30043967

7/28/2019 30043967

1/27

University of Glasgow

Women in Post-Communist Politics: Explaining Under-Representation in the Hungarian andRomanian ParliamentsAuthor(s): Cristina ChivaReviewed work(s):Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 57, No. 7 (Nov., 2005), pp. 969-994

Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30043967 .

Accessed: 11/01/2013 01:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and University of Glasgow are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access toEurope-Asia Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:28:47 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30043967?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30043967?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

7/28/2019 30043967

2/27

EUROPE-ASIASTUDIES RoutledgeTaylorrancisroupVol. 57, No. 7, November 2005, 969-994

Women in Post-communist Politics:Explaining Under-representationn theHungarian and Romanian ParliamentsCRISTINA CHIVA

SINCE 1989 CENTRALAND EAST EUROPEANCOUNTRIEShave evolved into full-fledged procedural democracies characterised by universal suffrage, freedom ofexpression, freedom to form and join organisations, free and fair elections and theunrestricted right of citizens to run for office.' Yet different social groups have unequalaccess to political representation. In particular, women's under-representation inlegislative bodies is a systemic and pervasive feature of post-communist politicsthroughout Central and Eastern Europe.

This article examines women's parliamentary representation in post-communistHungary and Romania from a comparative perspective. Both countries consistentlyrank lowest among EU candidate and accession countries: Romania was in last placefor the first three post-communist elections, while Hungary ranked eighth after thefirst post-communist election, ninth after the third and tenth after the fourth election(Table 1). However, gender parity is not a feature of parliamentary representation inany other former communist country applying for EU membership in the 1990s. Afterthe first elections following the fall of state socialism, women's share of seats in thelower houses of the legislature ranged from 4.6% in Romania to 10% in the Czechlands and 15% in Latvia. More than a decade later, after the fourth post-communistelections, there was some improvement, but the gender gap remained significant:women constituted 9% of Hungarian MPs, 15% in the Slovak parliament and 21.9%of Latvian MPs.The aim of this article is to provide an explanation why women have been under-represented in the Hungarian and Romanian legislative bodies between 1990 and 2003.In doing so, the article engages critically with several main strands of scholarship onpost-communist Europe. On the one hand, the literature on transitions fromcommunism fails to examine shifts in gender relations.2 Scholars analysing thedevelopment of party systems in Central and Eastern Europe also tend to pay little orno attention to gender.3 Furthermore, few references to women are made in theliterature on post-communist parliaments.4 On the other hand, recent scholarship onwomen's representation in post-communist politics has begun to make systematicISSN 0966-8136 print; ISSN 1465-3427 online/05/070969-26 2005 University of GlasgowDOI: 10.1080/09668130500301410

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/28/2019 30043967

3/27

970 CRISTINA CHIVA

TABLE

1

WOMEN'S

REPRESENTATION

INTHEPOST-COMMUNIST

PARLIAMENTS

OFEUACCESSION

ANDCANDIDATE

COUNTRIES

(%OFSEATS

INTHE

LOWER

CHAMBER,

1990-2004)

Firstpost-communist

Secondpost-communist

Thirdpost-communist

Fourth

post-communist

Fifthpost-communist

Electoral

system

election

election

election

election

election

Bulgariad

Majoritarian

8.8

13.8

12.9

10.4

26.3

(firstelection),

PR(second-

fifthelection)

CzechRepublicd

PR

10.0

10.0

15.0

15.0

17.0

Estonia"

PR

5.7

12.9

17.8

18.8

Hungaryd

Mixed

7.2

11.1

8.2

9.0

Latviab

PR

15.0

9.0

17.0

21.0

Lithuaniaa

Mixed

7.1

17.5

10.6

21.9

Poland'

PR

13.5

9.1

13.0

13.0

20.2

Romaniad

PR

4.6

3.6

7.0

10.7

11.4

Slovakiad

PR

12.0

15.0

13.0

14.0

19.3

Sloveniaa

PRwith

13.3

7.8

13.3

12.2

individualonstituencies

Notes:"Thefirstpost-communist

election

tookplacein1992;bthefirstpost-communist

election

tookplacein1993;cThefirstsemi-competitive

election

inPoland

washeld

in1989;dThefirstpost-communist

election

wasorganised

in1990.

Sources:

Kathleen

A.Montgomery,

'Introduction',

inKathleen

A.Montgomery

&Richard

E.Matland

(eds),Women's

Access

toPolitical

PowerinPost-Communist

Europe

(Oxford,

Oxford

University

Press,2003),p.8;Inter-Parliamentary

Union,

www.ipu.org;

SarahBirch,Frances

Millard

etal.,Embodying

Democracy:

Electoral

System

Design

inPost-Communist

Europe

(Basingstoke,

Palgrave

Macmillan,

2002).


7/28/2019 30043967

4/27

WOMEN IN POST-COMMUNIST POLITICScomparisons between Central and East European states.5 This growing body ofresearch tends to adopt an institutionalist perspective, analysing the impact ofelectoralsystems, party ideology and recruitmentpracticeson women's opportunitiesto runfor politicaloffice.Of thesefactors,theeffectsof electoralsystemsareaddressedin the greatestdetail.6More recently,scholarssuch as Millardhave begun to look athow parties select their candidates, and at the impact of recruitmentstrategiesonwomen'srepresentationn parliament.7

Yet comparativeresearchexploringthe linksbetweenpartyideologyandpatternsofrepresentationfor women in Central and Eastern Europe remains scarce. Theprincipalargumentof thisarticle s that, as demonstratedby the casesof HungaryandRomania, ideological differencesbetween parties can provide a more consistentexplanationof why women have been under-representedn politics than the often-studieddimensionof electoralsystemeffects. In orderto develop this argument,thearticle is divided into three parts. First, I investigatethe wider context determiningwomen'sparticipationn post-communistpoliticsin the two countries.Threeprincipaldeterminingfactors shaping women's opportunitiesto take part in political life areidentified: state socialist legacies, the development of active civil societies andethnicity. Second, I examine Hungary'sand Romania's electoral systems, and theireffects on women's parliamentaryrepresentation.Finally, I consider the impact ofparty ideology on wo.men'srecruitment o parliamentaryoffice.Severalobservationsneed to be made in terms of methodology. The articlereliesprimarilyon original data obtained from various primarysources, such as nationalparliaments'databasesand officialpublicationsand reports.Thus, unless otherwiseindicated,all data have been computedand interpretedby the authorfor illustrativeand analytical purposes. Moreover, significant disparities exist between the twocountriesin terms of the data and researchavailable: Romania is considerablylessstudiedthanHungary,andnecessitateda largervolumeof primarydatacollectionandprocessing. Furthermore, sources in three languages-English, Romanian andHungarian-have been includedaccordingto relevance.

Women and political participation after state socialismWomen's participation in politics in Hungary and Romania in the aftermath ofcommunismhas been influencedby three backgroundfactors. First, the transitionfrom state socialism both institutionalisedthe low representationof women in thepublicrealmfroma veryearly stage of democratisationand constrainedpolicychoiceconcerninggenderrelations.Second,the emergenceof an activecivil societyprovidedboth women and men with new, informalforms of political involvementoutside theformal scope of local and national government.Third, differencesamong women,particularly hose betweenRoma and non-Roma women, led to the development ofdissimilarpatternsof representation n politics, so that virtuallyall women electedtolegislativeofficein the two countriesbelongedto the non-Roma ethnic groups.Hungary's 'negotiated revolution' and Romania's violent uprising against theCeausescu regimeshapedthe participationof women in post-communistpolitics. Onthe one hand, the fact that very few women actually took part at the top levels indecisionmakingon the configurationof a democraticpolitical systemcurtailed some

971


7/28/2019 30043967

5/27

CRISTINA CHIVAof their chances of participatingon an equal basis with men in the years to come.On the other hand, the emergence of multi-partysystems was underpinned by are-traditionalisationof political space through calls for a 'proper'role for womencomingfromnationalist, Christianand conservative ormations,as well as fromsomeof theirsocialist/socialdemocraticcounterparts.Within thiscontext, it is unsurprisingthat women's share in legislative bodies decreased spectacularlyafter 1989. InRomaniathe proportionof womenin the Grand National Assemblyhad been 33%in1985,8but it droppedto 4.67% in the Chamberof Deputiesand 0.84%in the Senateafter the first post-communistelection. In Hungary, the share of seats occupied bywomen in the National Assembly had been 20.7% in 1985, decreasing to 7.25% in1990(Table 2).

