Independent study reflection paper 02

What did you know before the course on this matter?

This set of classes, seminars and readings were composed of the internal political
landscape of the Baltic Sea Region countries. Majorly because of my previous studies and
also my personal interest in party oriented politics, I believe that I knew some concepts about
the political landscape in the region but in a more general and superficial way. In Brazilian
political debate, the escandinavian social-democratic parties are considered a possible model
for both a economic and social development. Despite mentions about the scandinavian
welfare state and politics as something desirable, my previous knowledge about political
parties and their development and how they are organized and elected was little. Some cases,
such as the German or the Polish, I had more contact with. For example, the conservative and
right wing hegemony in Poland together with the dispute between the Christian Democrats
and the Social Democrats in the Bundestag were both topics I had some knowledge about.
But, after the classes I believe that I can now understand those two topics of the BSR policies
better.
Regarding the other countries in the region, I believe that I had few or even no
knowledge about their political landscapes, especially about party politics. The coalition
process in most of the parties was a new topic for me, as well as the history and political
development of the actual parties in the Baltic Sea Region. My previous knowledge about the
domestic politics of the BSR countries were in some way “informal”. By informal I mean that
I had a bigger picture of the political landscape, but without the technical, historical and
institutional knowledge.

What are the most important things what you learned during the preparation/seminar?

One of the most important things that I learned during this preparation was on the
second interactive lecture, the one about the political parties in the nordic countries and
Germany. Despite the obvious relevance of the main topic addressed in this lecture, I think
that the discussion about political cleavages and how they are constructed was really
important for me. The division between the classic and the new cleavages was very important
to understand the actual political disputes in the region and also to connect with some of my
previous knowledge in the theme. For example, I already knew the essence of the political
disputes in the past and how it contributed in some way to our actual political debate. But, In
the case of the new cleavages, I believe that the “border” between the sides is not that clear as
the traditional ones, and to have some theoretical knowledge about this helped me in
comprehending not only the BSR political debate, but also in other contemporary societies.
Another important element that was important for me were the indexes and its
application to political party volatility. That knowledge was new for me, I’ve never worked
with that in the past and I think it is a good tool for enrichment of political analysis and critics
as well. Regarding my preparation for seminars, the suggestion of having graphs to help
understand the political situation in the countries was very positive. Combined with the
indexes is the theoretical framework regarding party and coalitions. In my comprehension, it
is very important to have not only theoretical tools, but also concepts to work with the
political phenomenons that we face in our lives. When having a political analysis it is very
important to know how to classificate and to also to nominate certain events - such as an
unexpected coalition, one change of behavior inside one governmental alliance and to also
understand some continuous and already expected movements by the political figures. At last,
there was the vast political development background of the major political parties in the BSR.
That knowledge was important and I believe that this was the biggest contribution to change
what I called “informal knowledge” of mine. After being presented to this, and with the
necessity to instrumentalize it in seminars, I think I can start to read and to understand some
of the local politics better, and even to develop substantial comments about it.

What were the main trends?

The main trends in the region can be divided in different areas: institutional and party
politics, party historical development and electoral characteristics. Regarding the institutional
and party politics there are two major trends, the strong ideological and the weak ideological
organization. The strong ideological coherence, that is present exclusively in the regional
monarchies, represents the classical debate between the center-left and right - some pontual
divergences and historical positions marks the politics in the mainstream circle, were the
strongest forces are the social democrats and the conservative, both usually working with the
liberals. Thus, the center marks an important position in the escandinavian democracies.
Aligning occasionally with the SD or the Conservatives, the block is the place where the
liberals and the greens are. In the low ideological coherence bloc, which is formed by all the
other countries in the BSR and since 2005 Germany as well, the alliances are baselly on
electoral and pragmatic decisions.
The political development in the Baltic Sea Region is marked by historical changes in
the party formations, especially in the older democracies. In those cases, political groups and
wings from the parties changed among themselves forming new or ending with old parties.
Finland is the only old democracy - which here I consider the ones that haven’t been under
Soviet direct or indirect rule during the Cold War - which is not divided between center left
and right and has a political cluster of all ideological blocs disputing the political hegemony.
In those cases, the political landscape has evolved to a consolidated system where traditional
agents compete for power, new forces from the left and the right join in coalitions and give a
new face for the dispute but the essence of the dispute relies on the old blocs. In the younger
democracies in the BSR, the political development was less stable and the parties have
changed since the democratization in the 90’s. Lithuania and Estonia have a stable political
landscape, Latvia a more unstable and Poland too. The Polish case is different from the other
ones, it has a strong dispute inside the right political spectrum with a strong personalist and
authoritarian tendencies among the leading forces. In the 90’s there wasn't a unanimous trend
among the parties in the region, some were more stable such as Lithuania, and others more
unstable, such as Estonia. If there is one general thread in the region is that the political
landscape of the 90’s changed according to the new necessities and with the consolidation of
the democracies in the region.

