Explaining Moderation InPost-Communist Ethnic Party Systems: A Cross-National Investigation InThe Balkans.

In this paper, I explore conditions that contribute to a rare outcome in ethnic party systems: the election of a party with a moderate position on inter-ethnic relations. More specifically, I investigate why voters of the small, impoverished, and ethnically fragmented states of Bosnia and Macedonia, which share the same electoral system, elected parties with divergent positions on inter-ethnic relations in 2002. Theory on party competition that focuses on social cleavages (Lipset and Rokkan 1967) or the interaction of social cleavages and institutions in ethnically divided societies (Horowitz 1985) cannot explain why Macedonia elected a left party open to inter-ethnic cooperation. Research shows that ethnic party systems compel left parties to take up ethnic causes in order to remain viable (Horowitz 1985 and Mitchell 1995). While social democratic parties in Macedonia and Bosnia have done so, Macedonia’s social democratic party overcame ethnic outbidding by its rival party while Bosnia’s did not. Furthermore, Macedonia bucked Bosnia’s experience (Burg and Shoup 1999, Bose 2002) and a regional trend in which inter-ethnic violence radicalizes voters and encourages the election of ethnically chauvinistic parties. To understand campaign strategies and determinants of voting, I combine content analysis of 350 randomly selected articles on the elections from local newspapers; examination of electoral laws and survey data on mass attitudes about inter-ethnic relations; and statistical analysis of recent World Values Survey data on electoral preferences in Bosnia and Macedonia. Drawing on these data and research on party development in post-communist Europe (Lewis 2001) and party system change in India (Chhibber 1999), I demonstrate how ’founding’ elections, campaign strategies, and international intervention interact to allow Macedonia’s left party to downplay ethnic outbidding and influence the coalitions of voters that it can mobilize. This cross-national investigation makes two primary contributions. First, it sheds light on ethnic party systems in the post-communist states, which have received little attention. Second, it identifies factors that encourage inter-ethnic cooperation in ethnic party systems. This paper would fit well on panels on electoral competition in post-communist Europe, participation in post-communist Europe, ethnic party systems, and comparative ethnic conflict. Works Cited: Sumantra Bose, Bosnia after Dayton: Nationalist Partition and International Intervention, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Steven L. Burg, and Paul S. Shoup, The War in Bosnia-Hercegovina, Armonk: ME. Sharpe, 1999. Pradeep K. Chhibber, Democracy without Associations: Transformation of the Party System and Social Cleavages in India, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999. Donald Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Paul G. Lewis, ed., Party Development and Democratic Change in Post-Communist Europe: The First Decade, London: Frank Cass, 2001. Seymour M. Lipset and Stein Rokkan, Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives, New York: Free Press, 1967. Paul Mitchell, Party Competition in an Ethnic Dual Party System, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 18, No. 4, October 1995, pp. 773-793. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]