Furthermore,state socialist legacies also affectedthe policy environment of post-communist Hungaryand Romania. Two aspects of this issue merit some attention:quotas for political representationand the ways in whichcalls for women's 'return othe home' after 1989were shaped by state socialist policies. In Romania the policyoptions of introducing quotas and limitingaccess to contraceptionor abortionwereeffectively closed after the downfall of the Ceausescu regime. The leadership'sexcessivepro-natalism, ogether with the unpopularityof quotas,ensuredthat neitheraffirmativeaction nor restrictionson abortionand contraceptionhave been seriouslydiscussed by most post-communist political elites. The opposite holds true forHungary, where these policy paths remained open, largely due to the lack of asignificantnegativeexperience.Most partiesdo not supportquotas, with theexceptionof the communist successor formation, the Hungarian Socialist Party (MagyarSzocialista Part, MSZP),which championsthem in principle,though not in practice.Insofar as reproductiverights are concerned, the Hungarian Democratic Forum(Magyar Demokrata F6rum, MDF) and the Alliance of Young Democrats (FiatalDemokratak Szdvetsege, FIDESZ), which won the 1990 and 1998 electionsrespectively,were the principalnational-conservativeormationsto legislate restric-tions on access to abortion.Yet anotherfactoraffectingwomen'sopportunities or politicalengagementwas theemergenceof active civil societies.However,the actual extent of such participation svery difficult o gauge, for two main reasons.First, thereare significantvariationsinthe estimatednumber of women's organisations.In Hungary,accordingto Fabian'sestimate, there were around 40 organisations active on women's issues in 2001.9Accordingto Gazsi et al., their numberwas closer to 350.10In Romania, the NGOCataloguepublishedby the Soros Foundation for an Open Society in 1994listed 25groups dedicated to women's interests, while the United Nations DevelopmentProgrammeestimated their number at around 50 in 1996.11The Women's NGOsGuide published by the Society for FeministAnalysesAnA in 2000 recorded73 suchorganisations.12 econd,the shareof women'sorganisationswithincivil society is alsounclear.Accordingto some estimates,in 1990therewere more than 13,000NGOs inHungary, growing to over 39,000 in 1993,13and to 47,000 in 1998.14In Romania,estimates of the non-governmental sector placed the number of NGOs atapproximately12,000in 1996,15while the 1998 Public OpinionBarometerestimatedthat the rate of association in NGOs amountedto 11%of the population aged over18.16Nevertheless, these limited data do indicate that women's representation n

972


7/28/2019 30043967

6/27

WOMEN IN POST-COMMUNISTPOLITICS 973

TABLE

2

WOMEN

ELECTED

TOPOST-COMMUNIST

PARLIAMENTS,

HUNGARY

ANDROMANIA

(1990-2003)

Firstpost-communist

Second

post-communist

Thirdpost-communist

Fourth

post-communist

parliament

parliament

parliament

parliament

Women

Seats

%women

Women

Seats

%women

Women

Seats

%women

Women

Seats

%women

Hungarian

Parliament

28

386

7.25

43

386

11.14

32

386

8.29

35

386

9.07

Romanian

Chamber

18

385

4.67

12

328

3.65

23

328

7.01

35

327

10.70

ofDeputiesRomanian

Senate

1

119

0.84

3

143

2.10

2

143

1.40

10

140

7.14

Note:Post-communist

legislatures

inHungary:

1990-94

(first),1994-98

(second),

1998-2002(third)2002-present

(fourth);

inRomania:

1990-92

(first),1992-96

(second),

1996-2000

(third),

2000-04

(fourth).

InRomania,

the1990-92

Chamber

ofDeputies

wascalledtheAssembly

ofDeputies.

Sources:

Database

oftheHungarian

National

Assembly,

www.mkogy.hu;

Monitorul

OficialalRomaniei,

Nos.85-86,

20June1990,No.268,30October

1992,No.316,29

November

1996,No.287,13November

1996,No.634,6 ecember

2000andNo.664,15December

2000;website

oftheRomanian

Chamber

ofDeputies,

www.cdep.ro,

and

Senate,

www.senat.ro.


7/28/2019 30043967

7/27

CRISTINA CHIVAleadershippositions in civil society organisations s low. Accordingto the RomanianNational Commissionfor Statistics,women constituted11%of NGO presidentsand32.9% of directors, vice-presidents and co-ordinators in 1999.17 In Hungary, thebooklet publishedby the Human Rights Informationand DocumentationCentrein1998 listed 103 men and only 53 women among the key figures of human rightsNGOs.18Thus,women'sunder-representationn civil societyparallels hatmanifest nnationalparliaments.

Differencesbetween women's organisationsalso shed light on the ways in whichwomen participate n the political arena.19A wide varietyof associationshave beenestablished,suchas professionalwomen'sorganisations,Roma women'sassociations,gay and lesbiangroups,as well as associationsprimarily oncernedwithissuessuchasviolence againstwomen, women'shealth, traffickingn women or prostitution. Somewere establishedwith the resourcesof the formercommunistwomen's organisations,while others are new, grassroots associations.20These organisations can also beclassifiedaccordingto their agendas.21Some are primarilyconcernedwith women'spracticalgender interests (such as providing free contraceptiveadvice and pills, orestablishing shelters for women victims of domestic violence), while others havedeclaredthemselvesto be explicitlyand unambiguouslyfeminist,pursuingwomen'sstrategic gender interests (such as better representationfor women in the publicpoliticalsphere,the adoption of non-discriminatoryegislationandpracticesby policymakers and employers, etc).22However, one cannot yet speak of a 'women's movement' in post-communistHungary and Romania. Rather, the existence of a wide range of loosely organisedgroupswith verydifferent ssue orientationsatteststo a twofold phenomenon.On theone hand, women's initiatives are flourishing in civil society, rather than in thegovernmental or legislative spheres. The gap between informal and formalparticipationhas graduallybeen widenedby politicalparties'relativelack of interestin promotingwomen or genderequality.On the other hand, the relativelymarginalstatus of women'sorganisationsvis-a-visthe governmentalsectorseverelyconstrainstheir impact on decision making. One principalcause of this is that linkages withgovernmental bodies remain scarce. In Romania the interaction between thegovernmentalandnon-governmental ectorsis not formalisedeitherat policy-makingor consultative evels. In Hungarythe Councilfor Women's Affairswas established n1999 and functioned until the 2002 election.23It comprised representativesof allministriesand of the primeminister,six members romnationalwomen'sassociations,three from NGOs working on women's issues and five academics studying genderrelations.24However,the lack of analysesor reportsconcerning ts activitiessuggeststhat it is likely to have had a limited formal impact on the developmentof equalopportunities egislationin Hungary.Ethnicityhas a crucial mpacton women'sparticipation n post-communistpoliticsin Hungaryand Romania.The ethniccomposition of the two countries'populationsdifferssubstantially:Romaniais considerablymoreethnicallydiverse,with as many as19 differentethnic groups, of which the largest, the two million-strong Hungarianminority,has been well representedn parliament.Hungary'sethnicminoritygroupsare considerablysmaller(althoughno less diverse),and a well-developed ocal self-governmentsystem has been set up for theirrepresentation.

974


7/28/2019 30043967

8/27

WOMEN IN POST-COMMUNIST POLITICSNevertheless,the two countriesare similarin that substantial nequalitiesbetweenthe Roma and the non-Roma populations are all-pervasive. n Hungaryin 1993only0.28% of Roma men and 0.19% of Roma women had a universitydegree,comparedwith 10.32%and 8.65% of the non-Roma population.25Moreover,5.94% of Romamen and 12.09%of Roma women had no education whatsoever,comparedwith thecorresponding0.23% and 0.33% of the non-Romapopulation.26 n Romania in 1998the situationwas largelysimilar:1.3%of Roma menand 0.6%of Roma womenhad auniversitydegree,while 14.5%of men and 23.1% of women within the Roma ethnicgroup had no education.27The disparitiesbetweenthe Roma and non-Roma groups

are also evident in the sphere of employment. In Hungary in 1993 only 16.3% ofRoma women and 28.8% of Roma men were employed, against 56.9% and 63%within the total population.28In Romania 46.8% of Roma men and women wereunemployedin 1992,and 40.7% were in this situationsix years later.29No Roma women, and only a handful of Roma men, have been elected toparliament.In Romania the Roma ethnic group has been allocated a seat in theChamberof Deputiessince 1990,togetherwith otherethnicminority groups(thiswasalways occupied by a man). In Hungary there is no separate provision for theparliamentary representationof ethnic minorities. However, Florian Farkas, theleader of the Roma organisationLungo Drom, won a seat on the FIDESZ list in2002.30In addition to structural nequalitiesbetweenthe Roma and the non-Romagroups widespread anti-Roma attitudes from other ethnic groups increase thedifficultiesencounteredby Roma women in terms of political participation.Instead,Roma women's participation is almost exclusively confined to civil societyassociations.In both countriesRoma women participate n their own organisations,also promotinggenderagendasin otherorganisationsdealingwith Roma issues.31 n2003 a region-wide nitiativewas establishedreunitingRoma women's organisationsacross Central and Eastern Europe.32With increased attention being paid byHungarian and Romanian governmentsto the situation of the Roma, it is possiblethat Roma women will be better represented n parliamentarypolitics in the (near)future.33In sum, state socialist legacies,informal participation n civil society organisationsand the interaction between gender and ethnicity constitute the overall politicalopportunity context circumscribing women's involvement in politics in post-communistHungary and Romania. Two other types of factors are discussedbelow:electoral systems and party ideologies.

