, whose organlsaLlon, sLraLegy and sLyle of
compeLlLlon are prlmarlly embedded ln, and deflned by, naLlonal pollLlcal seLLlngs.
1hey orlglnaLe and develop elLher from Lhe organlsed expresslon of socleLal
lnLeresLs (exLra-parllamenLary orlgln) or from Lhe organlsaLlonal and pollLlcal
needs of elecLed offlclals (parllamenLary orlgln). ln boLh cases, and even when Lhe
Lwo seLs of facLors play a role, Lhe cenLral organlsaLlon of Lhe parLy ls a producL
and noL a cause of Lhese processes.
1ransnaLlonal parLles aL Luropean level can, Lherefore, be expecLed Lo
develop as a consequence of pressures comlng elLher from Lhelr componenLs ln
Lhe Luropean arllamenL, LhaL ls Lo say, L parLy groups seeklng auLonomous
organlsaLlonal sLrucLures capable of glvlng Lhem dlrecL llnks wlLh Luropean clvll
socleLy, or from exlsLlng grass-rooLs parLy sLrucLures, LhaL ls Lo say, naLlonal
parLles LhaL are becomlng progresslvely more lncllned Lo prlvllege Lhe
supranaLlonal level of governmenL. 8uL even Lhough lL ls posslble Lo concelve of
Lhe emergence of LransnaLlonal parLles - even sLrongly organlsed LransnaLlonal
parLles - lL ls qulLe anoLher quesLlon Lo concelve of Lhe emergence of a
LransnaLlonal parLy system (8ardl and Malr 2008). 1hls lasL dlsLlncLlon wlll be
elaboraLed ln Lhe flnal secLlon of Lhls sLudy and underlles Lhe sLraLegy developed
ln Lhls proposal.
1he maln parL of Lhls sLudy ls geared Lowards an assessmenL of Lhe
degree Lo whlch condlLlons aL naLlonal and Luropean levels currenLly favour Lhe
consolldaLlon of whaL 8egulaLlon (LC) 2004/2003 (whaL ls someLlmes referred Lo
as Lhe LuroparLy SLaLuLe") calls 'pollLlcal parLles aL Luropean level'. 1he sLudy
has been prepared by a group of scholars aL Lhe new Luropean uemocracy
CbservaLory (LuuC), whlch ls based aL Lhe Luropean unlverslLy lnsLlLuLe's 8oberL
Schuman CenLre. As parL of Lhe LuuC pro[ecL, Lhe scholars worklng on Lhls sLudy
are developlng a speclflc observaLory on pollLlcal parLles and represenLaLlon ln
Lurope (C8), and hence avall of a conslderable amounL of relevanL daLa and
experLlse ln Lhe areas ldenLlfled by Lhe lnvlLaLlon Lo 1ender.
1he sLudy covers Lhe four aspecLs lndlcaLed ln Lhe Lender appllcaLlon
guldellnes. llrsL, we reporL on an analysls of Lhe pollLlcal docLrlne and
programmes of Lhe ma[or pollLlcal parLles ln Lhe Lu Member SLaLes, and we look
aL Lhe degree Lo whlch Lhese are conslsLenL and coherenL wlLhln Lhe dlfferenL
parLy groups. Second, we look aL Lhe currenL procedures applled by pollLlcal
parLles Lo choose represenLaLlves for publlc offlce aL Luropean level, and we look
aL Lhe degree Lo whlch Lhese vary boLh from counLry Lo counLry and wlLhln Lhe
dlfferenL parLy groups. 1hlrd, we look aL Lhe parLlcular obsLacles whlch sLand ln
Lhe way of Lhe emergence of genulne LransnaLlonal parLles and whlch derlve
from naLlonal sLrucLures whlch have been sLrongly lnfluenced and shaped by
hlsLorlcal LradlLlons and culLural facLors. lourLh, we evaluaLe Lhe exLenL Lo whlch
Lhe Luropean elecLoral sysLem and Lhe dlfferenL sysLems of parLy flnanclng have
developed wlLh a vlew Lo furLherlng Lhe evoluLlon of Luropean pollLlcal parLles,
5
and we lnclude a dlscusslon of Lhe klnd of lnsLlLuLlonal lncenLlves LhaL mlghL be
seen Lo faclllLaLe and promoLe LransnaLlonal parLy acLlvlLles. llnally, we draw
aLLenLlon Lo Lhe dlsLlncLlon beLween LransnaLlonal parLles and a LransnaLlonal
parLy sysLem, and we dlscuss how, lf deemed deslrable, Lhe LranslLlon from Lhe
former Lo Lhe laLLer mlghL be encouraged even whlle remalnlng wlLhln Lhe
currenL (posL-Llsbon) lnsLlLuLlonal parameLers.
1hese dlfferenL aspecLs can, ln Lurn, be proflLably grouped lnLo Lwo
caLegorles: Lhe flrsL and second lLems concern emplrlcal aspecLs of parLy
organlsaLlon, programmes and funcLlonlng aL Luropean and Member-SLaLe levels
whose ln-depLh lnvesLlgaLlon can be seen as a necessary pre-requlslLe for Lhe
resL of Lhe analysls. 1he remalnlng lLems perLaln Lo Lhe more prescrlpLlve alm of
Lhe pro[ecL, and, as such, requlre a more speculaLlve reflecLlon, albelL based
upon a Lhorough analysls of Lhe exlsLlng LheoreLlcal and emplrlcal llLeraLure.
1he maln sLarLlng-polnL for Lhls analysls has been Lhe recognlLlon LhaL Lhe
organlsaLlon, sLraLegy and sLyles of compeLlLlon of pollLlcal parLles are boLh
embedded ln, and prlmarlly deflned by, naLlonal pollLlcal seLLlngs. Larller
research (kaLz and Malr 1994) also lndlcaLed LhaL, far from wanlng, Lhese
naLlonal dlfferences have become more pronounced over Llme, ln LhaL Lhe
naLlonal conLexL ln whlch a parLy ls locaLed - Lhe legal regulaLory envlronmenL,
Lhe naLlonal sysLem of parLy-fundlng, Lhe parLlcularlsLlc naLlonal lnsLlLuLlons - ls
provlng lncreaslngly deLermlnanL for a parLy's organlsaLlon and culLure. ln Lhe
pasL, Lhe ldeology or supporL base of a parLy was ofLen Lhe more lmporLanL
lnfluenLlal facLor ln deflnlng a parLy. A uuLch Soclal uemocraLlc parLy looked
more llke a Cerman Soclal uemocraLlc parLy, for example, Lhan lL looked llke a
uuLch ChrlsLlan uemocraLlc parLy. WlLh Llme, however, Lhe culLures and
organlsaLlonal sLyles of parLles have Lended Lo converge wlLhln each counLry, and
hence dlverge wlLhln each LransnaLlonal parLy famlly. 1hls suggesLs LhaL Lhere ls
now less common ground beLween dlfferenL naLlonal Soclal uemocraLs, or
dlfferenL naLlonal ChrlsLlan uemocraLs, whlch would mean LhaL Lhe obsLacles
faced by LransnaLlonal parLles ln Lhe evoluLlon of a Luropean parLy sysLem would
seem Lo have become more acuLe.
Cn Lhe oLher hand, because of Lhe recenL process of cottellsotloo of parLy
compeLlLlon, and because of Lhe dlsLanclng of parLy organlsaLlons from Lhelr
LradlLlonal rooLs wlLhln clvll socleLy, parLy organlsaLlons ln naLlonal seLLlngs are
now much more ellLe-domlnaLed Lhan before. 1hls also reflecLs Lhe long-Lerm
ascendancy of Lhe parLy ln publlc offlce (kaLz and Malr 2002) and Lhe more
recenL shlfL Lowards Lhe presldenLlallsaLlon of pollLlcs (ogunLke and Webb
2003). 1hese developmenLs have allowed parLles Lo become more flexlble ln a
sLraLeglc sense, and Lhls may also mean LhaL Lhey are less consLralned by
hlsLorlcal LradlLlons and culLural facLors. ln oLher words, should Lhe lncenLlves
Lowards Lrans-naLlonallsaLlon prove sLrong enough, mosL parLles are probably
sufflclenLly flexlble Lo adapL and respond.
8ulldlng from a parLy famlly approach (Malr and Mudde 1998), Lhls
research evaluaLes Lhe exlsLlng evldence for all of Lhese Lrends and Lenslons.
8ased Lo a degree upon secondary llLeraLure, buL also employlng our own u
ltofllet daLa (hLLp://www.euprofller.eu/), we evaluaLe Lhe relaLlve sLrengLh of
6
Lhe compeLlng pulls of naLlonal conLexL and LransnaLlonal ldenLlLy. 8ased upon
an undersLandlng of Lhe process LhaL led from parLy segmenLaLlon Lo parLy
convergence aL naLlonal level, we seek Lo develop proposals abouL how LhaL
process mlghL now be mlmlcked and exLended aL LransnaLlonal level. ln Lhls
conLexL, we also look aL Lhe culLural and lnsLlLuLlonal lncenLlves Lowards Lrans-
naLlonallsaLlon, as well as aL Lhe facLors LhaL mlghL sLlll sLand ln Lhe way of such
convergence. 8y comblnlng boLh LheoreLlcal and emplrlcal conslderaLlons, Lhe
overall analysls and lLs resulLs allow us Lo speculaLe on Lhe posslble normaLlve
soluLlons Lo help a Luropean parLy sysLem evolve from Lhe naLlonal sLrucLures,
and/or Lo offer an alLernaLlve explanaLlon.
MosL proposals suggesLlng lnsLlLuLlonal sLraLegles favourlng Lhe
emergence of a LransnaLlonal parLy sysLem focus on Lhe reform of an elecLoral
law for Lhe elecLlons Lo Lhe Luropean arllamenL, lncludlng Lhe proposal for Lhe
creaLlon of a LransnaLlonal llsL sysLem for a small porLlon of seaLs (2007 uuff L
reporL). More recenLly, scholars and pollLlclans (for example, !o Lelnen ML, see,
also, Plx 2008) have suggesLed LhaL each Luropean pollLlcal parLy should selecL
lLs 'Lop candldaLe' for Lhe Commlsslon's resldency already before Lhe elecLlon.
1hese proposals are consldered ln Lhe course of our analysls and Lhe posslble
relaLed scenarlos are ouLllned and evaluaLed. lL would appear, however, LhaL Lhe
convenLlonal wlsdom abouL Lhe beneflclal effecLs of elecLlons ls noL always
conflrmed by Lhe emplrlcal evldence. ln parLlcular, Lhe presence of dlfferenL
elecLoral laws aL naLlonal and L levels wlLhln one pollLy can also have a negaLlve
lmpacL on L elecLlons, and Lhereby can prove qulLe dlsrupLlve for LransnaLlonal
parLy lnsLlLuLlonallsaLlon (8ardl 2002).
8egulaLlon (LC) 2004/2003 deflnes Lhe role of Luropean pollLlcal parLles
and Lhe requlremenLs needed for parLy ellglblllLy Lo recelve fundlng from Lhe
Luropean unlon. 1he provlslons of Lhe 8egulaLlon may well be able Lo
consolldaLe more effecLlvely Lhe varlous parLy componenLs operaLlng aL
Luropean level: LransnaLlonal federaLlons, parllamenLary groups and naLlonal
parLles. 1wo provlslons, however, one conLalned dlrecLly ln Lhe 8egulaLlon and
Lhe oLher ln lLs lmplemenLaLlon rules, and respecLlvely perLalnlng Lo Lhe
condlLlonlng of publlc fundlng Lo co-flnanclng and Lo Lhe lncluslon of publlc
fundlng ln Lhe L budgeL, sLlll keep Lhe federaLlons, LhaL ls Lhe LransnaLlonal
parLles proper, ln a subordlnaLe poslLlon wlLh respecL Lo Lhelr naLlonal
componenLs and Lhe L parLy groups.
Cur reflecLlon and research ln Lhls secLlon alms aL ouLllnlng posslble
soluLlons Lo Lhese problems and poLenLlal confllcLs. 1he llLeraLure on Lhe drafLlng
and harmonlsaLlon of Luropean level elecLoral rules ls older Lhan L elecLlons
(Sasse et ol 1981) and ls, by now, exLenslve. A careful analysls of Lhls body of
work permlLs us Lo map all Lhe varlous opLlons for beLLer and more effecLlve
harmonlsaLlon of elecLoral rules aL L level. Powever, slnce, as already noLed,
harmonlsaLlon aL Lhe Luropean level can lead Lo dlfferences beLween levels ln
Lhe naLlonal arena, Lhls can prove an even more serlous problem Lhan
lnsufflclenL harmonlsaLlon lLself. Andrew uuff's proposal Lo lnLroduce a small
LransnaLlonal llsL sysLem lnLo L elecLlons ls cerLalnly poLenLlally capable of
favourlng LransnaLlonal parLy developmenL, buL lL ls also llkely Lo be meL wlLh
7
very sLrong opposlLlon. Cur sLudy examlnes varlous addlLlonal Lechnlcal feaLures
of Lhe elecLoral sysLem, such as preferenLlal or slngle Lransferable voLlng, LhaL
may make such a soluLlon more accepLable.
1hls parL of Lhe analysls also looks aL Lhe effecL of parLy flnanclng and lLs
assoclaLed regulaLory framework. 1hese Loplcs have been sLudled exLenslvely aL
Lhe naLlonal level, and Lhe evldence suggesLs LhaL such rules and regulaLlons
have a Lendency Lo promoLe organlsaLlonal convergence aL LhaL level, wlLh
parLles funded from a common sysLem of parLy flnance Lendlng Lo adapL Lhelr
organlsaLlons Lo avall of Lhese subvenLlons. lollowlng Lhe same loglc, lL can be
argued LhaL a sLrong Luropean level sysLem of flnanclng and parLy regulaLlon
could have a slmllar effecL, and could serve Lo promoLe LransnaLlonal
convergence and, hence, LransnaLlonal parLy-bulldlng. As we have seen, Lhe
currenL provlslons for publlc fundlng aL Luropean level do noL guaranLee Lhe
flnanclal lndependence of parLles aL Luropean level from Lhelr naLlonal
counLerparLs and, lndlrecLly, from Lhe L parLy groups. AL naLlonal levels,
however, many dlfferenL models can be ldenLlfled, also wlLh dlfferenL
lmpllcaLlons for parLy developmenL and lnsLlLuLlonallsaLlon. Cur lnvesLlgaLlon
here relles on Lhe developmenL of a Lypology of parLy flnanclng schemes aL
naLlonal level.
1he flnal conslderaLlon LhaL ls developed here emphaslses Lhe dlsLlncLlon
beLween Lhe developmenL of LransnaLlonal parLles, on Lhe one hand, and a
LransnaLlonal parLy sysLem, on Lhe oLher. 8ased upon exlsLlng Lheorles of parLy
sysLems, lL can be argued LhaL Lhe prlmary lnsLlLuLlonal lncenLlve for Lhe
developmenL of a genulne LransnaLlonal parLy sysLem ls LhaL offered by a
common sLrucLure of compeLlLlon, and, hence, by a slLuaLlon ln whlch
LransnaLlonal parLles compeLe for Lhe conLrol of a LransnaLlonal pollLlcal
execuLlve. 1hls lssue ls explored more fully ln Lhls sLudy, and we also evaluaLe Lhe
dlfferenL lmpllcaLlons of LransnaLlonal parLles compeLlng for purely leglslaLlve
offlce, on Lhe one hand, and compeLlng for execuLlve offlce, on Lhe oLher hand,
as mlghL be Lhe case were Lhe Commlsslon resldenL Lo be dlrecLly elecLed, or
were Lhe Commlsslon Lo be wholly accounLable Lo Lhe arllamenL.
1hls also serves Lo underllne Lhe flnal lnLroducLory polnL. ln Lhls sLudy, we
adduce a loL of evldence Lo suggesL LhaL Lhere ls a sLrong basls for parLy
convergence across mosL of Lhe counLrles of Lhe Luropean unlon. lor a varleLy of
reasons, lncludlng Lhe Lrans-naLlonallsaLlon and LuropeanlsaLlon of pollLlcal
lssues, communlcaLlon and debaLes, buL also because of common Lechnologles
and campalgn Lechnlques, Lhe barrlers sLandlng ln Lhe way of parLy
communlcaLlon across naLlonal boundarles are falllng. 1hls means LhaL, lf Lhe wlll
ls Lhere, lL has now become easler Lo bulld a Lrans-naLlonal parLy whlch means,
more or less, Lhe same Lhlng ln each of Lhe pollLles ln whlch lL ls acLlve. ln shorL,
Lhere are now fewer obsLacles sLandlng ln Lhe way of Lhe creaLlon of meanlngful
Lrans-naLlonal parLles. 8uL Lhls ls noL Lhe same as saylng LhaL Lhere are also fewer
obsLacles sLandlng ln Lhe way of Lhe creaLlon of a meanlngful LransnaLlonal parLy
sysLem. lor Lhls Lo develop properly, as we suggesL below, Lhere wlll need Lo be
a Luropean sLrucLure of compeLlLlon ln whlch Lhe emerglng LransnaLlonal parLles
can conLesL one anoLher. 1hls means, ln pracLlce, LhaL Lhere wlll need Lo be a
8
Luropean execuLlve for whlch Lhe LransnaLlonal parLles compeLe - a Luropean
resldency, for example, as ln lrance, or a parLlsan cablneL wlLhln a fused sysLem
of powers, as ln lLaly or Lhe unlLed klngdom, for example. lollowlng Lhls
argumenL Lo lLs loglcal concluslon, Lherefore, we mlghL argues LhaL Lhe
emergence of LransnaLlonal parLles wlll only lead Lo Lhe emergence of a
LransnaLlonal parLy sysLem lf and when a new 1reaLy creaLes a democraLlcally
accounLable Luropean execuLlve, and we know LhaL Lhls ls noL llkely Lo occur ln
Lhe foreseeable fuLure.
uoes Lhls Lhen suggesL LhaL Lhe prospecLs for a LransnaLlonal parLy sysLem
are compleLely doomed? Whlle accepLlng Lhe loglc of Lhls argumenL ln Lheory,
our answer ln pracLlce ls more nuanced. 1haL ls, we suggesL LhaL, even wlLhln Lhe
Lerms of Lhe presenL 1reaLy of Llsbon, Lhere ls ample scope for LransnaLlonal
parLy acLlvlLy and lnLeracLlon, even lf Lhls does noL always LranslaLe lnLo full-scale
elecLoral compeLlLlon. ln Lhe flrsL place, and mosL obvlously, Lhere ls already
scope for Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe uuff proposal, whlch would provlde seaLs ln
Lhe arllamenL for whlch compeLlLlon would be more or less wholly aL Luropean
level. Second, Lhere ls Lhe lndlrecL rouLe Lowards compeLlLlon aL Luropean level,
by whlch Lhe maln LransnaLlonal parLles would nomlnaLe a preferred candldaLe
for Lhe resldency of Lhe Luropean Commlsslon prlor Lo Lhe L elecLlons
Lhemselves, and would campalgn on Lhe undersLandlng LhaL, lf vlcLorlous, Lhls ls
Lhe candldaLe LhaL Lhe parLy would promoLe. 1hls would obvlously llnk Lhe
appolnLmenL of Lhe Pead of Lhe Commlsslon much more closely Lo Lhe ouLcome
of Lhe Luropean elecLlons and, ln Lhls way, albelL lndlrecLly, lL would offer a form
of Lrans-naLlonal elecLoral accounLablllLy and conLrol. 1hlrd, Lhere are Lhe many
and growlng ways ln whlch Lhe Lrans-naLlonal parLles mlghL engage ln co-
ordlnaLlng octlvltles beLween Lhe naLlonal pollLles and Lhe LransnaLlonal
lnsLlLuLlons, and Lhereby lnLeracL wlLh one anoLher ln a seml-compeLlLlve
conLexL. Co-ordlnaLlng Lhe collecLlon of slgnaLures for - or agalnsL - a Luropean
ClLlzens lnlLlaLlve ls one obvlous example, co-ordlnaLlng Lhe LransnaLlonal
acLlvlLles of naLlonal parllamenLs ls anoLher. Co-ordlnaLlon can also lnvolve
bulldlng llnks and faclllLaLlng effecLlve communlcaLlon beLween Lhe dlfferenL
Luropean lnsLlLuLlons - Lhe Councll, Lhe Commlsslon, Lhe arllamenL - ln Lhe
complex envlronmenL of co-declslon. none of Lhese acLlvlLles amounLs Lo
creaLlng a Lrans-naLlonal sLrucLure of compeLlLlon or Lhereby Lo creaLlng a
LransnaLlonal parLy sysLem, buL Lhey all wlll help lnsLlLuLlonallse and make
relevanL Lhe acLlvlLles of Lhe Lrans-naLlonal parLles, and wlll also encourage Lhelr
muLual lnLeracLlon.










9
key 5ommoty

Whlle lL ls posslble Lo concelve of Lhe emergence of LransnaLlonal parLles, Lhe
emergence of a LransnaLlonal parLy system ls more problemaLlcal,

1he welghL of naLlonal pollLlcal seLLlngs on parLy organlsaLlon sLraLegy and sLyles
of compeLlLlon may represenL an obsLacle Lo Lhe emergence of Lrans-naLlonal
parLles,

uesplLe convenLlonal wlsdom, Lhe reform of an elecLoral law for Lhe L's elecLlon
may noL be conduclve Lo Lhe emergence of a Lrans-naLlonal parLy sysLem,

1he presenL regulaLory framework of Lhe Luropean ollLlcal arLles sLlll favours
Lhe L parLy groups and Lhe parLles aL naLlonal level,

A sLrong Luropean-level sysLem of flnanclng and regulaLlon could serve Lo
promoLe Lrans-naLlonal convergenL parLy-bulldlng,

1he creaLlon of a Luropean sLrucLure of pollLlcal compeLlLlon ls a necessary
condlLlon Lo supporL Lhe lnsLlLuLlonallsaLlon of a genulne LransnaLlonal parLy
sysLem,

1he compeLlLlon for Lhe conLrol of a Lrans-naLlonal pollLlcal execuLlve would
consLlLuLe a fundamenLal lnsLlLuLlonal lncenLlve for Lhe developmenL of a
LransnaLlonal parLy sysLem,

ln Lhe absence of a sysLem for compeLlLlon for Lhe conLrol of a LransnaLlonal
pollLlcal execuLlve, and even allowlng for presenL lnsLlLuLlonal clrcumsLances,
Lhere are a varleLy of parLy-bulldlng acLlvlLles open Lo Lhe Lrans-naLlonal parLles,
whlch can help bulld Lhelr sLandlng.


10
1. 1he o||t|ca| Groups |n the Luropean ar||ament: o||cy
os|t|ons and Ideo|og|ca| Coherence
1



1hls chapLer focuses on Lhe pollcy poslLlon and Lhe ldeologlcal coherence of Lhe
pollLlcal Croups consLlLuLed ln Lhe vll
Lh
Luropean arllamenL. 8y measurlng Lhe
pollcy preferences of Lhe naLlonal parLles composlng Lhe parllamenLary Croups,
lL seeks Lo answer lmporLanL quesLlons relaLlng Lo Lhe pollcy coheslon of Lhe
Croups as a whole, and Lhe degree Lo whlch each Croup Lakes a dlsLlncL poslLlon
wlLh respecL Lo lLs compeLlLors. ln oLher words, how sparse and heLerogeneous
are Lhe consLlLuenL member parLles wlLhln Lhe Croups? And Lo whaL exLenL are
Lhe Croups Lhemselves dlfferenLlaLed from one anoLher? lf we are Lo ldenLlfy a
basls for Lhe emergence of genulne LransnaLlonal parLles, Lhen Lhese should be
parLles LhaL are ldeologlcally coherenL and coheslve wlLhln Lhemselves, wlLh each
group also belng capable of belng dlsLlngulshable from Lhe oLhers. 1he purpose
of Lhls chapLer wlll be Lo assess Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhls ls, ln facL, Lhe case ln Lhe
conLemporary Luropean pollLlcal landscape.
1here are aL leasL Lwo maln reasons why Lhese quesLlons are subsLanLlally
lmporLanL. 1he flrsL perLalns Lo Lhe lnLernal worklngs and organlsaLlon of Lhe
Luropean arllamenL. Cnly homogeneous pollLlcal Croups can pursue a coherenL
pollLlcal agenda. lf Lhe Croups are Loo lnLernally dlvlded, Lhey wlll fall Lo dellver
whaL Lhey promlsed Lo Lhe Luropean elecLoraLe (Lhrough naLlonal parLles). lL wlll
be lmposslble for Lhem Lo sLaLe an offlclal pollcy poslLlon and pursue lL ln Lhe
Luropean arllamenL, Lo lssue common declaraLlons, and, more lmporLanLly, Lo
voLe coheslvely ln Lhe commlLLees and ln Lhe plenary. ConLlngenL ma[orlLles and
random aggregaLlons of depuLles wlll form for each and every voLe, maklng Lhe
leglslaLlve process hardly manageable.
Lven more fundamenLally, Lhe ldeologlcal coherence of Lhe pollLlcal
Croups ls of cruclal lmporLance for Lhe prospecLs of Lhe Lu democracy. AlLhough
pollLlcal represenLaLlon ls, ln Lhe Lu conLexL, sLlll 'fllLered' Lhrough naLlonal
parLles, lL could cerLalnly be argued LhaL when (and lf) Lhe naLlonal parLles
coalesclng ln Lhe same pollLlcal Croup aL Lu level express slmllar concerns and
values, Lhen common 'Luropean' parLy culLures and even ldenLlLles are already ln
place. WhaL Lhey wlll sLlll need Lo reallse Lhelr poLenLlal fully ls a sLronger
lnsLlLuLlonal and organlsaLlonal 'lnfrasLrucLure' aL Lu level (as argued elsewhere
ln Lhls reporL). ln brlef, Lhe slmllarlLy ln Lhe pollcy preferences among Lhe
naLlonal parLles conLesLlng Lhe L elecLlons and formlng Lhe LransnaLlonal
grouplngs ls cruclal for provldlng Lhe Luropean voLers wlLh a meanlngful
programmaLlc supply, whlch could be converLed ln concreLe publlc pollcles
Lhrough Lhe Lu leglslaLlve process (see, especlally, McLlroy, 8enolL, 2010 and
1homassen, 2009).

1
1hls chapLer ls based on a paper by Ldoardo 8ressanelll enLlLled "1he Luropean arllamenL afLer
Llsbon: Lhe ollcy oslLlon and Coherence of Lhe ollLlcal Croups" 1o be presenLed Lo Lhe xxlv
Conference of Lhe lLallan SocleLy of ollLlcal Sclence, venlce, 16-18 SepLember 2010
11
ln order Lo descrlbe and evaluaLe Lhe pollcy poslLlons and coherence of
Lhe L pollLlcal groups, Lhls chapLer relles on Lwo daLa sources. llrsL, lL makes use
of Lhe manlfesLos lssued by Lhe naLlonal parLles for Lhe Luropean arllamenL
elecLlons (Ml Joto, uolvetslty of Mooobelm). 1hese manlfesLos are Lhe mosL
obvlous place Lo look when Lhe purpose ls Lo sLudy (varlaLlons ln) Lhe poslLlon of
Lhe L grouplngs. 1hey are lssued regularly by Lhe naLlonal parLles conLesLlng Lhe
Luropean arllamenL elecLlons and seem Lo convey more preclse and meanlngful
lnformaLlon on Lurope Lhan any oLher source. lurLhermore, we can lnLeresLlngly
compare Lhe offlclal manlfesLos adopLed by Lhe Luro-parLles wlLh Lhose lssued by
Lhelr member parLles (l.e., Lhe naLlonal parLles). Second, we rely on Lhe Lu
rofller daLa on parLles ((hLLp://www.euprofller.eu/). 1he rofller was an
elecLronlc Lool by means of whlch elecLors could dlscover whlch pollLlcal parLy
was closer Lo Lhelr own preferences, by expresslng Lhelr poslLlon wlLh respecL Lo
several pollcy sLaLemenLs, for Lhe 2009 L elecLlons. ollLlcal parLles, answerlng
Lo an ldenLlcal quesLlonnalre, were also asked Lo self-place Lhemselves ln a pollcy
space. Cverall, Lhe daLa generaLed by Lhe Lu rofller ls a very speclflc and
updaLed source of lnformaLlon Lo sLudy parLy poslLlons ln Lhe Lu conLexL.
1hls chapLer ls sLrucLured as follows. arL l provldes Lhe hlsLorlcal and
legal background Lo Lhe requlremenL of 'pollLlcal afflnlLles' Lo consLlLuLe a
pollLlcal Croup ln Lhe arllamenL, lnLroduclng some poLenLlal problems for Lhelr
ldeologlcal homogenelLy. arL ll descrlbes, ln more deLall, Lhe daLa employed for
Lhe emplrlcal analysls, whlch ls Lhen developed ln arL lll. Some concludlng
remarks are flnally presenLed ln arL lv. lor Lhose lnLeresLed ln lssues of
meLhodology and measuremenL, an appendlx presenLs Lhem ln full.

1.1 1nL CLIC CCnLSICN CI 1nL CLI1ICAL GkCUS

1.1.1 1he format|on of the po||t|ca| Groups and the|r 'po||t|ca| aff|n|t|es'
Lver slnce Lhe Luropean arllamenL was esLabllshed, lLs organlsaLlon has been
sLrucLured upon LransnaLlonal pollLlcal Croups. ln 1938, Lhe newly born
Luropean arllamenL lnherlLed from lLs forerunner, Lhe Common Assembly of
Lhe Coal and SLeal CommunlLy, lLs rules of procedure and lLs Lhree pollLlcal
Croups: Lhe ChrlsLlan-uemocraLs, Lhe SoclallsLs and Lhe Llberals (and
supporLers"). ln Lurn, Lhe Common Assembly was Lhe flrsL lnLernaLlonal
assembly ever Lo be sLrucLured around pollLlcal Croups. noL long afLer lLs
creaLlon (ln SepLember 1932), Lhe Assembly wlLnessed Lhe Je focto formaLlon of
Lhe pollLlcal Croups, whlch began Lo sLrucLure Lhelr worklngs accordlng Lo
ldeologlcal, raLher Lhan naLlonal, dlvlslons. 1he earllesL verslon of Lhe formal
rules of Lhe Common Assembly sLlll made no menLlon of 'pollLlcal grouplngs',
whlle lL ofLen referred Lo Lhe prlnclple of naLlonal represenLaLlon - for lnsLance,
ln Lhe allocaLlon of some lnLernal poslLlons, as was cusLomary ln Lhe oLher
lnLernaLlonal assemblles. very soon, however, Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon of commlLLee
seaLs and chalrmanshlps began Lo Lake lnLo accounL boLh naLlonal ooJ parLy
represenLaLlon, Lhe depuLles were no longer seaLed ln Lhe hemlcycle ln
12
alphabeLlcal order, buL accordlng Lo Lhe pollLlcal Croup Lo whlch Lhey belonged.
llnally, ln !une 1933, Lhe new 8ules of rocedure formally recognlsed LhaL
pollLlcal Croups could be formed accordlng Lo polltlcol petsoosloo" (see Plx,
kreppel, noury, 2003: 311-313).
1he early ArLlcle 33bls, under Lhe LlLle ollLlcal Croups", llsLed Lhe
condlLlons Lo be meL by Lhe pollLlcal Croups ln order Lo be recognlsed as such.
1wo crlLerla were esLabllshed. llrsL, Lhe mlnlmum number of depuLles Lo
esLabllsh a pollLlcal Croup was seL aL nlne. Second, Lhe delegaLes could organlse
Lhemselves lnLo groups accordlng Lo Lhelr pollLlcal sympaLhles. 1hese
fundamenLal requlremenLs for Lhe consLlLuLlon of Lhe pollLlcal Croups are sLlll
found ln Lhe mosL recenL verslon of Lhe 8ules of rocedure. ln Lhe 2009 edlLlon
of Lhe 8ules, ArLlcle 30 sLaLes: members may form Lhemselves lnLo groups
accordlng Lo Lhelr polltlcol offloltles". Moreover, Lhe numerlcal crlLerlon ls
rephrased as: a pollLlcal group shall comprlse Members elecLed ln aL leasL one-
quarLer of Lhe Member SLaLes. 1he mlnlmum number of Members requlred Lo
form a pollLlcal group shall be 23" (ArLlcle 30.2). 1he numerlcal crlLerlon has been
consLanLly modlfled ln order Lo Lake lnLo accounL Lhe expanslon ln Lhe
membershlp of Lhe Assembly - followlng, for lnsLance, Lhe lnLroducLlon of dlrecL
elecLlons, or each enlargemenL wave. Powever, here, we are especlally
lnLeresLed ln Lhe second parameLer, namely, Lhe 'pollLlcal afflnlLles' of Lhe
members. WhaL ls Lhe purpose of Lhls arLlcle? And whaL are lLs concreLe
lmpllcaLlons for Lhe formaLlon of Lhe pollLlcal Croups?
When lL was flrsL lnLroduced, Lhe requlremenL of 'pollLlcal afflnlLles' was
meanL Lo prevenL Lhe formaLlon of naLlonal grouplngs. ln Lhe early days of
Luropean lnLegraLlon, lL was broadly felL LhaL Lhe organlsaLlon of Lhe Common
Assembly ln naLlonal grouplngs was fundamenLally anLl-Luropean. lurLhermore,
Lhe depuLles Lhemselves dlscovered very soon LhaL Lhey had more ln common
wlLh Lhelr fellows from slsLer-parLles ln oLher LCSC/LC Member SLaLes Lhan wlLh
Lhelr co-naLlonals. ln any case, even Lhough a ChrlsLlan-uemocraLlc, a SoclallsL
and a Llberal grouplng were soon esLabllshed ln accordance wlLh Lhe crlLerlon of
pollLlcal persuaslon - Lhe Croups could sLlll be Lhe Je focto expresslon of a qulLe
broad, aL Llmes very broad, range of pollLlcal culLures and LradlLlons. An early
observer of Lhe Common Assembly descrlbes Lhem:

1be blqbest Jeqtee of oolfotmlty ls ooJoobteJly lo tbe 5oclollst qtoop,
wblcb, wltb ooe exceptloo, ls moJe op of tepteseototlves of tbe 5oclollst
pottles lo eocb of tbe membet 5totes. lot less bomoqeoelty exlsts lo tbe
cbtlstloo-uemoctotlc qtoop, wblcb combloes o mojotlty of komoo
cotbollcs wltb o mlootlty of ltotestoots. ocb of tbese qtoops
oevettbeless bos o cettolo boslc oolty of Jocttloe, l.e., tbe 5oclollst ooJ
cbtlstloo pbllosopbles tespectlvely. lo tbe llbetols ooJ oppoteots
qtoop, tbete coolJ obvloosly be oo Jeqtee of mooolltblc sttoctote
wbotsoevet j.] we bove beeo oooble to floJ ooy Jocttlool qtoooJs oo
wblcb to occooot fot tbe ooltloq of tbese Jlvetqeot teoJeocles lo o
polltlcol qtoop. (voo OoJeobove, 1965.27-28)

13
Accordlng Lo Lhe above sLaLemenL, Lhe Llberal (and supporLers) Croup had llLLle,
lf any, ldeologlcal afflnlLy, and lLs tolsoo J'tte was merely 'negaLlve': whoever
was unable Lo ldenLlfy wlLh a ChrlsLlan or a SoclallsL pollLlcal culLure converged
lnLo Lhe Llberal" grouplng. neverLheless, Lhe hlsLory of Lhe Luropean arllamenL
provldes us wlLh oLher - and far more sLrlklng - examples of pollLlcal Croups
whlch falled Lo meeL Lhe crlLerlon of pollLlcal afflnlLles. 1he 1echnlcal Croup for
Lhe uefence of lndependenL Members, consLlLuLed ln 1979 by Lhe lLallan radlcals
and small CommunlsL parLles, by Luro-scepLlc uanes and Lhe 8elglan and lrlsh
lndependenL depuLles, sLaLed ln lLs declaraLlon of consLlLuLlon LhaL: 'each
member of Lhe Croup keeps lLs own pollLlcal programme, lLs freedom of speech
and of voLlng boLh ln commlLLees and ln Lhe plenary.' 1he only concesslon Lo
pollLlcal afflnlLles was represenLed by Lhe facL LhaL membershlp of Lhe Croup was
'only' open Lo 'democraLs and anLl-fasclsLs'.
An even more noLorlous case regards Lhe 1echnlcal Croup for non-
ALLached Members - Mlxed Croup, seL up ln 1999 by depuLles of very dlverse
pollLlcal backgrounds, from Lhe lLallan 8adlcals Lo Le en's ltoot Notloool. 1hls
case represenLs a oolcom ln Lhe hlsLory of Lhe Luropean arllamenL because - for
Lhe flrsL (and only) Llme - Lhe arllamenL voLed for Lhe dlssoluLlon of Lhe Croup.
Cne mlghL wonder on whaL grounds was Lhe 1ul dlssolved - when Lhe L had
never challenged Lhe pollLlcal afflnlLles of any of lLs grouplngs before? 1he
answer ls LhaL Lhe 1999 case had no precedenL because Lhe Croup expllcltly
denled ln lLs consLlLuLlve declaraLlon Lhe pre-requlslLe of pollLlcal afflnlLles.
8ecause of Lhls expllclL denlal, Lhe arllamenL was compelled Lo Lake acLlon and
Lo speclfy more clearly wbeo a grouplng of depuLles ls oot a pollLlcal Croup. 1he
new pollLlcal Croups" arLlcle kepL lLs formal characLer ('arllamenL need noL
normally evaluaLe Lhe pollLlcal afflnlLy of members of a group') excepL when Lhe
Members of a Croup expllclLly deny Lhelr pollLlcal afflnlLles. ln shorL, lL was glven
a oeqotlve deflnlLlon of 'pollLlcal Croup', consldered Lo be 'a (sufflclenLly large)
seL of depuLles who do noL expllclLly refuLe pollLlcal afflnlLles among Lhemselves
when decldlng Lo form a Croup' (SeLLembrl, 2004:168).
1hus, desplLe Lhe formal pre-requlslLe of Lhe pollLlcal afflnlLles, Lhe
parllamenLary rules cannoL guaranLee LhaL Lhe Lrans-naLlonal grouplngs wlll
represenL coherenL pollLlcal culLures. Lach pollLlcal Croup deflnes lLs own
membershlp crlLerla by lLself, and lLs ldeologlcal homogenelLy (or heLerogenelLy)
wlll be Lhe resulL of pollLlcal cholces, raLher Lhan legal norms. 1hls ls why Lhls
chapLer presenLs an emplrlcal caLalogue of Lhe prlorlLles and Lhe pollcy poslLlons
of Lhe naLlonal parLles consLlLuLlng Lhe pollLlcal Croups ln Lhe vll
Lh
Luropean
arllamenL. 8efore movlng Lo Lhe presenLaLlon of Lhe daLa, Lhe nexL secLlon
ldenLlfles some poLenLlal sources of Lurmoll for Lhe programmaLlc coherence of
Lhe pollLlcal Croups.

1.1.2 arty fam|||es |n a chang|ng context
1he pollLlcal Croups and Lhe parLy sysLem ln Lhe Luropean arllamenL are based
respecLlvely upon Lhe parLles and Lhe parLy sysLems of Lhe Member SLaLes of Lhe
14
Lu. lL has been LradlLlonally emphaslsed LhaL an Lu parLy sysLem ls only feaslble
lf Lhe ma[or llnes of pollLlcal confllcL ln Lurope do noL colnclde wlLh Lhe naLlonal
borders, buL lnsLead cross-cuL naLlonal dlsLlncLlons (l.e., 1homassen, 2002). As
shown ln Lhe prevlous secLlon, wlLh reference Lo Lhe early days of Lhe Common
Assembly, Lhe LradlLlonal parLy famllles represenLed a more blndlng 'glue' for lLs
Members Lhan Lhelr naLlonal orlglns. ln oLher words, Lhey had more ln common
as SoclallsLs or ChrlsLlan-uemocraLs Lhan (say) as lrench or Cermans. 1hls ls
conslsLenL wlLh a readlng of Luropean pollLlcs based upon a few fundamenLal
soclal cleavages, whlch had been 'acLlvaLed' and lnLerpreLed by pollLlcal acLors ln
a roughly slmllar fashlon LhroughouL (WesLern) Lurope. 1he soclal cleavages -
beLween agrlculLure and labour, Lhe church and Lhe sLaLe, Lhe cenLre and Lhe
perlphery, Lhe lndusLrlal workers and Lhe owners of Lhe caplLal - 'produced'
compeLlng pollLlcal parLles, whlch could be grouped ln dlsLlncL parLy famllles
accordlng Lo Lhe soclal groups LhaL Lhey represenLed and Lhe baslc ldeologlcal
prlnclples Lo whlch Lhey subscrlbed. CuL of Lhe maln four cleavages orlglnally
ldenLlfled by LlpseL and 8okkan (1967), Lhe class cleavage has proven Lo be
parLlcularly lmporLanL for parLy compeLlLlon. lndeed, Lhe class cleavage -
LogeLher wlLh Lhe rellglous cleavage - has been subsumed ln a more general lefL-
rlghL dlmenslon, whlch normally represenLs Lhe foremosL reference for boLh
parLles and voLers.
A 'parLy famlly' readlng of pollLlcs ln Lhe Luropean arllamenL has been
successfully offered by several analysLs. lor lnsLance, on Lhe eve of dlrecL
elecLlons, lL was observed:

tbe tbtee qeooloely ttoosootloool qtoops - tbe 5oclollsts, tbe cbtlstloo-
uemoctots ooJ tbe llbetols - oll cootolo wlJe Jlvetqeoces of ottltoJe
ooJ ootlook j.] bot oltbooqb tbls ls ttoe, lt ls oot tbe wbole ttotb. 1bete
ote blq Jlffeteoces betweeo tbe Cetmoo, 8tltlsb ooJ lteocb soclollst
pottles j.] bot oo-ooe ls llkely to coofose nelmot 5cbmlJt ot wllly
8tooJt wltb Motqotet 1botcbet ot ClscotJ J'stoloq (MotpoooJ,
1978.444).

A decade laLer, LransnaLlonal parLy co-operaLlon aL LC level was sald Lo brlng
naLlonal parLles closer and closer LogeLher:

ot tbe level of potty lltes, ptoqtommes ote becomloq locteosloqly
slmllot, ooJ lt coooot be JeoleJ tbot tbe pottles ote movloq closet
toqetbet. veo wltboot exoqqetoteJ optlmlsm, lt coo be solJ tbot tbe
ptocess ls sttooq eoooqb to moke tbe closslflcotloo of tbe fomllle
spltltoelles less ptoblemotlcol oow tboo lt wos befote tbe 5ecooJ wotlJ
wot (voo 8eyme, 1985.1J7).

noneLheless, Lhere are sLrong reasons Lo belleve LhaL Lhe exerclse of ldenLlfylng
Lhe boundarles of Lhe LradlLlonal parLy famllles has recenLly become more
complex. WesLern Luropean parLy sysLems have wlLnessed Lhe emergence of
15
new dlvlslons whlch could noL be foreseen decades ago, such as Lhe pollLlclsaLlon
of Creen lssues, or LhaL of Lhe Luropean unlon. 8esldes Lhls, Lhe classlc parLy
famllles have also wlLnessed lmporLanL changes and adapLaLlons Lhrough Llme.
1he core values and prlnclples upon whlch Lhey have LradlLlonally cenLred are
ofLen sald Lo be wanlng. Lspeclally wlLh regard Lo Lhe mosL successful parLy
famllles, lL may prove Lo be more dlfflculL now, Lhan [usL a couple of decades
ago, Lo ldenLlfy Lhelr core seLs of values: Lhe speclallsed llLeraLure ofLen deplcLs
'caLch-all' people's parLles, 'carLel' parLles and 'elecLoral professlonal' parLles,
seeklng Lo saLlsfy Lhe shorL-Lerm demands of pragmaLlc voLers ln a conLexL of
growlng pollcy consensus (for example, kaLz, Malr, 1993). Accordlng Lo some
observers, Lhls Lrend has bocame fully evldenL ln Lhe posL-1989 world, when Lhe
'end of ldeologles' lefL pollLlcal parLles wlLh only a feaslble course of acLlon:
supporLlng llberal-markeL democracy. 1hus, lL ls a wldely-heard argumenL LhaL
Lhe concepLs of 'lefL' and 'rlghL' are less-meanlngful now and LhaL new caLegorles
are needed for Lhe fuLure.
8esldes Lhls, a readlng of Luropean pollLlcs ln Lerms of Lhe LradlLlonal
parLy famllles ls also challenged by Lhe conLlnuous enlargemenLs of Lhe Lu.
Whlle lL mlghL have been a relaLlvely easy Lask Lo brlng LogeLher Lhe SoclallsL or
Lhe ChrlsLlan-uemocraLlc parLles ln Lhe LC-6, Lhe pollLlcal Croups faced a much
more challenglng slLuaLlon on Lhe eve of Lhe far-ranglng expanslon Lo Lhe Len
young democracles of CenLral and LasLern Lurope (CLL), whlch enLered Lhe Lu
beLween May 2004 and !anuary 2007. lndeed, parLy famlly caLegorles appear Lo
be more lnadequaLe Lhe more Lhey are asked Lo Lravel beyond WesLern
Luropean boundarles (8enolL, Laver, 2006:133-143). AL Lhe Llme of Lhe 8lg
8ang" enlargemenL, Lhe parLy sysLems ln CenLral and LasLern Lurope were sLlll ln
a sLaLe of flux - wlLh parLles suddenly emerglng or dlsappearlng ln a conLexL of
very hlgh elecLoral volaLlllLy. Moreover, pollLlcal parLles used Lo explolL Lhe label
'llberal', even when Lhey had very llLLle, lf anyLhlng, Lo share wlLh Lhe llberal
famlly, some conservaLlve or popullsL parLles venLured Lo presenL Lhemselves as
ChrlsLlan-uemocraLs and Lhe Creens, wlLh a couple of mlnor excepLlons, were
pracLlcally absenL. Cn Lhe one hand, Lhls clearly suggesLs Lhe need Lo apply - wlLh
Lhe due care - LradlLlonal parLy famlly caLegorles Lo posL-communlsL sysLems. Cn
Lhe oLher hand, lL mlghL also hlghllghL a Lenslon for Lhe lnLegraLlon of CLL parLles
ln Lhe pollLlcal Croups, wlLh some rlsks for Lhe pollcy coherence of Lhe laLLer.