What were the main contrasts of comparative cases? Why do they exist?

There are some important contrasts in the Baltic Sea Region. Some of them are
related to the ideological relevance in the political landscape, some of them are related to the
existence of ethinic minorities and in some cases minority governments are common. In the
first case, the lack of a strong ideological coherence in some countries contributes to a society
with less ideological influence in the coalition formations. For example, in Estonia there is
substantial support for liberal and left values but the major parties are very similar and close
to the center. This makes the coalition process in the country focused majorly in the electoral
side, together with the possibility to form a government. In other places, such as Sweden for
example, there is a bigger political and ideological cleavage in the society. The alliances are
usually based on the ideological basis of the parties such as the government. This scenario
helps lead the party to be one of the places where minority governments are more frequent.
In most of the cases it is almost impossible to have one government formed by the
minority in the parliament, but in Sweden, Denmark and Norway have a historic minority
government. Those differences exist majorly because a minority government is the result
from a governmental coalition collapse, with the more ideological aspect of the monarchies.
In this usually the radical (right or left) tends to support the moderave version of its beliefs.
The ethnic minority question in the political landscape in the Baltic Sea Region is also
another important contrast in the comparative cases.
There are three most relevant cases in which ethnicity marks one substantial part of
the political process and why this phenomenon can be considered one of the main contrasts in
the cases. In Latvia, the Social Democratic Party is considered to be a Russian party, and it is
excluded from the coalition process by the other latvian controlled parties. Still in the same
country, the ethinic russians have it own party and the Latvian nationalist and Radical Right
party is in the government. The etinic cleavage in the country is the major one in the region
regarding party politics. In Estonia, the Center Party holds a position to unify some of
Estonian center-left and liberal values with the position as the Russian minority
representative. The last ethinic contrast in the region is regarding Finland, in which the
swedish speaking minority holds a place in the parliament and is both present in center-left
and center-right governments. The reason why to mention those configurations is because in
the majority of the region there is no ethinlic cleavage, even in Estonia there is no actual
barrier for russian speakers to be represented. Latvia, in this scenario, is the only case in the
region where the actual ethinic separation is influencing negatively in the political stability of
the country.

What were the main similarities of comparative cases? Why do they exist?

The main similarities in the comparative cases are directly connected with the
common historical background of the countries in the BSR. For example, in Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania and Poland there is a strong tendency against the left wing radical parties - the
Lithuanian Communist Party survived the end of the Soviet Union, but it merged with other
left forces in the country and kept a moderated platform. This anti-left tendency in the region
can be justified by the Soviet occupation, the three baltic states case, or by the direct
influence in the former Poland People’s Republic authoritarian regime. Those countries are
the ones where there are relevant similarities regarding the radical right as well. In Poland,
Latvia and Estonia a radical right wing party is part of the government. In Poland the
situation can be superficially resumed as a dispute between the radical and the non-radical
right, both sharing many common agendas and fighting for the government. In Latvia and in
Estonia the situation is different, the Radical Right Parties are part of the government as
secondary parts of the coalition. The National Alliance and the Peoples Conservative Party of
Estonia are both nativist parties, which have a strong nationalist rhetoric. One main reason for
why this similarity exists is because both countries after the collapse of the Soviet regime had
to strengthen its national basis, in order to consolidate a national sentiment. That process
might have open space for this similarity in post-Soviet countries.
Another relevant similarity is the strong presence of the Social Democratic thought as
government in the Escandinavian monarchies. Even though Germany is not part of this same
configuration, the Social Democratic is in opposition, the country also shares the same
duality between center-right and center-left as the major political trend. One possible
explanation for this is the robust political landscape created during the Cold War, with the
consolidation of moderate values for both the right and the left. The German case is quite
different, during the unification process the Easter Germany political landscape was absorbed
and converted to the Western German already consolidated scenario. In all those cases there
is a maintenance of a center oriented politics based on punctual differences and moderated
versions of the right and the left spectrus. The relevant similarity in all those cases rely on the
Radical Right, which is not a party of any government in the present cases - and Finland as
well. In Germany, Finland and in the Scandinavian Monarchies the radical right party is not
taken as an auxiliary force in forming governments in the current moment. Even though
having substantial participation in the congress composition.