Electoral behaviour in the Czech and Slovac RepublicCase study of politic parties ČSSD and Smer – SD in
parliamentary election in 2002 – 2006
Jakub Kyloušek/Michal Pink
Faculty of Social Studies
Institute for Comparative Political Research
Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic
e-mail: [email protected]
I. Introduction
• Methodological background
• ČSSD and Smer SD
• Election results
• Electoral map
• Interpretation of electoral support
II. Methodological background
• Method of detection method called area of electoral support
• Simple calculation - Election results for individual political parties are arranged according to percentage gain from the highest to the lowest. Then we find half of the total by subsequent addition in the set order. In this line we divide the examined units into halves, and get areas which comprise 50% of the electoral support out of the total number of votes in given elections. An area outlined in this way is called area of electoral support for a political party (Jehlička - Sýkora 1991).
• The basic data file is made by results of Chamber of Deputies elections (Poslanecká sněmovna - ChD) and Slovac national Council (Slovenská národná rada – NC)
• To find out the mutual cohesion and stability of electoral support will be used the basic statistical method, Pearson correlation coefficient.
III. Czech Social Democratic Party
• ČSSD is one of two main poles of Czech party system. The second pole forms conservatively-liberal Civic Democratic Party (ODS)
• Party system in the left wing complements Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (KSČM) with restricted potential to enter into coalition with other partners. The area between ČSSD and ODS on the right-left wing (conservative) axis is filled by conservative The Christian and Democratic Union - Czechoslovak People’s Party (KDU-ČSL) and after elections in 2006 Green Party but it is too early to talk about this party as an established element of party spectrum.
IV. Smer – social democracy
• Smer – SD is dominant party at the left pole of Slovak party system. The second pole forms conservatively-liberal Slovak Democratic and Christian Union - Democratic Party (SDKÚ), Christian Democratic Movement (KDH) and The Party of Hungarian Coalition (SMK)
• Smer – SD created together with two minor „nationalist“ parties Movement for Democratic Slovakia (HZDS) and Slovak National Party SNS governemental coalition
ChD 1996 ChD 1998 ChD 2002 ChD 2006
ČSSD 26,44 (61) 32,31 (74) 30,20 (70) 32,32 (74)
KDU 8,08 (18) 9,0 (20) 14,27[1] (31) 7, 22 (13)
KSČM 10,33 (22) 11,03 (24) 18,51 (41) 12,81 (26)
ODS 29,62 (68) 27,74 (63) 24,47 (58) 35,38 (81)
Election turnout
76,41 74,03 58,0 64,47
VII. Electoral results of main political parties in the Czech Republic in 1996 - 2006 (number of
mandates obtained is in brackets)
In 2002 KDU-ČSL stood in election together with a smaller conservative-liberal party Union of Freedom
NR SR 1998
NR SR 2002
NR SR 2006
HZDS(-LS) 27,0 (43) 19,5 8,79 (15)
SMK 9,12 (14) 11,16 11,68 (20)
SOP 8,01 (12)
SDK 26,33 (42)
SDKÚ-DS 15,09 18,35 (31)
KDH 8,25 8,31 (14)
ANO 8,01
SNS 9,07 (14) 11,73 (20)
SDL 14,66 (23)
KSS 6,32
Smer(-SD) - 13,43 (26) 29,14 (50)
Various 12,0
Total 100 (150) 100 (150) 100 (150)
VIII.Electoral results of main political parties in Slovakia in 1998 – 2006 (number of mandates obtained is in brackets)
IX. Map - Czech republic – Districts
X. Map - Slovac republic – Districts
XI. Support in 2002
XII. Support in 2006
XIII. Support in 2002/2006
XIV. Support in 2002
XV. Support in 2006
XVI. Support in 2002/2006
Stability of regional differences of ČSSD electoral support (Pearson correlation coefficient)
ČSSD 2006/2002 0,82
ČSSD 2002/1998 0,8
ČSSD 2006/1998 0,93Source: personal calculationRem. Correlation is significant from the level 0,01
Stability of regional electoral support on district support of selected left-wing parties in 1990 and 1998 in Slovakia
SMĚR 2002/ 2006 0,74
SMĚR 2006/KSČ 1990 0,34
SMĚR 2006/SDL 1992 0,54
SMĚR 2006/SDL 1998 0,54
SMĚR 2002/KSČ 1990 0,25
SMĚR 2002/SDL 1992 0,51
SMĚR 2002/SDL 1998 0,67
Source: personal calculationRem. a): Correlation is significant from the level 0,01 Rem. b): Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated on the basis of results within borders of 37 former districts.
