en pl
en pl

Decyzje

Show issue
Year 6/2014 
Issue 21

A model of strategic preemption: why do Post-Communists hurt themselves?

Marek Kaminski
University of California

Monika Nalepa
University of Chicago

6/2014 (21) Decyzje

DOI 10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.21

Article contents

Abstract

Why do political actors pass legislation that seemingly hurts them? Lustration laws limit access to public offi ce of the ancien regime's collaborators and hurt members of post-communist parties in East-Central Europe. So why has lustration in Poland, Hungary, and Bulgaria been passed when post-communist parties held parliamentary majorities? Why did the postcommunist party in Romania switch from no-lustration to pro-lustration after the 1992 elections? We explain this phenomenon by electoral timing and rules of rocedure in legislatures. Specifi cally, we develop an agenda-setter model with a finite number of parties, imperfect information, and multiple potential medians. Our main argument can be summarized as follows: Suppose that the Postcommunists do not introduce any lustration bill and then lose proposal power in elections. If Anti-communists come to power, they are sure to introduce a harsher bill, and the median of the legislature may prefer such a bill to a no-bill status quo. Post-communists can prevent such a scenario by implementing a mild bill themselves. If they manage to appease the new parliamentary median, they will block a harsher bill that would be implemented after they lose power. Additional results show how electoral perspectives and uncertainty affect and modify this typical scenario. We test our model with an exhaustive analysis of all cases from East- Central Europe that meet our assumptions that a Postcommunist party is in power and no lustration bill is already in force.