1.2 kLSLN1A1ICN CI 1nL DA1A

1he daLa used Lo sLudy Lhe ldeologlcal poslLlon and coheslon of Lhe pollLlcal
Croups orlglnaLe from Lwo maln sources. Slnce Lhe ob[ecLlve of Lhls chapLer ls Lo
map Lhe pollcy poslLlons of Lhe naLlonal parLles ln as many Member SLaLes as
posslble, we declded Lo compuLe - accordlng Lo well-esLabllshed Lechnlques -
some pollcy scales where naLlonal parLles could be usefully locaLed. Lven lf a
quallLaLlve analysls of a few selecLed parLles mlghL have casL more llghL on Lhe
subLleLles of pollLlcal rheLorlc, an exLenslve analysls of Lhe complex reallLy of Lhe
Luropean arllamenL (where 731 MLs, for abouL 170 naLlonal parLles, slL ln
16
seven pollLlcal Croups or as lndependenL) requlred Lhe use of quanLlLaLlve daLa
and some slmple sLaLlsLlcal Lechnlques. 1he daLa whlch we employed (descrlbed
ln more deLall boLh below and ln Lhe appendlx) orlglnaLe from Lhe codlng of Lhe
elecLlon manlfesLos lssued by naLlonal parLles for Lhe 2004 L elecLlons (Ml
Joto-set) and Lhe self-poslLlonlng of pollLlcal parLles (cross-checked and,
evenLually, modlfled by experLs) for Lhe 2009 Luropean arllamenL elecLlons (u
ltofllet).

1.2.1 Luroman|festo ro[ect
1he LuromanlfesLos ro[ecL (LM), based aL Lhe unlverslLy of Mannhelm ln
Cermany, applles quanLlLaLlve conLenL analysls Lo Lhe elecLlon manlfesLos lssued
by Lhe naLlonal and Lhe Luropean-level parLles for Lhe Luropean arllamenL
elecLlons. 1he LheoreLlcal and meLhodologlcal foundaLlons of Lhe LM lle ln Lhe
ComparaLlve ManlfesLos ro[ecL (CM), a long-lasLlng lnLernaLlonal endeavour,
whlch sysLemaLlcally collecLed and coded Lhe elecLlon manlfesLos lssued by Lhe
naLlonal pollLlcal parLles for Lhe naLlonal elecLlons ln Lhe posL-World War ll
perlod (for an exLenslve presenLaLlon, see 8udge et ol., 2001).
naLlonal (and Luropean-level) parLles also lssue elecLlon programmes for
Lhe Luropean arllamenL elecLlons: Lhe LM moved from Lhe ldea LhaL Lhese
manlfesLos, conveylng meanlngful lnformaLlon on Lhe pollLlcal prlorlLles and
poslLlons of Lhe parLles, could be coded followlng Lhe CM lnsLrucLlons. ln order
Lo capLure Lhelr Luropean conLenL, Lhe orlglnal codlng-scheme has been
marglnally modlfled: wlLhouL golng lnLo Lhe Lechnlcal deLalls here (buL see 8raun,
2006), lL ls sufflclenL Lo noLe LhaL several caLegorles and a new level have been
added Lo Lhe orlglnal codlng ln order Lo caLch Lhe parLy dlscourse concernlng
Luropean lnLegraLlon beLLer.
1he alm of quanLlLaLlve conLenL analysls ls Lo Lransform words lnLo
numbers. ln Lhe case of elecLlon manlfesLos, each quasl-senLence - whlch ls Lhe
unlL of analysls and can be undersLood as Lhe verbal expresslon of one pollLlcal
ldea or lssue - ls placed ln one of Lhe caLegorles deflned by Lhe orlglnal
dlcLlonary. 1hls dlcLlonary ls made up of 69 codlng caLegorles (peace, free
enLerprlse, etc.) grouped lnLo 7 pollcy domalns (exLernal relaLlons, economy,
etc.). LeL us lmaglne LhaL an elecLlon manlfesLo sLaLes: 'our parLy supporLs Lhe
lnLroducLlon of a Lax for Lhe goods lmporLed from Chlna.' 1hls (quasl-) senLence
ls coded under Lhe caLegory 'proLecLlonlsm: poslLlve' ln Lhe 'economy' domaln.
1he codlng ls repeaLed for each of Lhe (quasl-) senLences ln Lhe manlfesLo and -
aL Lhe end of Lhe work - Lhe whole LexL ls Lransformed lnLo numbers: whaL we
are lefL wlLh ls a Lable wlLh Lhe number of quasl-senLences falllng under each
codlng caLegory.
lrom Lhe lLems obLalned from Lhe manlfesLo codlng, a lefL-rlghL and an
anLl-pro Luropean lnLegraLlon scale can be compuLed. 1he compuLaLlon of Lhe
lefL-rlghL scale ls based upon a sllghLly modlfled verslon of Lhe CM scale (see
agaln 8udge et ol., 2001 and 8raun et ol., 2006), whlle Lhe Lu lnLegraLlon scale ls
made up from Lhe aggregaLlon of speclflc LMC caLegory beLween Lwo poles:
17
poslLlve and negaLlve references Lo Lhe Lu pollLy and pollcles (8raun, 2006 et
ol.).
llnally, lL ls worLh observlng LhaL very few parLles and, ln general, small
parLles, do noL lssue any manlfesLo for Lhe Luropean arllamenL elecLlons. ln Lhls
case, a subsLlLuLe for Lhe LuromanlfesLo has been searched for (for lnsLance Lhe
Luropean 'chapLer' of a correspondlng naLlonal plaLform, or a speech of Lhe
leader). ln oLher cases, lL mlghL also happen LhaL parLles adopL Lhe manlfesLo of
Lhe Luro-parLy where Lhey have membershlp. Powever, Lhe vasL ma[orlLy of
naLlonal parLles sLlll adopL Lhelr own manlfesLo for Lhe Luropean arllamenL
elecLlons.
1.2.2 LU rof||er
1he Lu rofller, based aL Lhe Luropean unlverslLy lnsLlLuLe (llorence) conveys
lnformaLlon boLh on voLers and on pollLlcal parLles. 1he rofller ls an elecLronlc
Lool by means of whlch voLers have Lhe posslblllLy Lo place Lhemselves ln a pollcy
space deLermlned by several dlmenslons and flnd ouL whlch pollLlcal parLy - boLh
ln Lhelr own counLry and LhroughouL Lhe Lu - ls closer Lo Lhelr own preferences.
1hls chapLer only uses Lhe Lu rofller daLa for pollLlcal parLles. Powever,
Lwo meLhodologlcal lssues are parLlcularly relevanL and need Lo be brlefly
dlscussed - flrsL, Lhe codlng of Lhe parLles. ollLlcal parLles were asked Lo answer
a quesLlonnalre made up of LhlrLy pollcy quesLlons. 1he self-placemenL of Lhe
parLles - asked Lo provlde emplrlcal evldence, such as manlfesLo exLracLs, leader
declaraLlons, lnLervlews, etc., Lo subsLanLlaLe Lhelr answers - was Lhen checked
by a group of counLry experLs, who compared Lhe parLy self-placemenL wlLh Lhelr
own lnformaLlon. 1he experLs, llke Lhe parLles, were asked Lo supporL Lhelr own
codlng wlLh documenLs and, among Lhe sources for Lhe codlng, Lhe prlmary role
was asslgned Lo Lhe parLy manlfesLo for Lhe L elecLlons. ln cases of dlscrepancy
beLween Lhe Lwo, Lhe experLs had Lhe flnal word. 1he second lssue concerns Lhe
selecLlon of Lhe quesLlons Lo be lncluded ln Lhe survey. AfLer careful analysls of
parLy dlscourse (based especlally upon parLy manlfesLos), LwenLy-elghL general
and Lwo counLry-speclflc quesLlons were grouped lnLo nlne pollcy flelds, whlch
represenL Lhe maln lssues for parLy compeLlLlon. CuL of Lhese grouplngs: a
general lefL-rlghL scale, an anLl-pro Lu scale and seven speclflc pollcy dlmenslons
were generaLed (see 1rechsel and Malr, 2009 and www.euprofller.eu)
1he Lu rofller daLa presenLs Lwo lmporLanL sLrengLhs. llrsL, Lhe Lool was
speclflcally deslgned for Lhe 2009 L elecLlons, Lhus provldlng Lhe mosL updaLed
evldence for parLy poslLlonlng and lssue prlorlLles. Second, Lhe daLa covers all
Member SLaLes ln Lhe Lu-27 and almosL all parLles represenLed ln Lhe vll
Lh

Luropean arllamenL (see Lhe appendlx).

1.3 LMIkICAL ANALSIS

We begln - drawlng on prevlous work (kllngemann et ol. 2007:28-30) - by
presenLlng Lhe Luro-manlfesLo daLa, whlch allow us Lo obLaln an overvlew of Lhe
18
lssue prlorlLles of Lhe pollLlcal Croups. 1able 1 shows whlch Lhemes are mosL
emphaslsed by naLlonal parLles ln Lhelr Luropean elecLlon manlfesLos. 1he
numbers ln Lhe Lable lndlcaLe Lhe conLenL code share belonglng Lo each lssue
caLegory: for lnsLance, 'mlllLary sLrengLh' lndlcaLes Lhe percenLage of Lhe
manlfesLo devoLed Lo mlllLary lssues (such as Lhe need Lo malnLaln or lncrease
mlllLary expendlLure, re-armamenL, Lhe need Lo creaLe an Lu army, etc.). Lach
number ln Lhe cells could Lhus vary from 0 (when Lhe parLy manlfesLo does noL
menLlon Lhe lssue aL all) Lo 100 (lf Lhe whole manlfesLo deals excluslvely wlLh Lhe
lssue). 1he grouplng of Lhe pollcy domalns (exLernal pollcles, consLlLuLlonal
affalrs, etc.) follows Lhe compeLences of Lhe L CommlLLees, whlle Lhe grouplng
of Lhe codlng caLegorles draws from kllngemann et ol. 2007, buL ls adapLed Lo
Lhe LM daLa. lL ls lmporLanL Lo sLress LhaL Lhe Lable slmply lndlcaLes Lhe
emphasls LhaL parLles asslgn Lo each pollcy caLegory (or, lf you wlsh, Lhe amounL
of LexL for each pollcy area): low enLrles do noL necessarlly lndlcaLe negaLlve
poslLlons.
Looklng aL Lhe enLrles ln 1able 1, Lhree maln observaLlons can be made.
llrsL, Lhe manlfesLos of Lhe naLlonal parLles grouplng ln Lhe L and Lhe S&u
malnly emphaslse Lhe same caLegorles. lor boLh pollLlcal Croups, Lhe mosL
'popular' lssue ls lnLernaLlonal co-operaLlon (lncludlng sLronger co-operaLlon ln
Lhe Lu). lL ls Lhen followed by poslLlve references Lo Lhe Lu lnsLlLuLlons (supporL
for a Luropean consLlLuLlon and poslLlve references Lo Lhe arllamenL and Lhe
Commlsslon), ranklng second for Lhe L and Lhlrd for Lhe S&u and, flnally, by
expanslon of Lhe welfare sLaLe (alLhough Lhe space devoLed Lo expandlng Lhe
welfare sLaLe ls almosL double ln Lhe S&u manlfesLos: 13.8 vetsos 7). lor Lhe
resL, Lhe L parLles devoLe more space Lo lssues of LradlLlonal morallLy (supporL
for a LradlLlonal famlly, rellglon, etc.) and Lo Lhe markeL economy. ln Lurn, Lhe
S&u parLles glve a more promlnenL role Lo Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe envlronmenL
and Lo sLaLe lnLervenLlon ln Lhe economy.
1he second observaLlon concerns Lhe ALuL and Lhe Lwo lefLlsL pollLlcal
Croups (Lhe Creens-LlA and Lhe CuL-nCL). Lven Lhough lnLernaLlonal co-
operaLlon sLlll ranks hlgh ln Lhelr lssue prlorlLles, each of Lhem asslgns a speclal
promlnence Lo a parLlcular pollcy caLegory. 1hus, Lhe ALuL Croup ls very
supporLlve of Lhe markeL economy (11.9), Lhe Creens-LlA parLles devoLe one-
fourLh of Lhelr manlfesLos Lo envlronmenLal proLecLlon (24), whlle Lhe CuL-
nCL demands a sLronger welfare sLaLe and supporLs an asserLlve role for Lhe
sLaLe ln Lhe economy. llnally, Lhe LC8 and Lhe Llu dlsLlngulsh Lhemselves wlLh a
markedly Luro-scepLlc rheLorlc: negaLlve references Lo Lhe Lu lnsLlLuLlons occupy
one-flfLh of Lhe LC8 manlfesLos and are ranked second ln Lhe hlerarchy of
prlorlLles of Lhe Llu, where Lhey are accompanled by a very pronounced
naLlonallsLlc appeal (30.3). 8oLh Croups devoLe much space Lo lnsLlLuLlonal
affalrs and supporL admlnlsLraLlve efflclency and sLrong execuLlves ln Lhe
Member SLaLes. lurLhermore, Lhe Llu puLs a parLlcular emphasls on Lhe lssue of
democracy, whlch becomes a crlLlque of Lhe anLl-democraLlc naLure of Lhe Lu,
and lL supporLs de-cenLrallsaLlon (opposlng cenLrallsaLlon aL Lu level).


19
1ab|e 1: ollLlcal Croup prlorlLles as revealed by Lhelr Luro-manlfesLos

L

S&u

ALuL

Creens-LlA

CuL-nCL

LC8

Llu

lnLernaLlonal Co-
operaLlon
12.7 (1) 14.3 (1) 92 (2) 8.3 (3) 7.8 (3) 3.3 1.8
MlllLary SLrengLh 3.8 1.4 1.6 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.3
eace 1.4 3.4 2.1 3.8 6.6 2.7 0.6
naLlonallsm 1.9 1.1 1.9 1.3 3.2 3.3 30.S (1)
Speclal 8elaLlons 1.7 0.7 1 0.3 1.4 3.2 0.1
LnlargemenLs 3.9 1.1 2.1 0.8 0.3 0.1 2
Const|tut|ona| Affa|rs
Lu oslLlve 10.2 (2) 8.1 (3) 3.7 8.2 3.8 6.3 2.8
Lu negaLlve 3.1 1.7 3.6 2.6 3.1 20.8 (1) 12.7 (2)
uemocracy 2.8 4.3 4.9 3.4 3.9 3.3 7.6
CovernmenL 3.3 4.9 2.7 1.6 2.7 11 (2) 8.2 (3)
uecenLrallzaLlon 4 2.4 4.1 3.4 3 1.4 S
C|v|| L|bert|es, Iust|ce &
nome Affa|rs

lreedom and P8 2.4 2.1 3.3 S.6 4 1.3 3
1radlLlonal MorallLy
&Crder
6.6 4.3 3.4 1 1.8 9.8 (3) 3.9
Lconom|c and Monetary
Affa|rs

MarkeL Lconomy 6.4 3.4 11.9 (1) 2.6 3.6 7.4 4.4
lanned/Mlxed Lconomy 1 1.3 1 1.1 7.9 (2) 1.6 1.3
Lconomlc lnfrasLrucLure 6 3.3 3.7 1.3 2 1.1 2
Soc|a| Affa|rs
Welfare SLaLe LlmlLaLlon 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0.4 0.1
Welfare SLaLe Lxpanslon 7 (3) 13.8 (2) 7.6 10.4 (2) 14.S (1) 1.6 1.2
Soclal Croup ollLlcs 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.3 0 0
Lnv|ronment
LnvlronmenLal roLecLlon 4.1 6.6 8.2 (3) 24 (1) 7.3 3.9 4.3
Agr|co|ture

AgrlculLure 3.1 2.3 3.6 3.7 2.1 S.9 0.3

Note: LnLrles are means of naLlonal parLles emphases ( senLences belonglng Lo each
caLegory) - welghLed per number of MLs per naLlonal parLy. ln bold Lhe hlghesL enLry
per row. 1he numbers ln parenLheses lndlcaLe Lhe Lhree mosL emphaslzed lssues per
pollLlcal Croup.
20
1hese daLa seem Lo lndlcaLe LhaL Lhe pollLlcal Croups are qulLe clearly
dlsLlngulshed accordlng Lo Lhe lssues Lhey prlorlLlse. ln economlc and soclal
affalrs, references ln favour of a markeL economy and - alLhough lL ls hardly
menLloned by parLles - for a llmlLaLlon of Lhe welfare sLaLe clearly separaLe Lhe
ALuL, Lhe LC8 and Lhe L (Lo Lhe rlghL) from Lhe oLher grouplngs (Lo Lhe lefL).
WlLh regard Lo Lhe supporL for Luropean lnLegraLlon, a dlvlde emerges beLween
Lhe LC8 and Lhe Llu (sLrongly opposed) vls--vls Lhe oLher pollLlcal grouplngs,
where poslLlve and negaLlve references Lo Lhe Lu lean Lowards Lhe poslLlve slde,
moderaLely so for Lhe CuL-nCL and convlnclngly so for Lhe oLher pollLlcal
Croups.
Pas Lhe enlargemenL Lowards CenLral and LasLern Lurope broughL any
change Lo Lhe above plcLure? uo Lhe parLles from Lhe posL-communlsL sysLems
make up a pollLlcally dlsLlncL sub-group? ln order Lo address Lhese quesLlons
(see, also, kllngemann, 2007: 29-32), 1able 2 dlsplays Lhe means of Lhe share of
Lhe manlfesLo senLences referrlng Lo Lhe usual pollcy domalns, grouplng Lhe
naLlonal parLles by reglon (wheLher Lhey are from Lhe 'Cld' Lu or from CenLral
and LasLern Lurope). 1he lasL column llsLs Lhe LoLal means LogeLher wlLh Lhe
resulLs of a sLaLlsLlcal (dlfference-of-means) LesL. lL can cerLalnly be observed
LhaL, ln Lhe ma[orlLy of caLegorles, Lhere are no lmporLanL dlfferences beLween
Lhe parLles from Lhe Lwo reglons. lf we llmlL our focus Lo Lhose caLegorles
hlghllghLed ln bold - Lhe mosL emphaslsed per pollcy domaln - CenLral and
LasLern Luropean parLles are slgnlflcanLly dlfferenL only ln 'LradlLlonal morallLy,
law and order' and for envlronmenLal lssues. 1he laLLer ls easlly explalned: Lhere
are almosL no Creen parLles ln our sample (and very few, ln general, ln CenLral
and LasLern Lurope). 1he dlfference ln Lhe former caLegory ls, lnsLead,
speclflcally due Lo Lhe facL LhaL mosL CLL parLles [olnlng Lhe L or Lhe LC8
Croup - for lnsLance, Lhe ollsh Law and !usLlce, Lhe LaLvlan eople's arLy, Lhe
LlLhuanlan new Lra or Lhe Slovaklan ChrlsLlan uemocraLlc MovemenL - puL a
very sLrong emphasls on Lhls caLegory, as no WesLern Luropean parLy does.
Looklng more broadly aL Lhe oLher caLegorles, slgnlflcanL dlfferences are
Lo be found ln Lhe emphasls on speclal relaLlonshlps" (ln CLL manlfesLos, a falrly
promlnenL place ls clearly occupled by Lhe relaLlonshlps wlLh 8ussla), on
economlc lnfrasLrucLure" (where CLL parLles predlcLably ralse Lhelr volce more
loudly) and on planned economy", whlch posL-communlsL counLrles - qulLe
undersLandably - Lend Lo downplay. Cverall, Lhe lmpacL of Lhe '8lg 8ang'
enlargemenL, albelL noL negllglble, appears Lo be llmlLed Lo a few well-dellneaLed
lssue areas.
ln order Lo presenL Lhe pollLlcal coheslon (or heLerogenelLy) of Lhe
pollLlcal Croups more accuraLely, Lhe pollcy poslLlons of Lhe naLlonal parLles
whlch recelved aL leasL one parllamenLary seaL ln Lhe 2009 Luropean arllamenL
elecLlons have been dlsplayed ln a bl-dlmenslonal space, ln whlch Lhe horlzonLal
axls represenLs Lhe lefL-rlghL poslLlon and Lhe verLlcal axls represenLs Lhe anLl-pro
Luropean lnLegraLlon poslLlon of Lhe parLles. 1he Lwo axes have been selecLed
for Lhelr relevance ln Luropean pollLlcs: several emplrlcal sLudles, based upon a
wlde-range of daLa and meLhods, have convlnclngly demonsLraLed LhaL Lhe lefL-
rlghL and Lhe lnLegraLlon dlmenslon consLlLuLe a parslmonlous buL falrly accuraLe
21
1ab|e 2: pollLlcal prlorlLles ln WesLern and LasLern Lurope

C|d Lurope
(93)
New Lurope
(31)
1ota|
(124)
!"#$%&'(
1. Lxterna| Affa|rs
lnLernaLlonal CooperaLlon 10 9.S 9.9
MlllLary ower 1.1 1.2 1.2
eace 3.3 2.7 3.3
naLlonallsm 3.2 4 3.4
Speclal 8elaLlons 0.9 2.4 1.3**
LnlargemenLs 1.8 0.6 1.3**
2. Const|tut|ona| Affa|rs
Lu poslLlve 7.8 6.3 7.S
Lu negaLlve 4.7 4.3 4.6
uemocracy 4.9 3.8 4.6**
uecenLrallzaLlon 4.4 3.1 4
CovernmenL 4.3 3.4 4.1
3. C|v|| L|bert|es, Iust|ce &
nome Affa|rs

lreedom and P8 3.2 2.6 3.1
1radlLlonal MorallLy, Law
& Crder
4.4 9.4 S.7**
4. Lconom|c and
Monetary Affa|rs

MarkeL Lconomy S.8 S.7 S.8
lanned/Mlxed Lconomy 2.3 1.1 2**
Lconomlc lnfrasLrucLure 3.7 3.8 4.2**
S. Soc|a| Affa|rs
Welfare SLaLe Lxpanslon 9.S 12.8 10.3
Soclal Croup ollLlcs 0.2 0.6 0.3
6. Lnv|ronment
LnvlronmenLal roLecLlon 8.6 4.3 7.S**
7. Agr|cu|ture
AgrlculLure 3 3.8 3.2

Note: LnLrles are welghLed means of naLlonal parLles emphases ( senLences
belonglng Lo each caLegory). ** slg. .01 (analysls of varlance, robusL esLlmaLes). ln
bold Lhe maln lssue per pollcy domaln.
22
Graph 1: 1he L, Lhe S&u and Lhe ALuL Croups ln a bl-dlmenslonal space












































Note: n(L)=32, n(S&u)=26, n(ALuL)=24. 1he long-dashed llnes are for Lhe
Luro-parLy manlfesLo, Lhe shorL-dashed llnes are for Lhe mean welghLed
poslLlon of Lhe naLlonal parLles represenLed ln Lhe Croup. Lach clrcle
represenLs a naLlonal parLy: Lhe blgger Lhe clrcle, Lhe larger lLs number of
MLs.
23
accuraLe represenLaLlon of Lhe Lu (and L) pollcy space (l.e., Plx et ol., 2007,
McLlroy, 8enolL, 2007).
ln Lhe scaLLer-ploLs (Craph 1 and Craph 2), Lhe shorL-dashed llne
graphlcally represenLs Lhe welghLed mean poslLlon of Lhe naLlonal parLles, Lhe
long-dashed llne deplcLs Lhe poslLlon of Lhe correspondlng Luro-parLy (when
presenL), whlle Lhe conLlnuous llne ls slmply Lhe mld-polnL of Lhe scale. Lach
Member SLaLe parLy ls represenLed by a clrcle. 1he blgger Lhe clrcle, Lhe more
MLs a parLy recelved ln Lhe 2009 L elecLlons. ln order Lo geL a measure of Lhe
pollcy poslLlon and of Lhe 'spread' of Lhe Croups, we have compuLed welghLed
means and sLandard devlaLlons (reporLed ln 1able 3). SLarLlng wlLh Lhe Croup of
Lhe Luropean eople's arLy, lL can be seen LhaL Lhe vasL ma[orlLy of lLs
consLlLuenL naLlonal parLles are ln Lhe Lop-rlghL quadranL (rlghL-of-Lhe-cenLre
poslLlon and pro- Luropean). 1he mean poslLlon of Lhe naLlonal parLles on Lhe
lefL-rlghL dlmenslon ls 12.9 whlle Lhe poslLlon on Luropean lnLegraLlon ls 11.3.
1he L appears Lo be more coheslve on Lhe Lu dlmenslon (sLandard devlaLlon
(sd) = 1.1) Lhan on Lhe lefL-rlghL axls (sd = 1.7).

ln Lhe graph, Lhls ls vlsually dlsplayed by Lhe more pronounced overlapplng of
Lhe clrcles around Lhe verLlcal mean Lhan around Lhe horlzonLal mean.
lurLhermore, Lhere are a few parLles on Lhe lefL-hand slde quadranL and oLhers
moderaLely crlLlcal of Lhe Lu. Leanlng more Lowards Lhe lefL-hand slde, we have
Lhe lLallan Sv (lndeed, conLesLlng Lhe elecLlons wlLh Lhe cenLre-lefL coallLlon ln
lLaly), Lhe llnnlsh naLlonal CoallLlon and Lhe 8elglan PumanlsLlc uemocraLlc
CenLre, whlle Lhe 8avarlan CSu and Lhe lLallan uuC lean more Lowards Lhe rlghL-
hand slde. 1he LaLvlan eople's arLy and a few oLher parLles grouped around
Lhe mld-polnL of Lhe scale seem, lnsLead, more crlLlcal Lowards Lhe Lu. lL should
also be noLed LhaL Lhe blg flve (Lhe Cerman Cuu, Lhe lLallan uL, Lhe lrench
uM, Lhe ollsh C and Lhe Spanlsh ) are all qulLe close ln Lhe pollcy space.
Movlng forward, Lhe S&u Croup occuples a cenLre-lefL poslLlon and ls ln
favour of Luropean lnLegraLlon. lLs componenL parLles are more coheslve on Lhe
anLl-pro Lu lnLegraLlon dlmenslon (sd = 0.6) Lhan on Lhe lefL-rlghL axls (sd = 1.4).
1he uk Labour arLy ls Lhe furLhesL Lo Lhe rlghL, whlle Lhe 8elglan, lrench-
speaklng, SoclallsLs occupy Lhe furLhesL lefL poslLlon. lL ls lnLeresLlng Lo noLe LhaL
Lhe Luro-parLy (LS) poslLlon on Lhe lefL-rlghL axls (9.9) ls falrly more cenLrlsL
Lhan Lhe naLlonal parLles' mean (9). llnally, Lhe ALuL Croup ls placed aL Lhe
cenLre of Lhe pollLlcal specLrum and lLs consLlLuenL parLles are pro-Luropean.
Pere, agaln, Lhere ls almosL double Lhe varlaLlon on soclo-economlc pollcles Lhan
on Lhe lnLegraLlon dlmenslon. Accordlng Lo Lhe manlfesLo esLlmaLes, only Lwo
parLles devlaLe markedly from Lhls cenLrlsL poslLlon: Lhe llemlsh Cpen vLu and
Lhe LsLonlan 8eform arLy, occupylng a rlghL-wlng poslLlon. 1he poslLlon of Lhe
LLu8 parLy (one of Lhe Lwo Luro-parLles represenLed ln Lhe ALuL Croup) almosL
colncldes wlLh Lhe mean poslLlon of Lhe naLlonal parLles.
Cverall, Lhese daLa lndlcaLe LhaL Lhe Lhree blgger pollLlcal Croups can
hardly be dlsLlngulshed from one anoLher and are all lnLernally coheslve on
Luropean lnLegraLlon. A wlder range of poslLlons ls represenLed on Lhe lefL-rlghL
specLrum, where Lhe pollLlcal Croups are lnLernally more heLerogeneous, buL
24
Lhelr respecLlve poslLlons are also qulLe dlsLlncL: Lhe L occuples a cenLre-rlghL
poslLlon, Lhe ALuL ls flrmly aL Lhe cenLre and Lhe S&u lles aL Lhe cenLre-lefL of Lhe
pollcy space.
1he poslLlons concernlng Lhe oLher Croups are dlsplayed ln Craph 2. ln
llne wlLh convenLlonal descrlpLlons of Lhe L pollcy space, Lhe Creens-LlA and
Lhe CuL-nCL are locaLed on Lhe lefL-hand slde, whlle Lhe ConservaLlves (LC8) on
Lhe rlghL-hand slde of Lhe specLrum. 1he Lurope of lreedom and uemocracy
Croup (Llu) occuples a rlghL-wlng poslLlon - even lf one of lLs maln consLlLuenL
parLles, Lhe lLallan norLhern League (leqo NotJ), ls placed on Lhe lefL by lLs
manlfesLo daLa regardlng economlc pollcy, where Lhe sLaLe plays an acLlve role.
8oLh Lhe Creens and Lhe CommunlsL parLles are falrly dlspersed on soclo-
economlc pollcy, buL Lhe blggesL consLlLuenL parLles are flrmly on Lhe lefL-hand
slde. 1he LC8 Croup ls remarkably coheslve on Lhe Lwo dlmenslons (sd = 0.8) and
lLs member parLles are all ln Lhe boLLom-rlghL quadranL (rlghL-wlng and Luro-
scepLlc). Powever, lL ls Lhe Llu Croup LhaL has Lhe mosL crlLlcal vlews Lowards
Luropean lnLegraLlon (no parLy ln our sample ls as opposed Lo Luropean
lnLegraLlon as Lhe uk lndependence arLy).
lf a Lwo-dlmenslonal dlsplay allows for a synLheLlc and falrly accuraLe
represenLaLlon of Lhe Lu pollcy space, lL ls also Lrue LhaL Lhe real pollcy spaces
where parLles compeLe are hlghly mulLldlmenslonal. noneLheless, emplrlcal
analyses need Lo cope wlLh a Lrade-off: a mono or bl-dlmenslonal space ls
parslmonlous and slmple, buL, aL Llmes, lnsufflclenL Lo grasp Lhe complexlLy of
Lhe pollLlcal world, ln Lurn, a mulLl-dlmenslonal space could beLLer represenL
reallLy, buL furLher problems could arlse ln lnLerpreLaLlon (for example, Laver,
PunL, 1992:11-13). ln Lhls chapLer, raLher Lhan Laklng sldes ln Lhls debaLe, we
declded Lo explore boLh paLhs.
Pavlng already presenLed Lhe LM daLa ln a bl-dlmenslonal conLexL, we
now Lurn Lo a mulLl-dlmenslonal space, by maklng use of Lhe Lu rofller daLa.
1he Lu rofller Leam has compuLed seven pollcy scales ouL of Lhe LhlrLy lLems of
Lhe quesLlonnalre submlLLed Lo pollLlcal parLles, wlLh reference Lo: llberal socleLy,
Lhe expanded welfare sLaLe, economlc llberallsaLlon, resLrlcLlve flnanclal pollcy,
law and order, resLrlcLlve lmmlgraLlon pollcy and envlronmenLal proLecLlon. As
we have already underllned, Lhey were carefully selecLed by Lhe Lu rofller
researchers afLer an examlnaLlon of parLy dlscourse and prlorlLles. 1able 4
reporLs Lhe means of Lhe pollLlcal Croups LogeLher wlLh Lhelr sLandard devlaLlons
Lo measure Lhe Croup coheslon on Lhe speclfled dlmenslon. Also, ln order Lo
offer a qulcker appreclaLlon of Lhe pollcy spaces occupled by Lhe L pollLlcal
Croups, splder graphs are dlsplayed (Craph 3). ln a splder graph, each splke
represenLs a pollcy dlmenslon, whlle Lhe area obLalned by connecLlng Lhe
poslLlons of Lhe Croups on each dlmenslon deplcLs Lhe pollcy space LhaL each
pollLlcal Croup occuples.



25
Graph 2: 1he smaller Croups ln a bl-dlmenslonal space

Note: n(C-LlA)=13, n(CuL-nCL)=14, n(LC8)=7, n(Llu)=6. 1he long-dashed llnes are for Lhe Luro-
parLy manlfesLo, Lhe shorL-dashed llnes are for Lhe mean welghLed poslLlon of Lhe naLlonal
parLles represenLed ln Lhe Croup.

1ab|e 3: Lhe pollLlcal Croups on Lhe lefL-rlghL and anLl-pro Lu lnLegraLlon scales
*+,-./%01- 2&-%.34" 56
naLlonal parLles (sd) oto-potty naLlonal parLles (sd) oto-potty
L 12.9 (1.7) 1J.7 11.3 (1.1) 11.8
S&u 9 (1.4) 9.9 12 (0.6) 11.J
ALuL 10.2 (1.7) 10.4 11.6 (0.9) 11.6
Creens-LlA 3.6 (1.2) 4.7 10.3 (0.7) 10.8
CuL-nCL 4.3 (2) - 9.3 (1.1) -
LC8 12.9 (0.8) - 7.8 (0.8) -
Llu 11.1 (2.6) - 4 (4) -
Note: enLrles ln Lhe column naLlonal parLles" are welghLed means (sLandard devlaLlons)

26
1ab|e 4: pollcy poslLlon and coheslon of Lhe pollLlcal Croups on seven pollcy scales
L
(39)
S&u
(28)
ALuL
(26)
Creens-LlA
(21)
CuL-nCL
(16)
LC8
(8)
Llu
(6)

*%7+4$8 9":%+-; 3.4
(2.3)
12.8
(2.6)
11.5
(3.6)
17.7
(2.1)
16.3
(2.2)
9.7
(S.1)
7.7
(4.7)
5:"&"#%:
*%7+4$8%<$-%"&
10.3
(2.3)
4.8
(2.1)
10.1
(4.4)
3.1
(1.8)
4.3
(3.2)
10.7
(2.7)
13.4
(S)
/+'-4%:-%=+ ,%&$&:%$8
>"8%:;
10
(2.6)
4.8
(2.2)
10.6
(4)
3.9
(2.2)
3.3
(3.3)
10.3
(4.4)
13.2
(S.S)
*$? $&@ "4@+4 16
(3)
8.6
(3.1)
9.7
(3.6)
2
(2.9)
3.3
(4.1)
12.J
(4.6)
14.8
(4.6)
/+'-4%:-%=+ %##%04$-%"&
>"8%:;
12.3
(4.4)
7.9
(3.7)
9.1
(4.2)
3.7
(2.8)
6.8
(4.S)
7.4
(4.9)
16.9
(2)
5&=%4"&#+&-$8
>4"-+:-%"&
9.1
(4.S)
13.2
(3.7)
10.7
(6.6)
17.4
(3)
16.2
(3)
9.6
(3.4)
3.3
(4.1)
5A>$&@+@ B+8,$4+
9-$-+
10
(3.9)
16.9
(2.7)
10.7
(S.3)
17.6
(2.7)
19
(3.3)
11.3
(2.3)
8
(S.6)

Note: enLrles are welghLed means, sLandard devlaLlons ln parenLheses. under Lhe name
of Lhe Croup, ln parenLheses, Lhe number of cases. ln bold sd > 4.3

8efore looklng aL Lhe splder graphs, leL us focus on Lhe dlsperslon of Lhe naLlonal
parLles. 1able 4 hlghllghLs, ln bold, Lhe sLandard devlaLlons wlLh parLlcularly hlgh
values. Clearly, wlLh hlgh sLandard devlaLlons, Lhe naLlonal parLy members of a
Croup occupy a broad range of poslLlons on Lhe selecLed dlmenslon. Among Lhe
pollLlcal Croups, Lhe S&u and Lhe Creens appear Lo be Lhe mosL coherenL. Cn
Lhe oLher hand, boLh Lhe LC8 and, ln parLlcular, Lhe Llu appear Lo be, lnsLead,
Lhe expresslon of a wlde range of poslLlons. lor lnsLance, Lhe parLles ln Lhe LC8
have very dlverse oplnlons on 'law and order' (lndlcaLlng harsher punlshmenLs
for crlmlnals and resLrlcLlon of clvll llberLles Lo flghL Lerrorlsm) and 'resLrlcLlve
lmmlgraLlon pollcy'. Powever, Lhe Llu ls by far Lhe mosL heLerogeneous pollLlcal
Croup, wlLh lLs componenL parLles broadly dlfferlng ln almosL all Lhe dlmenslons
- and only agreelng upon Lhe need for a resLrlcLlve lmmlgraLlon pollcy.
As lL has already been polnLed ouL by looklng aL Lhe LM daLa, Lhe
coheslon of Lhe S&u sLands ouL among Lhe blggesL pollLlcal Croups, whlle Lhe
L appears qulLe dlvlded on envlronmenLal proLecLlon (Lo be more preclse, on
Lhe need Lo prlorlLlse Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe envlronmenL over oLher economlc
goals) and on lmmlgraLlon pollcles. 1he ALuL parLles dlsplay a very pronounced
varlaLlon on envlronmenLal proLecLlon (sd = 6.6) and on welfare expanslon (for
example, on Lhe need Lo lncrease soclal programmes, healLhcare servlces and
creches), as was, ln any case, easlly predlcLable, glven Lhe LradlLlonal dlsLlncLlon
beLween soclal (lefL-wlng) and markeL (rlghL-wlng) llberallsm.



27
Graph 3: Splders (Lu rofller)


a) Lhe L, Lhe ALuL and Lhe S&u Croups



28

b) Lhe smaller pollLlcal Croups



Note: Lhe seven dlmenslons are: 'Llb Soc' - llberal socleLy, 'Lco Llb' - economlc
llberallsaLlon, 'llnanclal' - testtlctlve flnanclal pollcy, 'Law' - law and order,
'lmmlgraLlon'- testtlctlve lmmlgraLlon pollcy, 'Lnvl' - envlronmenLal proLecLlon, 'Wel' -
expooJeJ welfare sLaLe. 1he hlgher Lhe value on a dlmenslon, Lhe sLronger Lhe
agreemenL of Lhe Croup on Lhe pollcles expressed by Lhe speclfled dlmenslon.

1he splder graphs are a very effecLlve way of looklng aL Lhe pollcy
poslLlons and aL Lhe pollcy dlfferences beLween Lhe pollLlcal Croups. As can easlly
be seen ln Lhe graph below, Lhe polygon, dellneaLed by Lhe naLlonal parLy
poslLlons on Lhe seven dlmenslons, occuples an area sLreLchlng Lowards Lhe
upper-lefL corner for Lhe S&u, Lhe Creens-LlA and Lhe CuL-nCL, an area
sLreLchlng Lowards Lhe boLLom-rlghL corner for Lhe L, Lhe Llu and (less so) Lhe
LC8 and, flnally, an area dellneaLed by Lhe mld-polnL of Lhe scales ln Lhe case of
Lhe ALuL.
29
ln more deLall, Lhe Creens-LlA and Lhe CuL-nCL occupy a very slmllar
(almosL ldenLlcal) pollcy space, whlle Lhe S&u Croup also ranks hlgh on boLh
envlronmenLal proLecLlon and Lhe need for furLher welfare proLecLlon. Powever,
lL ls less ln favour (albelL sLlll over Lhe mld-polnL of Lhe scale) of pollcles for Lhe
recognlLlon of same sex marrlages, Lhe legallsaLlon of euLhanasla and Lhe de-
crlmlnallsaLlon of sofL drugs (grouped under soclal llberallsm").
1he ALuL, slmllarly Lo whaL we observed for Lhe LuromanlfesLo daLa,
neaLly separaLes Lhe lefL from Lhe rlghL, occupylng Lhe mld-polnL ln almosL all
scales. Cn economlc pollcles, Lhe ALuL ls hardly dlsLlngulshable from Lhe L or
Lhe LC8. 1hey are, lnsLead, dlsLlncL ln Lhe 'law and order' dlmenslon (boLh Lhe
L and Lhe LC8 are for Lougher measures agalnsL crlmlnals and LoleraLe some
resLrlcLlons of clvll llberLles ln Lhe flghL agalnsL Lerrorlsm) and on lmmlgraLlon
(where Lhe LC8 ls, overall, less resLrlcLlve). 1he Llu resembles Lhe L wlLh 'law
and order', buL lL supporLs more resLrlcLlve lmmlgraLlon pollcles and ls more ln
favour of a neo-llberal economlc agenda, albelL, as we emphaslsed ln Lhe
prevlous secLlon, wlLh a very wlde varlaLlon of poslLlons among lLs consLlLuLlve
parLles.