Interpretation of electoral support distribution
• Electoral support regarding the size of settlement structure (The support of social-democrat increases in districts with lower level of urbanisation)
• Economic situation - rate of unemployment (Higher support of social- democrat increase in districts with higher rate of unemployment)
• Share of worshipers (In districts with lower share of inhabitants who belong to of a church the support of social-democratic parties will increase)
Dependence of ČSSD and Smer(-SD) electoral gains on the urbanization rate
Smer 2002 0,06
Smer 2002 without “Hungarian“ districts
-0,12
Smer-SD 2006 -0,22
Smer-SD 2006 without “Hungarian“ districts
-0,51
ČSSD 2002 0,01
ČSSD 2006 0,11
Dependence of ČSSD and Smer(-SD) electoral gains on size structure of settlements
up to 20002000-5000
above 5000
Smer 2002 0,03 -0,15 0,06
Smer 2002 without “Hungarian“ districts
0,20 -0,11 -0,10
Smer-SD 2006 0,34 -0,11 -0,23
Smer-SD 2006 without “Hungarian“ districts
0,59 0,02 -0,50
ČSSD 2002 -0,04 -0,12 0,09
ČSSD 2006 -0,16 -0,18 0,20
Relation of election result and rate of unemployment in elections in 2006
Smer-SD 2006 0,22
Smer-SD 2006 without
“Hungarian“ districts
0,49
ČSSD 2006 0,67
Dependence of electoral gains of ČSSD and Smer(-SD) on the share of worshippers
Smer 2002 0,04
Smer-SD 2006 0,41
ČSSD 2002 0,25
ČSSD 2006 0,33
.
Conclusion• Stability is much higher in the Czech Republic than in Slovak Republic • ČSSD is grounded on steadier electoral basis, primarily in Moravia, the
eastern part of the Czech Republic. • Smer, whose history is shorter than ČSSD’s, had more unstable electoral
base during the last two parliamentary elections and its support shifted from the west to the east of the Slovak Republic.
• The first partial hypothesis, that support of social-democratic subjects grows with the distance from political centre of surveyed area, was partially confirmed by our analysis.
• Electoral support of Smer increases in districts with higher rate of inhabitants living in smaller settlements but in the Czech Republic in the case of ČSSD this dependence is not so pronounced. In contrast to Smer, ČSSD has a higher share of its voters in the larger settlements as well.
• Czech Republic we can affirm that it is quite the reverse, in case of higher share of worshippers in the individual districts grows also support of ČSSD. However in Slovakia the higher concentration of vote cast for Smer meant lower number of worshippers in 2002, this rate changed in the last election and positive correlation of these two variables strengthened
• Despite declared common identity and international cooperation both political subjects work on different distribution of electoral support.
Sources • Hendl, Jan. 2006. Přehled statistických metod zpracování dat : analýza a
metaanalýza dat. Praha, Portál. • Jehlička, Petr - Sýkora, Luděk. 1991. “Stabilita regionální podpory tradičních
politických stran v českých zemích (1920 – 1990)“ In: Sborník ČGS 96 (2): 81 – 95.
• Kopeček, Lubomír. 2007. Politické strany na Slovensku 1989 – 2006. Brno, CDK
• Kostelecký, Tomáš. 2001. “Vzestup nebo pád politického regionalismu?“. Praha: Sociologický ústav AV ČR, Working papers 2001 (9).
• Krivý, V. - Feglová, V. - Balko, D.: Slovensko a jeho regióny: sociokultúrne súvislosti volebného správania. Bratislava, Médiá 1996, 414 s.
• Krivý, V.: Čo prezrádzajú volebné výsledky ? Parlamentné voľby 1998. Bratislava, Inštitút pre verejné otázky 1999, 131 s.
• Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems. A Framework for Analysis, I., Cambridge University Press.
• Czech Statistical Office (Český statistický úřad - SCZO), http://www.czso.cz/, http://www.volby.cz
• Slovak Statistical Office (Štatistický úrad Slovenskej republiky) http://www.statistics.sk/,