References

  1. Agh, Atilla. 1997. Parliaments as policy-making bodies in East Central Europe: The case of Hungary. International Political Science Review 18 (4):417-432. [Google Scholar]
  2. Banks, Jeffrey S. 1990. Monopoly Agenda Control and Asymmetric Information. Quarterly Journal of Economics 105 (2):445-464. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baron, David P. 2000. Legislative organization with informational committees. American Journal of Political Science 44 (3):485-505. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baron, David P. and John A. Ferejohn. 1989. Bargaining in Legislatures. American Political Science Review 83 (4):1181-1206. [Google Scholar]
  5. Benoit, Kenneth and Michael Laver. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bozoki, Andras. 2002. The Roundtable Talks of 1989. The Genesis of Hungarian Democracy. Analysis and Documents. Budapest: CEU Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ceterchi, Ion. 1992. Institutional Problems of Transition in Romania. Revue D Etudes Comparatives Est-Ouest 23 (4):89-126. [Google Scholar]
  8. Colomer, Joseph. 1991. Transitions by Agreement: Modeling the Spanish Way. American Political Science Review 85 (4):1283-1302. [Google Scholar]
  9. Darski, Jozef. 1992. Police Agents in Transition Period. Uncaptive Minds IV (4 ):19-21. [Google Scholar]
  10. David-Barrett, Liz, Hack, Peter and Munkacsi, Agnes. 2008. Lustration as Political Competition: Vetting in Hungary. In: Mayer-Rieckh, A and De Greiff, P, (eds.) Justice as Prevention: Vetting Public Employees in Transitional Societies. Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Denzau, Arthur and Robert Mackay. 1983. Gatekeeping and Monopoly Power of Committees: An Analysis of Sincere and Sophisticated Behavior. American Journal of Political Science. [Google Scholar]
  12. Desposato, Scott. 2006. Parties for Rent? Ambition, Ideology, and Party Switching in Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies. American Journal of Political Science 50 (1):62-80. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dziewulski, Jerzy. 1998. Pierwsze czytanie … (druk nr 29): www.sejm.gov.pl. Parliamentary speach. [Google Scholar]
  14. Elster, Jon. 2004. Closing the Books: Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gibson, James. 2004. Overcoming Apartheid: Can Truth Reconcile a Divided Nation? New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gilligan, Thomas W. and Keith Krehbiel. 1987. Collective Decision-making and Standing Comittees: An Informational Rationale for restrictive Amendment Procedures. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 3 (2):287-335. [Google Scholar]
  17. Halmai, Gabor, and Kim Lane Scheppele. 1997. Living Well is the Best Revenge: The Hungarian Approach to Judging the Past. In Transitional Justice and the Rule of Law in New Democracies, edited by A. J. McAdams. Notre Dame, IN: U of Notre Dame Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Helsinki Watch. August 1993. Decommunization in Bulgaria. [Google Scholar]
  19. Interviews. 2004. Conducted by M. Nalepa in Poland with the following politicians: D: Jerzy Dziewulski; MK: Mariusz Kaminski; L: Jan Litynski; LK: Leszek Kubicki); M: Antoni Macierewicz. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ishiyama, John T. 1999. Communist Successor Parties in Post-communist Politics. Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kaminski, Marek M., Grzegorz Lissowski, and Piotr Swistak. 1998. The „Revival of Communism” or the Effect of Institutions? The 1993 Polish Parliamentary Elections. Public Choice 97 (3):429 - 449 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kaminski, Marek M. and Monika Nalepa. 2006. Judging Transitional Justice: A New Criterion for Evaluating Truth Revelation Procedures Journal of Confl ict Resolution. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kritz, Neil J., ed. 1995a. Transitional Justice. How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes. General Considerations. Edited by N. J. Kritz. 3 vols. Vol. I. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kritz, Neil J. 1995b. Lithuania: Decree Banning KGB Employees and Informers from Government Positions. Decree No. 418. In Transitional Justice. How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes. Laws, Ruling and Reports, edited by N. J. Kritz. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kwasniewski, Aleksander. 1997. O utworzeniu Archiwum Obywatelskiego oraz Powszechnym udostepnianiu dokumentacji wytworzonej w latach 1944-1990 przez organy bezpieczenstwa panstwa: Sejm Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej, III kadencja. [Google Scholar]
  26. Litynski, Jan. 1998. Pierwsze czytanie (druk nr 29): www.sejm.gov.pl. Parliamentary speech. [Google Scholar]
  27. Marsh, Virginia. 1994. Survey of Romania. Financial Times, May 3, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  28. Millard, Frances, Sarah Birch, Kieran Williams, and Marina Popescu. Election Results U of Essex. Accessed on Feb 5, 2006. Available http://www2.essex.ac.uk/elect/database/aboutProject.asp. [Google Scholar]
  29. Nalepa, Monika. 2010. Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-Communist Europe. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nino, Carlos. 1996. Radical Evil on Trial. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  31. OBOP. 1997. Preferencje partyjne Polakow w kwietniu 1997 r. [Available from http://www.tns-global. pl/archive-report/id/78]. [Google Scholar]
  32. Olson, David M. and William E. Crowther. 2002. Committees in post-Communist democratic parliaments : comparative institutionalization, Parliaments and legislatures series. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Olson, David M. and Philip Norton. 1996. The new parliaments of Central and Eastern Europe. London ; Portland, Ore.: Frank Cass. [Google Scholar]
  34. Omar, Abdullah M. 1996. Foreword. In Approaches to Amnesty, Punishment, Reparation and Restitution in South Africa, edited by M. R. Rwelamira and G. Werle. Durban: Butterworths. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pek, Bogdan. 1998. Pierwsze czytanie (druk nr 29): www.sejm.gov.pl. Parliamentary speech. [Google Scholar]
  36. Poganyi, Istvan. 1997. Righting Wrongs in Eastern Europe. Manchester: Manchester U Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pop-Eleches, Grigore. 1999. Separated at Birth or Separated by Birth? The Communist Successor Parties in Romania and Hungary. East European Politics and Societies 13 (1):117-147. [Google Scholar]
  38. Przeworski, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the Market. Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Robinson, Anthony, and Virginia Marsh. 1995. Survey of Hungary. Financial Times, Nov 21. [Google Scholar]
  40. Romer, Thomas and Howard Rosenthal. 1978. Political Resource-Allocation, Controlled Agendas, and the Status Quo. Public Choice 33 (4):27-43. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rose, Richard, and Neil Munro. 2010. Parties and Elections in New European Democracies, Second Edition ECPSR. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sa’adah, Anne. 1998. Germany’s Second Chance: Trust, Justice, and Democratization. Cambridge, [Google Scholar]
  43. MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  44. Schmitter, Philippe C, and Guillermo A. O’Donnell. 1986. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore, DE: Johns Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Schwartz, Herman. 1995. Lustration in Eastern Europe. In Transitional Justice. How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes. General Considerations., edited by N. J. Kritz. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press. [Google Scholar]
  46. Szonda, Ipsos. 2006. Preference for Parties: Szonda Ipsos, Budapest, Hungary. [Google Scholar]
  47. Thames, Frank C. 2005. Parliamentary Party Switching in the Ukrainian Rada. In Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  48. Taagepera, Rein. 2009. Personal communication on collaboration strategies in the Baltic countries. [Google Scholar]
  49. Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  50. Tynes, Sheryl R. 1996. Turning Points in Social Security: From ‚Cruel Hoax’ to ‚Sacred Entitlement’. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  51. Weingast, Barry R. 1989. Floor Behavior in the United States Congress: Committee Power under the Open Rule. American Political Science Review 83 (3):795-815. [Google Scholar]
  52. Welsh, Helga. 1996. Dealing with the Communist Past: Central and East European Experiences after 1990. Europe - Asia Studies 48 (3):413-428. [Google Scholar]
  53. Zemke, Janusz. 1998. Pierwsze czytanie ... (druk nr 29): www.sejm.gov.pl. Parliamentary speach. [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Kaminski, Marek & Nalepa, Monika (2014). A model of strategic preemption: why do Post-Communists hurt themselves?. (2014). A model of strategic preemption: why do Post-Communists hurt themselves?. Decyzje, (21), 31-65. https://doi.org/10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.21 (Original work published 6/2014AD)

MLA style

Kaminski, Marek and Nalepa, Monika. “A Model Of Strategic Preemption: Why Do Post-Communists Hurt Themselves?”. 6/2014AD. Decyzje, no. 21, 2014, pp. 31-65.

Chicago style

Kaminski, Marek and Nalepa, Monika. “A Model Of Strategic Preemption: Why Do Post-Communists Hurt Themselves?”. Decyzje, Decyzje, no. 21 (2014): 31-65. doi:10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.21.

Copyright info

copyright info

CC-BY

People also read:

No related content.