CCNCLUDING kLMAkkS

1hls chapLer has sLudled Lhe pollcy poslLlons and Lhe ldeologlcal coherence of Lhe
pollLlcal Croups as Lhey were consLlLuLed afLer Lhe 2009 Luropean arllamenL
elecLlons. 1he analysls began wlLh an assessmenL of Lhe provlslon - conLalned ln
Lhe Chamber 8ules of rocedures slnce 1938 - LhaL pollLlcal Croups have Lo be
formed accordlng Lo Lhelr 'pollLlcal afflnlLles'. lL has been shown LhaL Lhls
dlsposlLlon ls formal and lL ls only appllcable when a pollLlcal Croup expllclLly
refuses Lo acknowledge LhaL lL resLs on some (even loose) ldeologlcal bases. A
Croup 'pollLlcal afflnlLy' ls Lhe resulL of pollLlcal cholces, raLher Lhan legal
requlremenLs: Croups remaln free Lo seL Lhelr own condlLlons for membershlp.
1hus, an appreclaLlon of Lhe coheslon of Lhe pollLlcal Croups cannoL buL be made
emplrlcally. 1hls chapLer has soughL Lo do so by relylng on Lwo dlfferenL daLa
sources: Lhe LuromanlfesLos lssued by naLlonal parLles for Lhe Luropean
arllamenL elecLlons and Lhe self-placemenL of parLles on some well-known
pollcy dlmenslons. 1he alm of Lhe emplrlcal analysls was based upon mapplng
Lhe lssue prlorlLles and Lhe poslLlons of Lhe pollLlcal Croups LogeLher wlLh Lhe
varlaLlons among Lhelr consLlLuenL naLlonal parLles.
lollowlng a LradlLlonal readlng of Luropean parLy pollLlcs, as based upon a
small number of well deflned parLy famllles wlLh core values and ldenLlLles, Lhe
flndlngs have shown LhaL Lhe pollLlcal Croups (or, Lo be more preclse, Lhe
naLlonal parLles LhaL make Lhem up) emphaslse 'Lhelr own' lssues, and, ln Lhls
sense, are dlsLlngulshable from one anoLher. ln oLher words, Lhere are lnLer-
parLy dlfferences. 1he llberal ALuL placed lLs sLrongesL emphasls on Lhe markeL
economy, Lhe Creens on envlronmenL, Lhe CommunlsL CuL-nCL on welfare sLaLe
30
expanslon, Lhe conservaLlve LC8 on law and order, and Lhe Llu on Luro-
scepLlclsm and resLrlcLlve lmmlgraLlon pollcles. lrom Lhe LuromanlfesLos, lL was
more dlfflculL Lo appreclaLe Lhe dlfferences ln prlorlLles beLween Lhe ChrlsLlan-
uemocraLlc (conservaLlve) L and Lhe Soclal-uemocraLs. neverLheless, Lhe Lu
rofller daLa clearly emphaslsed LhaL Lhe S&u supporLs llberal socleLy and a
sLronger welfare sLaLe, whlle Lhe L ls ln favour of a more markeL-drlven
economlc pollcy comblned wlLh a more LradlLlonal orlenLaLlon Lowards soclal-
llberal lssues. lurLhermore, desplLe all Lhe warnlngs whlch accompanled Lhe '8lg
8ang' enlargemenL Lowards CenLral and LasLern Lurope, lLs lmpacL on Lhe
coheslon and Lhe pollcy agenda of Lhe pollLlcal Croups has been moderaLe. CLL
parLles have some dlsLlncL prlorlLles (especlally ln forelgn and economlc pollcles)
buL, overall, Lhey are far from consLlLuLlng a separaLe sub-group. 1o re-lLeraLe
Lhe Lu moLLo for Lhe pollLlcal Croups, lL could be argued LhaL, even ln Lhe Lu-27,
Lhey are sLlll unlLed ln ulverslLy", wlLh very dlverse Member SLaLe parLles ln
Lerms of Lhelr naLlonal orlgln, whlch are, noneLheless, unlLed ln Lerms of Lhelr
pollcy preferences.
1he analysls conducLed for each pollLlcal Croup has revealed some
lnLeresLlng aspecLs, lncludlng qulLe sLrong lnLernal coheslon wlLhln each Croup.
1here are excepLlons, of course, and Lhe coheslon does noL apply Lo every lssue
area, buL Lhe foundaLlons for coherenL LransnaLlonal parLles are clearly
ldenLlflable. 1he L occuples a rlghL-of-Lhe-cenLre pollcy space - wlLh a poslLlon
on soclo-economlc pollcles slmllar Lo LhaL of Lhe LC8. 1hls analysls conflrms Lhe
shlfLlng Lowards Lhe conservaLlve pole of Lhe former ChrlsLlan-uemocraLlc Croup
- even Lhough some of lLs consLlLuLlve parLles sLlll sLlck Lo a cenLre, lf noL sllghLly
lefLlsL, poslLlon. Powever, Lhe poslLlon of Lhe L Lowards Luropean lnLegraLlon
ls flrmly supporLlve, whlle Lhe LC8 ls flrmly Luro-scepLlcal (or, as Lhey prefer,
Luro-reallsL"). 1he lmpllcaLlon of Lhls flndlng ls LhaL Lhe separaLlon beLween Lhe
L and lLs former Lu componenL (lncludlng Lhe uk ConservaLlves) has enhanced
Lhe coheslon of Lhe L on Lhls lmporLanL dlmenslon. 1he SoclallsLs (S&u Croup)
are Lhe mosL coheslve of Lhe Lhree 'hlsLorlcal' pollLlcal Croups: Lhls flndlng ls
conflrmed boLh by Lhe ManlfesLo and Lhe rofller daLa. 1he classlc llLeraLure on
Lhe L Croups has LradlLlonally emphaslsed Lhe relaLlve ldeologlcal homogenelLy
of Lhe SoclallsLs on soclo-economlc pollcles. Powever, Lhe S&u ls currenLly a very
unlfled Croup also ln Lerms of lLs supporL for Lhe Luropean lnLegraLlon pro[ecL.
1he Llmes when lL was found Lo be more dlvlded over Lhe Lu Lhan on lefL-rlghL
pollcles (Plx, Lord, 1997:18) seem Lo be deflnlLely over. llnally, Lhe ALuL Croup ls
cerLalnly unlLed on lLs supporL for Luropean lnLegraLlon, alLhough lL ls more
varled ln soclo-economlc pollcles. lndeed, Lhls ls a classlc problem for llberal
parLles, whlch are LradlLlonally dlvlded lnLo a lefL-wlng and a rlghL-wlng group.
lurLhermore, all daLa unamblguously show LhaL Lhe ALuL ls occupylng Lhe cenLre
of Lhe pollcy specLrum and lLs maln compeLlLors for Lhls lmporLanL poslLlon
appear, aL presenL, Lo be Lhe Soclal-uemocraLs, raLher Lhan Lhe L.
lor Lhe oLher pollLlcal Croups, Lhe plcLure ls also clear: on Lhe lefL, Lhe
Creens-LlA has adopLed a pro-Luropean poslLlon (wlLh llLLle varlaLlon among lLs
parLles), whlle Lhe CuL-nCL ls more crlLlcal of, buL noL ouLrlghL opposed Lo, Lhe
Lu. Cn Lhe rlghL, Lhe LC8 and Lhe Llu are Lhe sLrongesL opponenLs of Lhe
Luropean pro[ecL. lurLhermore, all daLa showed LhaL Lhe laLLer pollLlcal Croup ls
31
Lhe leasL coherenL ln pollcy Lerms, wlLh very dlverse preferences among lLs
naLlonal parLles on speclflc pollcy lssues as well as on Lhe lefL-rlghL scale.
Cn a more general level, Lhese flndlngs are reasonably favourable for Lhe
prospecLs of Lu democracy. 1he maln pollLlcal Croups have coheslve and well-
ldenLlflable poslLlons on lefL-rlghL pollcles. Among Lhe smallesL pollLlcal Croups,
only Lhe Llu shows a clear lack of ldeologlcal coheslon on Lhe soclo-economlc
dlmenslon, buL, wlLh all Lhe evldence, lL ls unlLed by lLs sLrong anLl-Lu
perspecLlve. ollLlcal Croups can Lhen LranslaLe Lhls relaLlve homogenelLy lnLo a
concreLe leglslaLlve agenda whlch, ln Lhe posL-Llsbon conLexL and wlLh Lhe
exLenslon of co-declslon, has become more lmporLanL. ollLlcal Croups, wlLh Lhe
help of Lhelr assoclaLed Luro-parLles, should become capable of effecLlvely
proposlng Lhelr manlfesLos and worklng programmes Lo Lhe Luropean voLers, Lo
confronL Lhem wlLh a cholce among Lhe alLernaLlves. ln order Lo faclllLaLe Lhls
developmenL, some lnsLlLuLlonal and organlsaLlonal reforms mlghL be suggesLed,
as oLher chapLers ln Lhls reporL wlll address.
































32
key 5ommoty

lor Lhe prospecL of Lhe Lu democracy, homogeneous pollLlcal groups are cruclal
ln provldlng Lhe Luropean voLers wlLh a meanlngful programmaLlc supply,

1he requlremenL of pollLlcal afflnlLles" Lo form a Croup ls a necessary buL noL
sufflclenL condlLlon Lo guaranLee LhaL Lhe LransnaLlonal grouplngs wlll represenL
coherenL pollLlcal culLures,

1he lmpacL of Lhe 8lg 8ang" enlargemenL on Lhe coheslon and Lhe pollcy agenda
of Lhe ollLlcal Croups has been qulLe llmlLed,

1he maln pollLlcal Croups have coheslve and well-deLecLable poslLlons on lefL-
rlghL pollcles, whlle among Lhe smaller Croups only Lhe Llu reveals a lack of
ldeologlcal afflnlLy,

































33
Append|x: Ana|ys|s of |deo|og|ca| cohes|on
A. naLlonal parLles lncluded ln Lhe analysls of ldeologlcal coheslon (LM daLa-seL)

Group of the Luropean eop|e's arty

ID Country arty No. Seats Data Left-k|ght Ant|-ro LU
1 Cermany Cuu 34 2004 14.3 11.2
2 Cermany CSu 8 2004 13.9 9.7
3 lrance uM 29 1999 10.9 12.6
4 lLaly uL (ll) 28 2004 13.3 11.4
3 lLaly uuC 3 2004 13.6 9.3
6 lLaly Sv 1 2004 8.1 11.1
7 oland C 23 2004 13.6 12.8
8 Spaln 23 2004 14.2 11.6
9 Pungary lluLSZ 14 2004 12.8 10.1
10 orLugal Su/CuS- 10 2004 10.3 11.1
11 Creece nu 8 2004 10.9 11.4
12 AusLrla Cv 6 2004 13.1 14.3
13 neLherlands CuA 3 2004 12.3 12.6
14 Sweden MS 3 2004 14.1 11
13 Sweden ku 1 2004 10.8 11.4
16 Slovakla SMk 4 2004 9.8 11.6
17 Slovakla kuP 2 2004 13.3 10.1
18 llnland kk 4 2004 7.9 11
19 lreland llne Cael 4 2004 10.2 12.2
20 LlLhuanla 1S-Lk 4 2004 13 9.3
21 8elglum Cu&v 3 2004 12 12.7
22 8elglum CuP 1 2004 8.8 12.4
23 Luxembourg CSv 3 2004 13.3 12.1
24 Czech 8ep kuu-CSL 2 2004 13 11.8
23 Cyprus ulS? 2 2004 11.7 11.8
26 LaLvla !L 2 2004 10.1 11.6
27 LaLvla 1 1 2004 12.8 7.3
28 MalLa n 2 2004 12.3 11.7
29 Slovenla SuS 2 2004 12.3 11.3
30 Slovenla nSl 2 2004 13.3 10
31 uenmark kl 1 2001 11.9 12.1
32 LsLonla lL 1 2004 12.3 9.7
n (parLles) = 32, 1oLal seaLs = 243, Coverage MLs = 243/263 = 91.7, Coverage SLaLes = 24/26 = 92.3
34
Soc|a||sts and Democrats

ID Country arty No. Seats Data Left-k|ght Ant|-ro LU
33 Cermany Su 23 2004 8.3 11.9
34 lLaly u 21 2004 8.3 11.3
33 Spaln SCL-SC 21 2004 8.6 12.3
36 lrance S 14 2004 10.9 12.2
37 uk Labour 13 2004 12.1 12.7
38 Creece ASCk 8 2004 8.7 11.9
39 Czech 8ep CSSu 7 2004 10.2 12.8
40 olonla SLu-u 7 2004 7.6 12.3
41 orLugal S 7 1999 10 12.8
42 Slovakla Smer 3 2004 8.3 11.3
43 Sweden Sdap 3 2004 7.1 10.9
44 AusLrla Spo 4 2004 9.1 11
43 uenmark Su 4 2004 7.4 11.6
46 Pungary MSZ 4 2004 11.6 12.3
47 8elglum S 3 2004 6.3 11.6
48 8elglum SA 2 2004 7.1 11.2
49 lreland L 3 2004 8.1 11.3
30 LlLhuanla LSu 3 2004 8.6 9.6
31 MalLa L 3 2004 9.9 11.3
32 neLherlands vuA 3 2004 8.6 11.7
33 llnland Su 2 2004 7.1 10.9
34 Slovenla ZLSu 2 2004 9.3 12.2
33 LsLonla SuL 1 2004 6.3 11.4
36 Luxembourg LSA 1 2004 9.2 12.8

n (parLles) = 24
1oLal seaLs = 166
Coverage MLs = 166/184 = 90
Coverage SLaLes = 23/27 = 83




35
A|||ance of L|bera|s and Democrats for Lurope

ID Country arty No. Seats Data Left-k|ght Ant|-ro LU
37 Cermany lu 12 1999 12 11.8
38 uk Llb 11 2004 10.3 11.2
39 lLaly ulleLro 7 2001 7.9 12.4
60 lrance Mouem 6 2004 10.3 12.7
61 8elglum vLu 3 2004 14.9 9.9
62 8elglum M8 2 2004 10.4 10.3
63 uenmark vensLre 3 2004 10.8 12.7
64 llnland kesk 3 2004 8.2 11.6
63 llnland Sl 1 2004 7.8 12.2
66 lreland llanna lall 3 2004 8.7 11.2
67 neLherlands u-66 3 2004 8.6 11.6
68 neLherlands vvu 3 2004 10.4 11.6
69 Sweden l 3 2004 9.7 11.3
70 Sweden CenLer 1 2004 8.9 11
71 LsLonla k 2 2004 9.8 11.3
72 LsLonla L8 1 2004 14.7 11.3
73 LaLvla LC 1 2004 9.3 10
74 LlLhuanla u 1 2004 10.1 10.8
73 LlLhuanla LCS 1 2004 9.3 11.1
76 Luxembourg u u 1 2004 10.3 11.2
77 Slovenla LuS 1 2004 9.3 12
78 Spaln Clu 1 2004 7.8 10.7
79 Spaln nv 1 2004 8.7 10.4
80 Cyprus u?kC 1 2004 11.1 12.3

1oLal arLles = 24
1oLal seaLs = 72
Coverage MLs = 72/84 = 86
Coverage SLaLes = 17/ 18 = 94







36

Greens-LIA

ID Country arty No. Seats Data Left-k|ght Ant|-ro LU
81 Cermany ule Crunen 14 2004 4.7 10.8
82 lrance Lurope
Lcologle
14 1999 3 10.9
83 neLherlands CL 3 2004 6.9 11
84 AusLrla ule Crunen 2 1999 4.8 10.4
83 8elglum Lcolo 2 2004 7.8 10.2
86 8elglum Croen! 1 2004 7.8 10.2
87 uenmark Sl 2 2004 3 9.7
88 llnland vlhreaL 2 2004 6.9 10.3
89 Sweden MC 2 2004 7 8.2
90 uk Creens 2 2004 3.4 9.4
91 uk C 1 2004 6.4 11
92 uk Sn 1 2004 9.4 10.2
93 LaLvla LC 1 2004 8.3 9.2
94 Luxembourg uC 1 2004 4.7 10.8
93 Spaln verdes 1 2004 4.7 10.8

1oLal arLles = 13
1oLal SeaLs = 49
Coverage MLs = 49/33 = 89.1
Coverage CounLrles = 12/14 = 83.7



37
GUL-NGL

ID Country arty No. Seats Data Left-k|ght Ant|-ro LU
96 Cermany Llnke 7 2004 4.9 10.4
97 lrance Cauche 3 2004 2.3 9.2
98 Czech 8ep kSCM 4 2004 3.8 10.2
99 Cyprus AkLL 2 2004 7.1 9.9
100 Creece kkL 2 2004 3.2 8.1
101 Creece S?8 1 2004 8.3 9.9
102 neLherlands S 2 2004 2 9.8
103 orLugal Cuu 2 1999 3.4 8.7
104 Spaln lu 2 2004 3 10
103 uenmark l8 1 2004 7.6 6.3
106 lreland Slnn leln 1 2004 3.7 9.2
107 llnland vAS 1 2004 2.3 10.8
109 nor lreland Slnn leln 1 2004 3.7 9.2
110 Sweden v 1 2004 8.7 7

1oLal arLles = 13
1oLal SeaLs = 33
Coverage MLs = 33/33 = 94.3
Coverage SLaLes = 13/14 = 92.9

38
LCk

ID Country arty No. Seats Data Left-k|ght Ant|-ro LU
111 uk Cons 24 2004 13 7.2
112 oland Law !usLlce 13 2004 12.1 7.4
113 Czech
8epubllc
CuS 9 2004 14 8.7
114 LaLvla Lnnk 1 2004 11 9.7
116 Pungary uemocraLlc
lorum
1 2004 14.6 9.8
117 neLherlands Cu 1 2004 13.3 9.3
113 nor lreland uu 1 2004 10.6 9.6

1oLal arLles = 7
1oLal seaLs = 343
Coverage MLs = 32/34 = 96.3
Coverage SLaLes = 6/8 = 73


LID



ID Country arty No. Seats Data Left-k|ght Ant|-ro LU
116 uk ukl 12 2004 11.4 0
117 lLaly Ln 9 2004 8 8.6
118 uenmark ul 2 1999 16.2 3.1
119 Creece Laos 2 2004 14.7 4.8
120 lrance Ml 1 2004 14.1 2.2
121 neLherlands SC 1 2004 13.3 9.3

SeaLs: 27
Coverage MLs = 27/ 31 = 87.1
Coverage SLaLes = 6 / 9 = 66.7
39
8. Lu rofller uaLa: summary of Lhe daLa employed ln Lhe analysls

Group No. part|es No. seats Coverage seats Coverage States
L 39 234 234/263 (93.8) 26/26 (100)
S&u 28 182 182/184 (99) 27/27 (100)
ALuL 26 80 80/84 (93.2) 18/18 (100)
Creens-LlA 21 33 33 /33 (100) 14/14 (100)
CuL-nCL 16 34 34/33 (97.1) 13/14 (92.9)
LC8 8 34 33/34 (98.1) 7/8 (87.3)
Llu 6 26 26/31 (83.9) 6/9 (66.7)

Note: 'no. parLles' ls Lhe number of parLles lncluded ln Lhe sample per pollLlcal Croup,
'no. seaLs' Lhe number of seaLs expressed by Lhe n parLles ln Lhe flrsL column, 'coverage
seaLs' ls Lhe share of MLs (per pollLlcal Croup) lncluded ln Lhe sample, 'coverage SLaLes'
ls Lhe share of Member SLaLes (per pollLlcal Croup) represenLed ln Lhe sample.
40
2. Cand|date Se|ect|on and 1rans-nat|ona||sat|on


2.1 IN1kCDUC1ICN

1he selecLlon of pollLlcal leaders, lncludlng candldaLe Ms, has always been
consldered one of Lhe fundamenLal funcLlons of pollLlcal parLles. AL Lhe same
Llme, Lhe selecLlons processes lnvolved are ofLen far from belng LransparenL, and
ln a classlc sLudy of Lhe sub[ecL have been descrlbed as 'Lhe secreL garden of
pollLlcs' (Callagher & Marsh 1988). AL Luropean level, such a 'garden' ls also noL
parLlcularly LransparenL, and lL ls also noL clear Lo whaL exLenL naLlonal
conslderaLlons domlnaLe Lhe ML selecLlon processes of parLles. 8egulaLlon
2004/2003 clarlfles Lhe dlsLlncLlon of duLles beLween L Croups and ollLlcal
arLles aL Lhe Luropean Level (LLs) and asslgns Lo Lhe laLLer Lhe responslblllLy
for Lhe campalgn and conducL Luropean elecLlons. LLs are ofLen noL acLlve
dlrecLly, slnce naLlonal parLles are lnLended Lo be Lhe lnsLrumenL Lhrough whlch
Lhey should campalgn. AL Lhe same Llme, Lhese naLlonal parLles are ofLen
belleved Lo be Lhe maln obsLacle Lo Lhe effecLlveness of Lhe LLs, slnce Lhe
elecLlons LhaL Lhey organlse and conLesL are usually naLlonal ln focus. 1he
evldenL Lenslons lnvolved here are also exacerbaLed by Lhe ML selecLlon
process, slnce Lhls remalns Lhe prerogaLlve of Lhe naLlonal parLles and leads Lo an
ouLcome LhaL can have a declslve effecL on Lhe funcLlonlng of Lhe LLs.
CandldaLe selecLlon also has an lmporLanL lmpacL on Lhe performance of
Lhe parllamenLarlans afLer belng elecLed. 8esearch has shown LhaL MLs from
naLlonal parLles LhaL have a cenLrallsed meLhod of candldaLe selecLlon Lend Lo be
more llkely Lo defecL from L parLy group llnes (laas 2002). ln conLrasL, Lhe more
de-cenLrallsed Lhe candldaLe selecLlon ls, Lhe greaLer Lhe posslblllLy for Lhe MLs
Lo acL as lndependenL pollLlclans and Lo voLe ln accordance wlLh Lhelr L parLy
group, raLher Lhan wlLh Lhelr naLlonal parLy. 1hls allows us Lo lmaglne LhaL Lrue
Luropean depuLles, selecLed by Luropean levels and noL by naLlonal levels, could
be even more lnLeresLed ln Luropean lssues Lhan naLlonal ones. lurLhermore,
Lhe de-cenLrallsed meLhod makes lL easler for MLs Lo follow Lhe preferences of
Lhe voLers and noL [usL Lhose of parLy leaders (Plx 2004).
lor Lhese reasons, lL ls lmporLanL for us Lo descrlbe and analyse ln Lhls
reporL Lhe procedures applled by naLlonal parLles Lo esLabllsh Lhelr elecLoral llsLs
of candldaLes for Lhe elecLlons Lo Lhe Luropean arllamenL. We are concerned
wlLh Lwo dlfferenL quesLlons here. llrsL, we need Lo know how cenLrallsed or de-
cenLrallsed Lhe naLlonal candldaLe selecLlon processes are, slnce Lhls wlll have an
lmpacL on Lhe coherence and coheslon of Lhe L parLy groups, and hence on Lhe
posslblllLles for Lhe emergence of genulne LransnaLlonal parLles. Second, we
need Lo know Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhe pracLlces ln Lhe Member SLaLes dlffer from
one anoLher, or wheLher naLlonal parLles, from wherever ln Lhe unlon, Lend Lo
converge on a common pracLlce. 1hls also means evaluaLlng Lhe exLenL Lo whlch
Lhere are currenLly common pracLlces wlLhln each L Croup. 1hls, Loo, would
41
mark a favourable lndlcaLor for evenLual Lrans-naLlonallsaLlon. 1haL sald, Lrans-
naLlonallsaLlon ls unllkely Lo requlre wholesale unlformlLy ln candldaLe selecLlon
procedures across all Lhe naLlonal parLles LhaL are afflllaLed Lo a parLlcular L
Croup or federaLlon. lndeed, Lhere ls already evldence of Lolerance wlLh regard
Lo Lhe dlverslLy of procedures even wlLhln Lhe same naLlonal parLy, ln cases
found boLh ln Lurope and ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes, and Lhls dlverslLy ls llkely Lo
become even more pronounced wlLh Lhe developmenL of 'carLel' and 'franchlse'
models of parLy organlsaLlon (kaLz and Malr 1993, CarLy 2004).


2.2 1WC DIMLNSICNS CI ANALSING 1nL CANDIDA1L SLLLC1ICN
kCCLDUkL

1radlLlonally, sLudles regardlng candldaLe selecLlon procedures ralse Lwo
quesLlons: aL whlch level wlLhln Lhe parLy (terr|tor|a| d|mens|on), and Lhrough
whlch meLhod wlLhln Lhe parLy (exc|us|on-|nc|us|on d|mens|on) Lhe elecLoral
llsLs are drawn-up. lurLhermore, Lhe exlsLlng llLeraLure ofLen dlvldes Lhe
selecLlon process wlLh regard Lo lLs Llmlng lnLo aL leasL Lwo maln phases: Lhe
nomlnaLlon of candldaLes, on Lhe one hand, and Lhe flnal declslon on Lhe
composlLlon of Lhe llsLs, on Lhe oLher (LuLher 2007, p. 36).
1hls means LhaL, flrsL, each of Lhe Luropean naLlonal parLles can be
caLegorlsed along Lhe LerrlLorlal dlmenslon upon Lhe basls of whlch level (Lhe
local, Lhe reglonal or Lhe naLlonal) plays Lhe key role ln Lhe nomlnaLlon phase,
and whlch ln decldlng (and evenLually orderlng) Lhe elecLoral llsLs. Second, each
of Lhe parLles can be caLegorlsed along Lhe lncluslveness dlmenslon upon Lhe
basls of whlch body (Lhe leader, Lhe naLlonal execuLlve, Lhe assembly, Lhe
members' conference, Lhe members ln parLy prlmarles, all voLers ln open
prlmarles) ls responslble for Lhe nomlnaLlon and Lhe flnal declslon. lL ls upon Lhls
basls LhaL Lhe degree of cenLrallsaLlon and de-cenLrallsaLlon wlll be evaluaLed, as
well as Lhe degree of convergence and dlvergence across naLlonal boundarles.
1he daLa we analyse comes from a wlde varleLy of publlshed sources, and
we have also relled heavlly on Lehmann 2009. 1hls lasL volume almed aL
analyslng Lhe llkely lmpacL of ollLlcal arLles aL Luropean Level (LL) on Lhe
naLlonal parLles' selecLlon procedures, and was based malnly upon an analysls of
Lhe parLy sLaLuLes and on lnLervlews wlLh parLy offlclals. AlLhough llLLle lnfluence
from Lhe LLs was found by Lhe conLrlbuLors Lo Lhe volume, Lhe daLa are very
useful for our purposes here.
ln order Lo deLermlne Lhe locaLlon of parLles along Lhese dlmenslons, we
have asslgned a numerlcal value Lo each level (for Lhe LerrlLorlal dlmenslon) and
Lo each parLy body (for Lhe excluslon-lncluslon varlable) LhaL plays a role ln
selecLlng Lhe candldaLures. When a phase of Lhe selecLlon process (Lhe rlghL of
proposal or Lhe flnal declslon) lles wlLhln Lhe naLlonal level, lL has been asslgned
Lhe value 3. When Lhls role ls played aL sub-naLlonal or reglonal level, we have
asslgned lL Lhe value 2. All levels lower Lhan reglonal" have been deflned as
42
local levels" and been asslgned Lhe value 1. When a phase ls performed by Lwo
dlfferenL levels, Lhe asslgned value ls Lhe average value beLween Lhe Lwo.
A slmllar operaLlonallsaLlon has been conducLed for Lhe excluslon-
lncluslon dlmenslon. ln Lhls case, Lhe values range from 1, whlch has been
asslgned Lo 'open prlmarles' (l.e., prlmarles open also Lo non-parLy members)
Lhrough Lo 6 (l.e., Lhe 'parLy leader', belng he/she Lhe chalrperson, Lhe presldenL,
Lhe lnformal leader or any oLher monocraLlc charge). lor Lhe purposes of Lhls
reporL, we have Lrled Lo code ln Lhese Lerms all Lhe parLles LhaL have elecLed
MLs or LhaL have reached aL leasL 3 of valld voLes ln Lhe 2009 L elecLlons,
buL, unforLunaLely, some daLa are mlsslng.
2
lncluded are 673 MLs ouL of 736
(91.44) and 24 Member SLaLes ouL 27, for a LoLal of 144 naLlonal parLles or
elecLoral coallLlons. llnally, lL ls also lmporLanL Lo underllne LhaL Lhe Lwo
varlables are compleLely lndependenL of one anoLher. lor example, Lhe
asslgnmenL of some duLles Lo leaders, execuLlves or assemblles, does noL
auLomaLlcally affecL Lhe asslgnmenL of such a duLy Lo Lhe naLlonal level. 1hese
speclflc leaders, execuLlves or assemblles are noL necessarlly Lhe naLlonal ones,
buL Lhey could respecLlvely be reglonal or local leaders, execuLlves or assemblles.
ln general, flxlng Lhe llsL order ls consldered an lmporLanL Lask ln Lhose counLrles
wlLh a closed-llsL elecLoral sysLem. Where Lhe llsLs are open, such a Lask ls noL so
relevanL and a body whlch ls delegaLed Lhls Lask, and only Lhls Lask, ls noL
consldered as a relevanL parLy organ ln selecLlng Lhe candldaLures. ln very small
counLrles wlLh a closed-llsL, Lhe only candldaLes LhaL have Lhe posslblllLy of belng
elecLed are Lhose who occupy Lhe flrsL poslLlons (or [usL Lhe flrsL one). So, Lhe
only body whlch plays a slgnlflcanL role ls LhaL whlch has Lhe responslblllLy of
chooslng Lhe flrsL poslLlons even lf oLher bodles can choose Lhe oLher, lower,
poslLlons. llnally, and for Lhe purposes of codlng, when more bodles or more
levels ln a parLy play a slgnlflcanL role durlng Lhe proposal or flnal declslon phase,
Lhls parLy ls lncluded more Lhan once ln Lhe Labular daLa.

2.2 WnC DLCIDLSD IN NA1ICNAL Ak1ILS?

As can be seen ln 1ables 1, Lhe mosL common procedure adopLed for ML
candldaLe selecLlon ls a proposal comlng from Lhe execuLlve Lo be accepLed or
raLlfled by Lhe Assembly (22 of cases). ln general, more Lhan 48 of proposals
come from Lhe execuLlves, and only 1 case offers a relevanL role Lo Lhe voLers
(Lhe avallablllLy of self candldaLure ln Creek ASCk). ln 13 of cases, naLlonal
parLles allow Lhelr members Lo propose some candldaLes or even Lo nomlnaLe

2
Mlsslng daLa are as follows: All selecLlon procedures for Lhree small counLrles - (MalLa,
Luxembourg and LlLhuanla), selecLlon procedures for Lhe Cerman communlLy's parLles ln
8elglum, for lndependenLs ln LsLonla and lreland, for Lhe Lco-Creens ln Creece, for Lhe vv ln
Lhe neLherlands, for Lhe LlsL ur. MarLln - lor uemocracy, ConLrol, !usLlce" ln AusLrla, for Lhe C
ln orLugal, for Lhe u-L, Lhe 8M and an lndependenL ln 8omanla, for Lhe lraLe parLy ln
Sweden, and for Lhe reglonal parLles and ukl ln Lhe uk. More deLalls of Lhese mlsslng cases and
of naLlonal pecullarlLles whlch are Loo deLalled Lo be lncluded here are avallable on requesL from
Lhe auLhors.

43
Lhemselves. uurlng Lhe flnal declslon phase, parLy members have much more
power Lhan durlng Lhe proposal phase: 32 of flnal declslons are made by
members Lhrough rlmarles or Conferences as agalnsL only 19 of proposals. ln
LoLal, unlfylng Lhe proposal and Lhe flnal declslon phase, Lhe use of Lhese 'open'
procedures ls qulLe llmlLed slnce less Lhan 3 of naLlonal parLles allow Lhelr
members Lo conLrol Lhe enLlre process Lhrough Members' rlmarles and even
fewer Lhrough Members' Conferences (1.3).

1ab|e 1: Lxcluslon - lncluslon ulmenslon

k|ght of roposa| ()

voLers'
rlmary
Members'
rlmary
Members'
Conference
Assembly LxecuLlve Leader 1C1
voLers'
rlmary
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Members'
rlmary
0.3 2.6 1 3.1 6.2 0 13.4
Members'
Conference
0 1,3 2.1 6.2 7.7 1.3 19
Assembly 0.3 3.6 0.3 2.6 22.1 3.6 32.9
LxecuLlve 0 4.6 1.3 4.6 10.1 3.1 2S.9
I
|
n
a
|

D
e
c
|
s
|
o
n

Leader 0 1 0.3 2.1 2.1 2.6 8.3

1C1
(n= 19S)
1 13.3 S.6 18.6 48.2 12.8 100
Source: own calculaLlons

1able 2 shows us Lhe exLenL of Lhe conLrol of naLlonal levels over Lhe flnal
declslons, wlLh more Lhan 86 of all of proposals emanaLlng from Lhe naLlonal
level. 1hls, however, does noL auLomaLlcally lmply execuLlve conLrol of Lhe parLy
slnce oLher organs, lncludlng boLh Lhe members' conferences and Lhe members'
prlmarles, lf held ln Lhe same place (for Lhe conferences) or on Lhe same day (for
Lhe prlmarles), are consldered naLlonal level bodles. 1he lrlsh lloe Coel and
lloooo lll are Lhe only Lwo parLles LhaL allow local branches Lo propose Lhe
candldaLes and LhaL sLop Lhe procedures aL Lhe reglonal level lnsLead of requlrlng
Lhe local proposals Lo reach Lhe naLlonal level. 1hls ls undoubLedly due Lo Lhe
parLlcular demands of Lhe Slngle 1ransferable voLe (S1v) elecLoral sysLem
applled ln 4 sub-naLlonal consLlLuencles. AnoLher parLlcular case ls represenLed
by Lhe uuLch ChrlsLlan uemocraLs (CuA). 1he proposal, whlch comes from Lhe
naLlonal arLy 8oard (Lhe naLlonal execuLlve), has Lo be approved by local
assemblles, even lf Lhere are few devlaLlons from Lhe recommended llsL
because lL has proven dlfflculL Lo moblllze enough branches" (Lehmann 2009, p.
214).

44

1ab|e 2: 1errlLorlal ulmenslon
k|ght of roposa| ()
local reglonal naLlonal 1C1
local 0 0 0.3 0.S
reglonal 0.9 9.8 1.9 12.6
naLlonal 20.6 22.3 43.3 86.4
I
|
n
a
|

D
e
c
|
s
|
o
n

1C1
N=214
21.S 32.1 4S.9 100


2.2.1 D|fferent|at|on by country
1able 3 aggregaLes Lhe values of Lhe dlfferenL parLles by counLry and glves a flrsL
clear lndlcaLlon of Lhe varlaLlon across Lhe Luropean unlon. When we comblne
Lhe values for boLh Lhe proposal and Lhe flnal declslon, we flnd LhaL lLaly
emerges as Lhe mosL excluslve pollLy (value 3.13). Looklng aL each phase
separaLely, lLaly ls also Lhe mosL excluslve pollLy, closely followed by lrance ln
Lerms of Lhe proposals, and by 8ulgarla and Cyprus ln Lerms of Lhe flnal declslon.
1he mosL lncluslve counLry ls Cermany, wlLh Lhe value 3.3, whlch suggesLs LhaL
Lhe mosL common procedure ls somewhere beLween Lhe Members' Conference
and Lhe arLy Assembly, ln boLh of whlch lL ls posslble Lo express dlfferenL
oplnlons from Lhose of Lhe parLy leadershlp. ulsaggregaLlng Lhe daLa, we can see
LhaL Creece and 8ulgarla seem Lo be Lhe mosL lncluslve counLrles durlng Lhe
proposal phase, whlle Lhe neLherlands ls Lhe mosL lncluslve durlng Lhe flnal
declslon. 1he uuLch score of 2.9 ls unrlvalled for all phases ln all counLrles.
Cn Lhe LerrlLorlal dlmenslon, we can easlly see LhaL Lhe varlance of values
amongsL Lhe Member SLaLes ls qulLe llmlLed. 1he only excepLlon ls represenLed
by Lhe unlLed klngdom wlLh an average value for Lhe proposal and Lhe flnal
declslon of 2.1. Close Lo Lhls we flnd lreland (2.23), 8ulgarla (2.30) and Creece
(2.33). ln all, 14 of Lhe 24 pollLles have a value hlgher Lhan 2.3 (Lhe maln
declslonal level ls close Lo Lhe naLlonal level) wlLh Lhe hlghesL value represenLed
by AusLrla. AlLhough noL reporLed ln deLall here, Lhere are a number of
correlaLlons Lo Lhls paLLern of varlaLlon. arLles ln large pollLles Lend Lo be more
excluslve Lhan Lhose ln small pollLles, alLhough Lhls ls malnly a feaLure of
ptoposloq cooJlJotes, raLher Lhan flnallslng llsLs, sysLems wlLh closed llsLs Lend Lo
be more lncluslve Lhan Lhe oLhers, alLhough, ln Lhls case, lreland ls excepLlonal ln
havlng very open llsLs and hlgh levels of de-cenLrallsaLlon. ln general, however,
Lhe concluslon ls clear: Lhough varlaLlons exlsL beLween pollLles, Lhey are noL
very pronounced, and are cerLalnly noL aL a level whlch mlghL prove an obsLacle
Lo effecLlve Lrans-naLlonallsaLlon.

45
1ab|e 3: 1he two d|mens|on |n the 24 ana|ysed Member States
8lghL of roposal llnal declslon 1oLal
Lx-lncl 1errlLorlal Lx-lncl 1errlLorlal Lx-lncl 1errlLorlal
8elglum 4.3 2.3 4.80 2.90 4.63 2.70
8ulgarla 3.4 1.7 4.80 2.90 4.10 2.30
Czech 8ep 4.3 1.9 4.00 3.00 4.13 2.43
uenmark 4.0 2.4 3.90 3.00 3.93 2.70
Cermany 3.7 2.3 3.30 2.90 3.S0 2.60
LsLonla 4.3 2.3 3.30 2.90 3.80 2.60
lreland 4.8 2.0 4.10 2.30 4.43 2.23
Creece 3.4 2.2 4.40 2.30 3.90 2.33
Spaln 3.0 2.3 4.80 3.00 4.90 2.63
lrance 3.3 2.8 4.10 3.00 4.70 2.90
lLaly 5.4 2.8 4.90 3.00 5.15 2.90
Cyprus 4.0 2.4 4.80 3.00 4.40 2.70
LaLvla 3.3 1.9 4.60 3.00 4.03 2,43
Pungary 3.1 J.0 4.00 3.00 4.33 3.00
neLherlands 4.8 2.6 2.90 2.90 3.83 2.73
AusLrla 3.1 2.9 4.30 3.00 4.70 2.95
oland 4.9 1.S 4.10 3.00 4.30 2.23
orLugal 3.7 2.3 4.00 3.00 4.83 2.63
8omanla 4.6 1.9 4.10 2.90 4.33 2.40
Slovakla 4.8 2.8 4.30 2.90 4.33 2.83
Slovenla 4.7 2.4 4.10 3.00 4.40 2.70
llnland 4.2 1.9 4.40 3.00 4.30 2.43
Sweden 4.8 2.2 3.40 3.00 4.10 2.60
uk 4.8 2.0 3.60 2.20 4.20 CDEF

2.2.2 D|fferent|at|on by po||t|ca| aff|||at|on
llgure 1 shows slmllar summary flgures aggregaLed ln Lhls case by parLy ldenLlLy.
Pere, ln parLlcular, lL can be assumed LhaL, lf Lhere ls an obsLacle Lo genulne
Lrans-naLlonallsaLlon, lL ls llkely Lo be provoked by a hlgh level of lnLernal
dlfferenLlaLlon. AlLhough we also reporL dlfferences beLween groups, Lhese are
less relevanL Lo Lhe lssue of Lrans-naLlonallsaLlon slnce Lhere ls no expecLaLlon
LhaL convergence should be expecLed across Lhe pollLlcal specLrum. As ln
prevlous secLlons, our concern ls Lo LesL for coheslon and unlformlLy wlLhln each
group. lor Lhe purposes of Lhls analysls, we have grouped Lhe naLlonal parLles
accordlng Lo Lhelr L Croups. uaLa can also be aggregaLed accordlng Lo
membershlp of Lhe LLs, buL Lhe plcLure ls more or less Lhe same as LhaL
offered by Lhe Croups.
As can be seen from llgure 1, whlch summarlses Lhe Croup scores ln
relaLlon Lo Lhe LerrlLorlal dlmenslon, Lhe conservaLlve parLles (Lhe LC8 group) are
46
Lhe mosL de-cenLrallsed. AlLhough reglonal parLles are also obvlously de-
cenLrallsed, Lhey are scored ln Lhls case LogeLher wlLh Lhe Creens, and hence
come closer Lo Lhe mlddle range. 1he lefL-wlng (CuL-nCL) and rlghL-wlng (Llu)
groups are Lhe mosL cenLrallsed, especlally durlng Lhe flnal declslon phase, slnce
Lhelr naLlonal parLles asslgn Lhe flnal declslon's prerogaLlve Lo Lhe naLlonal level.
I|gure 1: L Croups and Lhe 1errlLorlal ulmenslon



I|gure 2: L Croups and Lhe Lxcluslon-lncluslon ulmenslon


LqulvalenL daLa are presenLed ln llgure 2 wlLh respecL Lo Lhe excluslon-lncluslon
dlmenslon. ln Lhls case, Lhe scale ls bounded by Lhe Creens and Lhe naLlonallsL
parLles. Agaln, Lhe paLLern ls slmllar Lo Lhe LLs, for whlch Lhe daLa are noL
reporLed here, buL less exLreme ln Lhe case of Lhe L Coups. 1hls could mean
LhaL Lhe L Croups are less homogenous Lhan Lhelr correspondlng LLs. 1hls ls
also llkely ln Lhe case of Lhe LC-LlA slnce lL ls a fuslon of Lwo dlfferenL LLs
47
I|gure 3: naLlonal arLles ln L Croups and Lhe excluslon - lncluslon dlmenslon



48
wlLh dlfferenL LradlLlons and pollLlcal culLures. lor Lhe rlghL wlng parLles, Lhe
reason may be dlfferenL. ln Lhls case, naLlonallsL parLles LhaL succeed ln elecLlng
some MLs can choose Lo send Lhelr depuLles lnLo a L group or Lo leave Lhem
as unafflllaLed MLs. 8uL, slnce Lhe laLLer opLlon offers very llmlLed opporLunlLles
Lo Lhe MLs Lhemselves, Lhere are sLrong lncenLlves Lo [oln an L group, and Lhls,
ln Lurn, can lead Lo pronounced heLerogenelLy ln Lhe Croup lLself. Comparable
lncenLlves are noL presenL for Lhe formaLlon of Lhe LLs and lL ls llkely, for Lhls
reason, LhaL Lhese are more homogenous Lhan Lhe correspondlng L Croups.
1he lnLernal degree of homogenelLy and heLerogenelLy along Lhls
dlmenslon ls summarlsed ln llgure 3, whlch shows Lhe dlfferenL naLlonal parLles
ln Lhe Croups Lo be scaLLered across almosL all Lhe avallable poslLlons. ln oLher
words, Lhere ls llLLle slgn of coheslon or unlformlLy here. 1he parLles ln Lhe S&u
group are more slmllar Lo one anoLher Lhan Lhose ln Lhe L, whlch ls perhaps
noL surprlslng glven Lhe relaLlve unlformlLy and dlffluslon of cenLre-lefL LradlLlons
ln Lurope, as compared Lo Lhe more naLlonally-speclflc developmenLal paLhs
Laken by Lhe cenLre-rlghL. 1he LC8 ls also relaLlvely homogenous, especlally ln
comparlson Lo Lhe fragmenLed ALuL plcLure, buL Lhls ls also due Lo Lhe smaller
number of parLles lnvolved. CLherwlse, however, Lhe Croups reveal relaLlvely
heLerogeneous proflles, and whlle Lhls may noL welgh heavlly ln Lhe end, lL ls
neverLheless llkely Lo presenL a sLumbllng block ln Lhe paLh Lowards effecLlve
Lrans-naLlonallsaLlon and convergence.

2.3 IS LUkCLAN INILULNCL IMCk1AN1?

lL ls dlfflculL Lo Lrace any speclflc lnfluence exerLed by Lhe LLs or L groups on
naLlonal parLles as far as Lhe process of candldaLe selecLlon ls concerned
(Lehmann 2009). ln seven counLrles (8elglum, lLaly, Creece, lrance, Lhe
neLherlands, Slovenla, and llnland), Lhere ls slmply noLhlng reporLed ln Lhe
llLeraLure. ln oLher counLrles (LsLonla, Spaln, orLugal, Sweden), Lhe parLles have
been probed on Lhe quesLlon, buL Lhere are no reporLs of any Luropean
lnLerference. Cnly ln Lhe remalnlng counLrles, and even Lhen noL ln a
pronounced way, has Lhere been some subsLanLlve evldence of a relaLlonshlp.
1hese suggesL several dlfferenL paLLerns (Lehmann 2009).
1he flrsL Lype ls an accepLance LhaL |ncumbent MLs can exerL a sLrong
lnfluence ln ensurlng Lhelr own re-selecLlon, and hence, albelL lndlrecLly, Lhe L
Croup also exerLs an lnfluence. lncumbenL MLS are also reporLed Lo have
lnfluenced Lhe parLy programme on Luropean lssues. 1hls lncumbency effecL has
been reporLed by Lhe uk ConservaLlves and Labour, by Lhe AusLrlan eople's
arLy, lreedom arLy and Creens, and by Lhe lrlsh Labour parLy. 1he Cerman
parLles presenL a parLlcularly lnLeresLlng case. ln general, lL appears LhaL Lhe
Luropean level exerLs no lnfluence on Lhe selecLlon process of Cerman parLles,
buL Lhe facL LhaL many Cerman pollLlclans hold some very key poslLlons aL
Luropean level has been Laken lnLo conslderaLlon ln evaluaLlng Lhe candldaLe
selecLlon processes: for example, Pans-CerL LLerlng (Cuu), presldenL of Lhe
Luropean arllamenL, MarLln Schulz (Su), presldenL of Lhe L LS group, Sllvana
49
koch-Mehrln (lu), depuLy leader of Lhe L ALuL group, and LoLhar 8lsky (Llnke),
chalrman of Lhe arLy of Lhe Luropean LefL, have all been conflrmed as
candldaLes wlLhouL any problems.
1he second Lype ls represenLed by a clearly reporLed d|ssat|sfact|on on
Lhe parL of Lhe naLlonal parLy Lowards Lhe former Croup. 1hls ls Lhe case of Lhe
ollsh lS, whlch soughL Lo esLabllsh conLacLs wlLh Czech CuS and 8rlLlsh
ConservaLlves Lo creaLe a new L group (Lhe LC8), and also Lhe Pungarlan
ConservaLlves (Mul), whlch expressed a preference Lo move from Lhe L Lo Lhe
LC8. AL Lhe same Llme, Lwo oLher parLles have moved from a euroscepLlc Lo a
more europhlle group: Lhe Slovak LS-PZuS moved from Lhe lu group Lo Lhe ALuL
Lhrough Lhe prevlous adheslon Lo Lhe LLu8 parLy, and Lhe lrlsh lloooo lll moved
from ALn Lo LLu8 parLy and ALuL. 1he CyprloL ulkC has expressed Lhelr
lnLenLlon Lo leave Lhe Llberal group for Lhe SoclallsL one, buL Lhe oLher soclallsL
CyprloL parLy, LuLk, has expressed reslsLance. 1wo oLher parLles have faced
problems wlLh Lhelr L group or parLy. 1he Slovak soclallsL SML8 was suspended
from Lhe LS for Lwo years (2006-08) due Lo Lhelr coallLlon governmenL formed
wlLh Lhe exLreme rlghL-wlng SnS, whlle Lhe LaLvlan Creens and peasanLs were
asked Lo choose deflnlLely beLween Lhe LC and Lhe LLu8 parLy.
CLher parLles have arLlculaLed very clear |nstrumenta| reasons Lo explaln
Lhelr membershlp ln a group. 1he Slovak ChrlsLlan-democraL kuP has declared lLs
parLlclpaLlon ln Lhe L group as lnsLrumenLal slnce lLs prlorlLy ls naLlonal lssues.
ln Lhe same way, Lhe uanlsh 'MovemenL agalnsL Lhe Luropean unlon' has
deflned lLs afflllaLlon wlLh CuL-nCL as '1echnlcal'. 1he lefL-wlng proflle of lLs
MLs has also lnfluenced Lhls declslon. 1he uanlsh eople's arLy, ln Lurn, has
glven lLs Lop candldaLe (and leader) Lhe rlghL Lo choose whlchever group he
wlshes.
Several oLher parLles have used Lhelr conLacLs wlLh Luropean levels Lo
lmprove Lhelr |eg|t|macy ln Lhe eyes of Lhe naLlonal voLers. 1he CyprloL soclallsL
LuLk has used Lhe absence of CyprloL MLs ln Lhe second largesL L group (Lhe
S&u) as lLs maln reason Lo ask voLers Lo flll Lhls gap by voLlng Lhe CyprloL
SoclallsLs. 1he same use of lLs relaLlons wlLh Lhe LS and Lhe S&u has been
pushed by Lhe LaLvlan LSuS. 1he uanlsh SoclallsL eople's arLy has appealed
for voLes by argulng LhaL voLlng for Lhem ls also voLlng for someLhlng blgger, Lhe
Luropean Creens. Lven more lmporLanL ls Lhe facL LhaL Lhe 8ulgarlan SoclallsL
arLy, ln 2004, ran ln Lhe elecLlons under Lhe name of Luropean SoclallsLs". 1he
experlmenL, however, was noL repeaLed ln 2009.
1he only naLlonal parLles LhaL have conflrmed some conLacLs durlng Lhe
se|ect|on process have been Lhe 8omanlan Su, accordlng Lo whlch all lLs
candldaLures were revlewed by represenLaLlves from Lhe LS, Lhe Czech CSSu,
slnce Lhe LS had slgnalled LhaL lL appreclaLes Lhe work of Lhe lncumbenL CSSu
MLs and had lndlcaLed lLs supporL for Lhelr lncluslon lnLo Lhe elecLoral llsL, Lhe
Pungarlan SoclallsLs (MSZ), whlch had had consulLaLlons wlLh Lhe LS on Lhe
performance of lLs lncumbenL MLs, Lhe LaLvlan new Lra LhaL had lnvlLed some
L members Lo lLs selecLlng meeLlngs, and Lhe Cerman lu, accordlng Lo whlch
Lhe LLu8 parLy had expressed some recommendaLlons regardlng Lhe
conflrmaLlon of some lncumbenL MLs. 1hese resulLs are summarlsed ln 1able 4.
50
Cne flnal noLe: a Czech communlsL offlclal ls reporLed as expecLlng sLrlcLer co-
operaLlon aL Luropean level ln order Lo have a wlde porLfollo of experLs able Lo
meeL all Lhe L commlLLee asslgnmenLs covered by CuL-nCL depuLles (Lehmann
2009, p. 38). Pe Lurns ouL Lo have been Lhe only pollLlclan lnLervlewed LhaL asked
for an lmprovemenL of Lhe supranaLlonal relaLlons amongsL parLles aL Luropean
level.