The impactof electoralsystemsHungary'sparliamentarysystem emergedfrom the Roundtable negotiations in thesecondhalf of 1989.The legislative rameworkwas set out in the Constitutionadoptedthe same year, which amended the communist-erafundamental act. The system ischaracterisedby a strongparliament,which nominatesand elects both the presidentand the primeminister.The parliamentexertscontrol over the governmentand candismiss the primeministerthrougha constructivevote of no-confidence.Romania'ssemi-presidentialystem was formallyset out in the 1991Constitution.It providesfora directly elected president with extensive powers, such as nominating the prime

975


7/28/2019 30043967

9/27

CRISTINA CHIVAminister,submittingbills to parliamentand dissolvingparliament.The Constitutionwas amendedin 2003 at the initiativeof the rulingPSD (Partidul Social Democrat,Social Democratic Party). Although the party's initial plan was to switch to aparliamentary ystem,this failedto attractsufficient upport.The presidentcontinuesto be electedby popularvote, but can no longer dismissthe primeminister.34n bothcountriesthe under-representationf women in parliament s supplementedby theirmeagreshare of governmentalpositions since 1990. No woman has been elected asPresident of the Republic in either country. Nor have any women served as primeministerin Hungary'ssix post-communistcabinetsor Romania's seven governmentsbetween 1990 and 2003. Only six ministersout of a total of 86 ministerialposts inHungary'spost-communistgovernmentswerewomen. In Romania, only sevenpostswere occupied by women from an overalltotal of 147ministers.35In addition to theirverydifferentpoliticalsystems,HungaryandRomaniaalso havedissimilarelectoralsystems.Hungary'sverycomplexmixed systemwas agreedduringthe intensivenegotiations of the 1989 Roundtable.36The parliament s unicameral,with 386 seats drawnfrom the electoralsystem's threeprincipaltiers:single-memberdistricts,county PR lists with multi-memberdistricts,and a national 'compensatory'list (a multi-membernational constituencyfilled by the redistributionof remainingvotes from the firsttwo tiers).The number of SMD seats is fixedat 176,but variesinthe other two tiers:it rose from 120 seats in 1990 to 140 in 2002 in the county listsegment,and decreased rom 90 to 70 in the nationallist partduringthe sameperiod(Table3). Thereare 20 electoralunits (19 countiesand Budapest)for the PR segmentof the system. The electoral threshold was 4% in 1990 and was changed to 5% from1994. The Romanian parliamentis bicameral,consisting of an upper chamber(theSenate) and a lower chamber (the Chamber of Deputies), with almost identicalpowers.Thereare between 119and 143seats in the Senate,and 327 and 385 seats inthe Chamberof Deputies, with an additional 11-18 seats which are not electedbutreservedfor representativesof ethnic minority groups, one seat for each minority(Table 2). Romania's electoral system was first set up in 1990 by the ProvisionalCouncil for National Unity. It is based on proportionalrepresentation,with MPselected from multi-memberdistricts. In the 1990 election therewas no thresholdforentry nto parliament,andtherewere41 electoraldistricts 40countiesand Bucharest).The number of electoral districts grew to 42 from the 1992 election (one morecounty was addedto the list). In 1992the thresholdwas raisedto 3%, and in 2000 itwas increased once again to 5% for parties and to 10% for coalitions. This, asanticipated,resulted n a smallernumberof parties in parliament, rom 17 in 1990toseven in 2000.An extensiveliteratureon the impact of electoralsystemson women's representa-tion in theWesthasbeendevelopedduringthepast fewdecades.37This is muchless sowith Centraland EasternEurope, where relevant scholarship s still nascent.38Onereasonfor this state of affairs s the relative mmaturityof multi-partysystemsin theregion.Thisdifficultys compoundedby the fact that somecountries(suchas Albania,Bulgariaand Ukraine)changed their systemsafterthe firstpost-communistelections.In 2003 PR systems were widespread n EU accessionand candidate countries,withmixed systems the second most frequentlychosen option (Table 1). Nevertheless,existing literatureon the impact of electoral systems on women's representation n

976


7/28/2019 30043967

10/27

WOMEN IN POST-COMMUNISTPOLITICS 977

TABLE

3

WOMEN

MPSBYTYPE

OFELECTORAL

DISTRICT,

HUNGARIAN

NATIONAL

ASSEMBLY,

1990-2004

1990

1994

1998

2002

Typeofdistrict

Women

Seats

%women

Women

Seats

%women

Women

Seats

%women

Women

Seats

%women

Single-member

6

176

3.41

15

176

8.52

12

176

6.82

13

176

7.39

districtsCounty

list

8

120

6.66

17

125

13.60

13

128

10.16

16

140

11.43

National

list

14

90

15.55

11

85

12.94

7

82

8.54

6

70

8.57

Total

28

386

7.25

43

386

11.14

32

386

8.29

35

386

9.07

Source:

Database

oftheHungarian

National

Assembly,

www.mkogy.hu.


7/28/2019 30043967

11/27

CRISTINA CHIVApost-communist politics has been confronted with a puzzle. On the one hand, asMoser shows, whencomparingwomen'sperformanceEast and West, a dual paradoxbecomes apparent: women in post-communist states do marginallybetterin single-memberdistrictelectionsthantheircounterpartsn theWest,but 'theydo significantlyworse in PR elections'.39 On the other hand, there are significant contrastsamong Central and East European countries. According to Saxonberg, countrieswith single-memberdistrict(SMD) elections tend to have much lower proportions ofwomen in the parliament han those with PR systems.40At the sametime, he argues,there is hardly any differencebetween systems based on mixed and proportionalrepresentation.41Theseexpectationsare only partiallymet by the cases of Hungaryand Romania.Ifwe analysethe Hungariansystemby distinguishingbetweenthe majoritarianand thePR tiersand examiningthem separately, hen, while it is truethat fewerwomen havebeen elected from single-memberdistricts, their number has doubled since 1990(Table3). Moreover, Hungary'sPR tierhasperformednotablybetterthan Romania'sPR system,althoughit remainsfar behindWesternEurope.Additionally,Romanianelections have yielded much lower numbers of women MPs in the first and secondlegislaturesthan in Hungaryor most of the remainingCentraland East Europeancountries,and the gap has narrowedonly since 1996.Insofaras the SMD tierof the Hungarianelectoralsystemis concerned, he numberof women MPs it generatedsince 1990has more than doubled,from six in 1990to 13in 2002 (Table 3). Overall,one third of all women elected to parliamentsince 1990camefromthis tier. One possible explanationfor this outcome is that, as womenhavebecome more experienced as MPs, their parties have begun to place them ascandidatesfor seats that are more difficultto win. Yet this idea is not supportedbyexistingdata for threemainreasons.First, not all partiesarewillingto placewomeninwinnable positions in single-memberdistricts. All women MPs elected for SZDSZ(SzabadDemokratakSzdvetsege,Allianceof Free Democrats)since 1990have comefrom county and national lists, while only one of eight women elected for FKGP(Figgetlen KisgazdaPart,IndependentSmallholders'Party)camefrom an individualconstituency.The MSZP has had 30 of its 64 women MPs since 1990 elected fromSMDs, but one electionis responsible or half of these(15 womenin 1994).MDF hadvery similarnumbersof women elected from national (six), county (five) and SMDseats(six).As for FIDESZ, it tendsto avoid the nationallist (one womanelectedsince1990came from this tier) and prefersthe county list (13 of its 22 women MPs camefrom this segment).Second,as Montgomery& Ilonszkiargue,it is difficultfor partygatekeepers o predictwhichseatsare winnable,due to the complexityof the electoralsystem, as well as to the practice of dual and sometimestriple listings, which placecandidates n morethanone componentof the system.42Third,the SMD segmenthasbeen constantlyoutperformedby the PR tier,whichgenerated he highestpercentageof womenMPs, so that any increases n the numberof womencomingfromthe SMDtier need to be seen againstthis background.Whenwe turn to the PR segmentof the electoralsystem, it becomesapparentthatits two components (the county and the national list) exhibit opposite tendenciesacross the four post-communistelections. The number of women elected from thecounty list has doubledsince 1990,whilethatcomingfromthe nationallist has halved

978


7/28/2019 30043967

12/27

WOMEN IN POST-COMMUNIST POLITICS(Table 3). In the 1990election, the fact that 50% of all women electedto parliamentcame from the national list suggested that party leaders preferred to use this'compensatory'methodto promotewomen.However,as in othercountriesof Centraland EasternEurope,the foundingelectionwas exceptional.Since then, more womenhavegraduallybeenelectedfromthe county list segment.Nevertheless,sinceincreasesin county list seats overall were compensated by decreases in national list seats,women'sshareof seatsin the National Assemblyhas not actuallygrownsignificantly:it was 7.25% in 1990, 11.14%in 1994, 8.29% in 1998and 9.07% in 2002. Besidetheabove-mentioneddifficultiesassociatedwith foreseeing which seats are winnable,thecounty list segment generatesunder-representation f womenowingto its tendencytoyieldsmallpartymagnitudes.Thus,as Montgomery& Ilonszkishow,a full 70%of allparty delegationsfrom the county list numberedthree or less across the first threepost-communistelections.43This meansthat fewerwomen get electedbecause,underconditionsof uncertainty,partiesprefer o perpetuate he (male) nationalleadership.44When we compare Hungary's PR tier and Romania's PR system it becomesmanifest that the latteryieldedsignificantlyower numbersof women MPs in the firsttwo sets of post-communistelections than the former,but tendedto catchup afterthethird and fourth elections (Table 4). In 1990 4.67% of MPs elected in the lowerchamberwerewomen, and only 3.65% in 1992.The situation in the upperchamberwas worse:0.82%of senatorswerewomenin 1990,risingto a paltry2.10%in 1992.45The fact that 7.01% of MPs electedto the Chamberof Deputiesin 1996were womenrepresentsa majorincrease(althoughwomen in the Senatecontinuedto be scarceat1.40%in the same year). In 2000 the numberof women in parliamentcontinuedtogrow, with 10.70% women MPs in the lower chamber and a relatively high, bypreviousstandards,7.14% in the upperchamber(Table2).

