Health & Medicine


of 19
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Volume 1 / Numéro 3 Hiver 2011 ISSN: p DEVELOPMENT OF POST-COMMUNIST PARLIAMENTARISM IN KAZAKHSTAN AND ROMANIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Maral ZHANARSTANOVA S.Seifullin Kazakh Agro Technical University, Kazakhstan Timur KANAPYANOV Ministry of Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan Contents: 1. INTRODUCTION PARLIAMENTARY DEVELOPMENT IN POST-COMMUNIST ROMANIA R EVOLUTION OF PARLIAMENTARISM IN POST-SOVIET KAZAKHSTAN COMPARISON OF THE PARLIAMENTARY DEVELOPMENT OF KAZAKHSTAN AND ROMANIA CONCLUSION REFERENCES.216 Cite this document: Khanarstanova M., Kanapyanov T., Development of post-communist parliamentarism in Kazakhstan and Romania: a comparative analysis. Cinq Continents 1 (3): [Available online] URL : Development of post-communist parliamentarism in Kazakhstan and Romania: a comparative analysis Maral Zhanarstanova Timur Kanapyanov Становление посткоммунистического парламентаризма в Казахстане и Румынии: сравнительный анализ. В статье рассматривается и сравнивается развитие и эволюция законодательных органов в посткоммунистическом Казахстане и Румынии. Несмотря на общее коммунистическое прошлое, переход от старого политического порядка к новому и последующие события в Казахстане и Румынии осуществлялись совершенно по-разному: Казахстан неохотно воспринял распад Советского Союза в 1991 году и мирно провозгласил свою независимость, тогда как Румынская революция 1989 года против диктаторского режима была самой кровопролитной в Центральной и Восточной Европе. Однако, несмотря на географическую отдаленность двух стран, различные культурные и исторические корни, этнический и религиозный состав, колоссальные расхождения в экономике, Казахстан и Румыния имеют некоторые схожие элементы коммунистического наследия, что в свою очередь оказало влияние на развитие посткоммунистических политических институтов. Тем не менее, это пордразумевает схожесть коммунистических режимов и путей перехода к демократии в двух странах. Развитие парламентаризма в этих государствах различается друг от друга не только уровнем институционализации, но и степенью стабильности законодательных органов. Данная статья преследует две задачи; Первая и важнейшая из которых объяснить развитие парламентаризма в посткоммунистическом Казахстане и Румынии с исторической точки зрения и определить, что повлияло на изменения и разные последствия в становлении законодательных органов в данных государствах. Вторая задача сравнить два парламента и выявить сходство и различие между ними. Ключевые слова: Парламентаризм, Казахстан, Румыния, посткоммунизм, сравнение Development of post-communist parliamentarism in Kazakhstan and Romania: a comparative analysis. This study compares institutional development of legislative bodies in post-communist Romania and Kazakhstan. Despite having shared a communist past experience, Kazakhstan and Romania have followed a quite different path in their post-communist political order: Kazakhstan is unwillingly accepted the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 and peacefully declared its independence, while Romanian Revolution of 1989 was the most bloody of all in East Central Europe. However, in spite of their geographical remoteness, different cultural and historical backgrounds, various ethnic and religious compositions, as well as different economic profiles, Romania and Kazakhstan have shared some common elements of communist legacy and its side-effects during the post-communist development of political institutions. It does not necessarily mean that their respective experiences with communist rule and transition to democracy were the same. The parliamentary development in the two countries differs from each other, both in terms of stability and the level of institutionalization. The goal of this article is twofold. First and foremost aim of the paper is to explain parliamentary development in postcommunist Romania and Kazakhstan from historical point of view and to identify what contributes to changes and different outcomes in legislatures of the respective countries. Second goal is to compare two parliaments and identify similarities and differences with making some inferences about the strength of legislatures compared to each other and to other major political institutions. Key words: Parliamentarism, Kazakhstan, Romania, post-communism, comparison [199] Cinq Continents Volume 1, Numéro 3, 2011, p INTRODUCTION Democracy today is not conceivable without a legislature or parliament. The key element in democratization is to have a legislative body which is accountable to voters and has some degree of influence over the national policy. The Parliament which is fairly, freely and regularly elected in ideal ought to perform these functions. If legislatures are an essential part of democratization, knowing what kind of factors influence changes in Parliaments, especially in newly democratizing countries, would contribute to understanding of political development per se. Some scholars support idea that a stronger legislatures contributes to a stronger democracy [1]. Legislative strength influences democratization in various ways. The legislative body can serve as a check on the executive branch through issuing laws and amendments to legislation or more forcefully through no-confidence practice. An effective legislature also performs the will of the people through translating it into laws and government budgets. Therefore, understanding how legislatures grow stronger is critical to understanding and promoting democratization. The transition, triggered by the collapse of communist rule in Romania and Kazakhstan, is a part of the processes of what Huntington called the Third Wave of democratization which have also involved East Central Europe and Central Asia in last few decades [2]. Most students agree that these states were faced with the enormous challenges of building democratic state institutions at the same time as building a nation; creating a national economy; and formulating their foreign policy orientation ([3] p.1). Yet, the process of transition from communist rule to the construction of democratic order