1ab|e 4: 1he role of Lhe LLs ln Lhe selecLlon candldaLe procedures of naLlonal parLles
1ype of lnfluence arLles lnvolved (n) arLles lnvolved ()
Noth|ng reported 34 37.3
No re|at|ons 62 43.1
Incumbent 10 6.9
D|ssat|sfact|on]prob|ems 7 4.9
|nstrumenta| reasons
3 2.1
|eg|t|mat|ng source 4 2.8
Invo|vement |n se|ect|on
process
4 2.8
1C1AL
144 100
Source: Lehmann (2009).

CCNCLUSICN

Pazan and 8ahaL (2006) have suggesLed LhaL parLy members are more lncllned Lo
selecL candldaLes Lhey know, and Lherefore Lhey wlll prefer Lhose who are
already acLlve ln pollLlcs and have been for some years. Conversely, lf Lhe llsLs
are drawn up by Lhe parLy leadershlp, Lhey wlll seek a more comprehenslve
balance by brlnglng ln newcomers and younger people, and by lncludlng
candldaLes who are Lhe represenLaLlves of someLlmes marglnallsed soclal
caLegorles. 8oLh approaches mlghL favour lnfluence on Lhe parL of Lhe Luropean
level. Cn Lhe one hand, when members have a volce ln Lhe candldaLe selecLlon
processes, Lhey mlghL favour lncumbenLs, Lhereby fosLerlng lnLeresL ln L
careers, and hence ln lnsLlLuLlonallslng supporL for L Croups. Cn Lhe oLher
hand, we mlghL expecL leaders Lo favour 'new' caLegorles of candldaLes,
lncludlng Lhose for whom Lurope ls a prlorlLy. 1hls prellmlnary conslderaLlon ls
lmporLanL as a means of underllnlng LhaL Lhere ls noLhlng speclflcally 'Luropean'
or 'Lurope-orlenLed' LhaL can be llnked Lo wheLher Lhe selecLlon mechanlsms of
parLles are excluslve or lncluslve, or wheLher Lhey are more cenLrallsed or more
de-cenLrallsed. 1haL ls Lo say LhaL, when we have looked aL Lhe selecLlon
procedures under Lhese headlngs, we have noL been concerned wlLh Lhelr
Luropeanness, as such, buL, lnsLead, wlLh Lhe problems of dlverslLy and
unlformlLy, and wlLh Lhe lssue of wheLher Lhe exlsLlng procedures, as pracLlced,
mlghL consLlLuLe an obsLacle Lo genulne Lrans-naLlonallsaLlon.
51
ln Lhls secLlon, we have addressed Lhe quesLlon of wheLher naLlonal
parLles dlfferenLlaLe Lhemselves ln Lhe processes of candldaLe selecLlon
accordlng Lo Lhelr counLry or accordlng Lo Lhelr pollLlcal afflllaLlon. 1he daLa,
crude as Lhey are, underllne LhaL boLh facLors play a role, and LhaL Lhere ls a lack
of unlformlLy wlLhln Lhe parLy famllles. 1hls would suggesL LhaL procedures of
ellLe recrulLmenL mlghL well consLlLuLe an obsLacle Lo effecLlve Lrans-
naLlonallsaLlon. 1haL sald, and as noLed aL Lhe beglnnlng, Lhe onseL of franchlse
and carLel models of parLy organlsaLlon means LhaL Lhere ls ofLen a Lolerance of
dlverse procedures even lnslde Lhe naLlonal parLles.
1hls also suggesLs LhaL Lhls ls one area of acLlvlLy where Lhe Luropean
level - wheLher Lhrough Lhe L Croups or Lhrough Lhe LLs - could usefully
lnLervene Lo greaLer effecL. lndeed, Lhls suggesLs LhaL Lhere ls a sLrong argumenL
for a llkely fuLure lnfluence or co-ordlnaLlon for selecLlng Luropean candldaLes aL
Luropean level. Moreover, Lhe feaLures of Lhe selecLlon procedures LhaL we see
here seem Lo reflecL and respecL whaL naLlonal parLles' ldeologles prescrlbe - aL
leasL for Lhose parLles whlch spend more Llme and resources ln publlclslng Lhelr
ldeas abouL democracy and lnLernal funcLlonlng. 8eglonallsL parLles are Lhose
whlch glve more prerogaLlves Lo Lhe lower parLy levels, whlle Lhose parLles wlLh
a sLrong naLlonal aLLlLude, such as Lhe SoclallsLs, Lhe LefLlsLs and Lhe exLreme-
rlghL parLles, have Lhe hlghesL level of cenLrallsaLlon ln selecLlng Lhe
candldaLures. Cn Lhe excluslon-lncluslon dlmenslon Creen parLles, whlch
advocaLe grass-rooLs parLlclpaLlon and oLher posL-maLerlallsLlc democraLlc
values, and exLreme-rlghL parLles, whlch emphaslse Lhe role of Lhe leader and
Lhe prlnclple of auLhorlLy, conflrm, Lhrough Lhelr selecLlon procedures, Lhe
pracLlce of Lhelr prlnclples.
1he LheoreLlcal lmporLance of Luropean afflllaLlon raLher Lhan Lhe
naLlonal orlgln and Lhe pracLlcal appllcaLlon of Lhelr publlclsed ldeals are boLh
elemenLs whlch could lncrease Lhe feaslblllLy of fuLure co-ordlnaLlon aL Luropean
level ln chooslng approprlaLe and well-prepared Luropean depuLles. AL Lhls
momenL, such a poslLlve lncllnaLlon Lowards Luropean lssues seems qulLe
dlsLanL, or, Lo puL lL dlfferenLly, lf a pro-Luropean approach ls Lo be achleved ln
Lhe selecLlon of candldaLes, lL wlll have Lo happen aL naLlonal level, raLher Lhan aL
a Luropean level. ln facL, as ls clearly demonsLraLed by 1able 4, Lhe dlrecL
lnfluence of Lhe Luropean level ln naLlonal candldaLe selecLlon ls effecLlvely
lnslgnlflcanL. Lven lf nearly 20 of naLlonal parLles have reporLed some
lnLeracLlon wlLh Lhe Luropean level durlng Lhe candldaLe selecLlon phase
(beyond whaL ls lnvolved ln preparlng Lhe LransnaLlonal elecLoral manlfesLos), ln
only 14 of cases has Lhls been poslLlvely evaluaLed. lL ls hardly Lhe case LhaL
publlc dlssaLlsfacLlon abouL Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween a naLlonal parLy and lLs
correspondlng LL can be consldered as an elemenL LhaL advances Lhe
LuropeanlzaLlon process. lndeed, when only 4 naLlonal parLles (2.8) reporL
clear and expllclL consulLaLlons wlLh, and dlrecL lnvolvemenL of, Lhelr Luropean
level parLner ln Lhe candldaLe selecLlon process, lL seems LhaL Lhe paLh Lowards
effecLlve Lrans-naLlonallsaLlon has only recenLly and Llmldly begun.


52
key 5ommoty

Slnce Lhe process of candldaLe selecLlon ls one of Lhe fundamenLal funcLlons of
pollLlcal parLles, Lhe lack of unlformlLy wlLhln Lhe parLy famllles may consLlLuLe
an obsLacle Lo effecLlve Lrans-naLlonallsaLlon,

1he more de-cenLrallsed and lncluslve Lhe candldaLe selecLlon ls, Lhe greaLer Lhe
posslblllLy for Lhe MLs Lo voLe ln accordance wlLh Lhelr L parLy group, raLher
Lhan wlLh Lhelr naLlonal parLy,

1he mosL common procedures adopLed for ML candldaLe selecLlon relles on Lhe
role of Lhe parLy execuLlve and parLy conference, wlLh more Lhan 86 of all Lhe
proposals emanaLlng from Lhe naLlonal level.




























.


53
3. 1he ko|e of Nat|ona| 1rad|t|ons


3.1 IN1kCDUC1ICN

ln Lrylng Lo shed llghL on Lhe quesLlon of Lhe paLLerns of evoluLlon of a Luropean
parLy sysLem and lLs rooLs ln Lhe naLlonal parLy sLrucLures, Lhe flrsL quesLlon LhaL
arlses concerns Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhese naLlonal parLy sLrucLures are, lndeed,
sLrong and perslsLenL. Whlle pollLlcal sclenLlsLs bulld varlous generallslng models
of pollLlcal parLles, and whlle some of Lhem suggesL an ever growlng
convergence of parLy pollLlcs across Lurope, aL Lhe same Llme, Lhey noLe a huge
varleLy of Lhe naLlonal LradlLlons LhaL noL only deflne Lhe pollLlcal parLles
Lhemselves, buL whlch also heavlly lnfluence Lhe paLLerns of parLy compeLlLlon
and campalgn pracLlces. ln boLh cases, however, Lhere ls an agreemenL LhaL
pollLlcal parLles are prlmarlly embedded ln, and deflned by, naLlonal pollLlcal
seLLlngs. 1he key quesLlon LhaL wlll gulde Lhls analysls ls wheLher Lhese naLlonal
dlfferences are sLrong enough Lo block or hlnder Lhe developmenL of Lrans-
naLlonal parLles and a Lrans-naLlonal parLy sysLem, or wheLher, desplLe Lhe
obvlous dlfferences beLween many of Lhe naLlonal seLLlngs, such parLles mlghL
sLlll develop ln a reasonably robusL fashlon.
We shall address Lhls quesLlon by revlewlng four areas whlch sLrongly
dlfferenLlaLe Lhe way ln whlch Lhe naLlonal parLles work, whlch may prove Lo be
serlous obsLacles Lo Lhe developmenL of an Lu parLy sysLem. 1he flrsL area
concerns Lhe varleLy of Lhe naLlonal parLy sysLems ln Lhe Lu-27. no maLLer
wheLher Lhe fuLure Lu parLy sysLem wlll be modelled on one of Lhe naLlonal
parLy sysLems, or wheLher lL wlll develop sol qeoetls characLerlsLlcs, lL ls qulLe
cerLaln LhaL, for some naLlonal parLles, lL wlll be dlfflculL Lo flnd a space ln Lhe
fuLure Lu parLy sysLem slmply because Lhe Lu verslon wlll be Loo dlfferenL from
Lhelr own parLy sysLem back aL home. 1herefore, we wlll analyse Lhe exLenL Lo
whlch Lhe parLy sysLems of Lhe Lu-27 vary among Lhemselves.
Cur second perspecLlve wlll look lnLo Lhe legal sLaLus of pollLlcal parLles.
1hls parL of naLlonal leglslaLlons regulaLes a number of maLLers concernlng Lhe
condlLlons for recognlLlon, Lhe legal capaclLy, obllgaLlons and rlghLs of pollLlcal
parLles as legal persons. Powever, here, Loo, Lhe naLlonal provlslons are qulLe
dlfferenL, and Lhe valld quesLlon ls Lo whaL exLenL Lhls varleLy mlghL be an
obsLacle Lo Lhe developmenL of Lrans-naLlonal parLles.
1hlrd, from Lhe polnL of vlew of Lhe organlsaLlon and acLlvlLles of LLs,
we are concerned wlLh wheLher LLs as organlsaLlons are open Lo Lhe dlfferenL
naLlonal sLyles of parLy organlsaLlon. Clear evldence lllusLraLlng Lhe ob[ecLlve
dlfflculLles of Lrans-naLlonal parLy co-operaLlon havlng lLs sources ln Lhe naLlonal
parLy LradlLlons can be drawn from a number of examples of Lhe experlences of
Lhe ma[or Luropean pollLlcal parLles.
llnally, were Lhe currenL proposals Lo lnLroduce a slngle Lrans-naLlonal
54
consLlLuency Lo elecL a porLlon of MLs (Lhe uuff reporL) Lo be adopLed, LLs
wlll be obllged Lo become engaged as campalgn organlsaLlons and wlll be
expecLed Lo develop a co-ordlnaLed and unlfled elecLlon campalgn ln a ma[orlLy
(or even all) of Lhe Lu Member SLaLes. Powever, glven Lhe varleLy ln Lhe naLlonal
sLyles of campalgnlng, whlch we look aL here, how llkely ls lL LhaL Lhls can be
achleved? Cr mlghL lL be LhaL we would have Lrans-naLlonal campalgnlng
organlsaLlons whlch LoleraLe dlfferenL naLlonal campalgn sLraLegles?
3.2 1nL NUM8Lk CI Ak1ILS A1 NA1ICNAL AND LUkCLAN LLVLL

1he llLeraLure on parLles and parLy sysLems has long classlfled parLy sysLems
malnly ln relaLlon Lo Lhe number of parLles compeLlng and Lhe ldeologlcal
dlsLance beLween Lhem (SarLorl 1976). ln Lhls manner, pollLlcal sclenLlsLs have
used elLher some quallLaLlve descrlpLlons (such as 'Lwo-and-a-half parLy sysLem')
or, by looklng aL Lhe voLe share or seaL share ln Lhe parllamenL, Lhey welghLed
Lhe number of parLles by Lhelr relaLlve slze and lmporLance. 1he key crlLerlon
drlvlng Lhe laLLer classlflcaLlon ls Lhe need Lo express quanLlLaLlvely a number of
meanlngful parLles ln a slLuaLlon ln whlch some parLles have many seaLs and
some have only few. Such an lndex ls deflned as Lhe effecLlve number of parLles,
and lL ls a sLandard measure of parLy sysLem slze (Laakso and 1aagepera 1979,
1aagepera 2007, Callagher and MlLchell 2008). lL seems Lo be very useful ln our
analysls Loo, as lL allows us Lo make a cross-naLlonal comparlson as far as Lhe
numerlcal crlLerlon of Lhe classlflcaLlon ls concerned. We rely here on Lhe so-
called effecLlve number of parllamenLary parLles (Ln). lor example, lf one
parLy en[oys a huge ma[orlLy ln Lhe parllamenL, Lhen Lhe effecLlve number of
parLles wlll only be a blL hlgher Lhan 1. values osclllaLlng around 2 suggesL LhaL
one parLy has a sLeady, buL noL huge, ma[orlLy. 1he hlgher Lhe number of
effecLlve parLles, Lhe more fragmenLed Lhe parllamenL, and Lhe greaLer Lhe need
for broad coallLlons. 1able 1 below presenL Lhe values calculaLed upon Lhe basls
of Lhe mosL recenL elecLlon resulLs, presenLlng Lhe effecLlve number of parLles ln
Lhe Lu-27 (as for Lhe naLlonal parllamenLary elecLlons) compared wlLh Lhe
effecLlve number of parLles wlLh a seaL ln Lhe Luropean arllamenL (dlvlded by
Lu Member SLaLes).
1able 1 shows a wlde varleLy of Lhe number of parLles ln Lhe Lu naLlonal
parLy sysLems, ranglng from 2.00 (boLh Pungary and MalLa) Lo 6.74 (Lhe
neLherlands) and 8elglum (8.42), wlLh Lhe average number of effecLlve parLles
per Lu-27 belng 4.01. Such a varleLy ls llkely Lo be an lmporLanL obsLacle for Lhe
developmenL of a slngle Lu parLy sysLem. 1hls problem becomes parLlcularly
lmporLanL lf Lhere are a few parLles ln Lhe naLlonal parLy sysLem LhaL represenL
slmllar pollLlcal ldeologles (for example, conservaLlsm, llberallsm, etc) and, as
such, are poLenLlally flL for Lhe membershlp ln one slngle L pollLlcal group. lor
Lhls reason, lL qulLe ofLen happens LhaL ln one pollLlcal group or a LL LhaL Lhere
are Lwo or even more naLlonal pollLlcal parLles. 1he exLreme example ls




55
1able 1: 1he effecLlve number of parLles ln Lhe Lu-27 compared wlLh Lhe
effecLlve number of naLlonal parLles wlLh seaLs ln Lhe Luropean arllamenL

Member State Lffect|ve number
of part|es by the
seat share |n the
nat|ona|
par||aments
Lffect|ve number
of part|es by the
seat share |n the
Luropean
ar||ament
Number of seat-
w|nn|ng part|es |n
the Luropean
ar||ament e|ect|ons
AusLrla 4.24 4.19 3
8elglum 8.42 10.08 12
8ulgarla 3.34 4.90 6
Cyprus 3.90 3.60 4
Czech 8epubllc 4.31 3.23 4
uenmark 3.33 4.83 6
LsLonla 4.37 4.30 3
llnland 3.13 3.83 7
lrance 2.49 3.89 7
Cermany *4.83 4.33 6
Creece 2.39 3.31 6
Pungary 2.00 2.18 4
lreland 3.03 4.00 3
lLaly 3.07 3.61 6
LaLvla 6.00 3.33 6
LlLhuanla 3.78 4.30 6
Luxembourg 3.63 3.00 4
MalLa 2.00 1.92 2
neLherlands 6.74 7.33 8
oland 2.82 2.73 4
orLugal 3.13 3.72 3
8omanla 3.60 4.11 6
Slovakla 4.01 4.33 6
Slovenla 4.23 4.43 3
Spaln 2.36 2.33 6
Sweden 4.13 3.39 8
unlLed klngdom 2.37 4.71 11
Luropean arllamenL
(as for 14 !uly 2009)
- **4.31 8

*CDU and CSU treated separately.
** For the aims of this analysis, non-attached members have been categorised as
if they were a political group.
Source: Dring and Manow 2010; Gallagher and Mitchell 2008 (an update
downloaded from
http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher/ElSystems/index.php).




56
from Lhe L, whlch lncludes 3 8ulgarlan pollLlcal parLles. AfLer Lhe mosL recenL
8ulgarlan parllamenLary elecLlon of 2009, Lhree of Lhese now form a coallLlon
governmenL, whereas Lhe oLher Lwo falled Lo enLer Lhe parllamenL. Powever, a
much more Lroubllng slLuaLlon concerns four lLallan parLles LhaL are members of
Lhe L. 1he Lwo mosL lmporLanL ones, Lhe uL and Lhe uuC, currenLly sLand on
Lwo dlfferenL sldes of Lhe lLallan pollLlcal specLrum, Lhe uL leadlng Lhe
governmenL coallLlon, and Lhe uuC belng one of Lhe mosL lmporLanL opposlLlon
parLles, alLhough a few years ago Lhey formed a coallLlon governmenL LogeLher.
1he LS has much fewer problems of Lhls klnd, because ln only flve cases does lL
lnclude Lwo naLlonal pollLlcal parLles from one slngle Member SLaLe. 1he LLu8 ls,
ln a sense, more slmllar Lo Lhe L, as, ln many cases, lL has Lwo Member arLles
from one slngle sLaLe, and 3 Member arLles from boLh LlLhuanla and lLaly.
WheLher such mulLlpllclLy can be regarded as a poLenLlal obsLacle Lo Lhe
developmenL of Lu parLy sysLem depends malnly on Lhe naLlonal parLles,
namely, on Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhey percelve Lhemselves as allles and parLners,
raLher Lhan enemles, on Lhe naLlonal parLy scene, and wheLher Lhey can co-
operaLe LogeLher ln one LL. WlLhouL doubL, however, Lhe case of Lhe uL and
Lhe uuC represenLlng Lwo sldes of Lhe pollLlcal specLrum whlle belonglng Lo one
slngle LL ls qulLe alarmlng, slnce lL ls llkely Lo be dlfflculL for clLlzens Lo
undersLand how Lwo compeLlng parLles on Lhe naLlonal scene can belong Lo Lhe
same pollLlcal famlly aL Luropean level. ln Lhls sense, pollLles wlLh very
fragmenLed parLy sysLems may flnd lL dlfflculL Lo adapL Lo a Lrans-naLlonal
sysLem, and, hence, may prove a source of Lenslon or frlcLlon.
Powever, Lhe Lable above does noL reveal furLher lmporLanL obsLacles Lo
Lhe developmenL of an Lu parLy sysLem. llrsL, lL does noL address Lhe quesLlon of
Lhe relaLlve poslLlonlng of Lhe Lwo ma[or parLles ln each counLry Lowards one
anoLher. lf Lwo ma[or parLles ln a Member SLaLe compeLlng aL naLlonal level are
clearly percelved as Lhe lefL and Lhe rlghL, as ln Spaln, Cermany or Pungary, for
example, Lhen lL ls much easler for Lhese parLles Lo repllcaLe Lhe same paLLerns
of compeLlLlon aL Lu level, glven Lhe domlnanL paLLerns of Lhe lefL-rlghL
compeLlLlon beLween Lhe L and Lhe LS. Powever, lf lL happens LhaL a parLy of
Lhe lefL ls relaLlvely weak, and Lwo domlnanL parLles are slLuaLed on Lhe rlghL of
Lhe pollLlcal specLrum, as ln lreland or oland, Lhen lL mlghL be dlfflculL for Lhe
parLles from such counLrles Lo repllcaLe Lhe paLLerns of compeLlLlon from Lhelr
own counLry Lo Lhe Lu level. Lven lf Lhe L Croup represenLs a very wlde array
of cenLre-rlghL and conservaLlve parLles, Lhe membershlp of Lwo cenLre-rlghL
parLles ln one slngle L pollLlcal group ls very problemaLlcal, because usually Lhe
flrsL naLlonal parLy ln a pollLlcal group musL agree Lo Lhe enlargemenL of such a
group Lo anoLher parLy from Lhe same Member SLaLe. lor example, alLhough
lloooo lll applled for L membershlp ln 1970s, lLs appllcaLlon was blocked by
lloe Coel, whlch was already an L member. ln Lhe prevlous leglslaLure, lloooo
lll saL wlLh Lhe uLn Croup, whlle lL currenLly belongs Lo Lhe ALuL Croup, ln
boLh slLuaLlons, lL remalns wlLhouL a real home aL Lhe level of Lu parLy pollLlcs.
Second, from Lhe polnL of vlew of Lhe sLablllLy of Lhe Lu parLy sysLem, lL ls
lmporLanL Lo recognlse LhaL Lhe composlLlon of Lhe pollLlcal groups ls re-
conflgured afLer each elecLlon. CerLalnly, ln each pollLlcal group, parLlcularly wlLh
57
regardLo Lhe four largesL ones, Lhere ls a core, usually formed by Lhe LradlLlonal
and oldesL represenLaLlves of malnsLream pollLlcal Lendencles characLerlslng
each pollLlcal group, such as Cuu ln Lhe L, Lhe lrench SoclallsL arLy ln Lhe
S&u, Lhe lu and Llberal uemocraLs ln Lhe ALuL, or ule Crune ln Lhe Creens/LlA
Croup. lL ls qulLe unllkely LhaL Lhese core parLles wlll ever change Lhelr group
membershlp. Powever, wlLh regard Lo oLher naLlonal parLles, noL belng
percelved as such a core, as Lhe hlsLory of Lhe L pollLlcal groups shows, shlfLs
are much more llkely. Such parLles consLanLly look for Lhelr place ln Lhe L
pollLlcal specLrum, and are wllllng Lo shlfL Lhelr loyalLles lf beLLer condlLlons are
offered Lo Lhem. lollowlng Lhe 2009 elecLlon, Lhere was a parLlcularly blg re-
shuffle, wlLh Lhe 8rlLlsh ConservaLlves and Czech CuS leavlng Lhe L-Lu and
formlng Lhelr own pollLlcal group LogeLher wlLh Lhe ollsh Law and !usLlce (a
former member of now defuncL uLn), wlLh Lhe soclallsLs changlng Lhelr name
lnLo Lhe S&u Croup ln order Lo accommodaLe Lhe enLry of Lhe lLallan u, wlLh
lloooo lll leavlng Lhe uLn Croup and [olnlng Lhe ALuL, and flnally, wlLh a new
LuroscepLlc group belng creaLed by ukl and Lhe remnanLs of Lhe uLn and
lnu/uLM groups of Lhe 2004-2009 leglslaLure. 1o some exLenL such re-shuffles
can be explalned by Lhe facL LhaL many parLles LreaL Lhe membershlp ln one of
Lhe groups only ln Lechnlcal Lerms, as Lhe vehlcles whlch allow Lhe organlsaLlon
of work ln Lhe L and Lhe source of flnanclng, raLher Lhan as long-sLandlng
pollLlcal commlLmenL and an expresslon of belonglng Lo a slngle pollLlcal famlly.
Powever, lL mlghL also be LhaL Lhe quesLlon of Lu parLy afflllaLlon ls an lmporLanL
feaLure of lnLer- and lnLra-parLy pollLlcal baLLles. naLlonal pollLlcal parLles ofLen
crlLlclse one anoLher aL domesLlc level over Lhelr cholce of Lhe membershlp ln
Lhe L pollLlcal groups. 1hls was parLlcularly observable before Lhe 2009
Luropean arllamenL elecLlons ln oland, where all Lhe parLles Lrled Lo
compromlse one anoLher by showlng how badly Lhey had chosen Lhelr LL
afflllaLlon. 8uL a probably more serlous slLuaLlon ls one ln whlch a naLlonal parLy
ls lnLernally dlvlded over lLs L group membershlp. 1he 8rlLlsh ConservaLlve parLy
ls a prlme example of such c case. 1he cholce of lLs L group membershlp has
been always dependenL on whlch lnLernal facLlon - pro- or anLl-Luropean -
prevalled. Whlle, ln early 1990s, a group of pro-Luropean ConservaLlve MLs
supporLed by some pro-Luropean naLlonal parLy pollLlclans succeeded ln [olnlng
Lhe L Croup, lL was subsequenLly crlLlclsed by a more anLl-Luropean facLlon,
wlLh Lhe effecL LhaL flnally Lhe ConservaLlve parLy lefL Lhe L and creaLed Lhelr
own LC8 Croup. Such re-shuffllng, and Lhe consequenL de-sLablllsaLlon of Lhe L
Croups, ls one of Lhe mosL serlous obsLacles Lo Lhe developmenL of an Lu parLy
sysLem.
llnally, lf a genulne Lu parLy sysLem ls Lo emerge, wlLh LLs runnlng
Lhelr llsLs of candldaLes ln a LransnaLlonal consLlLuency, Lhen lL ls mosL llkely LhaL
Lhls wlll be based upon Lhe exLra-parllamenLary Luropean pollLlcal parLles, whlch,
ln some cases, do noL always conform exacLly Lo Lhe composlLlon of Lhe pollLlcal
groups. lor example, Lhe ALuL Croup ls a home for Lwo exLra-parllamenLary
parLles (LLu8 and Lu), Lhe Creens/LlA Croup llkewlse, and Lhe lLallan
uemocraLlc arLy, alLhough allled Lo Lhe S&u Croup, ls noL a member of Lhe LS.
lrom Lhe polnL of vlew of Lhls reporL, Lhls ls a very lmporLanL dlsLlncLlon, slnce lL
ls qulLe llkely LhaL Lhe number of parLles ln Lhe Lu 'exLra-parllamenLary' parLy
58
sysLem wlll be greaLer Lhan ln Lhe 'parllamenLary' one, whlch wlll have lmporLanL
consequences for Lhe paLLerns of lnLra-parLy compeLlLlon and elecLoral
processes.

3.3 LLGAL S1A1US CI 1nL CLI1ICAL Ak1ILS

8ased upon Lhe freedom of esLabllshlng and funcLlonlng of pollLlcal parLles, Lhe
democraLlc sLaLe regulaLes Lhelr funcLlonlng Lhrough lLs publlc law. usually, law
deLermlnes whaL consLlLuLes a pollLlcal parLy, ln whlch form of acLlvlLles parLles
may engage, and someLlmes also lndlcaLe approprlaLe forms of parLy
organlsaLlon and behavlour (kaLz 2004). Powever, lL comes as no surprlse LhaL
moLlves and even very speclflc ways of regulaLlng pollLlcal parLles dlffer
slgnlflcanLly. lor example, alLhough Lhe consLlLuLlon ln Lhe ma[orlLy of
democraLlc sLaLes lncludes some rules on pollLlcal parLles, only ln some counLrles
are Lhere speclflc laws (acLs) devoLed Lo pollLlcal parLles. ln some counLrles (for
example, 8elglum, lrance, llnland and Lhe neLherlands), pollLlcal parLles
funcLlon accordlng Lo Lhe law common Lo all persons of corporaLe characLer (for
example, as assoclaLlons), alLhough Lhelr flnanclng reglme mlghL be regulaLed
separaLely (Councll of Lurope, 2004). ln Creece, pollLlcal parLles do noL possess
legal personallLy. ln Cermany and llnland, Lhe consLlLuLlve elemenL of Lhe
deflnlLlon of pollLlcal parLy lncludes Lhe obllgaLlon Lo parLlclpaLe ln elecLlons,
Lhough we do noL flnd such a regulaLlon ln Lhe ollsh legal sysLem, for example.
8y and large, Lhe exLenL of, Lo puL dlfferenLly, Lhe lnLenslLy of legal regulaLlon
(concernlng, for example, Lhe rules on lnLernal parLy organlsaLlon) ls ofLen
dlfferenL. ln summary, we see here a very rlch varleLy of consLlLuLlonal and legal
regulaLlons ln conLemporary Lurope (van 8lezen 2009, Lehmann 2003).
3

1hose dlfferences mlghL be generally aLLrlbuLed Lo dlfferenL legal culLures
as well as Lo dlfferenL noLlons of Lhe pollLlcal parLy common Lo glven counLrles.
1hey key quesLlons ls wheLher a pollLlcal parLy should be merely LreaLed, as for
mosL of lLs hlsLory, as a prlvaLe gaLherlng of lndlvlduals, or raLher wheLher parLles
are sLaLe acLors, sub[ecL Lo consLlLuLlonal resLralnLs, obllged Lo guaranLee
democracy ln Lhelr lnLernal affalrs as well. lollowlng Lhls dlsLlncLlon, pollLlcal
sclenLlsLs dlscuss Lhe noLlon of Lhe parLy as 'Lhe parLlcular mlx of publlc" and
prlvaLe"' (Ware 1987), and someLlme Lhey also conslder varlous models of
regulaLlng pollLlcal parLles, such as Lhe prescrlpLlon or Lhe permlsslon models (for
a revlew see !anda 2003, see, also, van 8lezen 2009). ln Lhe case of Lhe former,
formally sLaLed condlLlons lmposed on parLles (concernlng, for example, wldely
Laken lnLernal sLrucLure or condlLlons for granLlng Lhem legal personallLy) are
mlnlmal or even non-exlsLenL. 1he prescrlpLlon model, on Lhe oLher hand,
lmposes on parLles many more rules sLlpulaLed ln a more deLalled way, especlally
regardlng Lhelr lnLernal organlsaLlon, for example, Lhe selecLlon of candldaLes or
Lhe rlghLs of Lhe members. 1he mosL well-know example of Lhe permlsslon (or

3
ueLalls of many of Lhe dlfferenL consLlLuLlonal rules are reporLed aL
hLLp://www.parLylaw.bham.ac.uk/

59
llberal) model ls found ln Lhe Lngllsh legal LradlLlon, whereas Lhe prescrlpLlon
model corresponds Lo Lhe Cerman one. CLher Lu Member SLaLes can be
probably placed somewhere ln Lhe mlddle beLween Lhe Lwo LradlLlons (Councll
of Lurope 2004), Lhough one has Lo noLe LhaL a prevalllng Lendency ln recenL
Llmes ls Lo regulaLe pollLlcal parLles ln law, raLher Lhan leave Lhem wlLhouL such
regulaLlon (van 8lezen & kopecky 2007). neverLheless, 8elglum, lreland and
Sweden have been relucLanL Lo leglslaLe on pollLlcal parLles, assumlng LhaL Lhe
organlsaLlon of pollLlcal parLles should be a maLLer only for Lhe parLles
Lhemselves Lo declde upon (Councll of Lurope 2004).
1he key quesLlon LhaL we wlll now address ls wheLher Lhe above varleLy
can have any effecL on Lhe developmenL of Lu parLy sysLem and Lhe funcLlonlng
of LLs Lhemselves. lrom Lhe polnL of vlew of Lhelr legal sLandlng, Lhe
LuroparLles are sub[ecL Lo Lwo bodles of law: one seL up by Lhe Lu 8egulaLlon
2004/2003 (and oLher Lu legal provlslons such as Lhe so-called llnanclal
8egulaLlon), and anoLher seL up by Lhe leglslaLlon of a Member SLaLe ln whlch a
LL has a seaL. ln order Lo apply for Lhe sLaLus of a pollLlcal parLy aL Lu level, lL
ls mandaLory Lo possess legal personallLy ln Lhe Member SLaLe of one's cholce
before acLually applylng for recognlLlon as a LL. ln oLher words, ln Lhe flrsL
place elLher a group of clLlzens or aL leasL Lwo naLlonal pollLlcal parLles have Lo
seL up a legal enLlLy and apply for Lhe recognlLlon as a legal person, and only Lhen
apply for fundlng Lo Lhe Luropean arllamenL based upon 8egulaLlon 2004/2003.
Slnce such a consLrucLlon as 'Luropean legal personallLy' does noL exlsL, Lhey
musL apply for legal personallLy ln one of Lhe Member SLaLes. 1he cholce of seaL
ls very lmporLanL: for example, lf lL ls declded Lo creaLe a Luropean pollLlcal parLy
accordlng Lo lrench or 8elglan law, Lhen lL ls enough Lo slmply reglsLer an
assoclaLlon. Powever, lf somebody wlshes Lo have a seaL ln Cermany, AusLrla or
oland, a body of law speclflc for pollLlcal parLles wlll govern Lhem. ln oLher
words, Lhe parLy musL declde for lLself where lL ls more beneflclal Lo have lLs seaL
(CagaLek 2008), desplLe Lhe facL LhaL lL seems more naLural Lo be based ln
8russels due Lo Lhe proxlmlLy of Lhe Lu's lnsLlLuLlons.
LxcepL for Lhe Lu uemocraLs (esLabllshed under uanlsh law) and
Luropean ChrlsLlan ollLlcal MovemenL (governed by uuLch law), all remalnlng
Luropean pollLlcal parLles do have Lhelr legal seaLs ln 8russels. 8efore Lhe
adopLlon of Lhe Lu 8egulaLlon 2004/2003, LLs were pracLlcally speaklng
'prlvaLe' organlsaLlons, wlLhouL legal personallLy, able Lo sLrucLure Lhelr lnLernal
organlsaLlon wlLhouL any exogenous lmpacL or lnfluence. Powever, havlng
declded Lo base Lhelr legal acLlvlLles under Lhe 8elglan law, Lhey had Lo adapL
Lhelr lnLernal sLrucLure Lo Lhe rules governlng pollLlcal parLles ln Lhls Lu Member
SLaLe. Pere, pollLlcal parLles exlsL as volunLary assoclaLlons of clLlzens, and, ln
law, are consLlLuLed as non-proflL assoclaLlons (l.e. AssoclaLlon Sans 8uL LucraLlf,
AS8L). 1he 8elglan leglslaLlon lndlcaLes Lhe elemenLs LhaL need Lo be presenL ln
an assoclaLlon's (parLy's) sLaLuLe, LhaL ls, lLs alms, members' rlghLs, organs and
Lhelr compeLences, and Lhe procedure Lo amend Lhe sLaLuLe. lor example, Lhe
AS8L are Lo have aL leasL Lwo organs: an execuLlve organ and a members'
assembly. 1he acLlvlLles of Lhe LLs are Lherefore sub[ecL Lo monlLorlng,
conLrol and enforcemenL under Lhe 8elglan law: for example, Lhey musL reporL
Lhelr flnanclal acLlvlLles boLh Lo Lhe 8elglan auLhorlLles, and are also requlred
60
Lhem Lo reporL Lo Lhe Luropean arllamenL under 8egulaLlon 2004/2003.
WlLh regard Lo Lhe LLs esLabllshed prlor Lo 2003, Lhese requlremenLs
caused some dlfflculLles ln flndlng such a legal consLrucLlon LhaL would boLh
assure Lhe conLlnulLy of Lhe prevlous mode of Lhelr work and would be ln
accordance wlLh 8elglan law. 1he case of Lhe L ls a good example of Lhe
dlfflculLles ln adapLlng an already sLrucLured organlsaLlon Lo Lhe new legal rules.
uurlng Lhe LranslLlon perlod before Lhe enLry lnLo force of Lhe 8egulaLlon, Lhe
L declded Lo esLabllsh lLself as an AS8L. As menLloned above, under 8elglan
law, an AS8L ls Lo have aL leasL Lwo organs: an execuLlve organ and a members'
assembly. 1hls rule creaLed ma[or problems for Lhe L. 1haL ls, lnLerpreLlng L
sLaLuLes accordlng Lo 8elglan law, before enLry lnLo force of Lhe 8egulaLlon, Lhe
L used Lo have Lwo members' assemblles: Lhe ollLlcal 8ureau and Lhe
Congress. AlLhough 8elglan law does noL forbld esLabllshlng any oLher organs
Lhan Lhe Ceneral Assembly and LxecuLlve 8oard, lL seems raLher absurd Lo have
Lwo organs servlng Lhe same funcLlon, LhaL ls, Lwo members' assemblles. 1hls ls
why lnlLlally, ln Lhe L sLaLuLes, Lhere was no place for Lhe Congress aL all, slnce
Lhe ollLlcal 8ureau was presenLed as Lhe 'Ceneral Assembly' and L
resldency became Lhe 'LxecuLlve 8oard'. ConsequenLly, whaL Lhe L dld was
Lo adopL lnLernal 8egulaLlons, ln whlch Lhe Congress and Lhe L summlL were
ouLllned. Powever, afLer Lhe LranslLlon perlod, ln AugusL 2003, Lhe L was
granLed Lhe sLaLus of lnLernaLlonal non-roflL CrganlsaLlon (AlS8L), whlch
enabled lL Lo lnclude Lhe Congress Lhereln. ln prlnclple, however, afLer a shorL
LranslLlon perlod, Lhelr general sLrucLure and Lhe mode of work remaln Lhe same
as Lhose [usL before Lhe enLry lnLo force of Lhe Lu 8egulaLlon 2004/2003 (see
CagaLek 2008).
ln pracLlce, all Lhe ma[or LLs are sub[ecL Lo Lhe same legal reglme,
belng esLabllshed under 8elglan law, and lL does noL seem Lo be an obsLacle for
Lhe developmenL of Lu parLy sysLem for one ma[or reason: Lhe lssues relaLed Lo
Lhe legal sLaLus of LLs are percelved by mosL naLlonal parLles ln only Lechnlcal,
raLher Lhan, pollLlcal Lerms (CagaLek 2008). lor Lhls reason, mosL naLlonal
parLles do noL pay any aLLenLlon Lo Lhese lssues, and, as such, Lhe varleLy of
naLlonal leglslaLlons concernlng Lhe legal sLaLus of parLles does noL seem Lo have
any lmpacL on Lhe developmenL of an Lu parLy sysLem or of LLs Lhemselves.