Yet only in the fourth post-communistChamberof Deputies did Romania's PRsystemyield a higher percentageof women than Hungary's mixed system.As in theHungarian case, part of the explanation rests with party magnitudes. Again, thefoundingelectionof 1990was exceptional.The sweepingvictoryof the FSN (FrontulSalvariiNationale, National Salvation Front, which won 68.31% of the contestedseats in the Chamberof Deputies and 76.47% in the Senate) generatedvery highmagnitudes for the winning party and exceptionally low magnitudes for all otherformations.This ensuredthat all 13womenelectedfromthe FSN came fromdistrictswith a party magnitudeof four or higher, and all five women from the oppositioncame from the single seat won by their party in severaldistricts.From the secondelectiononwards,overallpartymagnitudedroppeddramatically, o that 71%of partydelegations in 1992 had between one and three members,with the correspondingproportions for 1996 and 2000 standing at 84% and 63% respectively.Differencesbetween partiesalso needto be takeninto account.On the one hand, PDSR (PartidulDemocratiei Sociale din Romania, Romanian Party of Social Democracy, thecommunist successor party), which constantly had the highest number of womenamong all political parties, tends to draw its women from districts with a partymagnitudeof four or higher.This occurred n the 1992election,when all femaleMPsfromFDSN (FrontulDemocratal SalvariiNationale, DemocraticNational SalvationFront, as PDSR wascalled at the time)werefromsuchdistricts,andfor 2000,when 11out of 14 womenwereelectedin this way. The notableexception is 1996,whenPDSR

979


7/28/2019 30043967

13/27

980 CRISTINA CHIVA

TABLE

4

WOMEN

INTHEROMANIAN

CHAMBER

OFDEPUTIES

(BYPOLITICAL

PARTY,

1990-2004)

1990

1992

1996

2000

Party

Women

Seats

%women

Women

Seats

%women

Women

Seats

%women

Women

Seats

%women

FSN/PDSR

13

263

4.94

6

117

5.13

8

91

8.79

14

141

9.93

PUR

-

-

-

-

3

6

50.0

PSDR

0

2

0.0

1

10

10.0

1

10

10.0

2

8

25.0

PD

-

2

43

4.65

3

43

6.98

2

31

6.45

PNL

2

29

6.90

1

11

9.09

1

25

4.0

1

30

3.33

PNT-cd

0

12

0.0

1

41

2.44

6

83

7.23

PNL-CD

-

0

3

0.0

0

5

0.0

PAC

-

-

0

13

0.0

PER

2

8

25.0

0

4

0.0

0

5

0.0

PAR

-

-

-

-

-

0

3

0.0

FER

-

-

0

1

0.0

CDR

-

-

3

82

3.66

7

122

5.74

UDMR

0

29

0.0

0

27

0.0

1

25

4.0

2

27

7.41

PUNR

0

9

0.0

0

30

0.0

0

18

0.0

PRM

-

-

-

1

16

6.25

3

19

15.79

11

84

13.09

MER

1

12

8.33

PDAR

0

9

0.0

PSocDem

0

5

0.0

PSM

-

0

13

0.0

Others

0

7

Totalcontested

seats

18

385

4.67

12

328

3.65

23

328

7.01

35

327

10.70

Seatsreserved

forminorities

0

11

0.0

1

13

7.69

2

15

13.33

3

18

16.6

Total

18

396

4.54

13

341

3.81

25

343

7.29

38

345

11.01

Notes:FSNsplitin1992intotwofactions,

PDandFDSN(laterrenamed

PDSR).

In1992theDemocratic

Convention

(CDR)

comprised

thefollowing

formations:

PNT-cd,

PAC,PNL-AT,

PSDR,

PERandPNL-CD

(thus,PNLin1992wasPNL-AT).

In1996thecoalition

wasformedbyPNT-cd,

PNL,PNL-CD,

PER,PARandFER.Alsoin

1996,PDandPSDRcandidates

ranonjointlistsunderthenameUniuneaSocial-Democrata.

Inthe2000election

PDSR,

PURandPSDRranjointcandidate

lists.In2001,

PDSRandPSDRmerged,

adopting

thenamePartidul

SocialDemocrat.

Sources:

Monitorul

OficialalRomaniei,

Nos.85-6,

20June1990,No.268,30October



1996,No.634,6 ecember

2000andNo.664.15December

2000.


7/28/2019 30043967

14/27

WOMEN IN POST-COMMUNIST POLITICSlost the election, and six out of its eight women MPs entered parliament in delegationsnumbering one to three. However, it bears repetition that party magnitude wasexceptionally low in that election, and 19 of 23 women winning contested seats in thelower chamber came from districts with party magnitudes of between one and three.46On the other hand, parties such as PNL (Partidul National Liberal, National LiberalParty), PNT-cd (Partidul National Taranesc Crestin Democrat, National ChristianDemocratic Peasant Party), PSDR (Partidul Social Democrat din Romania,Romanian Social Democratic Party) and PD (Partidul Democrat, Democratic Party)elect women MPs from districts with significantly lower party magnitudes than PDSR.This is partially why they have relatively fewer women MPs: in 1992 these parties hada total of five women deputies, while PDSR had six; in 1996, although CDR(Conventia Democrata Romana, Romanian Democratic Convention) won theelection, it had only seven women among all its parties in the Chamber of Deputies,47compared with eight PDSR women MPs. An unusual case is that of the PRM(Partidul Romania Mare, Greater Romania Party), an ultranationalist formationwhich registered an unprecedented success in the 2000 election, winning 84 seats, ofwhich 11 (13%) were occupied by women. Its overall magnitude was somewhat low,between one and three (with the exception of Bucharest, where it had seven seats). Thisseems to indicate the party's willingness to promote women. However, since theparty's success was unanticipated by either the media or the general public, the highproportion of women is likely to be accidental: the party was simply not anticipatingwinning as many seats as it eventually did, so the positions in which women candidateswere placed were considered ornamental.

In conclusion, the electoral system can provide only a partial explanation whywomen have been under-represented in the Hungarian and Romanian parliamentssince 1990. First, the complex dynamic of Hungary's electoral system makes it difficultfor opportunities for balancing the ticket to be realised in practice, since partygatekeepers are largely unable to predict which seats are actually winnable. Second, anexplanation concentrating on electoral systems cannot fully account for the differencesin gender representation created by Romania's PR system and Hungary's PR tierrespectively: why has the number of women in the Romanian parliament steadilygrown since 1990, but county and national tiers in Hungary have yielded considerablyslower rates of numerical growth, and occasional decreases (as in 1998 vis-a-vis 1994)?Conversely, why has the number of women elected in the majoritarian tier doubledfrom the first to the fourth post-communist election in Hungary? The Romanian case,as discussed above, provides an indication in need of exploration: ideologicaldifferences, such as those between PDSR and other parties, may take us some waytowards an explanation.

Party ideology and the promotion of womenIn Hungary the development of a multi-party system before the official collapse of theregime facilitated the establishment of democratic institutions through bargainingbetween parties that became influential players in post-communist politics. InRomania liberalisation and the emergence of a multitude of parties on the politicalscene was possible only after the collapse of state socialism. This difference explains, to

981


7/28/2019 30043967

15/27

CRISTINA CHIVAsome extent, the higher degree of fragmentation and instability characterisingRomania'sparty system.This is illustratedby the effectivenumberof parliamentaryparties n the two countriessince 1990.48 n Hungarythis numberdecreased rom 4.31in 1990to 3.73 in 1994,3.07 in 1998and 2.11 in 2002, indicating he developmentof astable party system with two major players (MSZP and FIDESZ) and two minorplayers(MDF and SZDSZ). By comparison,Romaniastartedthe transitionwith theeffectivenumberof partiesin the Chamberof Deputies standingat 6.64 in 1990,thendecreasing to 4.42 in 1992, 3.94 in 1996 and 3.17 in 2000. Party fragmentationnotwithstanding,two principal factors are shown here to have had an impact onwomen's recruitment o parliament: heir positions within the top party leaderships,and party ideology.Most parties in Hungary and Romania failed to place women in positions ofsignificantauthority. None of the post-communistparties, bar one, has chosen awoman as its president.The exceptionis MDF, chairedby a woman, Ibolya David,since 1999. The situation at the level of vice-presidencys also dismal. In Hungary,from 1990 until 1998, three of the MSZP 13 vice-presidentswere women, with thecorrespondingfigures for MDF being two women out of 21 vice-presidents,forFIDESZ one out of 15 and for KDNP two out of 24.49In Romania, PDSR has thebest recordso far: from 1992,when it was formed,until 2001, when it mergedwithPSDR, two of its vice-presidents numberingbetweensix and 13)have beenwomen.50In the case of other parties, the numberof womenwithinthe leadershipseemsto varyin inverseproportionto the party's success:PNT-cd elected one woman among itsvice-presidents only in 2001, when it had joined the ranks of non-parliamentaryformations.PNL (with30 deputiesand 13 senators n 2000)electedone womanamongthe members of its executivebureau,but none in higherpositions. The same is validfor PRM, whichhas one womanamongits fiveexecutivesecretaries.None of the otherparties(UDMR, PD, or PUNR) has had any women among its leadership.Parties'unwillingness o recruitmorewomen to the top positionsmay be explainedat leastpartiallyby partyleaders'beliefthat the electoratewouldnot vote for women.Indeed, Wilcox, Stark & Thomas find that patriarchalattitudes about men's andwomen'srolescan influencethe genderdistributionof politicalpower in Central andEasternEurope,but that therearedifferencesbetweenformercommunistcountries.51Of particularnterest s their finding,basedon an analysisof the World ValuesSurveyof 1991-93, that both men and women in Hungary and Romania are stronglysupportiveof the women's movement.52However, the puzzle of seeminglystrongersupport for the women's movement in post-communist Europe than in WesternEurope prompts the authors to conjecture that the very meaning of 'women'smovement'varies across regions, so that many respondentsin Centraland EasternEuropedo not necessarily quate'women'smovement'withan emancipation-orientedor feminist agenda.Moreover,two-fifthsof both male and femalerespondents o thesurveyagreedthat, whenjobs were scarce,men should have priorityover women.53Therefore,the picture is somewhat more complex than the hypothesis formulatedabove, with currentscholarshipunableto providea definiteansweras to how exactlypatriarchal attitudes affect women's political recruitment. Results of a surveyconducted in Romania in 2000 reinforce this uncertainty.54When asked whetherthey preferred o elect a man or a woman as MP, 46% of respondentssaid that they