in the former communist countries has evolved differently. In other words the post-communist history and development of political institutions vary substantially from country to country. It is also true that many state institutions were inherited from the Soviet period and were adapted to the new tasks of independent statehood, while Soviet-era officials continued to staff these institutions ([3] p.1). Therefore, according to Whitmore these institutions where not designed for sovereign, rule-of-law states and were poorly equipped to manage the wider state transformations ([3] p.1). The main aim in this article is to explain parliamentary development in postcommunist Romania and Kazakhstan and to identify what contributes to changes and different outcomes in legislatures of respective countries. The existing literature does not provide a clear answer what determines the different levels of post-communist legislative development. Since no previous studies have compared countries from East Central Europe and Central Asia in terms of political institutions, especially Romania and Kazakhstan, this article would be a seminal work of authors and could be used as a good hypothesis generating text in order to claim general inferences for these regions. The comparative politics literature provides with some examples of comparative studies between Latin America, East Central Europe, Western Europe, former Soviet states, and post-communist countries in terms of political institutions, but it seems that students of this field have almost totally ignored post-communist Central Asian countries. In the most cases Central Asian states are excluded from respective research papers. Therefore, such a framework does little to explain different levels of parliamentary development and variations in terms of similarities and differences in countries such as those in East Central Europe and Central Asia. Students of comparative politics have usually been analyzing legislatures only within a specific region or the specific case in East Central Europe and Central Asia. However, given the fact that this paper attempts to compare only two countries from different respective geographical regions, it will be possible to depict them thoroughly and prepare fertile ground for further study. The intended structure of this paper as following: in the first part of the article it analyses the development of legislative bodies of Kazakhstan and Romania, separately, since break down of communism and up today; then it compares legislative institutions of two countries and tries to identify similarities and differences; and in conclusion it draws some inferences according to the both Parliaments of respective countries. 2. PARLIAMENTARY DEVELOPMENT IN POST-COMMUNIST ROMANIA Since the parliamentary development of Romania has been fully analyzed by Steven D. Roper, in this article will be only given a brief description of main events of the evolution of post-communist parliamentarism in Romania [4]. After the collapse of communism and revolution of 1989 Romania had entered a new phase of political development. In the autumn of 1989 all communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe one by one had witnessed the collapse of the old regime. In this sense Romania was no exception, although it was almost last country in Central and Eastern Europe who faced the collapse of communist regime only on 22 December The revolution and regime change in Romania was abrupt and the most violent in the region ([5] p. 146). Most scholars believe that the development of political institutions in the postcommunist Romania was influenced by both the communist legacy and precommunist democratic experience. In this vein Steven D. Roper notes that parliamentary development during the communist period was severely limited, and [201] Cinq Continents Volume 1, Numéro 3, 2011, p as a consequence, the Romanian parliament confronts the concomitant problem of developing as an institution to meet twenty-first-century challenges while dealing with the political, social and economic legacies of the communist past ([4] p. 159). Right after the revolution of December 1989 in Romania was formed a provisional government led by the National Salvation Front (FSN). The FSN was a movement which had a leading role during the events of December It was a main reason why the FSN was supported and accepted as a legitimate authority at the moment by the broad population of Romanians. According to Roper the FSN established the parameters in which institutional decisions were made, thus it was mostly responsible for the development of political institutions at the beginning of 1990s ([6] p. 65). It was this provisional revolutionary government who created a two-chamber parliamentary system. The Romanian Parliament has been evolving all the way from the Constituent Assembly in 1990 to the professional and multiparty Parliament in The development and institutionalization of parliamentarism in postcommunist Romania was uneven and less stable in comparison to the established democracies in Western Europe, but more stable and more efficient than in a number of post-soviet countries. The first post-communist parliament of Romania ( ) had been limited to the self-organizing and constitution drafting functions. Due to the adoption of French system the president had a much more power than the legislature. The legislative body had consisted of the Assembly of Deputies and the Senate. Although these two chambers performed similar functions and had an equivalent legislative power, they differed in numbers of deputies. In the 1990 Senate was 119 seats and the Assembly had 387 members ([7] p. 162). It is also worth to mention that no Senate seats were allocated to ethnic minority parties, only the Assembly seats. As it mentioned before the primary objective of this legislation was to draft a new constitution. During the constitutional drafting debate the FSN s voice was prevailing, due to the fact that the constitution drafting committee consisted mostly of the FSN members. Eventually the parliamentarians overwhelmingly passed the new constitution in November However, it was adopted only after the national referendum