3.4 IN1LkNAL CkGANISA1ICN

Slnce Lhe 1990s, Lhe lssue of parLy organlsaLlon has become one of Lhe cenLral
elemenLs ln Lhe sLudy of pollLlcal parLles. Cplnlon regardlng Lhls has varled
beLween Lhose scholars who argued LhaL parLy organlsaLlons were converglng
cross-naLlonally and who made a case for models explalnlng and lllusLraLlng
cerLaln unlversal pracLlces and Lendencles, on Lhe one hand, and beLween Lhose
who argued LhaL, far from wanlng, Lhe naLlonal conLexL ln whlch a parLy ls
locaLed - Lhe legal regulaLory envlronmenL, Lhe naLlonal sysLem of parLy fundlng,
Lhe parLlcularlsLlc naLlonal lnsLlLuLlons - ls provlng lncreaslngly deLermlnanL for a
parLy's organlsaLlon and culLure, on Lhe oLher (kaLz and Malr 1994, Ware 1993).
61
WlLh regard Lo LLs, Lhe maln perspecLlve developed by scholars
followlng Lhe lnsLlLuLlonal approach Lo parLy organlsaLlon was Lo base
explanaLlons of LL organlsaLlon upon Lhe lmpacL of Lhelr lnsLlLuLlonal
envlronmenL. Clven LhaL all of Lhem operaLed wlLhln Lhe same lnsLlLuLlon aL
Luropean level, lL was argued LhaL Lhey wlll Lend Lo develop a very slmllar
lnLernal sLrucLure and organlsaLlon. 1hls, lndeed, was Lhe concluslon of a classlc
sLudy by Plx and Lord (1997). ln Lhls approach, Lhe posslble lmpacL of Lhe
naLlonal dlfferences regardlng parLy organlsaLlons ls less emphaslsed. Powever,
based upon an ln-depLh analysls of boLh formal and lnformal organlsaLlon of Lhe
Lwo largesL LLs, CagaLek (2008) has called lnLo quesLlon boLh Lhe exLenL of
organlsaLlonal convergence and Lhe prlmary focus of Lhe llLeraLure on Lhe
lnsLlLuLlonal envlronmenL, Lhus brlnglng Lo Lhe fore Lhe role of naLlonal and
ldeologlcal dlfferences ln how parLles organlse and Lhe posslble lmpacL of Lhese
dlfferences on LL organlsaLlon. Pe emphaslses LhaL Lhe flnal shape of LL
organlsaLlon ls llkely Lo reflecL a compromlse beLween compeLlng proposlLlons
presenLed by naLlonal Member SLaLe parLles. 1hus, each naLlonal pollLlcal parLy
mlghL noL only hold dlfferenL vlews concernlng ldeologlcal maLLers, as dlscussed
ln ChapLer 1, buL mlghL also hold dlfferenL vlews regardlng how a Luropean
pollLlcal parLy should be organlsed. 1hls would clearly consLlLuLe a ma[or obsLacle
Lo Lhe way of developlng genulne LransnaLlonal parLles. 1o lllusLraLe Lhls
Lendency, below we wlll clLe Lwo examples comlng from Lhe Lwo ma[or LLs.
1hese examples relaLe flrsL, Lo Lhe sLrucLure of Lhe parLy, and second, Lo Lhe
quesLlon of lnLroduclng lndlvldual membershlp.
1he flrsL example concerns Lhe L. AfLer 1993, when Lhe Scandlnavlan
conservaLlve parLles [olned Lhe L ln full capaclLy, Lhey expressed a number of
commenLs whlch apLly lllusLraLed Lhelr dlfferenL vlews on Lhe parLy sLrucLure. AL
LhaL Llme, Lhe Scandlnavlan conservaLlves were noL happy abouL Lhe characLer
of Lhe L ollLlcal 8ureau (a represenLaLlve lnLermedlary organ comprlslng
some 60-80 members) whlch, ln Lhelr vlew, was Loo blg and operaLed more llke
a Lalklng shop, Lhelr more famlllar prlnclple of 'one organlsaLlon - one
represenLaLlve' was noL pracLlced, and Lhe 8ureau's work was lnsLead based
upon Lhe welghLed voLlng. 1he Scandlnavlan members proposed worklng wlLhln
a smaller forum, such as a sLeerlng commlLLee, more sulLed Lo Lhe needs of
parLy leaders. 1hls reform may well have been favoured upon Lhe basls of Lhe
nordlc conservaLlves' experlences of Lhe parLy leaders' conferences ln Lhelr
naLlonal parLy organlsaLlons, and hence Lhey pushed for an equlvalenL body aL
Lu parLy level. 1hls led Lhe L Lo creaLe Lhe new organ, Lhe Councll, ln order Lo
fulfll Lhls role. Powever, as Lhe subsequenL pracLlce showed, lL falled Lo be
useful, wlLh a low raLe of parLlclpaLlon, Lhereby allowlng Lhe ollLlcal 8ureau Lo
remaln Lhe mosL lmporLanL lnLermedlary organ of Lhe L. WhaL seemed Lo
maLLer here was LhaL Lhe old Member SLaLe parLles of Lhe L had goL used Lo
Lhe way ln whlch Lhe 8ureau worked and hence preferred Lo remaln wlLh LhaL
sLrucLure.
1he second example concerns Lhe debaLes over Lhe lnLroducLlon of dlrecL
lndlvldual membershlp ln Lhe arLy of Luropean SoclallsLs (LS) whlch Look place
ln 2003. 8ecause LLS were creaLed as federaLlons of naLlonal pollLlcal parLles,
Lhe quesLlon of lndlvldual membershlp was rarely dlscussed. 1he sLeps Laken ln
62
Lhls dlrecLlon have slmply been seen as a funcLlon of maklng Lhe Lu federaLlons
'real' pollLlcal parLles, modelled on Lhelr naLlonal counLerparLs. lor Lhls reason,
Lhe naLlonal Member SLaLe parLles of all Lhe ma[or pollLlcal famllles were qulLe
relucLanL Lo agree Lo esLabllsh Lhls klnd of membershlp ln order Lo avold creaLlng
an lmpresslon LhaL Lhere were Lwo dlfferenL clubs of members, buL also ln order
Lo keep conLrol of Lhelr own membershlp (CagaLek 2008). 1he whole maLLer was
placed on Lhe agenda only ln Lhe early 1990s and only ln a symbollc sense. AL Lhls
Llme, Lhe L formally declded Lo lnsLlLuLe lL as a Lool Lo demonsLraLe LhaL lL was
someLhlng more Lhan [usL a pure lnLernaLlonal organlsaLlon, wlLhouL, however,
developlng lL ln pracLlce. ln Lhe LS, lL came onLo Lhe agenda when Lhe newly
elecLed presldenL oul nyrup 8asmussen made Lhe polnL a parL of hls elecLlon
programme for Lhe LS resldency ln 2004, argulng LhaL Lhe LS should develop
some klnd of lndlvldual or supporLlng membershlp. AfLer a conLesLed lnLernal
debaLe, lL was agreed, ln May 2006, Lo launch Lhe so called 'LS acLlvlsLs'
lnlLlaLlve, whlch does noL provlde for any formal rlghLs for such acLlvlsLs wlLhln
Lhe LS declslon-maklng sysLem, buL allows for Lhe lncluslon of soclallsL mlllLanLs
ln LS acLlvlLles. Accordlng Lo LS offlclals, Lhe ldea was Lo reflecL a LradlLlon of
openness of soclal democraLlc and soclallsL parLles and Lo Lransform Lhe LS lnLo
a more popular, raLher Lhan ellLlsL pro[ecL. lL goes wlLhouL saylng LhaL naLlonal
member parLles who have experlence of such openness are more llkely Lo accepL
lL also aL Lhe level of Luropean parLy pollLlcs, and Lhls mlghL ofLen reflecL Lhe
pollLlcal culLure of dlfferenL counLrles. ln Lhls regard, one can menLlon Lhe
example of Lhe SoclallsL arLles ln Wallonla, whlch, slnce 1990s, have sLarLed
organlslng workshops for Lhelr members, ln whlch Lhey geL LogeLher and develop
pollcy ldeas (Lhe so-called 'lorums'). Slmllar examples almlng aL empowerlng
parLy members can be found ln oLher parLles, lncludlng Lhe uuLch vdA, buL Lhey
are by no means unlversal. Pence, lf LLs and Lhelr represenLaLlves Lransfer
Lhelr ldeas on parLy membershlp Lo Lu-parLy level, Lenslons mlghL arlse.
ln summary, Lhe 30-year long hlsLory of Lhe largesL LLs clearly
lnfluences Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhey are open Lo new proposals. Powever,
slmllarly Lo Lhe case of Lhe legal sLaLus, noL every naLlonal parLy ls so preoccupled
wlLh organlsaLlonal lnLrlcacles. When a modlflcaLlon of lnLernal rules ls debaLed,
only a few naLlonal Member SLaLe parLles Lable any amendmenLs Lo sLaLuLes, and
Lhe maLLer of parLy organlsaLlon ls usually lefL wlLh Lhe parLy secreLarlaL and
leadershlp. Lven Lhe LS resldency - an organ wlLh sLaLuLory compeLences
regardlng parLy organlsaLlon - declded LhaL lL would raLlfy Lhe declslons of Lhe
LS Co-ordlnaLlon 1eam (composed of Member arLles' lnLernaLlonal
SecreLarles) on organlsaLlonal maLLers wlLhouL debaLe (LS 2007).

3.S CAMAIGN kAC1ICLS

lor many years now, Lhe body of llLeraLure collecLlvely labelled as 'pollLlcal
markeLlng' has been developlng a number of recommendaLlons and suggesLlons
on Lhe besL campalgn pracLlces, whlch, by assumpLlon, could be applled ln all
counLrles, regardless of Lhe naLlonal LradlLlons and hablLs. 1hls knowledge ranges
63
from suggesLlons on how pollLlclans should speak and gesLlculaLe, Lo very
sophlsLlcaLed Lechnlques of LargeLlng voLers or seLLlng Lhe campalgn agenda. lL ls
assumed LhaL raLlonally-drlven pollLlclans wlll learn from Lhls world-wlde
knowledge, and Lry Lo copy or adapL some of Lhe ldeas Lo naLlonal level. 8unnlng
an elecLlon campalgn and wlnnlng Lhe elecLlon should, more or less, be all abouL
Lhe same Lhlng ln all democraLlc sysLems. 1hls noLlon has also been fosLered by
Lhe employmenL of uS-based elecLlon consulLanLs ln a varleLy of dlfferenL
naLlonal seLLlngs.
8uL Lhere ls also cross-naLlonal varleLy (see Lees-MarshmenL et ol. 2009
for a Lhorough analysls). ln Lurope, Loo, as Lhe 2009 elecLlons Lo Lhe Luropean
arllamenL (llke Lhe prevlous ones) conflrmed, Lhere ls subsLanLlal varlaLlon ln
Lhe degree of campalgn professlonallsaLlon across Member SLaLes (de vreese
2009). 1he organlsaLlon of campalgns ls also lnfluenced by dlfferenL elecLoral and
pollLlcal culLures (CagaLek 2010), and, across Luropean democracles, we observe
a large number of perslsLenL dlfferences, boLh of a legal and a culLural naLure,
whlch sLand ln Lhe way of Lhe convergence and Lrans-naLlonallsaLlon. 1hey can
be apLly lllusLraLed by analyslng Lhe mosL recenL 2009 elecLlon Lo Lhe Luropean
arllamenL and lLs campalgn paLLerns. lor example, ln uenmark and lreland, pald
1v adverLlsemenLs are prohlblLed, whlle ln oland Lhey have become Lhe maln
organlslng feaLure of elecLlon campalgnlng. ln Luxembourg, lL ls forbldden Lo
publlsh oplnlon polls less Lhan one monLh before Lhe elecLlon daLe, whlle such
resLrlcLlons are unknown ln oLher counLrles. Some of Lhese dlfferences orlglnaLe
from Lhe dlfferenL legal provlslons. CLhers can be aLLrlbuLed Lo pollLlcal culLure.
1he uk and lreland are parLlcularly well-known for puLLlng a hlgh premlum on
dlrecL personallsed campalgns, ofLen based upon door-Lo-door canvasslng, whlle
such forms are less emphaslsed ln oLher counLrles of conLlnenLal Lurope. Such
dlfferences could be mulLlplled, and a recenL analysls of Lhe 2009 elecLlons Lo Lhe
Luropean arllamenL across Lu Member SLaLes provldes sufflclenL ground for
such a concluslon (CagaLek 2010).
AL lndlvldual level, we can draw useful daLa from Lhe L8C 2006 MLs
survey, whlch analysed MLs' experlences of Lhe elecLoral campalgn process by
whlch Lhey won elecLlon, and, ln parLlcular, Lhe degree of efforL LhaL Lhey placed
on Lhe varlous Lypes of campalgnlng. lrom Lhls daLa, lL ls clear LhaL Lhe ma[orlLy
of Lhe respondenLs puL a loL of efforL lnLo publlc and parLy meeLlngs, as well as ln
developlng medla relaLlons, buL, aL Lhe same Llme, a slgnlflcanL number of MLs
downgraded such LradlLlonal campalgn Lools such as door-Lo-door canvasslng or
dlrecL malllng. When looked aL from Lhe naLlonal perspecLlve, Lhe laLLer,
generally less popular campalgn Lools are more llkely Lo be used by 8rlLlsh MLs,
and ln Lhe Member SLaLes LhaL use Lhe S1v (larrell and Scully 2007), Lhus
drawlng our aLLenLlon Lo Lhe shape of Lhe elecLoral sysLem, buL also Lo Lhe
dlfferenL perspecLlves on represenLaLlon. 8y Lhe same Loken, former 8rlLlsh
MLs and Lhose noL elecLed on a closed llsL sysLem are more llkely Lo favour
vlewlng Lhelr role as servlng Lhe lnLeresLs of lndlvldual clLlzens, and Lhus organlse
Lhelr campalgn acLlvlLles wlLh a vlew Lo LargeLlng Lhe lndlvldual voLers (larrell
and Scully 2007).
lf Lhe proposal Lo elecL a porLlon of MLs from Lhe Lrans-naLlonal slngle
64
Luropean consLlLuency were adopLed, LLs as such would be expecLed Lo run
elecLlon campalgns as lndependenL pollLlcal acLors. Whlle Lhls proposal seems Lo
obLaln supporL from Lhe leadershlp of Lhe maln parLy groups, Lhere ls less
enLhuslasm aL Lhe level of Lhe lndlvldual MLs. 1he L8C 2006 ML daLa (larrell
eL al. 2006) revealed LhaL almosL half (47.1) of MLs were opposed Lo Lhe
proposal, lncludlng all uanlsh and LsLonlan MLs, and a large ma[orlLy of ollsh
(94) and 8rlLlsh (87) were also agalnsL lL. Among Lhose LhaL are malnly ln
favour are Lhe lrench (27 agalnsL), Cermans (41 agalnsL), lLallans (33
agalnsL), and uuLch (38 agalnsL). 1hese lndlvldual ML aLLlLudes mlghL noL be
so cruclal for Lhe flnal declslon of Lhe arllamenL regardlng wheLher Lo propose
Lhls modlflcaLlon, buL lL does speak volumes abouL Lhe aLLlLudes of Lhe pollLlclans
ln Lhese counLrles lf Lhls proposal were Lo be lmplemenLed. Slmply puL, lL seems
reasonable Lo expecL a raLher relucLanL approach of Lhe parLy machlnes ln
oland and Lhe uk Lowards promoLlng Lhe candldaLes from Lhe Lrans-naLlonal
parLy llsLs, regardless of Lhelr pollLlcal group afflllaLlon. 1hls observaLlon also
holds Lrue regardless of Lhe facL LhaL 8rlLlsh and ollsh MLs have enLlrely
dlfferenL campalgn Lools, wlLh Lhe 8rlLlsh focuslng on a dlrecL campalgnlng wlLh
Lhe clLlzens, and Lhe ollsh glvlng prlorlLy Lo publlc meeLlngs and medla relaLlons
(larrell et ol. 2006).
1hls varleLy underllnes Lhe llkely dlfflculLles LhaL would have Lo be
confronLed ln aLLempLlng Lo run even moderaLely co-ordlnaLed pan-Luropean
campalgns, sulLed Lo all naLlonal pollLlcal clrcumsLances, LradlLlons and conLexLs.
Lven before Lhe 2009 L elecLlons, however, such aLLempLs played a relaLlvely
small role wlLhln Lhe more general, cross-naLlonal feaLures of Lhe L elecLlons.
Cnce Lhe whole campalgn was naLlonally drlven, naLlonal pollLlcal parLles needed
llLLle help from Lhelr Lu-level counLerparL. lor Lhls reason, mosL of Lhe LLs
have Laken a defenslve approach Lo provldlng servlces for campalgns, ln LhaL
Lhey offered poLenLlal servlces (such as preparlng maLerlals abouL Lhe record of
Lhe pollLlcal groups ln Lhe L) Lo Lhe naLlonal parLles only lf requesLed. WhaL we
have here, lndeed, are 27 naLlonal elecLlon campalgns LhaL are run followlng Lhe
loglc of Lhe second-order elecLlons, and wlLh paLLerns and schemes Lyplcal of Lhe
naLlonal campalgnlng. 1he experlence of Lhese second-order elecLlons also
shows LhaL a slngle campalgn run by any one of Lhe LLs would also run lnLo Lhe
problem of Lhere belng 27 separaLe seLs of campalgn lssues, concerns and
pecullarlLles. CerLalnly, Lhere are a number of furLher dlfflculLles relaLlng Lo Lhe
sLyles of Lhe campalgns, buL when Lhere ls no agreemenL on Lhe campalgn lssues
Lo begln wlLh, Lhese oLher problems remaln secondary.
1hey would come Lo Lhe fore, however, lf Lhe Lrans-naLlonal consLlLuency
were lnLroduced. AL Lhls polnL, Lhe dlfferenL naLlonal LradlLlons of campalgnlng
would play a much more lmporLanL role ln blocklng genulne Lrans-
naLlonallsaLlon. ln general, however, Lhere seems Lo be Lwo loglcal scenarlos
regardlng Lhe quesLlon of wheLher LLs can run a slngle campalgn. Accordlng Lo
Lhe flrsL one, LLs would become relaLlvely lndependenL campalgn players.
Member SLaLe parLles wlll sLlll play a leadlng role ln preparlng Lhe conLenL of Lhe
elecLlons manlfesLo, buL Lhe campalgn sLraLegy and conLenL, as well as Lhe
runnlng of Lhe campalgn (aL leasL ln ma[or parLs), wlll be run by LLs, wlLh only
moderaLe help from Lhelr own Member SLaLe parLles. 1hey wlll compeLe wlLh
65
oLher LLs for a porLlon of seaLs ln Lhe L, wlLh a focus on Lhe Lu problems. AL
Lhe same Llme, Lhe naLlonal Member SLaLe parLles wlll sLlll run Lhelr own,
naLlonally drlven campalgns for L elecLlons, whlle clearly lndlcaLlng Lhelr
membershlp ln, and supporL for, one of Lhe LLs. We would Lhen have Lwo
relaLlvely dlsLlncL anlmals: Lhe naLlonal parLy sysLem and a Luropean one, wlLh
Lwo dlfferenL, alLhough connecLed, seLs of parLles - whaL Andeweg (1993) has
referred Lo as a spllL-level parLy sysLem. Powever, runnlng such a campalgn
would be very expenslve and would llkely requlre a masslve lncrease ln Lhe
subsldles allocaLed Lo LLs from Lhe L budgeL. Second, naLlonal Member SLaLe
parLles would need Lo spend much more Llme and resources Lhan Lhey do now
on acLually parLlclpaLlng ln Lu Lrans-naLlonal parLy pollLlcs by aLLendlng meeLlngs
of Lhe LLs, Laklng parL and conLrlbuLlng Lo Lhe worklng groups, etc.
ln Lhe second scenarlo, lf Lhe funds allocaLed for Lhe campalgn Lo Lhe Lu
parLles do noL lncrease slgnlflcanLly, Lhen LLs and Lhelr naLlonal Member SLaLe
parLles wlll have no a cholce buL Lo organlse a de-cenLrallsed campalgn for Lhe
slngle, Luropean parLy llsLs ln whlch Lhere wlll co-exlsL agaln a large number of
naLlonally-run campalgns. lL would be a de-cenLrallsed campalgn, based upon Lhe
same slogans and slmllar schemes wlLh regard Lo Lhe candldaLes, buL aparL from
some general lssues, lL would have Lo be adapLed ln each counLry Lo dlfferenL
naLlonal concerns, and lL would requlre a much greaLer efforL on Lhe parL of Lhe
naLlonal parLles, raLher Lhan on Lhe Luropean parLles. 1he laLLer would prepare a
menu, llsLlng Lhe key pollcy areas, and provldlng varlous campalgn Lools, Lo be
cherry-plcked by Lhe parLles accordlng Lo Lhelr own parLlcular needs. 1hls was
also Lhe sLraLegy applled ln Lhe 2009 Luropean arllamenL lnformaLlon
campalgn. 1he L prepared a menu of 10 Loplcs, such as border conLrol or food
securlLy, from whlch each Member SLaLe had Lo choose Lhe four whlch besL-
sulLed besL lLs naLlonal and pollLlcal slLuaLlon (see Meyer 2010).
Any assessmenL of Lhe quesLlon of wheLher Lhe many naLlonal dlfferences
mlghL serve Lo block Lhe developmenL of genulne Lrans-naLlonal parLles depends
on Lhe lssue aL sLake. WlLh regard Lo Lhe legal sLaLus and parLy organlsaLlon,
Lhere ls a very low lnLeresL on Lhe parL of Lhe naLlonal Member SLaLe parLles, and
hence we need noL expecL serlous Lenslons as a resulL of convergence or Lrans-
naLlonallsaLlon. Such dlfferences are Lherefore noL llkely Lo presenL any ma[or
obsLacles. 1he one posslble excepLlon here concerns Lhe esLabllshmenL of Lhe
supporLlng membershlps (LS acLlvlsLs), slnce Lhe adopLlon of such lnlLlaLlves
lnLrude on Lhe fleld of Lhe lndependence of Lhe naLlonal Member SLaLe parLles.
Powever, Lhe sLory ls dlfferenL when lL comes Lo campalgn pracLlces and
Lhe paLLerns of compeLlLlon, slnce Lhese are areas of poLenLlally hlgh sLakes,
whlch can play an lmporLanL role ln deLermlnlng elecLlon resulLs. Pere, Lhe only
way Lo remove Lhese dlfferences may be Lo allow for a de-cenLrallsed campalgn
devlsed and co-ordlnaLed by LLs, buL run LogeLher wlLh Lhe naLlonal Member
SLaLe parLles.




66
key 5ommoty

1he wlde varleLy ln Lhe numbers of parLles aL naLlonal level can consLlLuLe an
obsLacle for Lhe developmenL of a slngle Lu parLy sysLem,

1he presence of Lwo or even more naLlonal pollLlcal parLles wlLhln Lhe same L
group hlnders Lhe developmenL of a Lu parLy sysLem,

1he Lendency by many naLlonal parLles Lo LreaL Lhelr membershlp ln L groups only
ln Lechnlcal Lerms weakens Lhe process of Lrans-naLlonal parLy-bulldlng,

1he facL LhaL all Lhe ma[or LuroparLles are sub[ecLed Lo Lhe same legal reglme may
favour Lhe developmenL of a Lu parLy sysLem,

1he bulldlng of a Lrans-naLlonal parLy sysLem ls condlLloned by Lhe dlfferences ln
elecLoral and pollLlcal culLures and by Lhe percepLlon of Lhe L elecLlons as second-
order conLesLs.
































67
4. 1he narmon|sat|on of Luropean L|ectora| Law and the
I|nanc|ng of LLs


4.1 IN1kCDUC1ICN

1hls chapLer addresses Lhe lssues of elecLoral law harmonlsaLlon and parLy
flnanclng aL Luropean level. 8oLh quesLlons are equally relevanL, albelL for
dlfferenL reasons, for an assessmenL of Lhe currenL developmenL and poLenLlal
for lnsLlLuLlonallsaLlon of LLs. 1here ls a long-sLandlng argumenL ln Lhe
llLeraLure LhaL a fully-harmonlsed Luropean elecLoral law would be beneflclal Lo
Lu level democracy and also Lo LL bulldlng. ln Lhls chapLer, we wlll be looklng
aL speclflc feaLures of Lhe elecLoral laws used for Lhe elecLlons of Lhe 27 naLlonal
L delegaLlons ln order Lo see how much Lhey dlffer from Lhe reform proposal
currenLly on Lhe Lable, Lhe one presenLed by Andrew uuff ML, and Lhus how
serlous Lhe poLenLlal Lechnlcal/pollLlcal obsLacles Lo Lhe proposal's approval
really are. 8eyond Lhls, we also Lry Lo assess Lhe proposal's lnherenL poLenLlal
lmpacL on LLs. ln parLlcular, we wlll look aL Lhe proposal's mosL lnnovaLlve
feaLures: Lhe provlslon for Lhe creaLlon of a LransnaLlonal consLlLuency and Lhe
proposal Lo glve voLers Lhe opLlon Lo voLe for closed parLy llsLs or Lo glve
preferences Lo speclflc lndlvldual candldaLes. 8oLh can have an lmporLanL lmpacL
on wheLher and how LLs wlll develop as a resulL of harmonlsaLlon. Wlll a
LransnaLlonal consLlLuency fosLer Lhe developmenL of genulne Luro-level
campalgnlng? And wlll preferenLlal voLlng free candldaLes from naLlonal parLy
condlLlonlng and allow Lhem Lo esLabllsh more lndependenL and euro-level
orlenLed poslLlons?
1he second parL of Lhe analysls looks aL Lhe effecL of parLy flnanclng and
lLs assoclaLed regulaLory framework. Pere, we wlll look aL Lhe parLy flnanclng
schemes LhaL exlsL aL naLlonal level wlLh a vlew Lo dlscusslng Lhe lmpllcaLlons of
Lhe characLerlsLlcs of such schemes for parLy organlsaLlonal convergence and
lnsLlLuLlonallsaLlon. As Lhe llLeraLure polnLs Lo Lhe exlsLence of dlfferenL levels of
parLy organlsaLlonal reslllence ln counLrles wlLh dlfferenL levels of pollLlcal
sysLem developmenL and democraLlc consolldaLlon, we wlll examlne separaLely
parLy flnanclng ln Lhe Cld Lurope" (Lhe consolldaLed democracles of Lhe older
member sLaLes) and ln Lhe new Lurope" (Lhe younger democracles of Lhe mosL
recenL member sLaLes). We wlll Lhen look aL Lhe provlslons for parLy flnanclng
lncluded ln 8egulaLlon LC 2004/2003. ln parLlcular, we shall Lry Lo assess Lhe
effecLlveness of Lhe measures LhaL appear Lo have been lnLroduced Lo favour Lhe
muLual lnLegraLlon of Lhe LLs' Lhree organlsaLlonal componenLs: Lhe naLlonal
parLles, Lhe Luro-level exLernal organlsaLlons (once known as Lhe 'federaLlons')
and Lhe L parLy groups. Such lnLegraLlon would be, accordlng Lo Lhe llLeraLure
on parLy organlsaLlonal developmenL and lnsLlLuLlonallsaLlon, of fundamenLal
lmporLance for Lhe creaLlon of effecLlve LLs.

68
4.2 1nL nAkMCNISA1ICN CI LUkCLAN LLLC1CkAL LAW

ln !une 2009 elecLlons Lo Lhe Luropean arllamenL (L) Look place ln Lhe 27
Member SLaLes (MSs) of Lhe Lu. AlmosL 373 mllllons of voLers were Lhus lnvolved
ln Lhls pollLlcal evenL, whose relevance was furLher enhanced by Lhe new role
and powers asslgned Lo Lhe L by Lhe 1reaLy of Llsbon, whlch came lnLo force ln
Lhe followlng uecember. uesplLe Lhls (once agaln) enhanced cenLrallLy of Lhe L,
Lhe elecLlons are sLlll admlnlsLered accordlng Lo a so-called harmonlsed elecLoral
procedure whlch conslsLs of 27 seLs of dlfferenL naLlonal rules: Lhls lmplles
dlfferences ln Lhe meLhods for dlsLrlbuLlng seaLs, ln Lhe adopLlon of elecLoral
Lhresholds, ln Lhe use of closed slaLes or forms of preferenLlal voLlng, ln
allocaLlng vacanL seaLs, ln rules Lo deLermlne acLlve and passlve elecLoraLe, ln
allowlng for elecLoral consLlLuencles, ln polllng days, and ln candldaLe
nomlnaLlon (CSCL/CulPl8 2009).
Powever, Lhls slLuaLlon ls noL a novel one. ln Lhe hlsLory of Lhe Luropean
arllamenL, proposals Lo fully-harmonlse Lhe elecLoral laws presenLed by
quallfled MLs and commlLLees have always encounLered numerous obsLacles
and even blocks. 1he never-endlng debaLe on Lhe need for a slngle Luropean
elecLoral law and on lLs Lechnlcal conLenLs ls sLlll relevanL. up unLll now
lnsLlLuLlonal dlfferences amongsL Lhe MSs, consLlLuLlonal llmlLaLlons and varlous
problems of a more pollLlcal naLure have been enLwlned wlLh a long-sLandlng
lack of a clear lnsLlLuLlonal deslgn for Lhe Lu. As a consequence, only a few baslc
Luropean level rules are followed LhroughouL Lu counLrles.
ln enforclng Lhe 1reaLy of 8ome prescrlpLlon of dlrecL L elecLlons, Lhe
1976 AcL of Lhe Councll of MlnlsLers only seL Lhe general prlnclple of unlversal
suffrage and a llmlLed number of elecLoral crlLerla: more Lechnlcal aspecLs were
Lhus lgnored. lor more Lhan Lwo decades, all aLLempLs Lo produce an effecLlvely
unlform elecLoral procedure falled. ln Lhe meanLlme, oLher aspecLs were
regulaLed. Accordlng Lo LC ulrecLlve 93/109, Lu clLlzens who are ellglble voLers
ln Lhelr own MS are auLomaLlcally ellglble Lo voLe - wlLh some resLrlcLlons - ln L
elecLlons ln any oLher MS as long as Lhey reslde ln LhaL MS: clearly, no voLer ls
allowed Lo voLe ln more Lhan one MS, alLhough no clear measures Lo avold
double voLlng have been underLaken. 1he same prlnclple applles for Lhe rlghL Lo
sLand as candldaLes: Lu clLlzens who reslde ln oLher Lu MS Lhan Lhelr own are
enabled Lo sLand for L elecLlons. Powever, Lhe number of lndlvlduals ln Lhls
caLegory who voLe ln L elecLlons ls negllglble, and Lhe number of Lhose who
sLand for elecLlon ls even lower.
1he 1reaLy of AmsLerdam (1997) marked some sLeps forward. Powever,
Lhe call for 'unlformlLy' of naLlonal laws Lurned lnLo no more Lhan a general
agreemenL on common prlnclples. As 1oplak (2007) puLs lL 'lnsLead of requlrlng
Lhe lnLroducLlon of a unlform elecLoral procedure", Lhe 1reaLy of AmsLerdam
[.] provlded lnsLead for Lhe lnLroducLlon of unlform elecLoral procedure or a
procedure based on common prlnclples".' (p. 13) Speclflcally, Lhese common
prlnclples conslsL of: (1) dlrecL unlversal suffrage, (2) naLlonal apporLlonmenL of
Lhe seaLs, (3) proporLlonal represenLaLlon (parLy llsLs or S1v, closed or open
parLy llsLs, preferenLlal voLlng), (4) Lhe posslblllLy for a mlnlmal Lhreshold Lo be
69
seL, aL naLlonal level (max 3 of Lhe voLes casL), (3) voLers can voLe ln Lhe place
of Lhelr resldence regardless of Lhelr sLaLe clLlzenshlp. ln reallLy, Lhe only
lmporLanL dlfference wlLh Lhe pasL was Lhe general adopLlon of 8 as Lhe
meLhod for Lhe apporLlonmenL of seaLs. Councll ueclslon of 23 !une 2002 (came
lnLo force slnce Aprll 2004) amended Lhe 1976 AcL, also by recognlslng Lhls basls
of common prlnclples.
1he lack of supranaLlonallLy and Lhe second order" naLure of Luropean
elecLlons derlve from some long sLandlng characLerlsLlcs, namely: (1) Lhe
dlsLrlbuLlon of seaLs on a naLlonal basls, (2) Lhe adopLlon of dlfferenLlaLed
elecLoral laws, (3) Lhe nomlnaLlon of candldaLes by naLlonal parLles raLher Lhan
by LransnaLlonal federaLlons, (4) elecLoral campalgns focused on naLlonal, raLher
Lhan Luropean, Lhemes (Plx, Marsh 2007). ln parLlcular, Lhe consequences
derlvlng from polnLs (1) and (2) are Lhose whlch have deeper effecLs on Lhe
sLrucLure of Lhe parLy sysLem and on Lhe relaLlon beLween voLers, parLles and
parllamenLarlans. Some scholars argue LhaL modlflcaLlons ln Lhe characLerlsLlcs
of Lhe elecLoral procedures employed for Lhe L elecLlons would prove
conduclve Lo a beLLer connecLlon beLween clLlzens and MLs (Plx, Pagemann
2008). 1hus, Lhe flrsL quesLlon LhaL one can, and should, ask has Lo do wlLh Lhe
deslrable characLerlsLlcs of any elecLoral law and whaL should be Lhe alm of Lhe
elecLlon LhaL Lhe law musL regulaLe. ulfferenL elecLoral laws have dlfferenL
lnsLlLuLlonal and pollLlcal consequences: ln Lhls respecL, an elecLoral law has Lhe
power Lo lnfluence even Lhe characLerlsLlcs of a pollLlcal sysLem. lL also has been
observed, however, LhaL Lhe adopLlon, made for Lhe sake of L elecLoral law
harmonlsaLlon, of provlslons LhaL deparL radlcally from Lhose of Lhe elecLoral
laws for naLlonal parllamenLary can cause dlscrepancles LhaL can be very
dlsrupLlve for Lhe L parLy sysLem, and even more so for Lhe naLlonal ones (8ardl
2002).
WlLh Lhe afflrmaLlon of Lhe prlnclple LhaL seaL allocaLlon ln L elecLlons
should be done excluslvely upon Lhe basls of sysLems of proporLlonal
represenLaLlon (8), whaL was, for Lwo decades, Lhe hlghesL hurdle Lo Lhe
effecLlve harmonlsaLlon of Lhe L's elecLoral law, was flnally removed. 1he flrsL-
pasL-Lhe-posL sysLem adopLed ln CreaL 8rlLaln had been accused of belng
responslble for serlous dlsLorLlons ln overall L represenLaLlveness for Lhe flrsL
four elecLlons of Lhe L. lor a long Llme mosL efforLs Lo harmonlse Luropean
elecLoral procedures were concenLraLed on Lhe lmposlLlon of 8 as Lhe only
prlnclple for Lhe apporLlonmenL of seaLs ln L elecLlons. Cnce Lhls ob[ecLlve was
flnally achleved, however, lL became evldenL LhaL Lhe remalnlng cross-MS
dlfferences sLlll represenLed a serlous hlndrance Lo Lhe developmenL of fully-
fledged LLs. 1he mosL recenL lnlLlaLlve LhaL alms Lo overcome such dlfferences
and Lo harmonlse L elecLoral procedures ls represenLed by a proposal by
Andrew uuff, ML, currenLly belng dlscussed ln Lhe L. 1o sLrengLhen Lhe
Luropean characLer of L elecLlons, Lhe proposal relles on Lhe followlng plllars:

(a) 1errlLorlal consLlLuencles upon a reglonal basls should be lnLroduced
ln all Lhose Member SLaLes wlLh a populaLlon of more Lhan 20 mllllon,
(b) LlecLoral procedures ln all Member SLaLes should enable Lhe elecLor
70
Lo choose Lo voLe elLher for a parLy llsL or for an lndlvldual candldaLe
('preferenLlal seml-open llsL sysLem'),
(c) A re-dlsLrlbuLlon of Lhe 731 seaLs wlll Lake place, lf [usLlfled ob[ecLlvely
by flgures auLhorlsed by LurosLaL, before every elecLlon, Lhe re-
dlsLrlbuLlon ls Lo be announced aL leasL Lwelve monLhs before Lhe end of
Lhe mandaLe,
(d) An addlLlonal 23 MLs wlll be elecLed by a slngle Lu-wlde
consLlLuency, Lrans-naLlonal llsLs wlll be composed of candldaLes drawn
from, aL leasL, one Lhlrd of Lhe Member SLaLes, and wlll be gender-
balanced, each elecLor wlll be enabled Lo casL one voLe for Lhe Lu-wlde
llsL ln addlLlon Lo Lhelr voLe for Lhe naLlonal or reglonal llsL, voLlng for Lhe
Lu consLlLuency wlll be accordlng Lo Lhe preferenLlal seml-open llsL
sysLem (whereby voLes are alloLLed elLher Lo Lhe parLy llsL or Lo lndlvldual
candldaLes wlLhln a llsL), and seaLs wlll be allocaLed accordlng Lo Lhe
SalnLe-Lague meLhod,
(e) CandldaLes may sLand boLh for Lhe Lu-wlde and for Lhe naLlonal or
reglonal consLlLuencles, candldaLes resldlng offlclally ln more Lhan one
Member SLaLe, and candldaLes wlLh dual naLlonallLy who are reglsLered
ln Lhe relevanL elecLoral rolls, wlll be ellglble Lo appear on more Lhan one
naLlonal or reglonal llsL ln Lhe same elecLlon,
(f) An elecLoral auLhorlLy ls Lo be esLabllshed aL Lu level ln order Lo
regulaLe Lhe conducL and Lo verlfy Lhe resulL of Lhe elecLlon Laklng place
from Lhe Lu-wlde llsL, Lhe elecLoral auLhorlLy wlll be composed of
represenLaLlves of Lhe arllamenL, Lhe Commlsslon and Lhe Member
SLaLes,
(g) olllng days wlll be llmlLed Lo SaLurdays and Sundays,
(h) 1he Llmlng of Lhe elecLlon wlll be broughL forward from !une Lo May,
(l) 1he mlnlmum age Lo be ellglble Lo voLe ln Lhe Luropean parllamenLary
elecLlons wlll be 16, Lhe mlnlmum age Lo be ellglble Lo sLand as a
candldaLe wlll be 18.

Some of Lhese polnLs (Lhe llmlLaLlon of polllng days Lo weekends, seml-open
slaLes, and, above all, Lhe Lu-wlde consLlLuency) are very conLroverslal and have
already meL wlLh serlous reslsLance ln Lhe pasL leglslaLure. WlLh Lhe excepLlon of
Lhe Lu-wlde consLlLuency, whlch would be a compleLe lnnovaLlon, Lhe llkellhood
of some of Lhe uuff proposal's oLher feaLures belng evenLually accepLed naLurally
depends on how much Lhey deparL from Lhose currenLly adopLed ln Lhe 27 MSs'
L elecLoral procedures. 1able 1 lncludes lnformaLlon on wheLher currenL L
elecLoral procedures already lnclude Lhe relevanL feaLures from Lhe above llsL -
excepL (c), (d), (f), (h) whlch are noL relevanL for purposes of naLlonal comparlson
- or noL. As over Lhe years Lhese have been conslsLenLly consldered lmporLanL ln
Lhe debaLe on elecLoral law harmonlsaLlon, we also lncluded ln Lhe Lable
lnformaLlon on Lhe presence/absence of elecLoral Lhresholds and a llsLlng of Lhe
meLhods employed for Lhe calculaLlon of seaL dlsLrlbuLlon quoLlenLs.
71
lor Lhe purpose of our analysls, noL all feaLures of Lhe uuff proposal have
Lhe same lmpllcaLlons. Clearly, Lhe llkellhood LhaL Lhey may be accepLed,
assessed upon Lhe basls of Lhelr compaLlblllLy wlLh Lhe exlsLlng naLlonal L
elecLoral procedures, has equal consequences on Lhe proposal's overall success.
8uL Lhelr lncluslon/excluslon ln whaL wlll evenLually be a new harmonlsed Lu-
wlde elecLoral law can have dlfferenL lmpllcaLlons for Lu democracy and LL
bulldlng. ln our analysls, we wlll Lry Lo address, when approprlaLe, all Lhree
aspecLs. 1he daLa show LhaL, aL Lhe momenL, we have slgnlflcanL dlscrepancles
beLween exlsLlng elecLoral laws and Lhe uuff proposal's ob[ecLlves. AlLhough, for
Lhe purpose of cross-counLry comparlson, we lncluded daLa on nlne dlfferenL
elecLoral law characLerlsLlcs ln 1able 1, we all analyse closely reglonal
consLlLuencles and preferenLlal voLlng, as Lhey seem, ln Lheory, Lo be mosL
problemaLlcal and mosL conduclve Lo consequences ln Lerms of Lu democracy
and LL bulldlng.
Cf Lhe seven Member SLaLes wlLh a populaLlon of more Lhan 20 mllllon,
LerrlLorlal consLlLuencles upon a reglonal basls are provlded for by lrench,
lLallan, ollsh and 8rlLlsh laws: desplLe members elecLed ln looJ or lederal llsLs,
Cerman elecLors voLe ln a slngle-naLlonal consLlLuency, llke Lhe Spanlsh and
8omanlan ones, as well as Lhose of oLher 18 smaller MSs. AlLhough below Lhe
uuff proposal's 20 mllllon Lhreshold, 8elglum and lreland also presenL reglonal
LerrlLorlal consLlLuencles. ulfferences on Lhls parLlcular characLerlsLlc do noL
appear Lo be parLlcularly severe ln Lerms of Lhe proposal's poLenLlal success, as
whaL was poLenLlally Lhe blggesL hurdle (Lhe lrench consLlLuLlonal prlnclple
afflrmlng Lhe naLlonal LerrlLory's lndlvlslblllLy) has already been overcome, or, aL
leasL, bypassed. naLurally, besldes Lhe already menLloned Lhree blg ones", Lhere
are sLlll elghL MSs wlLh populaLlon levels whlch granL Lhem beLween 18 and 26
ML seaLs whlch do noL have reglonal consLlLuencles. An exLenslon of Lhe
prescrlpLlon Lo Lhese counLrles as well would cerLalnly be beneflclal for Lu
democracy, as lL would creaLe more cross-counLry homogenelLy ln ML-
elecLoraLe relaLlons, and, for Lhe same reasons, also for Luro-level parLy bulldlng.
lorms of preferenLlal voLlng (lncludlng S1v) recur ln 13 counLrles (only
lLaly amongsL Lhe larger ones). ln Lhls case, Lhe dlsLance from Lhe uuff proposal's
prescrlpLlon ls much more pronounced and serlous, as well as wlLh lmpllcaLlons
for parLy-bulldlng aL Lu level and for Lu democracy. Lmplrlcal research
conducLed durlng Lhe early Lerms of Lhe elecLed L (8ardl 1987, 1988) lndlcaLed
LhaL preferenLlal voLlng was Lhe only facLor LhaL permlLLed Luropean elecLors ln
counLrles wlLh roporLlonal 8epresenLaLlon Lo lnfluence, albelL Lo a llmlLed
exLenL, ML Lurnover, Lhls, of course, was aL Lhe expense of parLy apparaLuses,
more lncllned Lo deLermlne Lurnover upon Lhe basls of Lhe deslgnaLlon of
candldaLures and of Lhe poslLlonlng of candldaLes on closed llsLs. WhllsL Lhls can
be seen as a feaLure whlch enhances Lu democracy, lL can also be consldered a
facLor of profound dlscrepancles ln naLlonal componenLs of would-be LLs. 1he
uuff proposal's prescrlpLlon of a full harmonlsaLlon of Lhls feaLure goes ln Lhe
rlghL dlrecLlon, buL, preclsely because of Lhe power lL would subLracL from
naLlonal parLles' apparaLuses, lL ls llkely Lo be meL wlLh greaL reslsLance.
referenLlal voLlng was consldered ln Lhe course of Lhe debaLe ln Lhe Pouse of
Lords over Lhe new 8-based 8rlLlsh L elecLoral law adopLed for Lhe flrsL Llme ln
72
1ab|e 1. 8ecurrence of requlremenLs advanced by uuff proposal ln Lu MSs
Country
Sub-nat|ona|
const|tuenc|es
referent|a|
Vot|ng
1hresho|d D|str|but|on of seats
Non restr|cted
franch|se
Non restr|cted
cand|dature
o|||ng
days
M|n|mum
Age L| (16)
M|n|mum Age
Cand (18)
AUS1kIA 0 1 1 u'PondL 1 1 1 1 1
8LLGIUM 1 1 0 u'PondL 0 0 1 0 0
8ULGAkIA 0 1 0 Pare-nlemeyer 0 0 1 0 0
CkUS 0 0 0 u'PondL/uroop 0 1 1 0 0
C2LCn kL. 0 1 1 u'PondL 0 0 0 0 0
DLNMAkk 0 0 0 u'PondL 1 1 0 0 1
LS1CNIA 0 0 0 u'PondL 1 1 1 0 0
IINLAND 0 1 0 u'PondL 1 1 1 0 1
IkANCL 1 0 1 u'PondL 1 1 1 0 0
GLkMAN 0 0 1 SalnLe-Lague 1 1 1 0 1
GkLLCL 0 0 1 varlanL of Pare 1 1 1 0 0
nUNGAk 0 0 1 u'PondL 1 1 1 0 1
IkLLAND 1 1 0 S1v 1 1 0 0 0
I1AL 1 1 1 Pare 1 1 1 0 0
LA1VIA 0 0 0 SalnLe-Lague 1 1 1 0 0
LI1nUANIA 0 0 1 Pare-nlemeyer 1 1 1 0 0
LUkLM8CUkG 0 1 0
u'PondL/Pagenbach-
8lschoff
0 0 1 0 1
MAL1A 0 1 0 S1v 1 1 1 0 1
NL1nLkLANDS 0 1 0 u'PondL 1 1 0 0 1
CLAND 1 0 1 u'PondL/Pare nlemeyer 1 0 1 0 1
Ck1UGAL 0 0 0 u'PondL 1 1 1 0 1
kCMANIA 0 0 1 u'PondL/uroop 1 1 1 0 0
SLCVAkIA 0 1 1 u'PondL 0 1 1 0 0
SLCVLNIA 0 1 1 u'PondL 1 1 1 0 1
SAIN 0 0 0 u'PondL 1 1 1 0 1
SWLDLN 0 1 1 u'PondL 1 1 1 0 1
Uk 1 0 0 u'PondL (C8), S1v (nl) 0 0 0 0 0
1C1 6 13 13
19 u'PondL and verslons, 3
S1v, 2 Pare-nlemeyer, 2
SalnLe-Lague
20 21 22 1 13
73
1999. uesplLe Lhe sLrong favourable argumenL LhaL preference voLlng was Lhe
only lnsLrumenL whlch, ln a 8-based sysLem, would glve 8rlLlsh voLers
someLhlng slmllar Lo LhaL personal conLacL wlLh Lhelr MLs afforded by plurallLy,
ln Lhe end, Lhe parLles' deslre Lo malnLaln full conLrol over Lurnover prevalled.
1hus, Lhe 8rlLlsh experlence, LhaL of Lhe counLry mosL llkely Lo be lnLeresLed ln a
personallsaLlon of elecLoral pollLlcs, LhaL ls, does noL bode well, as Lhe same
negaLlve aLLlLudes manlfesLed Lhere aL Lhe Llme of Lhe 8rlLlsh experlence of Lhe
L elecLoral law can be expecLed from parLles ln oLher counLrles as well.
1urnlng Lo cross-naLlonal comparlsons and focusslng on Lhe core of Lhe
uuff proposal (preferenLlal voLlng, franchlse, candldaLures, polllng days,
mlnlmum age) Lhe unlLed klngdom ls Lhe counLry wlLh Lhe lowesL number of
maLchlng requlremenLs (1 ouL of 6, Lhe reglonal requlremenL for consLlLuencles):
aL Lhe oLher end of Lhe specLrum, AusLrla ls Lhe counLry whlch exhlblLs mosL
maLches, as lL saLlsfles all Lhe crlLerla. Cn average, Lhe 27 Member SLaLes' laws
are less Lhan 30 compaLlble (2.6 maLches on average). lrom Lhls vlew polnL, an
adopLlon of Lhe uuff proposal does noL look lmposslble: buL lL would requlre
very slgnlflcanL ad[usLmenLs of almosL all Lhe 27 MSs elecLoral laws.
8uL Lhe mosL lmporLanL and conLroverslal polnL of Lhls proposal lles ln Lhe
creaLlon of 23 seaL sLrong Luro-wlde consLlLuency, ln whlch candldaLes would be
sLandlng ln Lrans-naLlonal llsLs. ln facL, smaller MSs are sLrongly opposed Lo Lhls
hypoLhesls as, Lhey say, lL would greaLly favour candldaLes from Lhe blggesL
Member SLaLes (1oplak 2007). WlLh few excepLlons Lhese candldaLes can be
expecLed Lo have greaLer lnLernaLlonal vlslblllLy and also obLaln many more voLes
from Lhelr naLlonal consLlLuencles Lhan candldaLes comlng from smaller
counLrles, especlally Lhe smallesL ones such as MalLa or Luxembourg, whlch
would, ln all llkellhood, be LoLally excluded from Lhe supranaLlonal seaL
apporLlonmenL. lL has been argued LhaL Lhls perverse effecL could be
compensaLed by subLracLlng Lhe number of seaLs won ln Lhe Lu-wlde
consLlLuency from Lhe LoLal amounL of Lhose allocaLed Lo Lhe counLrles whose
candldaLes are elecLed ln LhaL consLlLuency. 1hls would ensure LhaL Lhe L seaL
dlsLrlbuLlon amongsL MSs would noL be alLered by Lhe creaLlon of Lhe
LransnaLlonal consLlLuency. Leavlng Lhls and oLher Lechnlcal soluLlons Lo
poLenLlal problems aslde, Lhe Lrans-naLlonal consLlLuency would deflnlLely fosLer
closer parLy co-operaLlon aL Lu level as no parLy of any slgnlflcance, even lf only
aL naLlonal level, could afford noL Lo engage ln Lhe compeLlLlon and leave 23
seaLs up for grabs Lo lLs adversarles. 1hls would, for Lhe flrsL Llme, guaranLee Lhe
holdlng of a genulne LransnaLlonal campalgn and Lhe developmenL of effecLlve
Luro-level parLy programmes. llndlng Lhe rlghL candldaLes wlLh cross-naLlonal
appeal mlghL be more problemaLlcal, buL Lhe challenge would cerLalnly be, ln
lLself, anoLher lncenLlve Lo LL developmenL.
1urnlng Lo uuff's oLher lnnovaLlve proposal, Lhe open llsL opLlon, some
auLhors belleve LhaL naLlonal candldaLes and parLles may be more lnLeresLed ln
promoLlng Lhelr speclflc proflles raLher Lhan conslderlng Lhe Lu elecLlons as
second order ones dependlng on Lhe llsL sLrucLure and Lhe dlsLrlcL slze (Samuels
1999, ShugarL eL al. 2003, Plx, Pagemann 2008). ln a compeLlLlon amongsL
several candldaLes, sLandlng ln each dlsLrlcL for each parLy, and wlLh clLlzens
74
belng allowed Lo casL preference voLes for one or more of Lhem as an alLernaLlve
Lo voLlng for closed parLy llsLs, candldaLes wlll have sLrong lncenLlves Lo
campalgn upon Lhe basls of Lhelr own lndlvldual programmes or plaLforms,
especlally lf dlsLrlcL slze were kepL relaLlvely small (abouL 4 Lo 10 seaLs). ln facL,
under Lhese condlLlons, candldaLes would be forced Lo dlfferenLlaLe Lhelr
proposals from Lhose of oLhers, noL belng able Lo counL on Lhe reassurlng shelLer
of closed parLy llsL ranklngs. AL Lhe oLher end of Lhe specLrum, large slngle
naLlonal consLlLuencles wlLh closed llsLs maxlmlse Lhe llkellhood of elecLoral
campalgns excluslvely condlLloned by naLlonal lssues (Plx, Pagemann 2008). 1he
overall concluslon of Lhls argumenL ls LhaL '[L]he open balloL sLrucLure would
lncrease lncenLlves for MLs and candldaLes Lo ralse Lhelr proflle dlrecLly wlLh
Lhe clLlzens, whlch ln Lurn would ralse publlc awareness and parLlclpaLlon ln
Luropean arllamenL elecLlons, and so lncrease Lhe leglLlmacy of Lhe Luropean
arllamenL and Lhe Lu' (Plx, Pagemann 2008 p. 14). referenLlal voLlng, lf
lmplemenLed aL Lu level, could Lhus have a poslLlve lmpacL on Lhe developmenL
of LLs. 1hls could also come as a resulL of Lhe already menLloned facL LhaL
preferenLlal voLlng ls Lhe only lnsLrumenL LhaL allows voLers, raLher Lhan Lhe
(naLlonal) parLles, Lo deLermlne, albelL llmlLedly, ML Lurnover (8ardl 1987,
1988). 1hls would make Lhe cholce of candldaLes wlLh wlder Luro appeal (and
poLenLlal responslveness) very deslrable. lL ls very llkely LhaL Lhe poslLlve effecL
Lhls could have on clLlzens' percepLlons of Lu democracy would also ulLlmaLely
reflecL on Lhe LuroparLles.