982


7/28/2019 30043967

16/27

WOMEN IN POST-COMMUNIST POLITICSwould electa man, 3% said theywouldelecta woman, but 51%answered hat genderdid not matter.55However, when askedwhom they would vote for as president,73%preferreda man, with only 24% saying that gender was not important.56Theseanswers suggest a complex situation, with various public positions being assigneddifferentcharacteristicswithrespectto gender.Paradoxically,n a surveyconducted n2003 in Romania, 58% of respondentsagreedthat therewere too few and/or far toofew women in Romanianpolitics and 74% deemedthat women should receivemoresupportin orderto participate n Romanian political life.57Another crucial factor affecting women's recruitment and performance inparliament s partyideology. In orderto assess the record of post-communistpartiesin thisarea,it is usefulto distinguishbetweenfiveprincipal ypesof party according otheir ideology:A. Socialist/social democratic parties: (Al) communist successor parties: MSZP(Hungary),PDSR (Romania);(A2) 'old' ('historical') arties (dismantledby the

communistsand re-established n the late 1980s/early1990s):PSDR (Romania);(A3) 'new'social democratic arties establishedafterthe fall of communism:PD(Romania).B. Conservative/Christian democratic parties: (Bi) 'historical' formations: FKGP,

KDNP (Hungary),PNT-cd (Romania);(B2) 'new'parties:MDF, FIDESZ from1995(Hungary).

C. Liberal parties: (Cl) of the 'old' type: PNL, PNL-CD (Romania); (C2) 'new'parties:SZDSZ, FIDESZ until 1995(Hungary).D. Ultranationalistormations:MIEP (Hungary),PUNR and PRM (Romania) (allwereestablishedafter 1989).

E. Parties representing ethnic minority groups: UDMR (Romania), founded after thecollapseof communism.As shown in this brief outline, post-communistparties in Hungaryand Romaniacan be groupedalongthe samedimensions,with one exception:Romania'sHungarianminorityhas usuallybeen representedby UDMR (whichwon around7% of contestedseats in all post-1989 elections). This classification suggests several crucialcharacteristicsof party systems in Hungary and Romania. First, all Christiandemocraticand liberalpartiesin Romania are 'historical'parties,re-establishedafterthe fall of communism.By contrast,in Hungarythese types of partiesareboth 'new'(FIDESZ, MDF and SZDSZ) and 'old' (FKGP, KDNP). Moreover,the 'historical'componenthas graduallydisappeared rom parliament KDNP won no seats in 1998and FKGP the same in 2002), so that only the 'new' components seem to have achanceof surviving Table5). Interestingly,f we examinethe numberof women MPs

resultingfrom the firstthreepost-communistelections,whenhistoricalpartiesgainedseats in parliament, it becomes apparent that these formations had the lowestproportionof women among all parties.In Hungary,9.71% of women electedto theNational Assembly in 1990, 1994 and 1998 came from FKGP and KDNP. InRomania, 'historical'parties (PNT-cd, PNL, PSDR and PNL-CD) were responsiblefor 24.53%of women deputieselectedin 1990, 1992and 1996. Overthe sameperiod,communistsuccessor partiesaccountedfor 39.81% of women MPs in Hungaryand

983


7/28/2019 30043967

17/27

984 CRISTINA CHIVA

TABLE

5

WOMEN

INTHEHUNGARIAN

PARLIAMENT

(BYPOLITICAL

PARTY,

1990-2004)

1990

1994

1998

2002

Party

Women

Seats

%women

Women

Seats

%women

Women

Seats

%women

Women

Seats

%women

MSZP

5

33

15.15

22

209

10.53

14

134

10.45

23

178

12.92

MDF

8

164

4.88

6

38

15.79

1

17

5.88

1

24

4.16

FIDESZ

2

21

9.52

1

20

5.00

10

148

6.76

9

164

5.49

SZDSZ

8

92

8.69

11

69

15.94

3

24

12.50

2

19

10.53

FKGP

3

44

6.82

2

26

7.69

3

48

8.33

KDNP

1

21

4.76

1

22

4.54

MIEP

-

-

-

1

14

7.14

ASZ

0

1

0.0

0

1

0.0

Independent

1

6

16.66

-

-

-

0

1

0.0

Jointcandidatesa

0

4

0.0

0

1

0.0

-

0

1

0.0

Total

28

386

7.25

43

386

11.14

32

386

8.29

35

386

9.07

Note:aJointcandidates

for1990:KDNP+

FIDESZ+SZDSZ,

FIDESZ+

SZDSZ,

SZDSZ+

FIDESZ

andASZ+Federation

ofRuralCommunities;

for1994:

VP+FIDESZ

+SZDSZ

+ASZ;for2002:MSZP+SZDSZ.

In1998,FIDESZ

andMDFranaointlistofcandidates

whichyielded

50seats(35forFIDESZ,

15forMDF).

Sources:

Database

oftheHungarian

National

Assembly,

www.mkogy.hu;

anddatabase

oftheProject

onPolitical

Transformation

andtheElectoral

Process

inPost-

Communist

Europe,

www.essex.ac.uk/elections.


7/28/2019 30043967

18/27

WOMEN IN POST-COMMUNIST POLITICS50.94%in Romania. Thus it is possible to suggest that party originsmay also havehad an impacton women's representation.Second,there are a fewmore social-democraticparties n Romania,withPDSR, PDand PSDR competing for the same electorate.Third, the ultranationalistshave hadconsiderably ess successin Hungarythan in Romania:MIEP only managedto gainparliamentary epresentation n 1998-2002, while PUNR had MPs in the first threepost-communist legislaturesand PRM in the last three, making up a substantialproportion of seats. Fourth, Hungary'sparty systemis much more clearlypolarisedideologically, and the four sets of elections held since 1990 produced a successionof conservative-Christian democratic (1990), socialist-liberal (1994), national-conservative (1998) and socialist-liberal (2002) coalitions. By contrast, Romania'sparty system was characterisedby one-partydominance,namely that of the PDSR,which won three of the four post-communistelections. Fifth, the complex dynamicscharacterisinghe relationshipbetweenthe variousparties comprising he CDR meanthat caution should be exercisedwhen assessingeach party'sperformance.

Parties' record on promoting women varies with ideological orientation in bothHungaryand Romania.Thus it is worth examiningeach group of partiesin turn.

The Socialists/SocialDemocratsFrom this group, the communistsuccessorpartieshave selectedthe highest numberof women MPs:46.38%of all women electedin the Hungarianparliamentsince 1990were from MSZP, and 43.61% of all women elected in the Romanian Chamberof Deputies, as well as 50% of women senators, were from FSN/PDSR.58 Sinceboth partieshave adopted a social-democraticapproach,it is possible to conjecturethat, as in Western Europe, this ideology correlates with more openness towardswomen. This is corroborated by the two smaller social-democraticparties fromRomania (PD and PSDR): together,they account for another 11.70%of all womenelected in the three most recent legislatures. Indeed, the record of communistsuccessor parties remains unparalleledby any other formations. The explanationrests with three principal factors. First, the higher percentage of women amongPDSR and MSZP MPs is at least partlydue to theirelectoralsuccessesin threeandtwo post-communist elections respectively: he more seats these parties gained, themore likely it was that women would be elected in greaternumbers. Second, theseparties' roots in the formercommunistsystemmay have played a role in theirmorewomen-friendlyperformance. nsofar as MSZPis concerned, his is undoubtedlyso: itis the only partysupportingaffirmativeaction for women, at least in principle.This isbest seen as a consequence of MSZP'sformercommunistcredentials,which includeda well-articulated (Marxist-Leninist) gender policy. The case of the PDSR issomewhat more complicated, because it was never openly a communist successorparty. Since its beginningsas FSN, it has portrayeditself as originatingin the 1989uprisingagainst Ceausescu, largely avoiding an emphasis on the close connectionsthat many of its leading personalities had with the defunct communist regime.Moreover, its development as a social-democraticparty has been less than clear:itsdoctrinehas been formulatedexplicitly n these termsonly recently,when a youngerleadershipinstalled themselvesat the helm and the party was grantedmembership

985


7/28/2019 30043967

19/27

CRISTINA CHIVAstatus in the Socialist International (in 2003, after the merger between PSDR andPDSR).

