Rokkan Rules? Communist Elites and the Choice of Electoral Systems in the Yugoslav Republics, 1989–1990

Abstract

We use the previously neglected cases of the Yugoslav republics to revisit the question of how electoral systems were formed for the first elections during the transition from communism in 1989–1990. By exploring archival and other sources created contemporaneously by the relevant decision-makers, we build on Rokkanian interpretations of electoral system design. Unlike Rokkan, however, we do not see parties as unitary or united actors. Our analysis instead focuses on the leadership and the dominant wings of the ruling parties and shows that their preferences regarding electoral rules served their intra-party ambitions and reflected their intra-party power capacities.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The Yugoslav republics barely rated a mention in influential monographs and edited volumes on institutional design in the early transition (Lijphart & Waisman 1996; Elster et al. 1998; Birch et al. 2002) or in the general literature on elections and voting during this time (Tucker 2002), and there has been little improvement since.

2 While cognisant of these idiosyncrasies, for the sake of brevity, we refer to Yugoslav ruling party/parties and their elites as communists. After all, that is what they called themselves.

3 We conducted archival research in the Archive of the Croatian Sabor (Pismohrana Hrvatskog Sabora) and the Archive of Bosnia–Hercegovina (Arhiv Bosne i Hercegovine) where we reviewed more than 2,000 pages of relevant archival materials. In both archives we were forced to rely on the goodwill and memory of archival staff because the collections were, in most cases, either uncatalogued or poorly organised. Materials in the Archive of Bosnia–Hercegovina were in a particularly disappointing state of disarray after the 2014 fire, making this kind of research extremely difficult and time-consuming.

4 For a notable counterargument suggesting West European electoral system designers operated under similar conditions of uncertainty, see Andrews and Jackman (2005). For an important exception to the argument that East European parties were unitary actors, see Birch et al. (2002). However, they do not offer a systematic explanation for electoral system design but instead highlight country-specificity and strategic diversity among cases (Birch et al. 2002, p. 20).

5 District magnitude is ‘the number of legislative seats assigned to each electoral district' (Rae 1995, p. 65).

6 ‘Top lista hrvatskih političara’, Danas, 17 October 1989.

7 Archive of the Croatian Sabor, ‘Nacrt Zakona o delegatskim izborima’, Republička konferencija SSRNH and Vijeće Saveza sindikata Hrvatske, March 1989.

8 ‘Prijedlog za donošenje zakona o određivanju izbornih područja za izbor zastupnika u Društveno-političko vijeće Sabora Socijalističke Republike Hrvatske’, Delegatski vjesnik, 9 December 1989.

9 Archive of the Croatian Sabor, ‘Zapisnik sa 47. sjednice Odbora za društveno-politički sistem Društveno-političkog vijeća Sabora SR Hrvatske’, 18 December 1989, 20/6/VM–20/8/VM.

10 Archive of the Croatian Sabor, ‘Zapisnik sa sastanka Odbora za društveno-politički system—Radna grupa za pripremu promjena Zakona o izboru i opozivu odbornika i zastupnika’, 12 January 1990, 2/10/JP.

11 Archive of the Croatian Sabor, ‘Zapisnik sa sastanka Radne grupe Odbora za društveno-politički sistem Društveno-političkog vijeća Sabora Socijalističke Republike Hrvatske’, 18 January 1990, 7/6/LJ–8/4/HLJ.

12 Archive of the Croatian Sabor, ‘Zapisnik sa sjednice Odbora za društveno-politički sistem Društveno-političkog vijeća Sabora Socijalističke Republike Hrvatske’, 24 January 1990, 3/1/JG.

13 ‘Prvi demokratski izbori u povijesti Sabora’, Vjesnik, 27 January 1990.

14 ‘Računamo na demokratski rasplet’, Oslobođenje, 27 May 1990.

15 Archive of Bosnia–Hercegovina (uncatalogued), ‘Informacija o sprovedenim izbornim aktivnostima za izbor delegata u skupštine društveno-političkih zajednica i o utrošenim sredstvima—mart 1990. Godine’, Republička izborna komisija SRBiH, April 1990.

16 Archive of Bosnia–Hercegovina (uncatalogued), ‘Odluka Ustavnog suda SRBiH za ocjenjivanje ustavnosti odredaba čl. 4 stav 2 i čl. 8 Zakona o udruživanju građana’, Ustavni sud SRBiH, 12 June 1990.

17 Archive of Bosnia–Hercegovina (uncatalogued), ‘Izvještaj o rezultatima javne diskusije o nacrtu amandmana na Ustav SR BiH’, Skupština SRBiH,10 July 1990.

18 Archive of Bosnia–Hercegovina (uncatalogued), ‘Predlog alternativnih rješenja za Predlog Zakona o izboru odbornika i poslanika u skupštine drušveno-političkih zajednica u slučaju da se amandmanima na Ustav SRBiH utvrdi dvodomna struktura Skupštine SR BiH’, Izvršno vijeće Skupštine SRBiH, July 1990.

19 Archive of Bosnia–Hercegovina (uncatalogued), ‘Predlog Zakona o izboru odbornika i poslanika u skupštine drušveno-političkih zajednica’, Izvršno vijeće Skupštine SRBiH, July 1990.

20 ‘U Srbiji počinje izborna trka’, Politika, 30 September 1990.

21 Izbori 1990. Konačni rezultati izbora za predsednika republike i narodne poslanike (Belgrade, Republički zavod za statistiku Srbije).

22 Particularly instructive are their meetings held on 10 January, 19 January, 21 March, 28 April, 7 June and 26 October (Jović 1996, pp. 88, 92, 124, 144, 152, 218). Jović’s diary was also used as evidence in the trial against Milošević at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

Additional information

Funding

The work for this article was supported by the ERC Starting [grant number 714589]; 10.13039/100010663 H2020 European Research Council.

Notes on contributors

Josip Glaurdić

Josip Glaurdić, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Luxembourg, 2, avenue de l’Université, Esch-sur-Alzette L-4365, Luxembourg. Email: [email protected]

Ensar Muharemović

Ensar Muharemović, Doctoral Candidate, University of Luxembourg, 2, avenue de l’Université, Esch-sur-Alzette L-4365, Luxembourg. Email: [email protected]