!"# %&' ()*+*,)*- .( //'01

1he developmenL of emplrlcal sLudles on Lhe lmpacL of pollLlcal flnance reglmes
and regulaLlons ln conLemporary llberal democracles consLlLuLes a ma[or veln ln
pollLlcal sclence (van 8lezen 2000, Casas Zamora 2003, nassmacher 2009).
AlLhough Lhere ls sLlll a shorLage of comparaLlve approaches (Scarrow 2006),
researchers have been lncreaslngly paylng aLLenLlon Lo cross-counLry dlfferences
and slmllarlLles exlsLlng aL naLlonal level, by focuslng on how, and Lo whaL exLenL,
dlfferenL publlc schemes and laws affecL parLles and parLy sysLems (lerre "# $%.
2000). Lven Lhough broad LheoreLlcal reflecLlons are sLlll scarce (Scarrow 2007), a
general consensus emerges on Lhe exlsLence of a growlng dependence on publlc
subsldles by pollLlcal parLles and on Lhe facL LhaL Lhls rellance someLlmes
produces organlsaLlonal change. AcLually, Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween parLy
flnanclng and parLy organlsaLlonal developmenL ls raLher complex: when parLles
are flrsL esLabllshed as organlsaLlons, developlng flnanclal sLraLegles ls a cruclal
ob[ecLlve for Lhelr survlval, aL Lhe same Llme, such sLraLegles can lnfluence
and/or condlLlon Lhe parLy organlsaLlon. AL Luropean level, parLles are ln very
early sLage of developmenL and flnanclal facLors are llkely Lo be very lmporLanL.
ln facL, Lhe llLeraLure on Lhe fundlng of parLy organlsaLlons aL naLlonal
level suggesLs LhaL rules and regulaLlons have a Lendency Lo promoLe
organlsaLlonal convergence, wlLh parLles operaLlng wlLhln a common sysLem of
parLy flnance Lendlng Lo adapL Lhelr organlsaLlons Lo avall of Lhese subvenLlons.
1hls evldence consLlLuLes a good sLarLlng-polnL ln favour of Lhe argumenL LhaL a
75
sLrong Luropean level sysLem of parLy flnanclng and regulaLlon could have a
slmllar effecL, and could help promoLe LransnaLlonal convergence and hence
LransnaLlonal parLy-bulldlng. lL also follows LhaL such convergence ls llkely Lo be
more vlslble lf publlc fundlng prevalls over prlvaLe fundlng. 1hls wlll probably
conLlnue Lo happen aL Luropean level, where parLles, as we shall see, have
dlfflculLles ln securlng subsLanLlal prlvaLe fundlng.

!"#"2 /34567 869:9769; :9< =>;:961:?6=9:5 7@:9;AB C36< D>631E
ln mosL Luropean counLrles, pollLlcal parLles rely on publlc fundlng. PlsLorlcally,
parLy organlsaLlons depended on prlvaLe conLrlbuLlons: SoclallsL and Soclal-
democraLlc parLles on fees pald by Lhelr members and Lransfers comlng from
anclllary organlsaLlons, Llberals and ConservaLlves survlved Lhanks Lo donaLlons
from prlvaLe buslness and wealLhy lndlvlduals. 1hese dlfferences were perhaps
responslble for Lhe dlfferenL organlsaLlonal models LhaL characLerlsed parLles
wlLh dlfferenL ldeologlcal and soclologlcal orlenLaLlons. 8uL a fundlng model
based upon wlLhln-parLy famlly-slmllarlLles appears Lo be lnadequaLe Lo
undersLand Lhe evoluLlon of conLemporary parLy flnanclng and lLs consequences
ln organlsaLlonal Lerms (nassmacher 1993, koole 1996).
ln Lhe lasL flfLeen years, academlc debaLe on parLy organlsaLlon focused
on Lhe hypoLhesls of a progresslve shlfL of lnLernal power from Lhe so-called
&$'#( )* +"*#'$% ,--)+" Lo Lhe &$'#( )* &./%)+ ,--)+" (kaLz, Malr 1993), aL Lhe
expense of Lhe grass-rooLs level (Lhe &$'#( ,* #0" 1',.*2). AlLhough no general
agreemenL exlsLs (van 8lezen 2000, ogunLke 2006), Lhe Langled processes of
cenLrallsaLlon, bureaucraLlsaLlon and professlonallsaLlon of parLy sLrucLures may
be parLlally explalned ln Lerms of parLles' masslve need for publlc subsldles,
whlch have become lndlspensable for pollLlcal parLles Lo survlve envlronmenLal
changes.
4
ln facL, pollLlcs has become more and more expenslve due Lo Lhe
ponderous use of mass medla and caplLal-lnLenslve campalgnlng Lechnlques and
Lo Lhe ensulng professlonallsaLlon of pollLlcal acLlvlLles. 1hese Lendencles
colnclded wlLh Lhe parallel decllne of labour-lnLenslve organlsaLlonal models and
Lhe consLanL decrease of parLles' lnLernal revenues (membershlp fees,
fundralslng acLlvlLles, soclal evenLs). ln addlLlon, Lhe need Lo reduce lnequallLles
ln pollLlcal compeLlLlon - also by llmlLlng Lhe role of exLernal prlvaLe fundlng -
and Lo enhance flnanclal Lransparency - made Member SLaLe supporL an
lndlspensable plllar of parLy revenues.
Powever Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween parLy flnance rules and parLy bulldlng
ls noL unamblguous. Where parLles have a long-sLandlng organlsaLlonal LradlLlon,
Lhelr prlmary lnLeresL ls Lo malnLaln Lhelr sLrucLural arLlculaLlon, by adapLlng
Lhelr form and funcLlonlng Lo exLernal changes. lL seems reasonable LhaL pollLlcal
parLles, wearlng Lhelr pollcy-maker haL", wlll produce flnanclng schemes LhaL
are sulLed Lo Lhelr general goals and organlsaLlonal needs. 8uL dependlng on

4
1hese poslLlons echo Lhe well known carLel-parLy Lhesls (kaLz, Malr 1994), accordlng Lo whlch
parLles develop convergenL sLraLegles Lo obLaln from Lhe SLaLe Lhe resources Lhey need for Lhelr
survlval, also ln vlew of Lhelr dlfflculLles ln malnLalnlng Lhelr Lles wlLh clvll socleLy.
76
%:45A 2" arLy revenue: a Lypology

F=3>7A =8 >AGA93A H:69 7@:>:7?A>61?67 I69<1 =8 7=9?>643?6=91
3'$445',,#4 6"7"*."
volunLary
conLrlbuLlon
! Membershlp fees,
! roflLs of parLy-owned buslness,
! Small rlvaLe donaLlons,
! lundralslng evenLs,
! lnLra-parLy Lransfers,
! lorelgn uonaLlons
8%.#,+'$#)+ 9.*2)*1 lnLeresLed money
! ConLrlbuLlons from lnLeresLed Money
(lnsLlLuLlonal fundralslng, ConLrlbuLlons from
personal wealLh, CorporaLe conLrlbuLlons, ubllc
dlslncenLlves,
! 8eLurns on lnvesLmenLs (arLy conLrolled
enLerprlses),
8./%)+ :./4)2)"4
Law-based
conLrlbuLlons
lndlrecL fundlng:
! Subsldles-ln-klnd (Access Lo medla, CLher supporL
opLlons),
! Larmarked lunds,
! ubllc lncenLlves (Lax deducLlon, Lax credlL),
ulrecL fundlng:
! CperaLlonal acLlvlLles,
! LlecLoral relmbursemenLs,
! Subsldles Lo parllamenLary groups,

F=3>7AB re-adapLed from van 8lezen 2003 and nassmacher 2009.

(6;3>A 2" ubllc subsldles


PUBLIC
SUBSIDIES
INDIRECT FUNDING:

- SUBSIDIES IN KIND;
- EARMARKED FUNDS;
- PUBLIC INCENTIVES

DIRECT FUNDING:

- PARLIAMENTARY GROUPS;
- OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES;
- ELECTORAL REIMBURSEMENTS

ACCESS/
DISTRIBUTION
CRITERIA
ELECTORAL
REQUIREMENTS
PARLIAMENTARY
REQUIREMENTS
OTHER
77
Lhelr organlsaLlonal complexlLy (Lhe number of Lhelr naLlonal and sub-naLlonal
governlng and admlnlsLraLlve bodles, Lhe lnLenslveness and Lhe exLenslveness of
Lhelr organlsaLlons, Lhelr soclo-economlc pervaslveness - Parmel "# $%. 2004),
parLles wlll sLlll also rely on oLher klnds of revenue. Such alLernaLlves can
produce convergence or dlvergence ln organlsaLlonal models ln dlfferenL parLy
sysLems. 1hese dlfferences noLwlLhsLandlng, lL seems reasonable LhaL, ln
LranslLlonal reglmes or ln non-sLablllsed parLy sysLems (such as Lhe Lu), where
non-lnsLlLuLlonallsed parLy organlsaLlons exlsL, parLy flnanclng schemes wlll
lnfluence parLy-model convergence and parLy-bulldlng processes.
up Lo now, mosL of Lhe sLudles devoLed Lo parLy flnanclng reglmes, by
focuslng on lndlvldual naLlonal regulaLlons, have provlded llLLle cross-naLlonal
generallsaLlon. 1o overcome Lhls deflclL, we have Lo lnLroduce an analyLlcal
framework for Lhe comparlson of dlfferenL naLlonal experlences. 1o Lhls end, we
have developed a Lypology of parLy flnanclng schemes (1able 1). 1he ldea belng
LhaL Lhe dlfferenL lncldence of Lhe varlous Lypes of parLy flnanclng ls relevanL for
our undersLandlng of parLy organlsaLlonal developmenL.
ollLlcal parLles and candldaLes are flnanced Lhrough prlvaLe or publlc
means. rlvaLe means can be elLher lnLernal (1'$445',,#4 '"7"*."4) or exLernal
(&%.#,+'$#)+ -.*2)*1) Lo Lhe parLy. AlLhough prlvaLe donaLlons are also regulaLed
by law, ln general, Member SLaLes Lend Lo avold excesslvely sLrlcL regulaLlon of
such resources, due Lo Lhe prlvaLe and volunLary naLure of pollLlcal parLles.
3

MosL of Lhe Llme, norms conslsL of llmlLs Lo Lhe amounLs or even selecLlve bans
on donaLlons ();";, for anonymous conLrlbuLlons, for conLrlbuLlons comlng from
publlc or seml-publlc enLerprlses), ln lncome Lax lncenLlves for donaLlons by
organlsed lnLeresLs, ln obllgaLlons for publlc dlsclosure of donor's ldenLlLy, "#+.
Pere, we llmlL Lhe scope of our analysls Lo &./%)+ -.*2)*1 of parLles as lL
appears Lo be mosL relevanL for ollLlcal arLles aL Luropean Level (LLs). 8y
conslderlng Lhe Lhree faces of parLy organlsaLlon (kaLz, Malr 1993) and lLs
elecLoral pro[ecLlon, publlc subsldles may be sub-dlvlded lnLo )*2)'"+# -.*2)*1 -
LhaL ls, publlc supporL Lo Lhe broader parLy exLra-organlsaLlonal sphere - and
2)'"+# -.*2)*1, );";, publlc supporL Lo parLy sLrucLures and acLlvlLles (llgure 1).
1he mosL dlffused forms of )*2)'"+# -.*2)*1 are: (1) 4./4)2)"4 )* <)*2,
whlch conslsL ln non-moneLary servlces LhaL Member SLaLes provlde Lo pollLlcal
compeLlLlon (elecLlon maLerlal, elecLlon offlcers, polllng sLaLlon faclllLles) or ln
governmenL llcences Lo pollLlcal parLles, such as free broadcasLlng and medla
access, (2) "$'=$'<"2 -.*24, whlch are goal-orlenLed money Lransfers Lo parLles'
afflllaLed assoclaLlon or Lo blnd acLlvlLles, such as parLy press, (3) &./%)+
)*+"*#)7"4, whlch are usually norms on Lax deduclblllLy (lncludlng membershlp
fees), sysLems of Lax free, Lax credlL or Lax check-off: Lhey are ofLen llmlLed Lo
lndlvlduals, and maxlmum amounLs are sLlpulaLed Lo prevenL donaLlons from
lnLeresLed money (nassmacher 2009).
6


5
As we will see this is not the case at European level where private funding of parties is strictly
limited.
6
van 8lezen (2000, 2003) argues LhaL dlrecL publlc fundlng of pollLlcal parLles resLs on Lhree
plllars, relaLlng Lo Lhelr prlnclpal flelds of acLlvlLles: (1) subsldles for Lhe operaLlonal cosL of
parLles, LhaL ls conLrlbuLlons Lo malnLaln and develop Lhelr organlsaLlonal sLrucLures and,
78
ln whaL follows, we declded Lo focus on Lhe general crlLerla seL by
Member SLaLes/sLaLes Lo allocaLe resources among parLles aL naLlonal level, by
underlylng dlfferences ln procedures for $++"44 and 2)4#')/.#),* of publlc
fundlng: ln facL, Lhese pecullar aspecLs seem Lo be more 'ln Louch' wlLh
organlsaLlonal sLraLegles.

!"#"J /:>?K 869:9769; 17@ALA1 69 '3>=DAB : 1K9?@A?67 =GA>G6AM
1he lnLroducLlon of publlc fundlng ln Lurope daLes back Lo 1939 (AusLln,
1[ernsLrm 2003, Casas-Zamora 2003), when Lhe lederal 8epubllc of Cermany
granLed publlc fundlng Lo cenLral parLles' organlsaLlons. Some scholars
(nassmacher 1989, 2003) argue LhaL lL would be posslble Lo slngle ouL dlfferenL
sLages ln Lhe Member SLaLe subvenLlons lmplemenLaLlon. 1hls ls cruclal Lo assess
Lhe dlfferenL levels of publlc supporL Lo parllamenLary and non-parllamenLary
acLlvlLles: ln facL, Lhe exLenslon of publlc fundlng Lo parLy acLlvlLles carrled ouL
ouLslde Lhe leglslaLures also permlLLed Lhe flnanclng of parLles whlch had no
parllamenLary represenLaLlon (Scarrow 2006). Cne posslble elemenL ln
deLermlnlng organlsaLlonal consequences of publlc flnanclng schemes ls Lhe
degree of parLy and parLy sysLem lnsLlLuLlonallsaLlon. naLurally, Lhere are a wlde
varleLy of sysLems ln Lurope LhaL presenL dlfferenL levels of lnsLlLuLlonallsaLlon.
Cne can surmlse, however, LhaL Lhere may be greaLer homogenelLy wlLhln,
respecLlvely, Lhe group of esLabllshed democracles (Cld Lurope) and LhaL ln
Lhose of Lhe more recenL ones (new Lurope). arLles and parLy sysLems are llkely
Lo be generally more lnsLlLuLlonallsed ln Lhe Cld Lurope Lhan ln Lhe new Lurope.
WhllsL ln Lhe Cld Lurope 'mosL of [Lhe] counLrles have slmllar
parllamenLary sysLems, and mosL use some varleLy of proporLlonal
represenLaLlon elecLoral rules' (Scarrow 2006, p. 626) and parLy sysLems reflecL a
number of slmllarlLles (ln Lerms of Lhelr orlglnal cleavages and Lhe Llmlng of Lhelr
developmenL), ln Lhe new Lurope lnsLlLuLlonal and pollLlcal sysLems dlffer, a parL
from Lhe shared problem of Lhe sLrucLural blases ln favour of Lhe posL-
communlsL parLles (Smllov, 1oplak 2007). ln general, alLhough a number of
characLerlsLlcs recur ln dlfferenL sysLems of parLy flnanclng, lL would be
lnapproprlaLe Lo speak of a cross-naLlonal Luropean model of parLy flnanclng.
Llkewlse, no evldenL slmllarlLles can be observed across Lhe Member SLaLes of
Lhe Cld and of Lhe new Lurope. WhaL can be ldenLlfled as Lhe unlfylng
characLerlsLlc of all publlc fundlng models ls Lhe rellance on parLy-orlenLed,
raLher Lhan candldaLe-orlenLed, norms (nassmacher 2001).
ln a flrsL phase, Member SLaLe supporL Lo pollLlcal parLles was prlmarlly

generally speaklng, Lo promoLe Lhelr exLra-parllamenLary acLlvlLles, (2) subsldles for campalgn
acLlvlLles, LhaL ls a relmbursemenL for elecLoral expenses lncurred by candldaLes or parLles, (3)
subsldles Lo parllamenLary parLy groups. Powever, Lhe dlsLlncLlon beLween subsldles for
operaLlonal cosLs and Lhose for campalgn acLlvlLles resLs on subLle borders and, as nassmacher
(2009) polnLs ouL, Lhe dlvldlng llne beLween exLra-parllamenLary parLles on Lhe one hand and
[parllamenLary groups] on Lhe oLher hand, has noL always been sLrlcL (p. 306). ln general, Lhen,
lL could be dlfflculL Lo dlsLlngulsh beLween paymenLs (lerre eL al. 2000), speclally when Lhlnklng
of Lhe lnLra-parLy flows of resources.
79
asslgned Lo parllamenLary groups (1963-1973). A parL Lhe relevanL Cerman case
(where funds Lo cenLral organlsaLlons were lnLroduced prevlously), amongsL
presenL WesLern Lu Member SLaLes, AusLrla, 8elglum, uenmark, llnland, lreland,
lLaly, Sweden, Lhe neLherlands and Lhe uk, orlglnally granLed sLaLe supporL Lo
parllamenLary groups. MosL of Lhese counLrles provlded publlc flnance Lo Lhe
cenLral offlces of parLles laLer on: only lLaly, llnland and Sweden declded Lo seL
speclflc provlslons conLexLually. 1he 'second wave' of publlc fundlng sLarLed ln
Lhe second half of Lhe 1970s and conLlnued unLll Lhe end of Lhe 1990s: lL
encompassed Lhe new SouLhern democracles of Spaln and orLugal (1977),
uenmark (1986) and lrance (1989). 8elglum and Lhe neLherlands exLended
publlc funds Lo parLy organlsaLlons ln 1989 and 1999. Cnly Lhe uk and lreland dld
noL adopL speclflc regulaLlons. uurlng Lhe 1990s, Lhe Luropean enlargemenL Lo
LasLern counLrles ralsed new dlsclpllnary lnLeresLs ln publlc fundlng maLLers. 1he
regulaLlon and Lhe fundlng of pollLlcal compeLlLlon ln Lhe new Lurope sLood ouL
for Lwo maln reasons (Smllov 2007). llrsL, especlally durlng Lhe lnlLlal sLage of Lhe
LranslLlon process Lo democraLlc reglmes, boLh parLy rules and flnanclal ald Lo
pollLlcal parLles were prlmarlly concelved Lo help Lo sLablllse and Lo leglLlmlse Lhe
new-born parLy sysLems. Secondly, ln recenL years, lncreaslng aLLenLlon has been
pald Lo Lhe wldespread phenomenon of pollLlcal corrupLlon. Pere, we focus on
Lhe flrsL aspecL: ln facL, sLraLegles adopLed Lo sLablllse new parLy sysLems may
afford helpful cues Lo Lhe general purpose of Lhls sLudy.
ubllc fundlng schemes could be classlfled upon Lhe basls of a number of
crlLerla. 1he ones LhaL recur more frequenLly ln Lhe llLeraLure are Lhose reflecLed
ln 1able 2. ln parLlcular, we can conslder Lhe purpose of dlrecL publlc fundlng and
Lhe requlremenLs for Lhe access and Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon of Lhe funds Lhemselves. ln
reallLy, we cannoL observe any slgnlflcanL varlaLlon ln Lhe purposes of dlrecL
publlc fundlng: mlxed approaches seem Lo prevall wlLh funds belng provlded for
operaLlonal cosLs as well as for elecLoral acLlvlLles ln mosL counLrles. More
varlaLlon ls, however, vlslble ln Lerms of Lhe requlremenLs for access Lo, and
dlsLrlbuLlon of, Lhe funds. lndlrecL fundlng, a posslble Lhlrd crlLerlon for
classlflcaLlon, presenLs no varlaLlon aL all, ln LhaL lL ls presenL ln all counLrles. 1he
modallLles of lndlrecL fundlng can, however, vary and wlll be consldered ln more
deLall ln Lhe course of Lhe analysls on Lhe sysLems of Cld and new Lurope.

!"#"# /34567 839<69; 69 ?@A .5< '3>=DA
When speaklng of 2)'"+# -.*2)*1, lL ls posslble Lo dlsLlngulsh dlfferences ln our
flrsL crlLerlon, purpose ln Lerms of operaLlonal cosLs and elecLoral acLlvlLles. ln
Lhe Cld Lurope, as Lhe Lable lndlcaLes, Lhere ls a good degree of homogenelLy as
a resulL of a prevalence of mlxLures of Lhe Lwo modallLles. More varlaLlon can be
observed ln Lerms of access and dlsLrlbuLlon procedures, whlch see a prevalence
of elecLoral crlLerla as opposed Lo parllamenLary ones. usually, Lhese procedures
rely on parLy slze, LhaL ls, Lhe number of seaLs held and/or voLes polled, whlch
consLlLuLe Lhe mosL common crlLerla for fundlng allocaLlon. Powever, ln many
cases (8rlLaln, 8elglum, Lhe neLherlands, AusLrla, Sweden, and lLaly unLll 1993)
base amounLs are seL Lo be equally dlsLrlbuLed among ellglble parLles.
80
!"#$% '( 1he regulaLlon of parLy fundlng ln Lurope
)*+,-./
01.%2- 3+#$12
4+,51,6
3+.7*8% *9 -:% 01.%2- 3+#$12 4+,51,6 ;%<+1.%=%,->8? 9*. @22%88A018-.1#+-1*,
B,51.%2-
9+,51,6
!"#$%&' ?LS CperaLlonal CosLs, LlecLoral acLlvlLles LlecLoral (currenL leglslaLure) ?LS
)*+,&"- ?LS CperaLlonal CosLs, LlecLoral acLlvlLles arllamenLary (currenL leglslaLure) ?LS
)"+,'%&' ?LS LlecLoral acLlvlLles
Mlxed LlecLoral-arllamenLary (currenL
elecLlon/leglslaLure)
?LS
./*01
2*3"4+&0
?LS CperaLlonal CosLs, LlecLoral acLlvlLles
Mlxed LlecLoral-arllamenLary (currenL
elecLlon/leglslaLure)
?LS
5*6-'%7 ?LS CperaLlonal CosLs, LlecLoral acLlvlLles LlecLoral (prevlous elecLlon) ?LS
8&6+'69 ?LS CperaLlonal CosLs, LlecLoral acLlvlLles arllamenLary (currenL leglslaLure) ?LS
8%'60* ?LS CperaLlonal CosLs, LlecLoral acLlvlLles LlecLoral (currenL elecLlon) ?LS
:*%-'6; ?LS CperaLlonal CosLs, LlecLoral acLlvlLles LlecLoral (prevlous elecLlon) ?LS
<"6,'%; ?LS CperaLlonal CosLs, LlecLoral acLlvlLles LlecLoral (currenL elecLlon) ?LS
=%*+'69 ?LS CperaLlonal CosLs LlecLoral (prevlous elecLlon) ?LS
=$'+; ?LS LlecLoral acLlvlLles LlecLoral (currenL elecLlon) ?LS
>*$1*%+'69# ?LS CperaLlonal CosLs arllamenLary (currenL leglslaLure) ?LS
?@+'69 ?LS CperaLlonal CosLs, LlecLoral acLlvlLles
Mlxed LlecLoral-arllamenLary (currenL
elecLlon/leglslaLure)
?LS
?@%$",'+ ?LS CperaLlonal CosLs, LlecLoral acLlvlLles
Mlxed LlecLoral-arllamenLary (currenL
elecLlon/leglslaLure)
?LS
A+@B*6&' ?LS CperaLlonal CosLs, LlecLoral acLlvlLles LlecLoral (currenL elecLlon) ?LS
A3'&6 ?LS CperaLlonal CosLs, LlecLoral acLlvlLles LlecLoral (currenL elecLlon) ?LS
AC*9*6 ?LS CperaLlonal CosLs, LlecLoral acLlvlLles
Mlxed LlecLoral (prevlous elecLlon)-
arllamenLary (currenL leglslaLure)
?LS
D6&$*9
E&6,9@-
?LS CperaLlonal CosLs, arllamenLary (currenL leglslaLure) ?LS

C*+.2%D re-adapLed from nassmacher (2009) and Smllov, 1oplak (2007).
81
ln some cases, laws seL speclflc elecLoral Lhreshold(s) Lo access publlc fundlng:
from a mlnlmum of 1,000 voLes (uenmark) Lo 4 of voLes collecLed aL naLlonal
level (AusLrla). ln beLween, lle Cermany (from 0.3 Lo 1 dependlng on Lhe klnd
of elecLlon) and Sweden. ln lLaly, law 313/1993 seL a 3 Lhreshold Lo access
elecLoral relmbursemenLs, whlch was subsequenLly lowered Lo 1 ln 1999.
Slngle candldaLes who geL a mlnlmum of voLes are relmbursed ln lreland. ln
Sweden, parLles wlLhouL parllamenLary represenLaLlves buL whlch have obLalned
aL leasL 2.3 of Lhe voLes aL naLlonal level ln elLher of Lhe Lwo mosL recenL
elecLlons recelve granLs.
Also ln Lerms of parllamenLary requlremenLs, a mlnlmum of seaLs
obLalned ls commonly seL. ln Lhe neLherlands, all parLles represenLed ln
arllamenL recelve publlc fundlng, whlle, ln llnland and 8elglum, parLles access
funds lf Lhey have been able Lo elecL aL leasL one candldaLe ln boLh
parllamenLary chambers. ln boLh Spaln and orLugal, subsldles are allocaLed
upon Lhe basls of voLes and seaLs won by Lhe parLles: however, crlLerla for
allocaLlon produce hlgher dlsproporLlonal effecLs ln Lhe former, as only parLles
whlch wln aL leasL one seaL ln a mulLl-member consLlLuency are ellglble (van
8lezen 2000, nassmacher 2003a). 1he mlnlmum of seaLs obLalned crlLerlon
applles also ln lLaly, for Luropean and 8eglonal elecLlons. ln Lhe uk, only
reglsLered parLles able Lo wln aL leasL 2 seaLs ln arllamenL access Lo Lhe pollcy
developmenL fund. ln lrance, Lhe law seL dlfferenL re-lmbursemenL raLes
accordlng Lo Lhe pollLlcal level Lo be elecLed: here elecLoral and parllamenLary
requlremenLs couple, slnce Lhe annual subsldy ls dlsLrlbuLed boLh among parLles
whlch reach aL leasL 1 of Lhe voLe ln a mlnlmum of flfLy slngle member dlsLrlcLs,
and parLles wlLh aL leasL one afflllaLed depuLy or senaLor (nassmacher 2003a).
CLher crlLerla may regulaLe Lhe access Lo, and Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon of, publlc
fundlng. ln Cermany, Lhe Supreme CourL esLabllshed (1994) LhaL parLles recelve
an amounL of publlc resources equal Lo Lhe funds Lhey have been able Lo collecL
auLonomously from grass-rooLs revenues and pluLocraLlc fundlng (motcbloq
fooJs), slmllarly, ln 1993, ln lrance, a new klnd of subsldy was lnLroduced,
prlmarlly dlrecLed aL parLles whlch dld noL pass voLes Lhresholds: lf Lhe excluded
parLles are able Lo sollclL a flxed mlnlmum amounL of funds from 10,000
ldenLlfled persons (lncludlng 300 elecLed offlclals) Lhen Lhey can access a publlc
maLchlng granL (nassmacher 2003).
Comlng Lo loJltect looJloq, free access Lo medla ls a prlme example,
belng one of Lhe mosL lmporLanL Lypes of subsldles ln-klnd. ln WesLern Lurope,
Lhe dlsclpllne of Lhls maLLer varles from counLry Lo counLry (see 1able 3). CLher
klnds of servlces provlded by Lhe publlc auLhorlLy may conslsL of: (1) Lhe
coverage of expenses for LransporLaLlon Lo and from polllng sLaLlons (Sweden,
lLaly), (2) Lhe offer of free space for parLy posLers durlng campalgn perlods
(especlally aL local level: 8elglum, lrance, Cermany, lLaly, Lhe neLherlands,
Spaln), (3) reduced posLal raLe (8elglum, lLaly, Sweden, Spaln, lreland, uk, (4)
free use of publlc halls (8rlLaln, lrance, Spaln, lLaly), (3) reduced raLes for Lhe use
of publlc places, publlc adverLlsemenL, blllboards (lLaly), (6) organlslng loLLerles
(lLaly, Sweden), (7) preferred LreaLmenL ln Lerms of parLy premlses (lLaly).
An addlLlonal klnd of lndlrecL parLy fundlng - recenLly adopLed also by Lhe
82
Lu (LC 2004/2003) - conslsLs of publlc flnanclng of lnsLlLuLes afflllaLed Lo parLles
for goal-orlenLed purposes, such as research, Lralnlng, youLh (Cermany, AusLrla,
Lhe neLherlands unLll 1999), or Lhe fundlng of speclflc acLlvlLles (lLaly, Sweden:
supporL Lo Lhe parLy press), generally almed aL relnforclng pollLlcal parLlclpaLlon.
usually, Lhese eotmotkeJ fooJs cannoL be spenL for elecLoral acLlvlLles.
Also publlc loceotlves llke Lax beneflLs are concelved Lo encourage clLlzen
parLlclpaLlon (lnLo-uuchlnsky 2002). uanlsh law provldes full deduclblllLy for
membershlp dues, whlle maxlmum Lax beneflLs are seL ln lrance and Cermany.
8oLh Lhe neLherlands and lLaly provlde Lax beneflLs also for conLrlbuLlons comlng
from corporaLlons. Powever, ln lLaly, law 2/1997, whlch lnLroduced a Lax check-
off mechanlsm, falled lLs goal, as less Lhan 30 of clLlzens declded Lo supporL
parLles: Lhls fallure opened Lhe doors Lo Lwo governmenLal speclal"
relmbursemenLs Lo pollLlcal parLles.

!"#$% '( Subsldles-ln-klnd: access Lo medla
)*+,-./ 0*.12 *, 344%22 -* 1%56"
Aosttlo
arLles represenLed ln parllamenL are allocaLed free alr Llme on
radlo and 1v
8elqlom
lree alrLlme Lo parLles ln proporLlon Lo Lhelr prevlous elecLoral
performance,
ald pollLlcal adverLlslng unavallable Lo parLles,
ueomotk
lree alrLlme Lo all parLles,
ald pollLlcal adverLlslng unavallable Lo parLles,
llolooJ ald pollLlcal adverLlslng unavallable Lo parLles,
ltooce ald pollLlcal adverLlslng unavallable Lo parLles,
Cetmooy
lree alrLlme Lo parLles ln proporLlon Lo Lhelr prevlous elecLoral
performance,
ltelooJ ald pollLlcal adverLlslng unavallable Lo parLles,
ltoly Mlxed sysLem of alrLlme allocaLlon (equal and proporLlonal)
NetbetlooJs
arLles represenLed ln parllamenL are allocaLed free alr Llme on
radlo and 1v
5weJeo ald pollLlcal adverLlslng unavallable Lo parLles (aL naLlonal level),
uolteJ
kloqJom
lree alrLlme Lo all parLles,
lree broadcasLlng Llme Lo parLles for campalgn perlods and
beLween elecLlons ln proporLlon 3:3:4 (L8:C:Lu)
ald pollLlcal adverLlslng unavallable Lo parLles,

7*+.4%8 re-adapLed from nassmacher 2009.


9('(' :+#$64 ;+,56,< 6, -=% 0%> ?+.*@%
As we have seen, new Lurope sysLems presenL some clear sLrucLural dlfferences
vls--vls Lhose of Lhe Cld Lurope: Lhe blases ln favour of Lhe posL communlsL
parLles, Lhe LhreaL of sLaLe capLure" by prlvaLe lnLeresLs (corporaLlons and
wealLhy donors). All Lhese facLors convlnced almosL all governmenLs Lo lnLroduce
83
publlc fundlng: only LaLvla ls sLlll lacklng publlc schemes. ln general, also ln
LasLern counLrles publlc fundlng ls more parLy orlenLed raLher Lhan candldaLe
orlenLed. Whlle prevlously subsLanLlally unregulaLed, Lhe parLy fundlng secLor
has become a compeLlLlve ground boLh for Lhose parLles whlch clalmed Lo
hlsLorlcal conLlnulLy and Lhe new comers: ln Lhls respecL, Lhe larger parLles Lrled
Lo Lallor fundlng schemes Lo Lhelr own lnLeresLs. 1he daLa ln 1able 2 lndlcaLe
LhaL, accordlng Lo Lhe purpose of flnanclng, ln Lerms of electotol octlvltles or
opetotloool costs, also ln Lhe new Lurope, Lhere ls a good degree of
homogenelLy, also resulLlng from Lhe prevalence of mlxed sysLems. Slmllarly,
more varlaLlon can also be observed ln Lerms of access and dlsLrlbuLlon
procedures. ln Lhls case, however, we have a prevalence of mlxed requlremenLs
over elecLoral ones wlLh a LoLal excluslon of excluslve parllamenLary
requlremenLs.
ln Lhe Czech 8epubllc, Lhe dlsclpllne of parLy fundlng daLes back Lo 1991:
ln 2000, new provlslons were adopLed by arllamenL (Cndie[, eLr 2007). Czech
parLles recelve an elecLoral relmbursemenL (wlLh a mlnlmum Lhreshold seL aL
3), a flxed subsldy for Lhelr operaLlonal acLlvlLles and a subsldy for each seaL
won ln Lhe Lwo chambers, Lhey also have access Lo subsldles ln klnd (revenues
from loLLerles). naLlonal law provldes a number of bans and llmlLs for donaLlons,
speclally for conLrlbuLlons comlng from publlc enLlLles.
ln Slovenla, Lhe parLy-fundlng reglme underwenL a ma[or reform ln 2000,
slnce Lhe 1994 ollLlcal arLles AcL was consldered Loo unbalanced ln favour of
parllamenLary parLles (1oplak 2007a). 1he new publlc scheme seL a 10 quoLa of
Lhe enLlre amounL of funds Lo be allocaLed Lo parLles whlch obLaln aL leasL 1 of
Lhe voLes casL aL naLlonal elecLlons, whlle Lhe remalnlng 90 ls subdlvlded
proporLlonally upon Lhe basls of voLes. ln addlLlon, parLles have Lhe rlghL Lo be
refunded of Lhe elecLoral expenses lncurred, even aL local level. 1he Slovenlan
law also provldes parLles wlLh pald sLaff, afflllaLed lnLo 'parllamenLarlans clubs'.
lndlrecL fundlng does noL encompass provlslons abouL free broadcasLlng, whlle
parLy law granLs speclal premlses for parLy offlces.
1he 8ulgarlan case ls qulLe pecullar. ln 8ulgarla, llLLle aLLenLlon was pald
Lo Lhe fundlng of pollLlcal compeLlLlon LhroughouL Lhe lnlLlal Len years of Lhe
LranslLlon process (kanev 2007). AparL from generlc resLrlcLlons for prlvaLe and
forelgn donaLlons, Lhe lnLroducLlon of subsldles ln klnd (free alrLlme) and non-
regulaLed subsldles Lo parLles parLlclpaLlng Lo Lhe elecLlons, lL was only ln 2001
LhaL new leglslaLlon was approved by Lhe arllamenL. Slnce LhaL momenL, prlvaLe
donaLlons are Lhe prlnclpal source of parLy-fundlng: parLles recelve boLh dlrecL
publlc subsldles (for campalgnlng and ordlnary acLlvlLles) and ln klnd subsldles (ln
proporLlon Lo Lhelr parllamenLary sLrengLh) and Lhey are sub[ecLed Lo llmlLs ln
campalgn spendlng. 1o prevenL Lhe freezlng of Lhe parLy sysLem, publlc supporL
ls dlrecLed boLh Lowards parllamenLary parLles (Lhose whlch passed Lhe 4
Lhreshold) and exLra-parllamenLary parLles whlch have more Lhan 1 (lblJem).
rocedures for fund dlsLrlbuLlon are complex, l.e., a sysLem of dlfferenLlaLed
allocaLlons Lo parLles, parLy-alllances and lndependenL candldaLes, based upon
dlfferenL Lhresholds and dlfferenL granLs (boLh funds and loans). llnally, a celllng
ls seL for sLaLe subsldles (Waleckl 2003).
84
Pungary seems Lo be a generous counLry Lo pollLlcal parLles. no upper
llmlL on sLaLe subsldles ls seL, whlle resLrlcLlons over conLrlbuLlons from
companles owned by Lhe sLaLe and a ban on anonymous donaLlons are provlded
by Lhe arLy Law (Lnyedl 2007). arLles recelve dlrecL funds ln Lerms of elecLoral
relmbursemenLs and Lransfers Lo cenLral headquarLers, lndlrecL fundlng as ln
klnd funds (free broadcasLlng, reduced prlces for medla adverLlslng) and
earmarked funds (supporL Lo parLles afflllaLed organlsaLlons). 1o pass Lhe
elecLoral Lhreshold (3) ls Lhe cooJltlo sloe poo ooo Lo access Lo publlc funds: a
quarLer of Lhe overall amounL ls equally dlsLrlbuLed among parllamenLary parLles
wlLh more Lhan 1 of Lhe voLes, whlle a blgger sllce of Lhe budgeL ls sub-dlvlded
proporLlonally upon Lhe basls of voLes. arllamenLary caucuses are also
subsldlsed Lo hlre experLs. no Lax rellef for clLlzens ls seL buL parLles are exempL
from LaxaLlon.
AL Lhe beglnnlng of Lhe new Mlllennlum (2002), oland underwenL a
subsLanLlal reform of lLs pollLlcal-fundlng reglme afLer Lhe numerous scandals
and abuses emerged durlng Lhe LranslLlon process, when no clear or lasLlng rules
were seL (Waleckl 2003, 2007). ln addlLlon, as ln many oLher LasLern counLrles,
pollLlcal compeLlLlon was condlLloned by Lhe posL-communlsL parLles, whlch Look
advanLage of Lhelr masslve properLles: aL Lhe lnlLlal sLage of Lhe LranslLlon, sLaLe
fundlng was prohlblLed. Powever, parLy organlsaLlonal weakness and
overlapplng elecLoral cycles aL presldenLlal, parllamenLary and local level forced
Lhe sLaLe Lo lnLroduce publlc ald: from lnlLlal elecLoral re-lmbursemenLs (1993) Lo
granLs for parLles sLaLuLory acLlvlLles and expenses lncurred ln campalgnlng
(1997). As slngle candldaLes are dlrecLly lnvolved ln Lhe fundlng of Lhelr
campalgns, ln Lhe absence of a conslsLenL membershlp and ln presence of
decllnlng small lndlvldual donaLlons, lnLeresLed money ls a prlmary source of
revenue (Waleckl 2007). 1hls also lmplles a Lendency Lo organlsaLlonal
cenLrallsaLlon, as parLles have Lo comply wlLh rlgld legal requlremenLs: prlvaLe
flrms and banks are also lnvolved ln helplng parLles Lo prevenL lrregularlLles ln
Lhelr campalgn flnance. ulrecL publlc fundlng ls allocaLed upon Lhe basls of a
compllcaLed mlxed sysLem, whlch comblnes elecLoral and parllamenLary
requlremenLs (lblJem, pp. 129-130): Lhe blggesL parLles are clearly favoured.
uurlng Lhe elecLoral campalgn perlod, all Lhe parLles also have Lhe rlghL Lo free
broadcasLlng, as a subsldy ln klnd.