Third, both MSZP and PDSR/PSD have been considerably more inclined thanother parties to promote legislation in the field of equal opportunities. In 2002 thePSD-led government initiated the adoption of an Act on Equal Opportunities, whichprohibits discrimination against women in employment, as well as sexual harass-ment.59 PSD was following in the footsteps of the previous CDR government (1996-2000), which had passed an Ordinance banning all forms of discrimination and hadadopted a 'National Plan of Action' on equality of opportunity in 2000.60 In Hungarythe MSZP-led government elected in 2002 pressed for the adoption of a comprehensiveanti-discrimination law. By contrast to Romania, the previous governmental coalitionhad been less concerned with such legislation: three anti-discrimination bills had beensubmitted to parliament in 2000-01, under the FIDESZ-led administration, but nonehad been adopted.61 The MSZP/SZDSZ-sponsored Act on Equal Treatment and thePromotion of Equal Opportunities was adopted by Parliament in December 2003 andcame into force in January 2004.62 Beside domestic factors related to party ideology,international considerations also played a role in the adoption of such legislation inboth countries: the imminent accession of Hungary to the EU accelerated the processof harmonisation with EU law, while criticisms made in the European Commission'sregular reports on Romania's gender policy were the main incentive for the adoptionof such legislation.

The Conservatives and Christian DemocratsThese can be divided into two distinct subgroups: the 'old', 'historical' parties (FKGPand KDNP in Hungary, PNT-cd in Romania), and the 'new' parties established inHungary (MDF and FIDESZ). Thus, an agglomeration of conservative formationscan be found in Hungary, counterbalancing Romania's social-democratic boom. The'historical' subgroup in Hungary has significantly lower percentages of women amongits MPs than the 'new' parties. KDNP had only two women in the first two post-communist parliaments (4.65% of the total number of women for those twolegislatures), while FKGP had 6.78% women across the three legislatures when itgained seats in parliament (Table 5). In Romania, PNT-cd had seven women amongits MPs in the first three post-communist parliaments where it won seats (Table 4). Bycontrast, 11.59% of all women MPs since 1990 were from MDF, and 15.94% werefrom FIDESZ. However, this seems to be closely linked to electoral performance: bothMDF and FIDESZ had the highest shares of women when they had high percentagesof the vote. Eight of MDF's total of 16 women across the four legislatures were electedin 1990, when the party had 164 seats. Owing to the significant decrease in the numberof MDF seats, only one woman (Ibolya David, the MDF president since 1999)belonged to its parliamentary group after 1998. Indeed, as Montgomery & Ilonszkifound, MDF's 'rightist ideology and close current association with FIDESZ mitigateagainst a more profound commitment to women's legislative recruitment'.63 The caseof FIDESZ is somewhat more complex, because it originally ran in the 1990 and 1994elections with a liberal manifesto. In 1995 it initiated a major programmatictransformation, re-inventing itself as a national-conservative formation.64 FIDESZ

986


7/28/2019 30043967

20/27

WOMEN IN POST-COMMUNIST POLITICSwent on to win the 1998 election, and very narrowly missed repeating this achievementin 2002. It had ten women MPs in 1998 (when it had 148 seats) and nine in 2002 (whenit won 164 seats). Additionally, ideological transformation brought about an actualdecrease in the proportion of women within the parliamentary party, from 6.76% in1998 to 5.49% in 2002. According to Montgomery & Ilonszki, FIDESZ tends toreserve most winnable places for the male national leadership and 'has never seriouslyentertained the notion of a gender-based quota for recruitment'.65

The case of PNT-cd sheds light upon some of the most important aspects ofRomanian post-communist political life. This formation, re-established in 1989 byseveral PNT-cd members and leaders of the inter-war period, enjoyed little popularityduring the first years of the transition. In 1992, when it founded the DemocraticConvention (CDR), together with other parties and civic organisations, its fortuneschanged, and CDR won the local elections in most major cities. In 1996, when CDRwon the general election, PNT-cd became the dominant partner in the coalition, andRomania's second post-communist president, Emil Constantinescu, was drawn fromits ranks. Insofar as its gender policy is concerned, the party is likely to have beenmore conservative, were it not for the legacy of the communist regime. Thus, PNT-cd'sChristian-Democratic credentials meant that it supported restrictions on abortionand contraception. One of its MPs initiated such a bill in 1996, but the motion wasrejected by parliament. This was due, to a large extent, to the anticipated unpopularityof such legislation, which would have reminded many of the extremely repressiveapproach of the Ceausescu regime. PNT-cd's stance on gender relations prompted it torecruit few women-a total of seven of its MPs, or 7.45% of all women obtainingmandates over the first three legislatures. Within this context, it is possible to suggestthat the eventual adoption of an ordinance on equal opportunities owes more toexternal pressure from European institutions than to PNT-cd's commitment to genderequality.

The political consensus surrounding the availability of contraception and abortionin Romania makes it difficult to assess party positions on gender relations, becausecommunist legacies precluded the option of outright opposition to reproductive rights.This is not the case in Hungary, where conservative parties rejected, from the veryoutset, the approach of the Kidar regime towards reproductive rights.66 Legislationpassed by MDF and its coalition partners in 1992 made abortion available to womenwho found themselves in a 'grave crisis situation'.67 The FIDESZ administrationamended the bill in 2000. A woman who requests an abortion is compelled to meet arepresentative of the Family Protection Services who would inform her of state aid andpolicies available should she change her mind about having an abortion. Competitivepolitics in Hungary is sharply divided between the conservatives' stance on this issueand the socialist perspective, which does not necessarily endorse such restrictions.However, the socialists' unwillingness to change the status quo casts a shadow overtheir general commitment to promoting women.

The LiberalsWhile the Romanian liberal party (PNL) was resuscitated by former membersreturning from exile in 1989, Hungary's SZDSZ was formed in the late 1980s under

987


7/28/2019 30043967

21/27

CRISTINA CHIVAcircumstances of relative liberalisation. Around the same time, FIDESZ wasestablishedas a liberalparty,but subsequentlychanged its programmaticorientation.All three parties were small (with the exception of the 1990 and 1994 elections inHungary,when SZDSZwon 92 and 69 seats, respectively).Theirrecord on recruitingwomen varies from one party to another and from one election to another. PNL,whichhas splitand then reunified everaltimessince 1990(PNL-CD in Table4 is oneof its splinters),found it difficultto maintain organisationalcoherencein the firstdecade of the transition.This may also have affectedits recruitmentof women:only5.32% of all women elected to the Chamber of Deputies came from PNL. Thepercentageof women among its MPs seems to be decreasing, rom 6.90% in 1990to3.33% in 2000. FIDESZ as a liberal party exhibited similar characteristics: it electedonly threewomen MPs in 1990and 1994. However,it is SZDSZ which has the bestrecordso far: 17.39% of its MPs overthe four legislatureswerewomen.However,theshare of women among its MPs has been decreasing from 15.94% in 1994 to 10.53%in 2002. Thus, as expected, liberal parties are characterised,at most, by mildenthusiasmfor promotingwomen in parliament.The UltranationalistsThis group has had much less success in Hungarianpost-communistpolitics than inRomania. MIEP (Magyar Igazsag es Elet Partja-Party of HungarianJustice andLife) split from MDF in the early 1990s,reorganised tself and won 14 seats in the1998 election. Its impact on politics has been primarilydeterminedby its extra-parliamentaryposition, so that it has yet to achievean importantrole. Furthermore,some of the wind has been taken out of its sails by FIDESZ's emphasison nationalidentity in recent years. Its promotion of women seems negligible:only one of its14 MPs in 1998was a woman. By contrast, Romania, owing to its somewhat differ-ent ethnic configuration,has had two ultranationalistparties.Both parties mounteda stridentdefenceof the 'national interests' of the ethnicallyRomanianpopulation,and both were successful in obtaining seats in parliament.The first such party,PUNR (PartidulUnitatii Nationale Romane, Party of Romanian National Unity)won nineseatsin 1990, 30 in 1992and 18in 1996 n the Chamberof Deputies.None ofthese positions was occupied by a woman, neither in the lower nor in the upperchamber. In 1998 its leader defected to the other ultranationalistformation, PRM(PartidulRomania Mare, Great Romania Party). In the 2000 election PUNR failedto win any seats. At the same time, PRM improved its performance,becoming thesecond largest party in the Parliament. Its share of women MPs has also grownproportionallywith the numberof seats, from one in 1992 to three in 1996 and 11in 2000. Thus it would be useful to inquire into the extent to which PRM has aninclusive approachtowards women. If we look at the proportionof women withinits leadership, he answer s clearly'no' (seeabove). Furthermore,as noted above, thelargeincrease n the numberof womenin 2000 can be attributeddirectlyto the party'sunexpected electoral success.68Nevertheless, despite the unusual performance ofPRM, it is possible to conclude that, overall, ultranationalistparties have a muchless extensive record of promoting women than other types of parties in bothcountries.