on 8 December The new constitution conflated with the intentions of the FSN and Iliescu and resulted in a strong presidency. A national election for second post-communist parliament of Romania ( ) was held in September 1992 [8]. This election was held under the new constitution and new electoral rules. Besides, up to this time political situation in Romania changed considerably. Unlike the 1990 national elections, the 1992 elections saw no clear majority party and an opposition became a much stronger ([4] p. 165). However, Iliescu s new party, the Democratic National Salvation Front (FDSN) held a plurality of seats and started to create a coalition government. Although there was a clear opposition, members of the FDSN held almost all the government portfolios, and were chosen to preside over the renamed House of Deputies and the Senate ([4] p. 166). The number of contested seats in the both chambers had changed, in the House of Deputies it was reduced from 387 to 328, whereas in the Senate it was increased from 119 to 143. Based on a new electoral rules it was also added to the standing orders the 3 percent electoral threshold for parties in order to be represented in the parliament. Nevertheless, the most scholars on the field agree that the second postcommunist parliament still did not perform very well and professional. The FDSN then exercised not efficient leadership in the Parliament. Thus, the parliamentary groups were highly fragmented and not much significant laws were passed. The third post-communist parliament of Romania ( ) had been elected in October Up to this date the Romanian political landscape had changed substantially. The opposition gained more strength and access to the media. Also some scholars argue that there was a change in the Romanian electorate itself ([4] p. 170). As a result the Democratic Convention of Romania (CDR) received a plurality of seats in both chambers and formed a coalition government with the Social Democratic Union (USD) and the Hungarian Democratic Union (UDMR). In addition to its parliamentary victory, the CDR presidential candidate Emil Constantinescu defeated Iliescu in the second round ([4] p. 170). The structure and the functioning of the Parliament did not significantly change. To sum up, the parliamentary activity and the level of parliamentarism in the first decade after the revolution was very well assessed by Cornelia Ilie as following: During the first tormented decade of post-communist transition the Romanian Parliament was rather weak and ineffective. Apart from the heavy Communist legacy, this may be accounted for by the fact that the country adopted a French-like semipresidential regime in which president Ion Iliescu had a dominant role. As a result, parliamentary oversight of the executive was minimal. After 1996, under Constantinescu s rule, the parliamentary activity improved, as did parliamentary control over the legislative process. However, the parliamentary activity was still ineffective, allowing the president to exercise legislative power ([9] p. 197). In the 2000 elections to the fourth post-communist parliament of Romania ( ) the Iliescu s Social Democratic Party of Romania (PDSR) received almost an absolute majority of seats (46 percent), and Iliescu was once again elected president in a second round runoff with Tudor ([4] p. 175). By governmental [203] Cinq Continents Volume 1, Numéro 3, 2011, p ordinance on 28 June 2000, the electoral threshold to enter parliament was increased from 3 percent to a nominal 5 percent for a single party, but coalitions faced an additional one percent for each party in the coalition ([7] p. 135). The modification of the Constitution and referendum in 2003 was an important point for Romanian Parliament in terms of the functioning of chambers. Prior to this events two chambers had the same attributes. The law had to be approved by both chambers. If one of them rejected the law, a special commission was formed. However, the report of that commission had to be approved in a joint session of the Parliament. After 2003, a law still has to be approved by both chambers, but each chamber was designated as deciding chamber on the issues relating to its competence. If one of the chambers makes a proposal, and other chamber rejects it, it makes amendments and sends it back to deciding chamber, the decision of which is final. A national election to the fifth Romanian legislature ( ) was held on November In this case also no party won an absolute majority. The Social Democratic Party (PSD) won the largest number of seats, but was not able to form a coalition government. The presidency won in a second round runoff the Justice and Truth Alliance candidate, Bucharest Mayor Traian Basescu, who was fervently in favor of Romania joining the EU in 2007, and of maintaining close ties with the United States [10]. The fifth post-communist parliament of Romania had played a crucial role in the process of accession to the EU. After the elections this parliament had debated and adopted an impressive number of laws and regulations, aimed at reforming all society on democratic bases, including the observance of fundamental human rights, the promotion of socio-economic reforms, the consolidation of the market economy and of new institutional legislation, which are the prerequisites for Romania s integration into the European institutions ([9] p.197). It was this fifth parliament under which Romania became full member of the European Union on January 1, On 30 November 2008 Romania organized its first parliamentary elections after its accession to the European Union. It is the sixth post-communist parliament of Romania (2008-present). It was also the first time when parliamentary and presidential elections were not held simultaneously and the proportional representation on party lists system was replaced by a single-member-majority system. Five political parties gained parliamentary representation: the Social Democrats (PSD), the Conservatives (PC), the Democrat-Liberals (PD-L), the Liberals (PNL) and the Democratic Union of Magyars (UDMR). In addition, 18 seats were distributed among ethnic minor
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!