9('(9 !=% ;+,56,< -* @".-6%2 "- ?+.*@%", $%A%$
1he legal basls of Lhe rules for fundlng of LLs ls glven ln ArLlcle 10 of Lhe 1reaLy
on Lhe Luropean unlon (1Lu), ln arLlcle 224 of Lhe 1reaLy on Lhe luncLlonlng of
Lhe Luropean unlon (1lLu) and ln oLher regulaLlons. ln parLlcular, slnce
8egulaLlon (LC) no 2004/2003 was adopLed, LLs began Lo recelve boLh dlrecL
and lndlrecL fundlng from Lhe general L budgeL. 1he dlsclpllne of parLy-fundlng
was parLlally amended ln 2007 (8egulaLlon no 1324/2007): ln whaL follows, we
wlll refer Lo Lhls flnal seLLlng.
1he maln purpose of Lhls regulaLlon was Lo lmprove Lhe lnLegraLlon
85
process on Lhe pollLlcal slde, by favourlng a beLLer sLrucLurlng of Lhe pollLlcal
acLors operaLlng aL Luropean level. 1he alm Lo guaranLee hlgher level of
organlsaLlonal auLonomy for LLs - l.e., Lo reduce Lhelr dependence on naLlonal
parLles - ls clear slnce Lhe regulaLlon expllclLly denled Lhe posslblllLy of flnanclng
(nelLher dlrecLly nor lndlrecLly) naLlonal organlsaLlons or candldaLes wlLh funds
recelved from Lhe general budgeL of Lhe Lu. Cn Lhe oLher hand, Lhls provlslon
was lnsLrumenLal for naLlonal parLles, ln order Lo avold a poLenLlal lncreaslng ln
Lhe lnLervenLlon of Lhe LLs lnLo naLlonal pollLlcs (CagaLek 2008). Powever,
LLs may subsldlse Lhe flnanclng of campalgns for Lhe L elecLlons ln whlch
Lhey parLlclpaLe.
rlvaLe fundlng (grass-rooLs revenues and pluLocraLlc) are llmlLed by Lhe
regulaLlon. 8esldes Lhe usual concerns found ln emerglng parLy sysLems (see
new Lurope) abouL Lhe dangers of glvlng prlvaLe lnLeresLs an excesslve lnfluence
ln Lhe democraLlc process, Lhls ls probably also a consequence of Lhe greaL
dlsLance LhaL exlsLs beLween LLs and Luropean clvll socleLy. 1hls, ln facL,
makes Lhe danger of Lhe afflrmaLlon of blg prlvaLe lnLeresLs, as opposed Lo
ordlnary clLlzens, all Lhe more llkely. 8e lL as lL may, LLs are noL allowed Lo
accepL anonymous donaLlons, donaLlons from Lhe budgeL of pollLlcal groups ln
Lhe L, donaLlons from any underLaklng dlrecLly or lndlrecLly llnked Lo publlc
auLhorlLles, donaLlons exceedlng Lu8 12,000 per year and per donor from any
naLural or legal person oLher Lhan Lhe referred underLaklngs, or forelgn
donaLlons. LLs may recelve funds from naLlonal parLles whlch are members of
a LL and from lndlvlduals who are members of a LL: ln boLh cases,
conLrlbuLlons may noL exceed 40 of Lhe annual budgeL of LhaL LL. CbllgaLlons
llnked Lo fundlng lnclude Lhe publlclLy of LL revenues, expendlLures and Lhelr
sLaLemenLs of asseLs and llablllLles, on Lhe one hand, and Lhe speclflcaLlon of
donors and Lhe donaLlons recelved, excepL Lhose noL exceedlng Lu8 300 per year
and per donor, on Lhe oLher.
1o be recognlsed as a LL and Lo access publlc fundlng, a parLy musL
comply wlLh a number of condlLlons, whlch are a mlxLure of legal, parllamenLary
and elecLoral requlremenLs, Lhe subsequenL dlsLrlbuLlon of funds relles on
parllamenLary crlLerla (see 1able 3).
1echnlcally, Lhe purpose of dlrecL fundlng aL Luropean level follows
slmllar paLLerns Lo lndlvldual counLrles' ln Cld and new Lurope: fundlng ls,
lndeed, provlded for Lhe ordlnary funcLlonlng of LLs as well as for elecLoral
campalgns. Powever, Lhe laLLer are very llmlLed, and lL ls clear LhaL faclllLaLlng
Lhe creaLlon and malnLenance of more effecLlve LLs ls Lhe maln purpose of Lhe
regulaLlon. Cn Lhe second crlLerlon, we have ldenLlfled, for Lhe classlflcaLlon of
fundlng schemes, Lhe Luropean level, whlch noL only does noL deparL from Lhe
prevalllng mlxed model observed ln boLh Cld and new Lurope, buL also presenLs
an addlLlonal programmaLlc requlremenL, favourlng Lhe respecL of Lhe baslc
prlnclples on whlch Lu democracy ls be founded. Agaln, Lhe regulaLlon's
preoccupaLlon Lo favour beLLer llnkage beLween Luropean clLlzens and Lu level
lnsLlLuLlon Lhrough pollLlcal parLles ls evldenL. 1ables 6, 7 and 8 are lncluded as
lllusLraLlons of acLual parLy fundlng aL Lu level.

86
!"#$% B( 8egulaLlon of parLy fundlng aL Luropean level
ctltetlo fot tbe
coostltotloo of
pottles
lotpose of tbe
ultect lobllc
looJloq
kepoltemeots fot occess
ulsttlbotloo
ctltetlo
leqol lotllomeototy lectotol ltoqtommotlc lotllomeototy
Legal
personallLy ln
Lhe Member
SLaLe ln whlch
Lhe seaL ls
locaLed,

oslLlve
declslon by Lhe
L on Lhe
appllcaLlon for
fundlng,


operaLlonal
and
funcLlonlng
cosLs
(lncludlng
loundaLlons),

LlecLoral
acLlvlLles wlLh
Lhe excluslon
of
conLrlbuLlng
Lo naLlonal
member
parLles
campalgns
MusL be
represenLed, ln
aL leasL x of Lhe
MS, by ML or
ln Lhe naLlonal
arllamenLs or
reglonal
arllamenLs or
reglonal
assemblles
MusL have
recelved, ln aL
leasL x of Lhe
MS, aL leasL 3
of Lhe voLes
casL ln each of
Lhose MS aL Lhe
mosL recenL L
elecLlons,

MusL have
parLlclpaLed ln
elecLlons Lo Lhe
L or have
expressed Lhe
lnLenLlon Lo do
so
MusL observe ln
lLs programme
and ln lLs
acLlvlLles Lhe
prlnclples on
whlch Lhe Lu ls
founded
(llberLy,
democracy,
respecL for
human rlghLs
and
fundamenLal
freedom, rule of
law)
13
dlsLrlbuLed ln
equal share,

83
dlsLrlbuLed
proporLlonally
among Lhose
whlch have
elecLed
members ln
Lhe L


!"#$% C( CranLs from Lhe L Lo LL (maxlmum granL awarded)
D%". 3?0 3EF? ?GF ?F: ?H3 ?I: ?JFK: ?:: :?7 :?J
2004 161.230 340.423 163.724 306.000 618.896 1.387.387 1.237.000 210.273
2005 430.000 439.330 217.906 368.261 894.434 2.863.693 2.489.173 363.868
2006 430.000 328.123 219.823 314.797 222.627 381.000 883.300 2.929.841 2.380.000 318.626
2007 300.000 336.230 234.000 326.148 222.341 631.730 1.133.362 3.271.810 2.994.603 326.148
2008 300.000 413.990 226.700 496.291 226.600 641.734 1.113.663 3.334.734 3.027.647 336.683
2009 377.130 243.274 492.487 226.600 643.362 1.179.191 3.483.708 3.100.000 362.403
2010 211.123 303.617 339.963 1.034.999 1.333.984 4.939.462 3.393.323 708.080

7*+.4%8 ulrecLoraLe-Ceneral for llnance, ulrecLoraLe C - ollLlcal LnLlLy lundlng and CLher
Servlces, ollLlcal LnLlLy lundlng and lnvenLory unlL.


87
!"#$% L( CranLs from Lhe L Lo LL (flnal granL)
D%". 3?0 3EF? ?GF ?F: ?H3 ?I: ?JFK: ?:: :?7 :?J
2004 83.964 69.862 163.222 171.461 462.661 1.031.469 1.093.833 120.893
2005 114.330 233.933 217.906 368.261 819.363 2.398.941 2.489.173 363.868
2006 144.809 170.064 37.763 163.371 220.914 381.000 883.300 2.914.060 2.380.000 439.019
2007 139.138 239.410 226.280 132.611 213.198 631.730 1.022.344 3.136.414 2.992.218 324.231
2008 206.376 303.031 133.821 407.693 226.600 641.334 1.113.663 3.334.734 3.027.647 336.339

7*+.4%8 ulrecLoraLe-Ceneral for llnance, ulrecLoraLe C - ollLlcal LnLlLy lundlng and CLher
Servlces, ollLlcal LnLlLy lundlng and lnvenLory unlL.


!"#$% M( LLs' lncomes (2006-2009)
D%". :".-/ N>, K%2*+.4%2 ?: <.",-2 N-=%. !*-"$
LlA 33,700 222,627 20,309 OPCQM'C
LC 173,630 381,000 80,000 M'CQCBR
LLu8 883,300 314,227 12,812 SQOSRQB'P
L 1,099,646 2,912,393 1,464 9QRS'QLRB
Luu 40,000 173,800 42,000 OBLQMRR
LL 172,873 438,648 611,323 SQOO'QR9C
ORRC
SL 889,649 2,380,000 43,864 'QBS'QBS'
:".-/ N>, K%2*+.4%2 ?: <.",-2 N-=%. !*-"$
LlA 67,300 222,390 8,097 OPLQPML
LC 183,000 630,000 40,300 MLBQBRR
LLu8 339,304 1,021,780 13,922 SQ'PBQRRC
L 1,144,849 3,136,201 3,323 9Q'RCQ'LB
Luu 39,000 234,000 39,000 'SOQRRR
Lu 184,436 333,308 L'LQL99
LL 173,386 326,149 701,333 SQ9R'QRLR
ORRL
SL 998,416 2,994,419 38,389 9QR'SQ9O9
:".-/ N>, K%2*+.4%2 ?: <.",-2 N-=%. !*-"$
LlA 67,300 226,998 8,200 'ROQCPM
LC 644,640 203,000 67,202 PS9QM9O
LLu8 364,374 1,113,709 19,621 SQ9PLQLR9
L 1,120,449 3,334,734 9Q9LBQOR'
Luu 30,000 226,700 43,300 OBCQLRR
Lu 182,613 347,840 L'RQ9B'
LL 163,797 336,339 10,302 LRRQ''C
ORRM
SL 714,400 3,031,000 302,600 'QLCB(9RR

7*+.4% Cfflclal LLs' accounLs


robably whaL ls really pecullar Lo Lhe regulaLlon of pollLlcal fundlng aL Luropean
88
level ls Lhe relevance aLLrlbuLed Lo lndlrecL subsldles Lo LLs and, ln parLlcular,
Lo earmarked funds provlded Lo ollLlcal loundaLlons aL Luropean Level (lLLs).
A lLL ls 'an enLlLy or neLwork of enLlLles whlch [.] afflllaLed wlLh a LL, and
whlch Lhrough lLs acLlvlLles [.] underplns and complemenLs Lhe ob[ecLlves of Lhe
LL' (8eg. no 1324/2007, ArLlcle 1). LLs and afflllaLed lLLs have Lo deflne
Lhe modallLles of Lhelr relaLlonshlp, by assurlng boLh approprlaLe governance
and managemenL auLonomy.
Slmllarly Lo mosL dlsclpllnes relaLlng Lo subsldles Lo pollLlcal foundaLlons,
Lhe Luropean regulaLlon also seLs a number of speclflc Lasks whlch a lLL has Lo
follow (l.e., lmprovlng Lhe debaLe and favourlng research/supporL acLlvlLles on
Luropean maLLers). 1o be offlclally recognlsed by Lhe L, a lLL needs Lo saLlsfy a
number of dlfferenL requlremenLs (see 1able 9).

!"#$% P( 8equlremenLs Lo be saLlsfled by lLLs
K%T+6.%1%,-2
leqol 5cope Ceoqtopblcol ltoqtommotlc
MusL be afflllaLed
wlLh one of Lhe
recognlzed LL,
as cerLlfled by LhaL
parLy,
Legal personallLy
ln Lhe Member
SLaLe ln whlch Lhe
seaL ls locaLed,
separaLe from LhaL
of Lhe LL wlLh
whlch lL ls
afflllaLed,
lL shall noL
promoLe proflL
goals
lLs governlng body
shall have a
geographlcally
balanced
composlLlon
MusL observe ln lLs
programme and ln
lLs acLlvlLles Lhe
prlnclples on
whlch Lhe Lu ls
founded (llberLy,
democracy,
respecL for human
rlghLs and
fundamenLal
freedom, rule of
law)


A lLL recelves L funds Lhrough Lhe LL Lo whlch Lhe foundaLlon ls afflllaLed
(see 1able 10). 1he LL may granL oLher klnds of conLrlbuLlons Lo lLs afflllaLed
lLL, and a lLL may also recelve conLrlbuLlons from lLs afflllaLed naLlonal
pollLlcal foundaLlons: ln boLh cases, conLrlbuLlons may noL exceed 40 of Lhe
annual budgeL of Lhe lLL. ln conLrasL, a lLL ls noL allowed Lo subsldlse pollLlcal
parLles, nor candldaLes aL naLlonal and Luropean level, or foundaLlons aL naLlonal
level. ln any case, fundlng charged Lo Lhe general budgeL of Lhe Lu may noL
exceed 83 of Lhose cosLs of an ellglble lLL. 1he Lu's 2008 budgeL also
lncluded a LoLal of t3 mllllon for new pollLlcal foundaLlons.

9('(B N.<",62"-6*, *; :*$6-64"$ :".-6%2 "- ?+.*@%", J%A%$
As already sLaLed, Lhe llLeraLure on Lhe fundlng of parLy organlsaLlons suggesLs
LhaL rules and regulaLlons have a Lendency Lo promoLe organlsaLlonal
convergence. ln Lhls respecL, we argued LhaL Lu regulaLlons seL only a generlc
89
organlsaLlonal pre-requlslLe for LLs, whlch have Lo lndlcaLe Lhe bodles
responslble for pollLlcal and flnanclal managemenL and Lhe bodles/lndlvlduals
holdlng Lhe legal represenLaLlon ln Lhelr sLaLuLes. lor Lhe purpose of our
lnvesLlgaLlon, however, a more ln-depLh comparaLlve analysls of LL sLaLuLes
and lnLernal regulaLlons ln general may ralse some lnLeresLlng quesLlons. Pere,
we focus on Lhree dlfferenL aspecLs of parLy organlsaLlons, l.e., potty
membetsblp, potty Jellbetotlve/execotlve otqoos, floooclol toles.

!"#$% SR( CranLs from Lhe L Lo lLLs (2008-2009).
H*+,5"-6*, 3;;6$6"-%5 -* @".-/ D%".
U"V61+1 <.",-
">".5%5
H6,"$
<.",-
CenLer MaurlLs
CoppleLers
Luropean lree
Alllance
2008
2009
106,608
147,929
106.608
CenLre for
Luropean SLudles
Luropean eople's
arLy
2008
2009
1,300,208
2,294,292
1,344,892
Luropa
CsservaLorlo sulle
ollLlche
dell'unlone
Alllance for Lurope
of Lhe naLlons
2008
2009 232,900
322,130
232,900
Luropean Llberal
lorum
Luropean Llberal
uemocraL and
8eform arLy
2008
2009
233,730
723,200
172,187
londaLlon ollLlque
Luropeenne pour la
uemocraLle
Alllance of
lndependenL
uemocraLs ln
Lurope
2008
2009
190,746 120,301
loundaLlon for Lu
uemocracy
LuuemocraLs
2008
2009
103,330
133,170

loundaLlon for
Luropean
rogresslve SLudles
arLy of Luropean
SoclallsLs
2008
2009
1,208,700
1,930,000
1,208,436
Creen Luropean
lnsLlLuLe
Luropean Creen
arLy
2008
2009
302,678
414,893
270,836
lnsLlLuLe of
Luropean
uemocraLs
Luropean
uemocraLlc arLy
2008
2009
233,110
317,300
101,108
1ransform Lurope
arLy of Lhe
Luropean LefL
2008
2009
136,400
362,373
147,090
7*+.4%8 ulrecLoraLe-Ceneral for llnance, ulrecLoraLe C - ollLlcal LnLlLy lundlng and
CLher Servlces, ollLlcal LnLlLy lundlng and lnvenLory unlL.


ulfferenL levels of potty membetsblp are generally provlded by LL sLaLuLes. lL ls
posslble Lo dlsLlngulsh beLween collecLlve membershlp (granLed Lo Member
SLaLe parLles, afflllaLed foundaLlons and organlsaLlons, movemenLs) and
lndlvldual membershlp (lndlvlduals), on Lhe one hand, and beLween full
90
membershlp and llmlLed membershlp, on Lhe oLher. CollecLlve membershlp ls
usually reserved Lo pollLlcal parLles whlch comply wlLh a number of pre-
requlslLes (Lhe subscrlpLlon of Lhe LL's programme, Lhe sharlng of Lhe Lu's
common values, Lhe sharlng of speclflc pollLlcal values, elecLoral or
parllamenLary crlLerla, etc.) or Lo slngle MLs (1able 11).

!"#$% SS( Membershlp of LLs: a Lypology
)*$$%4-6A% E,56A65+"$
H+$$
(rlghL of expresslon, rlghL
of
lnlLlaLlve, rlghL Lo voLe)
Member parLles, afflllaLed
foundaLlons,
organlsaLlons, movemenLs
lndlvldual MLs,
uelegaLes of ML's who
are lndlvldual members
of Lhe LL(LC)
J616-%5
(rlghL Lo aLLend Lo general
meeLlngs, rlghL of
expresslon)
Cbservers parLles,
assoclaLlons, pollLlcal
organlsaLlons
Cbserver members
(slngle persons),
Ponorary members,


1he crlLerla Lo obLaln full membershlp (Lhe rlghL Lo speak and Lo voLe) are slmllar:
ln some cases, Lo become a full member of Lhe parLy, lL may be necessary Lo
spend a perlod of Llme as an observer, wlLh llmlLed membershlp. 1he L granLs
ordlnary membershlp Lo any ChrlsLlan uemocraL or llke-mlnded parLy, based ln
Lhe Luropean unlon, whlch subscrlbes Lo Lhe assoclaLlon's pollLlcal programme
and accepLs lLs by-laws and lnLernal regulaLlons, pollLlcal parLles of ChrlsLlan
uemocraL or llke-mlnded orlenLaLlon, based ouLslde Lhe Luropean unlon, from
sLaLes whose appllcaLlons for membershlp ln Lhe Luropean unlon have been
lnLroduced and/or sLaLes belonglng Lo Lhe Luropean lree 1rade AssoclaLlon may
become assoclaLed member. 1he LlA granLs full membershlp Lo parLles whlch
subscrlbe Lo Lhe programme and on condlLlon LhaL Lhey are pollLlcally acLlve, or
on condlLlon LhaL Lhey have elecLed members aL Luropean level or sLaLe level, or
LhaL Lhey have elecLed members ln Lhe organs of Lhe sLaLe, reglon, or local
counclls. 1he arLy of Lhe Luropean LefL allows pollLlcal organlsaLlons whlch are
pollLlcally close Lo Lhe LL Lo Lake parL ln lLs acLlvlLles ln a flexlble manner: Lhe
maln crlLerlon here ls Lhe pollLlcal consenL wlLh Lhe baslc poslLlons of Lhe LL.
nelLher observers nor assoclaLed members are generally enLlLled Lo voLe,
whlle Lhey have Lhe rlghL Lo aLLend general meeLlngs and Lhe rlghL of expresslon.
lor example, wlLhln Lhe LS, assoclaLe members have Lhe rlghL Lo aLLend
meeLlngs Lo whlch Lhey are lnvlLed wlLh Lhe rlghL of expresslon and Lhe rlghL of
lnlLlaLlve, buL wlLhouL Lhe rlghL Lo voLe, Lhe LL's sLaLuLe provldes LhaL observer
parLles or pollLlcal organlsaLlons Lake parL ln Lhe meeLlngs, Lo whlch Lhey are
lnvlLed, as consulLanLs: Lhey can make proposals Lo Lhe LxecuLlve 8oard for
examlnaLlon and declslon-maklng.
lndlvldual membershlp may be recognlsed Lo persons who have held
poslLlons wlLhln Lhe parLy or aL Lu level ln Lhe pasL (honorary membershlp) as
well as L members belonglng Lo Lhe referrlng pollLlcal group (for example,
members of Lhe Creen Croup ln Lhe Luropean arllamenL are Lo be consldered
91
auLomaLlcally ellglble for Lhe lndlvldual membershlp of Lhe Luropean Creen arLy
as long as Lhey belong Lo a Luropean Creen arLy Member SLaLe parLy) and Lo
people who supporL Lhe parLy flnanclally. Cenerally, lndlvldual members have
Lhe rlghL Lo volce Lhelr oplnlon buL Lhey do noL have Lhe rlghL Lo voLe (excepL ln
Lhe relevanL case of Lhe L), even when Lhey pay a fee Lo Lhe parLy (LLu8).
Clearly, Lhere ls a connecLlon beLween Lhe Lype of membershlp (collecLlve) whlch
characLerlses LL organlsaLlons and Lhe almosL LoLal rellance on publlc fundlng.
lndlvldual membershlp ls, ln facL, conslsLenL wlLh an organlsaLlonal model based
upon a subsLanLlal proporLlon of prlvaLe fundlng.
WlLh regard Lo Lhe formal organlsaLlon of LLs (l.e., Lhe lnLernal
Jellbetotlve ooJ qovetoloq boJles provlded by Lhelr sLaLuLes), we can observe
hlgh levels of organlsaLlonal convergence. lL ls noLeworLhy LhaL, ln mosL cases,
we have an Assembly, l.e., a dellberaLlve body formed by delegaLes from
collecLlve and lndlvldual membershlp endowed wlLh general declslonal powers,
an enlarged execuLlve body, usually elecLed by Lhe assembly, a smaller execuLlve
board, wlLhln whlch a 1reasurer ls nomlnaLed or elecLed (noL ln Lhe cases of Lhe
Luu and Lhe LL). ln addlLlon, one or more pollLlcal (such as Lhe LS Leaders'
Conference), admlnlsLraLlve (SecreLarlaL, Ceneral SecreLary) or flnanclal organs
use Lo supporL governlng bodles' work. 1he L, Lhe LLu8, Lhe Luu, Lhe Lu, Lhe
LL, and Lhe SL all have Lhls klnd of organlsaLlon (wlLh llmlLed dlfferences),
whlle Lhe Luropean Creen arLy' sLrucLure ls dlfferenL, as Lhere are Lwo
dellberaLlve bodles (Lhe Councll and Lhe enlarged Councll) and one execuLlve
body (Lhe CommlLLee), supporLed by a MedlaLlon CommlLLee (enLlLled Lo seLLle
dlspuLes beLween persons and bodles of Lhe LC on SLaLuLes and regulaLlon
maLLers) and a llnance MonlLorlng Croup (whlch acL as an advlsory body Lo Lhe
CommlLLee and Councll ln maLLers regardlng sLaff, budgeL and Lreasury). 1he
lnLernal regulaLlon adopLed by Lhe Ceneral Assembly of Lhe LlA lndlcaLes only
Lhree bodles: Lhe Ceneral Assembly lLself, Lhe 8ureau, and Lhe SecreLarlaL (wlLh
an admlnlsLraLlve supporL role).
8y complylng wlLh LC 2004/2003 and furLher amendmenLs, and
conslderlng LhaL many LLs are governed by Lhe 8elglan law of Lhe non-roflL
lnLernaLlonal CrganlsaLlons (CagaLek 2008), Lhe LLs' floooclol toles are very
slmllar. arLles can be flnanced by membershlp fees (ln acLuallLy collecLlve),
donaLlons and oLher conLrlbuLlons. ln general, member parLles whlch do noL
meeL Lhelr flnanclal commlLmenLs lose all voLlng rlghLs. 1he annual subscrlpLlon
may be llmlLed only Lo collecLlve members: for example, nelLher lndlvlduals nor
honorary members of Lhe LlA pay any conLrlbuLlons, whlle lndlvldual members
may be requlred Lo pay a membershlp fee wlLhln Lhe LLu8. MLs, members of
naLlonal parllamenLs and Lhelr salarled sLaff may pay an annual fee Lo Lhe Lu
uemocraLs. 1he 1reasurer ls generally appolnLed wlLhln Lhe execuLlve board
(L, LlA, LLu8, LL, and SL), whose agreemenL ls needed Lo presenL Lhe
budgeL drafLed for Lhe approval of Lhe dellberaLlve body.



92
9(9 76<,6;64",4% *; -=% W?+.*@".-/ 7-"-+-%X

1he parLy-flnanclng scheme ouLllned by 8egulaLlon 2004/2003 presenLs one very
lmporLanL dlfference wlLh respecL Lo all naLlonal cases, lncludlng Lhose of Lhe
new Lurope. lL ls clear LhaL Lhe maln concern behlnd Lhe regulaLlon ls Lhe acLual
creaLlon of fully-organlsed and effecLlve pollLlcal parLles aL Luropean level. ln
naLlonal sysLems, on Lhe oLher hand, parLles were already ln exlsLence ln all of
Lhelr organlsaLlonal faces, albelL wlLh dlfferenL level of lnsLlLuLlonallsaLlon. Lven
more lmporLanLly, parLles aL naLlonal level were fundamenLal acLors ln Lhe
drafLlng and approval of Lhe publlc fundlng leglslaLlon. ln conLrasL, aL Luropean
level, only Lhe parllamenLary groups (LhaL ls, a porLlon of whaL we could conslder
Lhe parLy ln publlc offlce), parLlclpaLed ln Lhe process. 1hls lmporLanL dlfference
aslde, Lhe effecL of Lhe regulaLlon has, lndeed, been Lo faclllLaLe, as has been Lhe
case aL naLlonal level, Lhe convergence of LLs organlsaLlonal models.
Cne could Lhus argue LhaL, wlLh Lhe approval of Lhe regulaLlon, LLs
obLalned Lhelr mosL lmporLanL formal recognlLlon. 1he lmporLance of LLs ln
shaplng a Luropean consclousness and expresslng Lhe pollLlcal wlll of Lu clLlzens
had been recognlsed, ln prlnclple, ln Lhe 1reaLles (ArLlcle 10 1Lu and 224 1lLu),
buL Lhe new regulaLlon provlded Lhe legal and Lhe flnanclal basls for Lhe effecLlve
esLabllshmenL of lnLegraLed pollLlcal parLles aL Lu level for Lhe flrsL Llme.
AlLhough we are sLlll far from havlng reached a slgnlflcanL form of Lu level 'parLy
governmenL', wlLh Councll 8egulaLlon 2004/2003, Lhe necessary foundaLlons for
parLy-based represenLaLlon have been lald. 1he SLaLuLe for Luropean ollLlcal
arLles, as Lhe regulaLlon ls ordlnarlly referred Lo, ls a conclse documenL LhaL
deflnes Lhe role of Luropean pollLlcal parLles and Lhe requlremenLs needed Lo be
able Lo recelve fundlng from Lhe Lu. Much space ls dedlcaLed Lo Lhe aspecLs
dlrecLly llnked Lo flnanclng, perhaps also because Lhe SLaLuLe was, ln parL,
[usLlfled by Lhe need Lo use publlc funds Lo cover Lhe cosLs of democraLlc
promoLlon ln Lhe newly accesslng MSs. 1he SLaLuLe's provlslons may well be able
Lo consolldaLe Lhe varlous parLy componenLs operaLlng aL Luropean level more
effecLlvely Lhan has been Lhe case up Lo now: LransnaLlonal federaLlons,
parllamenLary groups and naLlonal parLles. ln facL, even lf Lhe SLaLuLe pracLlcally
ldenLlfles LLs wlLh Lhe Lype of sLrucLures LhaL were once known as federaLlons,
Lhe provlslons for Lhelr consLlLuLlon and for Lhelr access Lo flnanclng creaLe a llnk
wlLh Lhe oLher Lwo componenLs. 1hls ls probably Lhe mosL lmporLanL resulL of
Lhe SLaLuLe from our vlew polnL, as Lhe lack of lnLegraLlon among Lhe varlous
LL componenLs has always been consldered as one of Lhe maln reasons of
Lhelr weakness. 1he SLaLuLe, however, ls only a flrsL sLep ln Lhe rlghL dlrecLlon,
buL an lmperfecL one aL LhaL. lndeed, some of lLs provlslons and lmplemenLaLlon
procedures sLlll represenL serlous hlndrances Lo full LuroparLy developmenL.
naLlonal parLles, Lhrough Lhelr acLlons ln Lhe naLlonal governmenLs and ln
Lhe Lu Councll of MlnlsLers, clearly Look a very acLlve role ln promoLlng Lhe
SLaLuLe and ln deLermlnlng lLs approval. undoubLedly, also Lhe 8eporL of Lhe
Luropean CourL of AudlLors, whlch found Lhe sysLem of flnanclng LLs from Lhe
budgeLs of Lhe pollLlcal groups lnadmlsslble, played an lmporLanL parL. Powever
Lhe role of naLlonal parLles ralses quesLlons abouL Lhe reasons for Lhelr acLlon, as
Lhe hlsLory of Lhe L and of LLs demonsLraLes LhaL naLlonal parLles were
93
always very keen on malnLalnlng Lhelr conLrol, or were aL leasL obllvlous, as Lhe
hlsLory of L elecLlons shows, of Lhe lmporLance of LL consolldaLlon. ln reallLy,
Lhe SLaLuLe's approval was Lhe resulL of a Lwo-way process LhaL lnvolved Lhe L
parLy groups, on Lhe one hand, and naLlonal parLy apparaLuses, on Lhe oLher. 1he
acceleraLlon LhaL evenLually produced Lhe LuroparLy SLaLuLe, albelL lnlLlaLed aL
supranaLlonal level, was no doubL made posslble by Lhe exlsLence of Lhe
parLlcular condlLlons orlenLlng parLy sLraLegles and aLLlLudes aL naLlonal level as
well. 8eglnnlng wlLh Lhe 1990s, one of Lhe consequences of LuropeanlsaLlon was
Lo lmpose new consLralnLs on naLlonal pollLlcs, and, consequenLly, on naLlonal
parLy acLors' perspecLlves as well. CerLalnly, LuropeanlsaLlon posed Lhe necesslLy
for parLles aL naLlonal level Lo revlse and adapL Lhelr pollcles accordlngly,
someLhlng LhaL Lhey dld noL necessarlly see as a poslLlve developmenL. 8uL lL can
be argued LhaL, as parL of Lhls change, parLles also became aware of new
opporLunlLles for Lhelr own organlsaLlonal adapLaLlon. 1o a large exLenL, Lhls can
be seen as resulLlng from a process whlch orlglnaLed aL leasL Lwo decades earller,
LhaL ls, Lhe progresslve afflrmaLlon of Lhe carLel parLy organlsaLlonal model (as
noLed earller ln fooLnoLe 1). lf Lhls ls correcL, we could conclude LhaL LLs, ln
Lhelr presenL form, are Lhe creaLlon of Lwo maln processes: Lhe carLellsaLlon of
parLles and Lhe LuropeanlsaLlon of naLlonal pollLlcs. lor carLel parLles, survlval ls
an organlsaLlonal lmperaLlve: developlng supranaLlonal organlsaLlons could be
seen as a relevanL elemenL ln Lhelr sLraLegy almed aL creaLlng Lhe approprlaLe
pollLlcal lnsLrumenLs for Lhemselves buL, even more lmporLanLly, aL obLalnlng Lhe
necessary resources for Lhelr survlval from all sLaLe-llke sLrucLures aL all levels.
7

ln oLher words, LLs can cerLalnly be seen as necessary elemenLs ln Lhe
organlsaLlonal developmenL of naLlonal parLles ln vlew of Lhe poLenLlally
augmenLlng responslblllLles Lhey are acLually faclng, and wlll lncreaslngly be
faclng, aL Lu level. 8uL, conslsLenL wlLh Lhe carLel parLy Lhesls, Lhey can also be
seen as represenLlng a flrsL sLep ln Lhe exLenslon Lo Lhe Lu of Lhe carLel parLles'
collecLlve sLraLegy Lo obLaln resources from Lhe sLaLe, of whlch Lhe Lu
lncreaslngly represenLs a new addlLlonal level. 1he naLlonal parLles' poslLlve role
ln Lhe approval of Lhe SLaLuLe ls Lhus easler Lo undersLand.
A closer look aL Lhe LuroparLy SLaLuLe conflrms Lhe plauslblllLy of Lhls
vlew. As has been menLloned, Lhe SLaLuLe ls, ln facL, llLLle more Lhan a serles of
norms for Lhe publlc fundlng of pollLlcal parLles aL Lu level. AfLer llsLlng a few,
and noL parLlcularly resLrlcLlve, condlLlons for Lhe deflnlLlon of pollLlcal parLles aL
Lu level, Lhe bulk of Lhe SLaLuLe ls dedlcaLed Lo Lhe deflnlLlon of Lhe norms of
parLles respecLlng such condlLlons.
8
Lven lf Lhe sLaLuLe prohlblLs Lhe flnanclng of

7
lL can also be argued LhaL naLlonal parLles' lnLeresL ln Lhe developmenL of LLs may be
lnLerpreLed as a manlfesLaLlon of Lhelr need Lo flnd addlLlonal sources of leglLlmacy ln vlew of Lhe
crlLlclsm comlng from secLors of Luropean socleLy and almed aL sLlgmaLlzlng naLlonal parLles'
passlve accepLance of pollcy lmposlLlons from above. 8elonglng Lo LLs, especlally lf sLrong ones,
would enable naLlonal parLles Lo clalm LhaL Lhey are afLer all ln conLrol". AlLhough we do belleve
LhaL Lhls vlew has some merlL and LhaL such moLlvaLlons may lndeed have conLrlbuLed Lo naLlonal
parLles' changlng and more poslLlve aLLlLudes Lowards Lhe developmenL of supranaLlonal
organlsaLlons, we feel LhaL organlsaLlonal/survlval moLlves prevall and because of Lhe llmlLed space
aL our dlsposal we wlll noL deal expllclLly wlLh Lhls argumenL.
8
ln addlLlon Lo a deslre Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lhe L elecLlons Lhe maln requlremenLs for recognlLlon
of LLs are: a legal personallLy ln Lhe counLry ln whlch Lhe LuroparLy has lLs headquarLers
94
naLlonal parLles wlLh Luropean funds, Lwo elemenLs, ln parLlcular, seem Lo be
conslsLenL wlLh Lhe ldea of LLs as Lu level exLenslons of naLlonal level carLel
parLles. An overwhelmlng share of avallable resources - 83 percenL of Lhe LoLal -
are alloLLed Lo parLles wlLh represenLaLlves elecLed ln Lhe L, ln oLher words, Lo
esLabllshed parLles LhaL are dlrecL emanaLlons of, or already have solld llnks wlLh,
naLlonal counLerparLs. lurLhermore, Lhe provlslon of Lhe sLaLuLe LhaL condlLlons
Lhe allocaLlon of publlc funds on 23 percenL co-flnanclng from oLher sources
makes naLlonal parLles, above all Lhe sLronger and rlcher ones, declslve ln
consLlLuLlng and malnLalnlng LLs. ln facL, Lhese resources can only be found aL
naLlonal level, ln pracLlce only as dlrecL conLrlbuLlons from Member SLaLe parLles,
as Lhe dlrecL conLacLs of LLs ln socleLy and ln Lhe economlc sphere are very
weak and are noL llkely Lo lmprove ln Lhe near fuLure.
1he generally poslLlve plcLure provlded by Lhe SLaLuLe ls counLer-balanced
by Lwo provlslons, one conLalned dlrecLly ln Lhe SLaLuLe, and Lhe oLher ln lLs
lmplemenLaLlon rules, whlch keep Lhe federaLlons ln a subordlnaLe poslLlon wlLh
respecL Lo Lhelr naLlonal componenLs and Lhe parllamenLary groups. ln facL, Lhe
laLLer have been puL dlrecLly ln charge of supervlslng Lhe managemenL of Lhe
funds for parLy-flnanclng. 1hls was done upon Lhe lnslsLence of Lhe L slnce Lhe
funds are Laken from Lhe L's budgeL, raLher Lhan from Lhe Lu's, as Lhe
federaLlons would have preferred (Lhls would have glven Lhem greaLer flnanclal
auLonomy). lurLhermore, Lhe above-menLloned provlslon of Lhe sLaLuLe LhaL
condlLlons Lhe allocaLlon of publlc funds on 23 percenL co-flnanclng from oLher
sources makes naLlonal parLles, above all Lhe sLronger and rlcher ones, declslve
ln consLlLuLlng and malnLalnlng LLs. 1hese resources can only be found aL
naLlonal level, elLher dlrecLly Lhrough conLrlbuLlons from Member SLaLe parLles -
up Lo a celllng of 40 percenL of Lhe LoLal, ln any case, more Lhan Lhe amounL
needed for co-flnanclng - or Lhrough Lhe parLy's conLacLs ln socleLy and ln Lhe
economlc sphere. lL ls Lherefore unllkely LhaL Lhe federaLlons, even lf more
lnLegraLed, wlll play a prlmary role ln LLs ln Lhe fuLure.
Cn balance, Lhe sLaLuLe for Luropean pollLlcal parLles can poLenLlally
favour a furLher expanslon of LLs. lL ls unllkely, however, LhaL Lhls effecL wlll
be able Lo challenge Lhe prlmacy and reduce Lhe auLonomy of naLlonal pollLlcal
parLles slgnlflcanLly, even aL Luropean level. 1hls ls desLlned Lo be Lhe sLaLe of
affalrs as long as naLlonal parLles are able Lo reap Lhe rewards of dlrecL
represenLaLlon of clLlzens' lnLeresLs Lhrough Lhe lnLergovernmenLal lnsLlLuLlonal
clrculL and Lo Lake Lhe place of federaLlons ln llnklng clvll socleLy Lo Luropean
lnsLlLuLlons. 1he blggesL shorLcomlng of Lhe sLaLuLe ls ln facL LhaL lL does noL
address Lhe lssue of how Lo llnk LLs effecLlvely, and Lhrough Lhem, Lhe Lu
pollLlcal sysLem Lo Luropean clLlzens and Lhelr socleLy, beyond Lhe general
sLaLemenL LhaL such llnkage ls Lhe maln reason for Lhelr exlsLence. ln Lheory, Lhls
funcLlon ls sLlll performed excluslvely Lhrough Lhe naLlonal parLles, who
Lherefore remaln Lhe prlnclpal gaLekeepers of Lu level represenLaLlon. ln

(almosL lnevlLably 8elglum), represenLaLlves elecLed ln Lhe L, Lhe naLlonal or Lhe reglonal
parllamenLs ln aL leasL one-quarLer of Lhe member counLrles or aL leasL Lhree per cenL of Lhe
voLes ln Lhe lasL L elecLlons ln aL leasL one-quarLer of member sLaLes, respecL ln Lhe parLy's
plaLform and acLlons for Lhe prlnclples of freedom and democracy, respecL for human rlghLs, Lhe
fundamenLal freedoms and Lhe rule of law on whlch Lhe Lu ls founded.
95
pracLlce, however, lL ls quesLlonable LhaL Lhls ls done wlLh sufflclenL efflcacy by
Lhe naLlonal parLles as well or, for LhaL maLLer, LhaL naLlonal parLles represenL
clLlzens accuraLely even aL naLlonal level. 8uL, as ls well-known, carLel parLles are
noL lnLeresLed ln represenLlng clLlzens accordlng Lo Lhe classlc demand-lnpuL
pollcy-ouLpuL model, buL raLher ln acqulrlng consensus for Lhe way Lhey
collecLlvely admlnlsLer and manage Lhe publlc good. ln concluslon, demands
comlng from supranaLlonal parLy componenLs for a sLrengLhenlng of parLy
organlsaLlons aL Lhe Luropean level seem Lo have been condlLlonally accepLed by
naLlonal parLles, whlch, ln Lurn, appear, for Lhe Llme-belng, more lnLeresLed ln
Lhe organlsaLlonal opporLunlLles LhaL Lhe new sLaLuLe affords Lhem Lhan ln Lhe
lmprovemenLs whlch lL can produce for Luropean democracy.






































96
key 5ommoty

1he proposed LransnaLlonal consLlLuency could fosLer closer parLy co-operaLlon aL
Lu level, by promoLlng genulne LransnaLlonal campalgnlng and Lu level parLy
programmes,

referenLlal voLlng, lf lmplemenLed aL Lu level, could have a poslLlve lmpacL on Lhe
developmenL of Lhe LLs,

A sLrong Lu level sysLem of parLy flnanclng could promoLe organlsaLlonal
convergence and hence LransnaLlonal parLy-bulldlng,

uesplLe Lhe poslLlve lncenLlves provlded by LC 8eg. 2004/2003, LLs remaln
subordlnaLe Lo Lhelr naLlonal componenLs and Lhe L Croups.