988


7/28/2019 30043967

22/27

WOMEN IN POST-COMMUNIST POLITICS

Parties representing ethnic minority groupsThe Romanian Constitution allocates one seat in the Chamber of Deputies toassociations representing each ethnic minority group. These organisations wereassigneda total of 11 seats in 1990, 13 in 1992, 15 in 1996and 18 in 2000 (Table4).Although formally competing in elections, they tend not to win seats, with onesignificant exception: UDMR (Uniunea Democrata a Maghiarilor din Romania,DemocraticUnion of Hungarians n Romania),whichwon between25 and 29 seatsinall post-communistelections (see Table4). This partywas originallyestablishedwiththe aim of defendingthe interestsof the Hungarian ethnic minority, that had beenseverely discriminatedagainst during the communist period. Its share of the votenationally tends to correspond closely with the proportion of the Hungarianpopulation within the overall population (around 7.5%). It had no women MPs in1990 and 1992, and only numberedone woman among 25 MPs in 1996, and twowomen among 27 MPs in 2000. The party'snarrowprofilemay explain its very lowintakeof women: t is likelythat thepartyoperateswith a conceptof identitybasedonethnicity, rather than gender, and assigns overarchingpriority to its ethnic goals.Additionally, although it is usually consideredto be primarily an ethnic party, itsideology inclinestowardsthe centre-right,and the UDMR leadershiphas repeatedlyemphasised the significant role played by women within their families. Thustraditional notions of women's and men's roles are likely to have had a crucialimpacton the recruitmentof women within the ranks of the parliamentaryUDMR.As this overview shows, party ideology is systematically consistent withdifferentiatedpatternsof representation or women in the Hungarianand Romanianparliaments.In keeping with their programmaticorientation,communist successorpartiesare by far the most committedto promotingwomen. Conservative,ChristianDemocraticand liberalpartiesaremuch less inclined to recruitwomen-as would beexpected from their ideological alignment. Formations with an ethnic agenda(ultranationalistsand ethnic minority representatives)are the least likely to recruitwomenfor parliamentary eats, largelybecausetheyprivilegeethnicityoverany otherforms of identity,such as gender.

ConclusionsThis articlecontributesto recentscholarlydebatesby arguingthat, as demonstratedby the cases of Hungaryand Romania,existing scholarshipon the representationofwomen in post-communist parliamentscould be greatly enriched by a sustainedexaminationof the linksbetweenparty ideology and women'srecruitment. n the firstpart of the article three background factors were identified as shaping the widercontext of women's participation in post-communist politics in Hungary andRomania:communistlegacies,the role of women in increasinglyactivecivil societies,and the interlinkagesbetweengenderandethnicity.In the secondandthirdsectionsofthe articlethe under-representationf women in the post-communistparliamentsofHungary and Romania was explored throughan assessmentof the explanatorypowerof two principal approaches: he impact of electoral systemsand the effectsof partyideology on the recruitmentof women for legislativeoffice.

989


7/28/2019 30043967

23/27

CRISTINA CHIVAAs this article shows, party ideology is considerably more consistent withdifferentiatedpatterns of representationfor women in Hungary's and Romania's

post-communistparliaments han could be demonstrated or the impact of electoralsystems. An approach focused on party ideology as the principal explanatory variablehas numerous advantages over the electoral system perspective. First, ideologicalunderpinnings can account for differences between parties' strategies for recruitingwomen (or lack thereof, as the case may be). Second, this approach can provide aconsistent comparison between party families in different countries. Thus thisperspective can be extended comparatively, in principle as well as in practice, toinclude some, most or all countries of Central and Eastern Europe (or WesternEurope). Third, since it often cuts across differences in electoral systems, an ideology-centred perspective can also augment scholarly understanding of both similarities anddifferences between post-communist countries.

Finally, it is also worth noting that the article's choice of case studies also makes asignificant contribution to the ever-growing field of comparative research on Centraland Eastern Europe. On the one hand, the focus on two countries which have beenrarely studied comparatively contributes new knowledge to research on the new andfuture EU member states. On the other hand, it is also hoped that the article redressessome of the imbalance in the availability of research between Hungary and Romania.University of Salford1 This definition of procedural democracy follows Robert Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation andOpposition (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1971).2 See, for example, Claus Offe, Varieties of Transition. The East European and East GermanExperience(Cambridge,Polity Press, 1996);Jon Elster, Claus Offe & Ulrich K. Preuss, InstitutionalDesign in Post-CommunistSocieties. Rebuilding he Ship at Sea (Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress, 1998);Valerie Bunce, Subversive nstitutions. TheDesign andDestructionof Socialism and theState (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999);John Higley, Jan Pakulski & WlodzimierzWesolowski, Post-CommunistElites and Democracy in Eastern Europe (Basingstoke, Macmillan,1998); Adam Przeworski, Democracy and the Market. Political and Economic Reforms in EasternEuropeand Latin America(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991);Juan J. Linz & AlfredStepan, Problemsof Democratic Transitionand Consolidation:SouthernEurope,South AmericaandPost-CommunistEurope(Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996). A welcome exceptionto this is Dietrich Rueschemeyer,Marilyn Rueschemeyer& BjornWittrock (eds), ParticipationandDemocracy East and West. Comparisonsand Interpretations London, M.E. Sharpe, 1998), whichconstantly integrates the perspective of gender relations.3 Herbert Kitschelt, 'The Formation of Party Systems in East Central Europe', Politics and Society,20, 1, March 1992,pp. 7- 50;HerbertKitschelt et al., Post-CommunistParty Systems. Competition,Representation and Inter-Party Cooperation (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999);Geoffrey Pridham & Paul G. Lewis (eds), Stabilising Fragile Democracies: Comparing New PartySystems in Southernand Eastern Europe (London, Routledge, 1996); Paul G. Lewis (ed.), PartyStructure and Organisation in East-Central Europe (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1996); GordonWightman, Party Formation in East CentralEurope(Aldershot, Edward Elgar, 1995).4 Thomas F. Remington (ed.), Parliamentsin Transition:TheNew LegislativePolitics of the FormerUSSR and Eastern Europe (Boulder, Westview Press, 1994); Attila Agh (ed.), The Emergence ofEast CentralEuropeanParliaments; the First Steps (Budapest, Hungarian Centre for DemocracyStudies, 1994); David Olson & Philip Norton (eds), The New Parliaments of Centraland Eastern

Europe (London, Frank Cass, 1996).5 See Marilyn Rueschemeyer (ed.), Women in the Politics of Post-Communist Eastern Europe(London, M.E. Sharpe, 1994). Other significant contributions include Richard E. Matland &Kathleen A. Montgomery (eds), Women'sAccess to Political Power in Post-CommunistEurope(Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003); Robert G. Moser, 'The Effects of Electoral Systems onWomen's Representation in Post-communist States', Electoral Studies, 20, 3, 2001, pp. 353-369;

990


7/28/2019 30043967

24/27

WOMEN IN POST-COMMUNIST POLITICSSteven Saxonberg, 'Women in East European Parliaments', Journal of Democracy, 11, 2, April2000, pp. 145-158.6 Moser, 'The Effects of Electoral Systems'; Saxonberg, 'Women in East European Parliaments'.7 Frances Millard, Elections, Parties and Representationin Post-CommunistEurope (Basingstoke,Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), pp. 184-223.8 Walter M. Bacon & Louis G. Pol, 'The Economic Status of Women in Romania', in NashidAslanbengui, Steven Pressman & Gale Summerfield (eds), Women in the Age of EconomicTransformation London, Routledge, 1994), p. 50.9 Katalin Fabian, 'Against the Current:the Political Significanceof Women's Groups in Hungary',unpublished manuscript, 2002, p. 3.10 Judit Gazsi, Agnes Hars, Borbala Juhasz, Andrea Pet6 & Szilvia Szabo, Employmentand Women'sStudies: the Impact of Women'sStudies Trainingon Women'sEmploymentin Europe BackgroundReport: Hungary, www.hull.ac.uk/ewsi/hungary.htm, p. 19.11 Laura Grtinberg, 'Women's NGOs in Romania', in Susan Gal & Gail Kligman (eds), ReproducingGender.Politics, Publics and Everyday Life After Socialism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress, 2000), p. 311.12 Societatea de Analize Feministe AnA, Drepturile emeilor. Ghidul organizatiilorneguvernamentaledin Romania (Bucuresti, Editura AnA, 2000).13 Eva Kuti, TheNonprofitSector in Hungary(Manchester,ManchesterUniversity Press, 1996),p. 28.14 Agnes Vajda & Eva Kuti, Citizens' Votesfor Nonprofit Activities in Hungary, www.niok.hu/1/indexe.htm - website of the Nonprofit and Tranining Centre Foundation, p. 3.15 Griinberg, 'Women's NGOs in Romania', p. 311.16 International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (henceforth IHF), Women 2000. AnInvestigation into the Status of Women's Rights in Central and South-Eastern Europe and theNewly IndependentStates (Vienna, IHF, 2000), p. 359.17 Comisia Nationala pentru Statistica Romania si Programul Natiunilor Unite pentru DezvoltareRomania, Femeile si barbatii in Romania2000, p. 67.18 IHF, Women2000, p. 204.19 The classification and outline of women's organisations in this section rely on material presented inFabian, 'Against the Current';Gazsi et al., Employmentand Women'sStudies;Griinberg, 'Women'sNGOs'; and AnA, DrepturileFemeilor,as well as on leaflets and information collected during fieldtrips in Hungary and Romania in 1999 and 2001.20 Among the 'phoenix' organisations there are the Association of Hungarian Women, the grandlytitled Women's Electorate of the National Alliance of Hungarian Trade Unions, the RomanianNational Women's Association and the Romanian National Confederation of Women.21 For the distinction between practical and strategic gender interests, see Maxine Molyneux,'Mobilisation without Emancipation?Women's Interests, the State and Revolution in Nicaragua',Feminist Studies, 11, 2, 1985, pp. 227-254.22 Two of the most prominent and active feminist groups are NANE in Hungary and ANA inRomania. Since their establishment, these two NGOs have maintained a focus on women'sstrategic gender interests. Both groups function at the intersection between researchand activism.As outlined above, NANE maintains a hotline for women victims of violence and trafficking,andalso provides gender awareness training for social workers, the police, lawyers etc. ANAestablished an Information Centre for women in 1997, and also organises training sessions forjournalists, politicians and other NGOs dealing with women. Both organisations produce regularreports on women's situation in the two countries.23 Open Society Institute, Network Women's programme, Equal Opportunitiesor Womenand Men:MonitoringLaw and Practice in the New Member States and Accession Countriesof the EuropeanUnion(Budapest, Open Society Institute, 2005), p. 18 (executive summaryavailable at www.soros.org/women). An earlier version of the report, published in 2002, is available at www.eonet.ro.24 Ibid., p. 18.25 IHF, Women2000, p. 192.26 Ibid., p. 192.27 Mihai Surdu, 'Educatia scolara a populatiei de romi', in Catalin Zamfir & Marian Preda (eds),Romii in Romania(Bucharest, Expert, 2002), p. 116. The data relate to the Roma population overthe age of 16.28 Bela Janky, 'A cigany nik helyzete', in Tiborne Pongracz & Istvan Gy6rgy T6th (eds),Szerepvaltozdsok. Jelentis a nbk is ferfiak helyzetriil 1999 (Budapest, TARKI-SZCSM, 1999),p. 221.

29 Annex 1 to Zamfir & Preda (eds), Romii in Romania, p. 317.30 Millard, Elections, Parties and Representation, p. 250.

991


7/28/2019 30043967

25/27

CRISTINA CHIVA31 A directory of Roma women activists is available at www.romawomensinitiatives.org/directory.32 The report of the meeting of Roma women's organisations, A Place at the Policy Table:Reportonthe Roma Women'sForum,held in June 2003 and published by the Network Women's Programmeof the Open Society Institute, is available at www.soros.org/initiatives/women.33 After Hungary's accession to the EU in 2004, two Roma women were elected to the EuropeanParliament as part of the 24-member Hungarian delegation.34 See Constitutia Romaniei din 2003, downloaded from the website of the Chamber of Deputies,www.cdep.ro.35 Yet there is some scope for cautious optimism: the 16-member Medgyessy government, elected in2002, reservedthreepositions for women (18.75%). Similarly,in Romania, five ministriesout of 27were held by women in 2000 in the Nastase cabinet (18.51%).36 Kenneth Benoit & John W. Schiemann, 'Institutional Choice in New Democracies: BargainingoverHungary's 1989 Electoral Law', Journal of TheoreticalPolitics, 13, 2, 2001, pp. 153-182.37 Wilma Rule, 'Electoral Systems, Contextual Factors, and Women's Opportunity for Election toParliament in Twenty-three Democracies', WesternPolitical Quarterly, 40, 3, 1987, pp. 477-498;Pippa Norris, 'Conclusions: Comparing Legislative Recruitment', in Pippa Norris & JoniLovenduski (eds), Genderand Party Politics (London, Sage, 1993), pp. 309-330. For comparativeoverviews, see Richard E. Matland, 'Women's Legislative Recruitment in National Legislatures:aComparison of Developed and Developing Countries', Legislative Studies Quarterly,28, 1, 1998,pp. 109- 125; Wilma Rule & Joseph Zimmerman (eds), Electoral Systems in Comparative

Perspective: Their Impact on Women and Minorities (Westport, Greenwood Press, 1994); andAndrew Reynolds, 'Women in the Legislatures and Executives of the World: Knocking at theHighest Glass Ceiling', World Politics, 51, 4, 1999, pp. 547- 572.38 Existing researchincludes Moser, 'The Effects of Electoral Systems'; Saxonberg, 'Women in EastEuropean Parliaments';and contributions in Matland & Montgomery (eds), Women'sAccess toPolitical Power in Post-Communist Europe.39 Moser, 'The Effects of Electoral Systems', p. 365.40 Saxonberg, 'Women in East European Parliaments', pp. 147-148.41 Ibid., p. 148.42 Kathleen A. Montgomery & Gabriella Ilonszki, 'Weak Mobilisation, Hidden Majoritarianism andResurgence of the Right: a Recipe for Female Under-representationin Hungary', in Matland &Montgomery (eds), Women'sAccess to Political Power in Post-CommunistEurope,pp. 105-129 atp. 111.43 Ibid., p. 112.44 Ibid.45 Owing to the exceptionally low percentagesof women in the Senate, which precludegeneralisation,this article focuses primarily on the Chamber of Deputies.46 These figures take the parties which were part of the Democratic Convention (CDR) separately.Thus the figures pertain to individual parties rather than to the coalition.47 This number includes six women from the PNT-cd and one from PNL. None of the otherformations within the CDR elected women.48 These are calculated in the PR segment of the system in Hungary, in order to facilitate comparisonwith Romania. Relevant information was obtained from the dataset at www.essex.ac.ul/elections.The formula used for these calculations was to divide 1 by the sum of the squaresof the proportionsof seats in the two parliaments. For an overview across Central and Eastern Europe's mixedsystems using this method, see Robert G. Moser, 'Electoral Systems and the Number of Parties inPost-communist States', WorldPolitics, 51, 3, 1999, pp. 359-384.49 Montgomery & Ilonszki, 'Weak Mobilisation', p. 115.50 The source for the data on Romania is Stan Stoica, Dictionarul Partidelor Politice din Romania1998-2003 (Bucharest, Editura Meronia, 2003), pp. 26, 29, 64-75, 78-87, 89-95.51 Clyde Wilcox, Beth Stark & Sue Thomas, 'Popular Support for Electing Women in EasternEurope', in Matland & Montgomery (eds), Women'sAccess to Political Power in Post-CommunistEurope,pp. 43-62.52 Ibid., p. 56. In Hungary, 76% of men and 79% of women approved and strongly approved of thewomen's movement; in Romania, the corresponding percentageswere 67% and 84%.53 Ibid., p. 48.54 Open Society Foundation Romania and the Gallup Organisation, GenderBarometer: Romania,August 2000 (Bucharest, OSF, 2000), pp. 136-150.55 Ibid.56 Ibid.

992


7/28/2019 30043967

26/27

WOMEN IN POST-COMMUNIST POLITICS57 The Gallup Organisation Romania, 'Romanii sprijina o participare mai mare a femeilor inpolitica', Press release, 21 July 2003, www.gallup.ro/romana/poll_ro/releases_ro/pr030721_ro/pr030721_ro.htm.58 For a comparison between PDSR and MSZP on dimensions other than gender, see Grigore Pop-Eleches, 'Separatedat Birth or Separatedby Birth?The Communist Successor Parties in Romaniaand Hungary', East EuropeanPolitics and Societies, 13, Winter 1999, pp. 117-147.59 Act No 202, 2002, on equal opportunities between men and women, MonitorulOficialal Romaniei,No 301, 8 May 2002.60 Governmental Ordinance No. 137, 2000, prohibiting and punishing all forms of discrimination,Monitorul Oficial al Romaniei, No. 431, 2 September 2000; Governmental Decision No. 1273, 7December 2000, on approval of the national plan of action for equality of opportunity betweenmen and women, Monitorul Oficial al Romaniei, No. 659, 15 December 2000.61 Open Society Institute, Equal Opportunitiesor Womenand Men, 2005, p. 1.62 Act CXXV, 2003, on equal treatmentand the promotion of equal opportunities, analysed in OpenSociety Institute, Equal Opportunitiesor Women and Men, 2005, pp. 1-5.63 Montgomery & Ilonszki, 'Weak Mobilisation', p. 120.64 See Csilla Kiss, 'From Liberalism to Conservatism: the Federation of Young Democrats in Post-communist Hungary', East EuropeanPolitics and Societies, 16, 3, 2002, p. 741.65 Montgomery & Ilonszki, 'Weak Mobilisation', p. 119.66 Susan Gal, 'Gender in the Post-socialist Transition: the Abortion Debate in Hungary', East

EuropeanPolitics and Societies, 8, 2, 1994, pp. 256-286.67 In the 1992 bill a 'grave crisis situation' was defined loosely, interpreted flexibly in practice, andrequiredexclusively the woman's statement, with no validation requested from officials as to herstatement that she was in a grave crisis.68 For an analysis of the 2000 election see Grigore Pop-Eleches, 'Romania's Politics of Dejection',Journalof Democracy, 12, 3, 2001, pp. 159-169.

AbbreviationsRomanian political partiesPCR PartidulComunistRoman (RomanianCommunistParty)CDR ConventiaDemocrataRomana (RomanianDemocraticConvention)CPUN Consitliul Provizoriu de Unitate Nationala (Provisional Council ofNational Unity)FER Federatia Ecologista din Romania (Romanian Ecologist Federation)FSN Frontul Salvarii Nationale (National Salvation Front)MER Miscarea Ecologista din Romania (Romanian Ecologist Movement)PAC Partidul Aliantei Civice (Civic Alliance Party)PAR Partidul Alternativa Romaniei ('An Alternative for Romania' Party)PDAR Partidul Democrat Agrar din Romania (The Romanian Agrarian Party)PD Partidul Democrat (Democratic Party)PDSR Partidul Democratiei Sociale din Romania (Romanian Party of SocialDemocracy)PER Partidul Ecologist Roman (Romanian Ecologis

30043967

Documents

Transcript of 30043967