97
)*,4$+26*,8 !.",2,"-6*,"$ :".-6%2 ",5 " !.",2,"-6*,"$ :".-/
7/2-%1


A LransnaLlonal parLy sysLem requlres more Lhan slmply Lhe presence of
LransnaLlonal parLles. arLy sysLems, followlng SarLorl's (1976: 43-4) classlc
deflnlLlon, are 'sysLems of lnLeracLlons', whlch means LhaL Lhey are sysLems ln
whlch parLles engage wlLh one anoLher, usually compeLlLlvely, ln deflned arenas.
ln oLher words, parLles creaLe a sysLem when Lhey lnLeracL and compeLe wlLh
one anoLher, wheLher ln an elecLoral, leglslaLlve, or governlng arena.
lL ls Lherefore posslble Lo concelve of slLuaLlons ln whlch parLles exlsL, buL
ln whlch Lhere ls no parLy sysLem as such. ln 8elglum, for example, aL elecLoral
level, Walloon parLles lnLeracL wlLh and compeLe agalnsL oLher Walloon parLles,
whlle llemlsh parLles lnLeracL wlLh and compeLe agalnsL oLher llemlsh parLles. AL
no sLage ln Lhe elecLoral process do llemlsh parLles compeLe for voLes wlLh
Walloon parLles, however, and, hence, whlle Lhere ls a Walloon parLy sysLem ln
Lhe elecLoral arena, as well as a llemlsh parLy sysLem, Lhere ls no 8elglan parLy
sysLem as such. lL ls noL unLll Lhe parLles wln Lhrough Lo Lhe Chamber of
8epresenLaLlve and SenaLe, or slL down Lo form a governmenL, LhaL llemlsh and
Walloon parLles begln Lo lnLeracL wlLh one anoLher ln Lhe oLher arenas and
creaLe a '8elglan' parLy sysLem.
ln Lhe same veln, lL ls posslble Lo speak of Lhere belng a mulLlpllclLy of
parLy sysLems ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes, even Lhough we normally Lhlnk of Lhe uS as
havlng [usL Lwo maln parLles. Slnce power and pollLlcs ls so de-cenLrallsed ln Lhe
uS federal sysLem, each of Lhe sLaLe parLles ls qulLe auLonomous. 1he parLles
may use Lhe same uemocraLlc and 8epubllcan labels ln each of Lhe sLaLes, buL
Lhe leadershlp and pollcles of Lhese parLles dlffer subsLanLlally from one anoLher.
Pence, Amerlcan scholars llke Lo speak of Lhere belng a separaLe Lwo-parLy
sysLem ln each of Lhe sLaLes, slnce each sLaLe has lLs own parLlcular sysLem of
lnLeracLlons. 1hls ylelds 30 dlfferenL parLy sysLems. And, slnce Lhere ls also a
naLlonal conLesL for Lhe resldency every four years, Lhls ylelds a 31sL sysLem of
lnLeracLlons, whlch ls separaLe from LhaL ln each of Lhe sLaLes. 1hls means LhaL
Lhere are 30 sLaLe parLy sysLems, and 1 presldenLlal parLy sysLem, wlLh some
scholars also golng on Lo argue LhaL Lhere ls yeL anoLher (leglslaLlve) parLy sysLem
ln Lhe Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves, and anoLher agaln ln Lhe SenaLe: 33 parLy
sysLems.
ln conLemporary Lurope, under cerLaln favourable condlLlons, we have
argued LhaL lL ls posslble Lo concelve of Lhe emergence and consolldaLlon of
genulne LransnaLlonal parLles. lndeed, we have argued LhaL Lhe obsLacles
blocklng Lhls developmenL are gradually decllnlng, and, hence, Lhe prospecLs for
LransnaLlonal parLles now look raLher good. 8uL Lhls ls enLlrely dlfferenL from
saylng LhaL Lhere are also good prospecLs for a LransnaLlonal parLy sysLem. Cn
Lhls lssue, our concluslon ls much more pesslmlsLlc.
As we have noLed above, parLles make for a sysLem when Lhey can
98
lnLeracL and engage wlLh one anoLher, and Lhey usually do Lhls Lhrough
compeLlLlon. 1haL ls, Lhey lnLeracL wlLh one anoLher by compeLlng wlLh one
anoLher for offlce and for power. 1hey do Lhls ln a varleLy of sub-naLlonal,
naLlonal and supranaLlonal arenas, lncludlng ln elecLlons Lo Lhe Luropean
arllamenL. AL no sLage, however, do Lhey ever compeLe wlLh parLles beyond
Lhelr own naLlonal sysLems. ln oLher words, and raLher llke Lhe llemlsh and
Walloon parLles ln 8elglum, lrlsh parLles lnLeracL only wlLh lrlsh parLles, 8rlLlsh
wlLh 8rlLlsh, uuLch wlLh uuLch, Czech wlLh Czech, and so on. 1hls means LhaL,
whlle Lhere ls an lrlsh parLy sysLem, and a 8rlLlsh, and a uuLch, and a Czech, and
so on, Lhere ls no LransnaLlonal or otopeoo parLy sysLem ln Lhe elecLoral arena.
arLles do noL lnLeracL wlLh one anoLher aL Luropean or LransnaLlonal level, and,
hence, do noL make for a sysLem aL Lhls level.
When Lhe naLlonal parLles operaLe wlLhln Lhe wlder Luropean groups or
famllles ln Lhe Luropean arllamenL, Lhey do, of course, lnLeracL wlLh one
anoLher, and, ln Lhls sense, we can speak of a Luropean parLy sysLem ln Lhe
leglslaLlve arena. 8uL even Lhen, Lhe dynamlc ls very llmlLed, and, barrlng
occaslonal conLesLs for key poslLlons wlLhln Lhe arllamenL, Lhey do noL compeLe
wlLh one anoLher ln Lhe susLalned way LhaL naLlonal parLles ln naLlonal leglslaLlve
arenas usually compeLe wlLh one anoLher. nor do Lhey compeLe ln Lhe way LhaL
Congresslonal parLles ln Lhe uS lncreaslngly compeLe wlLh one anoLher, slnce, ln
Lhe uS, desplLe Lhe separaLlon of powers, a llmlLed governmenL-opposlLlon
dynamlc has been creaLed by Lhe compeLlLlon beLween Lhe parLy of Lhe
resldenL and lLs opponenL. ln Lurope, where Lhe Commlsslon ls de-pollLlclsed
and formally parLy-less, Lhls ls noL Lhe case, and, hence, Lhe lnLeracLlons wlLhln
Lhe arllamenL ofLen have llLLle paLLern or sLrucLure.
ln naLlonal seLLlngs, parLles ln parllamenL compeLe for execuLlve offlce.
8egardless of wheLher Lhe sysLem ls run by slngle-parLy governmenL or by
coallLlons, or by ma[orlLy governmenLs or mlnorlLles, naLlonal pollLlcs ln Lurope
usually operaLes Lhrough a sysLem of parllamenLary governmenL ln whlch Lhe
parLles ln Lhe leglslaLure compeLe Lo wln and conLrol governmenL, and ln whlch
Lhe governmenL ls dally conLesLed by a more or less organlsed opposlLlon.
1hls ls noL Lhe case ln Lhe Luropean arllamenL. LxcepLlonally for a
pollLlcal sysLem ln Lurope, Lhe Luropean 'CovernmenL' - Lhe Luropean Councll,
Lhe Commlsslon, etc., - ls noL responslble Lo Lhe Luropean LeglslaLure. 1here ls
no fuslon of powers. lnsLead, Lhe Luropean arllamenL ls a represenLaLlve
assembly poot sooq, akln Lo Lhe uS Pouse of 8epresenLaLlves. 1herefore, when
parLles lnLeracL or even compeLe wlLh one anoLher ln Lhe Luropean arllamenL,
Lhey are noL compeLlng llke naLlonal parLles for conLrol of execuLlve offlce, buL,
lnsLead, for key poslLlons ln Lhe arllamenLary sLrucLure lLself - Lhe resldenL,
commlLLee membershlps, rapporLeurshlps - whlch, once allocaLed, are glven. ln
oLher words, Lhere ls no robusL or susLalned paLLern of compeLlLlon beLween Lhe
parLles ln Lhe Luropean arllamenL LhaL mlghL offer Lhe foundaLlon for Lhe
bulldlng of a Luropean parLy sysLem, noL leasL because much of Lhe parLy acLlvlLy
ln Lhe arllamenL as focused on Lhe collecLlve sLrengLhenlng of Lhe arllamenL
vls--vls Lhe oLher Luropean lnsLlLuLlons raLher Lhan compeLlng among
Lhemselves for conLrol wlLhln Lhe arllamenL. And even lf LransnaLlonal parLles
99
become more consolldaLed, Lhls mlsmaLch wlll perslsL. 1he problem ls
lnsLlLuLlonal raLher Lhan pollLlcal or developmenLal. We can also assume Lhls wlll
only be effecLlvely changed Lhrough some fuLure LreaLy whlch would accord
execuLlve conLrol funcLlons Lo Lhe arllamenL or whlch mlghL lnsLlLuLe a dlrecLly-
elecLed resldency for whlch Lhe LransnaLlonal parLles mlghL compeLe. ln Lhe
absence of such a reform, Lhe parLles, whlle conLlnulng Lo Lhrlve as parLles, could
never really compeLe wlLh one anoLher and can never creaLe a genulne
LransnaLlonal parLy sysLem.
1here are Lwo concluslons we can derlve from Lhls. 1he fltst ls LhaL we
accepL Lhe slLuaLlon as lL ls, and recognlse LhaL lL also has a number of
advanLages LhaL should noL be under-valued. ln naLlonal sysLems, for example,
where parLles do compeLe for execuLlve offlce, Lhe largely represenLaLlve role
LhaL parLles once emphaslsed has been slowly smoLhered by Lhe demands of
governlng and admlnlsLraLlon. Cver Llme, ln oLher words, parLles have losL Lhelr
capaclLy Lo acL as represenLaLlve agencles and have, lnsLead, become almosL
excluslvely orlenLed Lo Lhe governlng funcLlon, and Lo compeLlng abouL Lhe
governlng funcLlon, wlLh Lhe resulL LhaL, when clLlzens seek Lo be represenLed,
and Lo have Lhelr volces heard, Lhey ofLen Lend Lo go ouLslde Lhe (malnsLream)
parLy sysLem, Lurnlng Lo lnLeresL assoclaLlons, nCCs, and Lhe llke. lL ls also parLly
for Lhls reason LhaL parLles have become one of Lhe leasL LrusLed of Lhe
democraLlc lnsLlLuLlons ln Lurope (Malr 2006).
AL Lhe Luropean level, ln conLrasL, Lhe represenLaLlve role played by
parLles has remalned, and seems Lo have become even more enhanced as Lhe
powers of Lhe Luropean arllamenL have grown (1homassen 2009). ln oLher
words, and desplLe Lhe frequenL complalnLs abouL Lhe democraLlc deflclL ln
Lurope, parLles aL Luropean level appear Lo funcLlon qulLe effecLlvely as Lhe
represenLaLlves of Lurope's clLlzens, parLlcularly as far as Lhelr lefL-rlghL
preferences are concerned. As one recenL analysls concluded (Malr and
1homassen 2010), alLhough Lhere ls no real ptocess of pollLlcal represenLaLlon aL
Luropean level, and alLhough Lhere ls no LransnaLlonal arena of elecLoral
compeLlLlon, Lhe aggregaLlon of Lhe ootcomes of naLlonal processes neverLheless
leads Lo a reasonable congruence beLween Lhe preferences of Lhe Luropean
elecLoraLe and Lhose of Lhe MLs ln Lhe Luropean arllamenL. ln oLher words,
Lhe avallable emplrlcal evldence suggesLs LhaL Lhe ouLcome of Lhe sysLem of
represenLaLlon aL Luropean level works much beLLer for many pollcy lssues Lhan
ls normally belleved. 1hls raLher poslLlve concluslon on Lhe process of pollLlcal
represenLaLlon refers, of course, Lo Lhe ouLcome of Lhe process, raLher Lhan Lo
Lhe process as such, and, ln Lhls sense, a fully-fledged sysLem of pollLlcal
represenLaLlon aL Lhe Luropean level could sLlll be seen Lo requlre Luropean
pollLlcal parLles Lo compeLe for Lhe voLes of a Luropean elecLoraLe. noneLheless,
Lhe poslLlve concluslon sLlll sLands. 1he parLles ln Lhe Luropean arllamenL
appear Lo funcLlon relaLlvely effecLlvely as represenLaLlves, and one reason for
Lhls may be LhaL, ln conLrasL Lo Lhelr naLlonal counLerparLs, Lhey are noL overly
caughL up ln Lhe process of governlng or opposlng governmenL. ln Lhls readlng,
Lhe Luropean arllamenL can be seen as a real leglslaLure, and Lhere are plenLy
of argumenLs for leLLlng lL sLay llke LhaL.
100
1he secooJ concluslon ls LhaL we Lry Lo modlfy condlLlons wlLhln Lhe
presenL lnsLlLuLlonal framework ln a way LhaL could enhance Lhe proflle of Lhe
LransnaLlonal parLles Lhemselves, and brlng Lhem Lo a sLage where Lhey could aL
leasL engage wlLh one anoLher lndlrecLly, and, hence, engage ln aL leasL parLlal
compeLlLlon wlLh one anoLher. 1hls would noL be enough Lo creaLe a genulne
and robusL LransnaLlonal parLy sysLem, buL lL would come as close Lo LhaL goal as
currenL lnsLlLuLlonal clrcumsLances permlL. lL would also requlre Lhe
LransnaLlonal parLy organlsaLlons Lo become much more pro-acLlve and
pollLlcally engaged Lhan ls currenLly Lhe case. Cver and above Lhe uuff proposal,
whlch we have dlscussed earller ln Lhls reporL, Lhere are Lhree areas of poLenLlal
acLlvlLy ln parLlcular LhaL can be hlghllghLed and LhaL mlghL serve Lhls purpose.
1he flrsL of Lhese ls poLenLlal LL lnvolvemenL ln Lhe proposed Luropean
ClLlzens lnlLlaLlve LhaL was parL of Lhe 1reaLy of Llsbon. Accordlng Lo Lhe
provlslon ln ArLlcle 11.4 of Lhe consolldaLed verslon of 1Lu, no less Lhan 1 mllllon
clLlzens from a slgnlflcanL number of Member SLaLes may peLlLlon Lhe
Commlsslon Lo submlL any approprlaLe proposal on maLLers where clLlzens
conslder LhaL a legal acL of Lhe unlon ls requlred for Lhe purpose of lmplemenLlng
Lhe 1reaLles". AlLhough lL ls noL clear preclsely how Lhls lnlLlaLlve wlll work ln
pracLlce, and who may be lnvolved ln Lhe collecLlon of slgnaLures (LuuC 8eporL),
boLh Lhe LransnaLlonal and organlsaLlonal requlremenLs lmply LhaL Lhe LLs
could very usefully engage ln Lhe process. ln oLher words, Lhls ls a LransnaLlonal
acLlvlLy wlLh pollLlcal lmpllcaLlons whlch, almosL by deflnlLlon, lends lLself Lo
acLlve LL lnvolvemenL and whlch could encourage more dlrecL LL
engagemenL wlLh Lhe Luropean clLlzenry.
1he second area for poLenLlal LL lnvolvemenL connecLs Lo Lhe new
subsldlarlLy formula wlLhln Lhe 1reaLy of Llsbon, whereby Lhe Llme allowed for
naLlonal parllamenLs Lo scruLlnlse Commlsslon drafL leglslaLlon ls ralsed from slx
Lo elghL weeks, and whereby provlslon ls made for one-Lhlrd of Lhese
parllamenLs Lo ob[ecL Lo a drafL leglslaLlve proposal from Lhe Commlsslon on Lhe
grounds of a breach of subsldlarlLy - Lhe so-called yellow card". Moreover, Lhe
parllamenLs are also glven Lhe opporLunlLy Lo show an orange card" Lo Lhe
Commlsslon, whereby a slmple ma[orlLy of Lhe parllamenLs can obllge Lhe
Commlsslon Lo refer Lhelr ob[ecLlons Lo Lhe Councll and Lhe arllamenL. 1hls new
provlslon clearly enhances Lhe role of naLlonal parllamenLs ln Lhe Lu declslon-
maklng process, and Lhereby also enhances Lhe role of naLlonal parLles and
parllamenLarlans. 8uL glven LhaL Lhe exerclse of Lhls provlslon ls llkely Lo requlre
subsLanLlal co-ordlnaLlon and co-operaLlon beLween Lhe naLlonal leglslaLures,
and glven LhaL lL ls also llkely Lo lnvolve a parLlcularly lmporLanL role for non-
governlng parLles ln Lhe naLlonal sysLems, Lhere ls no reason why we should noL
also expecL subsLanLlal LL lnvolvemenL ln Lhe process. 1o co-ordlnaLe Lhe
acLlvlLles of parLles and Ms ln aL leasL 9, and posslbly 14 naLlonal parllamenLs
wlll noL be an easy Lask, buL lL ls someLhlng LhaL mlghL lend lLself Lo Lhe
employmenL of LL neLworks and communlcaLlon channels. ln oLher words, Lhls
provlslon also offers Lhe poLenLlal for greaLer and more hlgh-proflle LL acLlvlLy.
1he Lhlrd area for poLenLlal LL lnvolvemenL ls posslbly Lhe sLrongesL
and mosL dlrecL, and has already been mooLed by Lhe parLles Lhemselves for
101
some Llme. 1hls wlll lnvolve Lhe compeLlng LLs enLerlng Lhe Luropean
elecLlons wlLh Lhelr own candldaLes for Lhe Commlsslon presldency. As Lhlngs
currenLly sLand, Lhe resldenL of Lhe Commlsslon ls nomlnaLed by Lhe
governmenLs of Lhe Member SLaLes followlng consulLaLlons wlLh Lhe newly-
elecLed Luropean arllamenL. 1he arllamenL ls also requlred Lo glve lLs approval
Lo Lhe appolnLmenL of Lhe Commlsslon as a whole. 1hls offers some degree of
democraLlc accounLablllLy and Lransparency Lo Lhe process of appolnLmenL,
albelL ln a very llmlLed and consLralned manner. As an alLernaLlve, lL has been
suggesLed LhaL each of Lhe LLs, and cerLalnly each of Lhe Lwo malnsLream
LLs, Lhe Luropean eople's arLy (L) and Lhe parLy of Luropean SoclallsLs
(LS), should enLer Lhe L elecLlon process havlng already puL forward lLs own
candldaLe for Lhe Commlsslon resldency. As Lhe LLs would compeLe ln Lhe
elecLlon, so Loo, albelL lndlrecLly, would Lhelr candldaLes, wlLh each belng backed
by all of Lhe naLlonal parLles afflllaLed Lo Lhe LL. lollowlng Lhe elecLlon, Lhe
candldaLe proposed by Lhe LL wlnnlng Lhe mosL voLes across Lurope would be
formally nomlnaLed by Lhe governmenLs of Lhe Member SLaLes. ln Lhls way, Lhe
elecLlons would confer an lndlrecL mandaLe on Lhe new resldenL of Lhe
Commlsslon, Lhus boosLlng Lhe democraLlc leglLlmacy of Lhe sysLem as a whole,
and compeLlLlon beLween Lhe parLles aL Lhe L elecLlons would acqulre a
genulne LransnaLlonal paLlna. Moreover, lL would requlre Lhe LLs Lo be much
more acLlve as organlsaLlons, noL only ln Lhelr efforLs Lo co-ordlnaLe supporL for
parLlcular candldaLes ln each of Lhe naLlonal seLLlngs, buL also ln persuadlng and
co-ordlnaLlng Lhe supporL of Lhelr members ln Lhe governmenLs LhaL formally
conLrol Lhe nomlnaLlon process ln Councll. 1o be sure, Lhls proposal would noL
lead Lo a fully-fledged LransnaLlonal parLy sysLem, buL, glven Lhe presenL
lnsLlLuLlonal consLralnLs, and glven LhaL lnsLlLuLlonal reform by way of a new
1reaLy ls unllkely Lo be achleved ln Lhe foreseeable fuLure, lL would probably
come as close Lo Lhls goal as ls currenLly posslble.















102
key 5ommoty

1he developmenL of LransnaLlonal parLles ls a necessary buL noL sufflclenL condlLlon
for Lhe developmenL of a LransnaLlonal parLy sysLem,

1he problem of Lhe bulldlng of a Lu parLy sysLem ls lnsLlLuLlonal, slnce Lhe process ls
hlndered by Lhe lack of compeLlLlon beLween Lhe parLles for conLrol of execuLlve
offlce,

A genulne LransnaLlonal parLy compeLlLlon mlghL emerge lf fuLure lnsLlLuLlonal
reforms modlfy Lhe 1reaLy,

A poslLlve consequence of Lhe lack of execuLlve conLrol funcLlons ls LhaL parLles ln
Lhe L seem Lo be beLLer able Lo glve volce Lo Lhe vlews of Luropean clLlzens,

Clven Lhe currenL lnsLlLuLlonal seLLlng, Lhe role of LLs could be enhanced Lhrough
acLlvlLles such as lnvolvemenL ln Lhe LCl, coordlnaLlng parllamenLary responses ln
Lhe new procedures regardlng subsldlarlLy vlolaLlons, proposlng and sLandlng by
Lhelr own candldaLes for Lhe Commlsslon presldency.
103
K%@*.-Y2 7+11"./


Whlle lL ls posslble Lo concelve of Lhe emergence of LransnaLlonal parLles, Lhe
emergence of a LransnaLlonal parLy system ls more problemaLlcal,

1he welghL of naLlonal pollLlcal seLLlngs on parLy organlsaLlon sLraLegy and sLyles
of compeLlLlon may represenL an obsLacle Lo Lhe emergence of Lrans-naLlonal
parLles,

uesplLe convenLlonal wlsdom, Lhe reform of an elecLoral law for Lhe L's elecLlon
may noL be conduclve Lo Lhe emergence of a Lrans-naLlonal parLy sysLem,

1he presenL regulaLory framework of Lhe Luropean ollLlcal arLles sLlll favours
Lhe L parLy groups and Lhe parLles aL naLlonal level,

A sLrong Luropean-level sysLem of flnanclng and regulaLlon could serve Lo
promoLe Lrans-naLlonal convergenL parLy-bulldlng,

1he creaLlon of a Luropean sLrucLure of pollLlcal compeLlLlon ls a necessary
condlLlon Lo supporL Lhe lnsLlLuLlonallsaLlon of a genulne LransnaLlonal parLy
sysLem,

1he compeLlLlon for Lhe conLrol of a Lrans-naLlonal pollLlcal execuLlve would
consLlLuLe a fundamenLal lnsLlLuLlonal lncenLlve for Lhe developmenL of a
LransnaLlonal parLy sysLem,

ln Lhe absence of a sysLem for compeLlLlon for Lhe conLrol of a LransnaLlonal
pollLlcal execuLlve, and even allowlng for presenL lnsLlLuLlonal clrcumsLances,
Lhere are a varleLy of parLy-bulldlng acLlvlLles open Lo Lhe Lrans-naLlonal parLles,
whlch can help bulld Lhelr sLandlng.

S(

lor Lhe prospecL of Lhe Lu democracy, homogeneous pollLlcal groups are cruclal
ln provldlng Lhe Luropean voLers wlLh a meanlngful programmaLlc supply,

1he requlremenL of pollLlcal afflnlLles" Lo form a Croup ls a necessary buL noL
sufflclenL condlLlon Lo guaranLee LhaL Lhe LransnaLlonal grouplngs wlll represenL
coherenL pollLlcal culLures,

1he lmpacL of Lhe 8lg 8ang" enlargemenL on Lhe coheslon and Lhe pollcy agenda
of Lhe ollLlcal Croups has been qulLe llmlLed,

104
1he maln pollLlcal Croups have coheslve and well-deLecLable poslLlons on lefL-
rlghL pollcles, whlle among Lhe smaller Croups only Lhe Llu reveals a lack of
ldeologlcal afflnlLy,


O(

Slnce Lhe process of candldaLe selecLlon ls one of Lhe fundamenLal funcLlons of
pollLlcal parLles, Lhe lack of unlformlLy wlLhln Lhe parLy famllles may consLlLuLe
an obsLacle Lo effecLlve Lrans-naLlonallsaLlon,

1he more de-cenLrallsed and lncluslve Lhe candldaLe selecLlon ls, Lhe greaLer Lhe
posslblllLy for Lhe MLs Lo voLe ln accordance wlLh Lhelr L parLy group, raLher
Lhan wlLh Lhelr naLlonal parLy,

1he mosL common procedures adopLed for ML candldaLe selecLlon relles on Lhe
role of Lhe parLy execuLlve and parLy conference, wlLh more Lhan 86 of all Lhe
proposals emanaLlng from Lhe naLlonal level.


'(

1he wlde varleLy ln Lhe numbers of parLles aL naLlonal level can consLlLuLe an
obsLacle for Lhe developmenL of a slngle Lu parLy sysLem,

1he presence of Lwo or even more naLlonal pollLlcal parLles wlLhln Lhe same L
group hlnders Lhe developmenL of a Lu parLy sysLem,

1he Lendency by many naLlonal parLles Lo LreaL Lhelr membershlp ln L groups
only ln Lechnlcal Lerms weakens Lhe process of Lrans-naLlonal parLy-bulldlng,

1he facL LhaL all Lhe ma[or LuroparLles are sub[ecLed Lo Lhe same legal reglme
may favour Lhe developmenL of a Lu parLy sysLem,

1he bulldlng of a Lrans-naLlonal parLy sysLem ls condlLloned by Lhe dlfferences ln
elecLoral and pollLlcal culLures and by Lhe percepLlon of Lhe L elecLlons as
second-order conLesLs.


9(

1he proposed LransnaLlonal consLlLuency could fosLer closer parLy co-operaLlon
aL Lu level, by promoLlng genulne LransnaLlonal campalgnlng and Lu level parLy
programmes,

referenLlal voLlng, lf lmplemenLed aL Lu level, could have a poslLlve lmpacL on
Lhe developmenL of Lhe LLs,
105

A sLrong Lu level sysLem of parLy flnanclng could promoLe organlsaLlonal
convergence and hence LransnaLlonal parLy-bulldlng,

uesplLe Lhe poslLlve lncenLlves provlded by LC 8eg. 2004/2003, LLs remaln
subordlnaLe Lo Lhelr naLlonal componenLs and Lhe L Croups.



)*,4$+26*,(

1he developmenL of LransnaLlonal parLles ls a necessary buL noL sufflclenL
condlLlon for Lhe developmenL of a LransnaLlonal parLy sysLem,

1he problem of Lhe bulldlng of a Lu parLy sysLem ls lnsLlLuLlonal, slnce Lhe
process ls hlndered by Lhe lack of compeLlLlon beLween Lhe parLles for conLrol of
execuLlve offlce,

A genulne LransnaLlonal parLy compeLlLlon mlghL emerge lf fuLure lnsLlLuLlonal
reforms modlfy Lhe 1reaLy,

A poslLlve consequence of Lhe lack of execuLlve conLrol funcLlons ls LhaL parLles
ln Lhe L seem Lo be beLLer able Lo glve volce Lo Lhe vlews of Luropean clLlzens,

Clven Lhe currenL lnsLlLuLlonal seLLlng, Lhe role of LLs could be enhanced
Lhrough acLlvlLles such as lnvolvemenL ln Lhe LCl, coordlnaLlng parllamenLary
responses ln Lhe new procedures regardlng subsldlarlLy vlolaLlons, proposlng and
sLandlng by Lhelr own candldaLes for Lhe Commlsslon presldency.


















106
K?H?K?0)?7



Andeweg, 8. 8. (1993), '1he 8eshaplng of naLlonal arLy SysLems', west
otopeoo lolltlcs 18:3, 38-78.

AusLln, 8. and M. 1[ernsLrm (2003), looJloq of lolltlcol lottles ooJ lectloo
compolqos. SLockolm, luLA.

8ardl, L. and . Malr (2008), '1he arameLers of arLy SysLems', lotty lolltlcs,
14:2, 147-66.

8ardl, L. (2002), 'arLles and arLy SysLems ln Lhe Luropean unlon', ln k.8.
LuLher, l. Muller-8ommel, lolltlcol lottles lo tbe New otope. Cxford, Cxford
unlverslLy ress, 293 - 322.

8ardl, L. (1988), 'voLo dl preferenza e compeLlzlone lnLraparLlLlca alle elezlonl
europee: prospeLLlve dl armonlzzazlone', klvlsto ltollooo Jl 5cleozo lolltlco, Aprll
1988

8ardl, L. (1987), 'ltefeteoce votloq ooJ lotto-lotty competltloo lo oto-electloos.
ltospects fot notmoolzotloo', Lul Worklng aper.

8enolL, k., and M. Laver, (2006), lotty lollcy lo MoJeto uemoctocles, London,
8ouLledge.

8lezen, l. van (2009), coostltotlooollzloq lotty uemoctocy. 1be coostltotlve
coJlflcotloo of lolltlcol lottles lo lost-wot otope, Worklng aper Serles on Lhe
Legal 8egulaLlon of ollLlcal arLles, no. 3.
www.parLylaw.bham.ac.uk/pdfs/wp0309.

8lezen, l. van and . kopecky (2007), '1he SLaLe and Lhe arLles: ubllc lundlng,
ubllc 8egulaLlon and 8enL-Seeklng ln ConLemporary uemocracles', lotty
lolltlcs, 13(2), 233-34.

8llle L. (2001), 'uemocraLlzlng a uemocraLlc rocedure: MyLh or 8eallLy?
CandldaLe SelecLlon ln WesLern Luropean arLles, 1960-1990', lotty lolltlcs, 7,
pp. 363-380.

8raun, u., M. Salzwedel, C. SLumpf, and A.M. WuesL (2006), otomoolfesto
uocomeototloo, MZLS, unlverslLy of Mannhelm.

8udge, l., P. u. kllngemann, A. volkens, !. 8ara, and L. 1anenbaum (2001),
'Mopploq lollcy ltefeteoces. stlmotes fot lottles, lectots, ooJ Covetomeots.
1945 - 1998, Cxford: Cxford unlverslLy ress.

107
CarLy, 8.k. (2004) arLles as lranchlse SysLems: 1he SLraLarchlcal CrganlzaLlonal
lmperaLlve", lotty lolltlcs, 10:1, pp. 3-24.

Casas-Zamora, k. (2003), loyloq fot uemoctocy. lolltlcol lloooce ooJ 5tote
looJloq fot lottles, ColchesLer: LC8 ress.

Councll of Lurope (2004), '8eporL on Lhe LsLabllshmenL, CrganlsaLlon and
AcLlvlLles of ollLlcal arLles'.
de vreese, Claes P. (2009), 'Second-8aLe LlecLlon Campalgnlng? An Analysls of
Campalgn SLyles ln Luropean arllamenLary LlecLlons', Iootool of lolltlcol
Motketloq 8(1): 7.

urlng, P. and . Manow (2010), arllamenL and governmenL composlLlon
daLabase (arlCov): An lnfrasLrucLure for emplrlcal lnformaLlon on parLles,
elecLlons and governmenLs ln modern democracles. - uevelopmenL verslon.
Avallable aL hLLp://dev.parlgov.org/

Lnyedl, Z. (2007), 'arLy lundlng ln Pungary', ln u. Smllov, !. 1oplak (eds),
lolltlcol lloooce ooJ cottoptloo lo osteto otope. AldershoL, AL, pp. 91-104.

Luropean arllamenL (2010), utoft kepott oo o ltoposol fot o MoJlflcotloo of tbe
Act coocetoloq tbe lectloo of tbe Membets of tbe otopeoo lotllomeot by ultect
uolvetsol 5offtoqe of 20 5eptembet 1976, Luropean arllamenL (2010/xxxx(lnl).

laas 1. (2002) 'Why uo MLs uefecL? An Analysls of arLy Croup Coheslon ln Lhe
3
Lh
Luropean arllamenL' ln otopeoo loteqtotloo oolloe lopets (lol), vol. 6,
avallable aL hLLp://elop.or.aL/elop/LexLe/2002-002a.hLm.

larrell, u. M. and 8. Scully (2007), kepteseotloq otope's cltlzeos?. lectotol
lostltotloos ooJ tbe lollote of lotllomeototy kepteseototloo, Cxford: Cxford
unlverslLy ress.

larrell, u. M., S. Plx, M. !ohnson and 8. Scully (2006), lkC 2000 ooJ 2006 Ml
5otveys uotoset, hLLp://www.lse.ac.uk/collecLlons/L8C/.

CagaLek, W. (2010), 'Campalgnlng ln Lhe Luropean arllamenL LlecLlons' ln
CagaLek, W. (ed), 1be 2009 lectloos to tbe otopeoo lotllomeot. coootty
kepotts, llorence: Luropean unlverslLy lnsLlLuLe, Avallable aL:
hLLp://cadmus.eul.eu/dspace/blLsLream/1814/13737/1/LuuC_2009-L-
LlecLlons_CounLry8eporLs.pdf.

CagaLek, W. (2009), otopeoo lolltlcol lottles os compolqo Otqoolzotloos.
1owotJ o Cteotet lolltlclsotloo of tbe otopeoo lotllomeot lectloos. 8russels:
CenLre for Luropean SLudles.

CagaLek, W. (2008), lolltlcol lottles ot tbe otopeoo level. 1belt Otqoolzotloo
ooJ Actlvltles. 1be cose of tbe otopeoo leople's lotty ooJ tbe lotty of otopeoo
108
5oclollsts, llorence: Luropean unlverslLy lnsLlLuLe.

Callagher, M. and . MlLchell (eds) (2008), 1be lolltlcs of lectotol 5ystems,
Cxford: Cxford unlverslLy ress.

Callagher M. and M. Marsh (1988), cooJlJote 5electloo lo compototlve
letspectlve. 1be 5ectet CotJeo of lolltlcs, London: Sage.

Pagemann S. and S. Plx (2008), 5moll Jlsttlcts wltb opeo bollots. o oew electotol
system fot tbe otopeoo lotllomeot, Luropean arllamenL, ulrecLoraLe Ceneral
lnLernal pollcles of Lhe unlon, Aprll 2008.

Parmel, 8. and A. C. 1an (2004), lotty cbooqe ltoject, 1ralnlng Manual.

Pazan ?. 8. (2006), 'MeLodl dl selezlone del candldaLl: le conseguenze delle
elezlonl lnLerne al arLlLl', ln L. 8ardl (ed), lottltl e 5lsteml Jl lottlto, pp.171-196.

Pazan ?. 8. and C. 8ahaL, (2006) 'CandldaLe SelecLlon', ln kaLz 8. and W. CroLLy,
nooJbook of lotty lolltlcs, London, Sage, pp. 109-121.

Pazan ?. 8. and C. 8ahaL (2006), '1he lnfluence of CandldaLe SelecLlon MeLhods
on LeglslaLure and LeglslaLors: 1heoreLlcal roposlLlons, MeLhodologlcal
SuggesLlons and Lmplrlcal Lvldence', Iootool of leqlslotlve 5toJles, vol. 12, n 3-
4, pp. 366-383.

Pazan ?. 8. (2002), 'CandldaLe SelecLlon', ln L. Leduc, 8. C. nleml and . norrls
(eds), compotloq uemoctocles 2. New cbolleoqes lo tbe 5toJy of lectloos ooJ
votloq, Sage, London, pp. 108-126.

Plx, S. (2008), wbot's wtooq wltb tbe otopeoo uoloo ooJ now to llx lt,
Cambrldge: ollLy ress.

Plx S. (2004), 'LlecLoral lnsLlLuLlons and LeglslaLlve 8ehavlor: Lxplalnlng voLlng
uefecLlon ln Lhe Luropean arllamenL', wotlJ lolltlcs, 36(1) 194-223.

Plx S. and S. Pagemann (2008), coolJ cbooqloq tbe lectotol koles llx otopeoo
lotllomeot lectloos?, Worklng paper: London School of Lconomlcs and ollLlcal
Sclence.

Plx, S., and M. Marsh (2007), loolsbmeot ot ltotest? uoJetstooJloq otopeoo
lotllomeot lectloos, Accesslble aL:
hLLp://personal.lse.ac.uk/hlx/Worklng_apers/Marsh-Plx-!C2007.pdf

Plx, S., A. noury and C. 8oland, (2007), uemoctotlc lolltlcs lo tbe otopeoo
lotllomeot, Cambrldge: Cambrldge unlverslLy ress.

Plx S., A. kreppel and A. noury, (2003), '1he arLy SysLem ln Lhe Luropean
109
arllamenL: Colluslve or CompeLlLlve?', Iootool of commoo Motket 5toJles,
41(2).

Plx, S. and C. Lord (1997), lolltlcol lottles lo tbe otopeoo uoloo, algrave
Macmlllan.

!anda, k. (2003), lolltlcol lottles ooJ uemoctocy lo ltoctlcol ooJ 1beotetlcol
letspectlves. AJoptloq lotty low, WashlngLon: naLlonal uemocraLlc lnsLlLuLe for
lnLernaLlonal Affalrs.

kanev, u. (2007). 'Campalgn llnance ln 8ulgarla', ln u. Smllov, and !. 1oplak (eds),
lolltlcol lloooce ooJ cottoptloo lo osteto otope, AldershoL, AL, pp. 33-32.

kaLz, 8. S. (2004), uemoctocy ooJ tbe leqol keqolotloo of lolltlcol lottles, aper
prepared for Lhe uSAlu conference on Changes ln ollLlcal arLles: unlLed SLaLes
Agency for lnLernaLlonal uevelopmenL, WashlngLon, u.C.

kaLz, 8. S. and . Malr (2002), '1he Ascendancy of Lhe arLy ln ubllc Cfflce: arLy
CrganlzaLlonal Change ln 20Lh-CenLury uemocracles', ln: 8. CunLher, !. 8.
MonLero and !. !. Llnz (eds.), lolltlcol lottles. OlJ coocepts ooJ New cbolleoqes.
Cxford: Cxford unlverslLy ress, pp. 113-133.

kaLz, 8., and . Malr (1993), 'Changlng Models of arLy CrganlsaLlon and arLy
uemocracy: 1he Lmergence of Lhe CarLel arLy', lotty lolltlcs, 1(1), pp. 3-28.

kaLz, 8. S. and . Malr (eds) (1994), now lottles Otqoolze, London: Sage.

kllngemann, P. u., A. volkens, !. 8ara and l. 8udge, Mopploq lollcy ltefeteoces ll:
stlmotes fot lottles, lectots ooJ Covetomeots lo ceottol ooJ osteto otope,
otopeoo uoloo ooJ Ocu 1990-200J, Cxford, Cxford unlverslLy ress, 2007.

koole, 8. (1996), 'Cadre, CaLch-all or CarLel? A CommenL on Lhe noLlon of Lhe
CarLel arLy', lotty lolltlcs, 2(4), pp. 323-334.

Laakso, M. and 8. 1aagepera (1979), 'LffecLlve number of arLles: A Measure
wlLh AppllcaLlon Lo WesL Lurope', compototlve lolltlcol 5toJles 12, 3-27.

Laver, M. and W. 8. PunL (1992), lollcy ooJ lotty competltloo, new ?ork:
8ouLledge.

Lees-MarshmenL, !., C. 8udd and !. SLromback (eds) (2009), Clobol polltlcol
motketloq. 1sL ed. 8ouLledge.

Lehmann W. (ed) (2009), 1be 5electloo of cooJlJotes fot tbe otopeoo
lotllomeot by Notloool lottles ooJ tbe lmpoct of otopeoo lolltlcol lottles,
ulrecLoraLe Ceneral for lnLernal ollcles of Lhe Lu.

110
Lehmann, W. (2003), 5totot et flooocemeot Jes pottls polltlpoes eotopeos,
Luxembourg: arlemenL Luropeen Serle Affalres consLlLuLlonnelles (AlCC
103l8).

LlpseL, S. M. and S. 8okkan (1967), 'Cleavage SLrucLures, arLy SysLems and voLer
AllgnmenLs: an lnLroducLlon', ln: S.M. LlpseL e S. 8okkan (eds), lotty 5ystems ooJ
votet Allqoemeots. ctoss Notloool letspectlves, new ?ork: 1he lree ress.

Lundell k. (2004), ueLermlnanLs of CandldaLe SelecLlon", lotty lolltlcs, 10(1).

LuLher 8. (2007), 'SLrucLural Ad[usLmenL and lncumbenL LllLe LmpowermenL:
AusLrlan arLles' AdapLaLlon Lo Luropean lnLergraLlon' ln 1. ogunLke, n. AyloLL,
L. CarLer, 8. Ladrech and k. LuLher, 1be otopeoolsotloo of Notloool lolltlcol
lottles, London: 8ouLledge.

Malr, . (2006), 8ullng Lhe vold: 1he Pollowlng of WesLern uemocracy", New
left kevlew 42, november-uecember, pp. 23-31.

Malr, . and !. !. A. 1homassen (2010), ollLlcal 8epresenLaLlon and CovernmenL
ln Lhe Luropean unlon", Iootool of otopeoo lobllc lollcy, 17(1), pp. 20-33.

Malr, . and C. Mudde (1998), '1he arLy lamlly and lLs SLudy', Aooool kevlew of
lolltlcol 5cleoce, 1, pp. 211-229.

March, !., C. and !. . Clsen (1998), klscoptlte le lstltozlool. le bosl otqoolzzotlve
Jello polltlco, 8ologna: ll Mullno.

Marquand, u. (1978), 1owards a Lurope of Lhe arLles", 1be lolltlcol Ooottetly,
49(4), pp. 423-443.

McLlroy, C., and k. 8enolL, (2010) arLy ollcy and Croup AfflllaLlon ln Lhe
Luropean arllamenL", 8tltlsb Iootool of lolltlcol 5cleoce, 40(2).

McLlroy, C. and k. 8enolL (2007), arLy Croups and ollcy oslLlons ln Lhe
Luropean arllamenL", lotty lolltlcs, 13(1).

Meyer, L. (2010), '1he 8lggesL Campalgn ln Lhe PlsLory of Lhe Lu', ln W. CagaLek
(ed), 1be 2009 lectloos to tbe otopeoo lotllomeot. coootty kepotts, llorence:
Luropean unlverslLy lnsLlLuLe, p. 21-23. Avallable aL:
hLLp://cadmus.eul.eu/dspace/blLsLream/1814/13737/1/LuuC_2009-L-
LlecLlons_CounLry8eporLs.pdf.

Muller W.C. (2000), 'ollLlcal arLles ln arllamenLary uemocracles: Maklng
uelegaLlon and AccounLablllLy Work', otopeoo Iootool of lolltlcol keseotcb,
37(3).

nassmacher, k. P. (2009), 1be looJloq of lotty competltloo, 8aden-8aden:
111
nomos.

nassmacher, k. P. (2003a), 'arLy lundlng ln ConLlnenLal WesLern Lurope', ln 8.
AusLln and M. 1[ernsLrm (eds), looJloq of lolltlcol lottles ooJ lectloo
compolqos, SLockolm, luLA, pp. 117-138.

nassmacher, k. P. (2003b), '1he lundlng of ollLlcal arLles ln Lhe Anglo-Saxon
CrblL', ln 8. AusLln, M. 1[ernsLrm (eds), looJloq of lolltlcol lottles ooJ lectloo
compolqos, SLockolm: luLA, pp. 33-34.

nassmacher, k. P. (1993), 'Comparlng arLy and Campalgn llnance ln WesLern
uemocracles', ln A. 8. Cunllcks (ed), compolqo ooJ lotty lloooce lo Nottb
Ametlco ooJ westeto otope, 8oulder CC: WesLvlew ress, pp. 233-267.

nassamacher, k, P. (1989). 5ttoctote ooJ lmpoct of lobllc 5obslJles to lolltlcol
lottles lo otope. 1be xomples of Aosttlo, ltoly, 5weJeo ooJ west Cetmooy. ln
P., L. Alexander (ed) compototlve lolltlcol lloooce lo tbe 1980s. Cambrldge,
Cambrldge u, pp. 236-267.

norrls . (2002) 'LeglslaLlve 8ecrulLmenL', ln L. Leduc, 8. C. nleml and . norrls
(eds), compotloq uemoctocles 2. New cbolleoqes lo tbe 5toJy of lectloos ooJ
votloq, London: Sage, pp. 108-126.

norrls . (1997) (ed), lossoqes to lowet. leqlslotlve kectoltmeot lo AJvooceJ
uemoctocles, Cambrldge: Cambrldge unlverslLy ress.

Cndiel, C. and 1. eLr (2007), 'arLy lundlng ln Lhe Czech 8epubllc', ln u. Smllov
and !. 1oplak (eds), lolltlcol lloooce ooJ cottoptloo lo osteto otope, AldershoL,
AL, pp. 71-90,

CSCL (2009), lectloo to tbe otopeoo lotllomeot, CSCL/CulP8 LxploraLory
Mlsslon 8eporL.

LS (2007), Mlootes of tbe l5 lteslJeocy, 8russels: 28 lebtooty 2007. LS.

lerre, !., L. Svsand, and A. WldfeldL, (2000), 'SLaLe Subsldles Lo ollLlcal arLles:
ConfronLlng 8heLorlc wlLh 8eallLy', west otopeoo lolltlcs, 23(3), pp. 1-24.

lnLo-uuchlnsky, M. (2002). 'llnanclng ollLlcs: A Clobal vlew', Iootool of
uemoctocy, 13(4) pp. 69-86.

ogunLke, 1. (2006), 'Cl sono prove emplrlche a sosLegno della Lesl del carLel
parLy? arLlLl e socleLa nell'Luropa occldenLale', ln L., 8ardl (ed), lottltl e slsteml
Jl pottlto. 8ologna: ll Mullno,

ogunLke, 1. and . Webb (eds) (2003), 1be lteslJeotlollzotloo of lolltlcs, Cxford:
Cxford unlverslLy ress.
112

8ahaL C. (2009), Whlch CandldaLe SelecLlon MeLhod ls Lhe MosL uemocraLlc?"
Covetomeot ooJ Opposltloo, 44(1), pp. 68-90.

8ahaL C. (2007), CandldaLe SelecLlon: Lhe Cholce 8efore Lhe Cholce", Iootool of
uemoctocy, 18(1).

8ahaL C., 8. ?. Pazan and 8.S. kaLz (2008) 'uemocracy and ollLlcal arLles: Cn
Lhe uneasy 8elaLlonshlp 8eLween arLlclpaLlon, CompeLlLlon and
8epresenLaLlon', lotty lolltlcs, 14: 6, pp. 7-27.

8elf k. and P. SchmlLL (1979), nlne Second-Crder naLlonal LlecLlons - A
ConcepLual lramework for Lhe Analysls of Luropean LlecLlon 8esulLs", otopeoo
Iootool of lolltlcol keseotcb, 8, pp. 3-44.

Samuels, u. (1999), 'lncenLlves Lo CulLlvaLe a arLy voLe ln CandldaLe-CenLrlc
LlecLoral SysLems: Lvldence from 8razll', compototlve lolltlcol 5toJles, 32, pp.
487-318.

SarLorl, C. (1976), lottles ooJ lotty 5ystems. volome 1. A ltomewotk fot
Aoolysls, Cambrldge: Cambrldge unlverslLy ress.

Sasse, C. et ol. (1981), 1be otopeoo lotllomeot. 1owotJs o uolfotm ltoceJote
fot ultect lectloos. llorence: Luropean unlverslLy lnsLlLuLe.

Scarrow, S. (2007), 'ollLlcal llnance ln ComparaLlve erspecLlve', Aooool kevlew
of lolltlcol 5cleoce, vol. 10, pp. 193-210.

Scarrow, S. (2006), 'arLy Subsldles and Lhe lreezlng of arLy CompeLlLlon: uo
CarLel Mechanlsm Work?', west otopeoo lolltlcs, 29(4), pp. 619-639.

SeLLembrl, . (2004), 'When ls a Croup noL a ollLlcal Croup? 1he ulssoluLlon of
Lhe 1ul Croup ln Lhe Luropean arllamenL', 1be Iootool of leqlslotlve 5toJles,
10(1).

ShugarL, M. S., M. L. valdlnl and k. Suomlnen (2003), 'Looklng for Locals: voLer
lnformaLlon uemands and ersonal voLe-Larnlng ALLrlbuLes of LeglslaLors under
roporLlonal 8epresenLaLlon', Ametlcoo Iootool of lolltlcol 5cleoce, 49, pp. 437-
449.

Smllov, u. and !. 1oplak (2007), lolltlcol lloooce ooJ cottoptloo lo osteto
otope, AldershoL, AL.

SmlLh, !. (1999), otope's lecteJ lotllomeot, Sheffleld: Sheffleld Academlc ress.

1aagepera, 8. (2007), lteJlctloq lotty 5lzes. 1be loqlc of 5lmple lectotol
5ystems, Cxford: Cxford unlverslLy ress.
113

1homassen, !. !. A. (ed.) (2009), 1be leqltlmocy of tbe otopeoo uoloo Aftet
olotqemeot, Cxford: Cxford unlverslLy ress.

1homassen, !. (2002), 'arLles and voLers: Lhe leaslblllLy of a Luropean SysLem of
ollLlcal 8epresenLaLlon", ln 8. SLeunenberg and !. 1homassen, 1be otopeoo
lotllomeot. Movloq 1owotJs uemoctocy lo tbe u, Cxford: 8owman and
LlLLlefleld.

1oplak, !. (2007a). 'arLy lundlng ln Slovenla', ln u., Smllov and !., 1oplak (eds),
lolltlcol lloooce ooJ cottoptloo lo osteto otope, AldershoL, AL, pp. 171-188.

1oplak, !. (2007b), otopeoo lotllomeot lectloos ooJ tbe uolfotm lectloo
ltoceJote, aper avallable aL:
hLLp://www.enelsyn.gr/papers/w3/aper20by20!url[201oplak.pdf

1rechsel, A. P. and . Malr, (2009), wbeo lottles (olso) losltloo 1bemselves. oo
lottoJoctloo to tbe u ltofllet, Lul - 8SCAS Worklng aper no. 63.

van 8lezen, l. (2003), llooocloq lolltlcol lottles ooJ lectloo compolqos -
ColJelloes, SLrasbourg: Councll of Lurope.

van 8lezen, l. (2000), ,Cn Lhe lnLernal 8alance of arLy ower: arLy
CrganlzaLlons ln new uemocracles', lotty lolltlcs, 6, pp. 393-417.

van Cudenhove, C. (1963), 1be lolltlcol lottles lo tbe otopeoo lotllomeot. 1be
lltst 1eo eots, Leyden: A. W. Sl[Lhoff.

von 8eyme, k. (1983), lolltlcol lottles lo westeto uemoctocles, AldershoL:
Cower ubllshlng.

Waleckl, M. (2007), 'ollLlcal llnance ln oland', ln u. Smllov, and !. 1oplak (eds),
lolltlcol lloooce ooJ cottoptloo lo osteto otope, AldershoL: AL, pp. 123-142.

Waleckl, M. (2003), 'Money and ollLlcs ln CenLral and LasLern Lurope', ln 8.
AusLln and M. 1[ernsLrm (eds), looJloq of lolltlcol lottles ooJ lectloo
compolqos, SLockolm, luLA, pp. 71-94.

Ware, A. (1987), cltlzeos, lottles, ooJ tbe 5tote. A keopptolsol, Cambrldge: ollLy
ress.

Ware, A. (1993), lolltlcol lottles ooJ lotty 5ystems, Cxford: Cxford unlverslLy
ress.


This study was funded by
the European Parliament
The European Commission supports the
EUI through the European Union budget