Elections in East Europe: Polls? Ballot petitions? [Managed democracy implications]

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/elections-soviet-union-t139557/index.html


http://books.google.ca/books?id=PTIVuGtAm5sC


What, he asked rhetorically, would the voters write on their ballots? Many people (he answered himself) wished to write on their ballots "Long life and happiness to Comrade Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin!", "I am voting for peace!", or some other appropriate sentiment. Or again, it might be that a voter did not like the candidate and wished to strike out his name. In that case, he could do so. He might wish to add a few words explaining his objection to the candidate, perhaps he might feel that someone else would be a better deputy. In that case, he could write in another name.

I read somewhere that, especially during the Brezhnev era, there was also the odd case of pro-CPSU voters handwriting petitions on their ballots for local or regional socioeconomic projects, something which today's bourgeois states don't allow.

us get your pork for you!"]

Because Eastern Europe had a managed multi-party system unlike the Soviet Union, how were elections held?

Did the ruling parties arbitrarily assign seats in some sort of bloc list and then that list was submitted like a CPSU candidate?

Were genuine popular polls conducted instead beforehand, or even as an integral part of the arbitrary seat assignments? Here, I mean that the popular results would itself have been submitted to the public at large like a CPSU candidate for some sort of voter loyalty test. The voter is presented a ballot with summarized results, then can drop that ballot in an open area, write open comments or petitions for local or regional socioeconomic projects before dropping it in said open area, or shuffle off to a private booth (very likely for suspicious reasons).



[Modern managed democracy implications: http://www.revleft.com/vb/mission-impossible-explaining-t153130/index.html?p=2081055]

[Ismail]

Did the ruling parties arbitrarily assign seats in some sort of bloc list and then that list was submitted like a CPSU candidate?Yes. In the GDR for instance the four other parties besides the SED had 52 seats in the 1981 and 1986 elections. In the 1963, 1967, 1971 and 1976 elections they had 45 seats each.

On the National Front system, I'lll just quote a thing I posted a year back:

As noted in part 2 of the article "People's Democracy in Soviet Theory" by H. Gordon Skilling (in Soviet Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2, Oct. 1951) we read (pp. 146-147) that:

A distinguishing feature in comparison with the Soviet system was, however, the continued existence of parties other than the Communist Parties, and their sharing of political power in coalition governments. This is regarded, however, as arising out of special conditions, such as the persistence of conflicting classes, and as likely to disappear as these conditions disappeared... Other parties, too, would eventually recognize the necessity of leadership by a single revolutionary party of the working class, it was predicted... Sooner or later the multi-party system would give way to the higher political form of a one-party system...

Other parties, also participating in the National Fronts, are expected to subordinate themselves to the discipline of the Front and to act in the spirit of its programme. In addition, mass organizations, such as the trade unions, the co-operatives, women and youth associations, and others, are now associated with the National Fronts. Restating a familiar Stalin doctrine concerning non-party organizations, Farberov has written:
All the organizations entering the National Front, together with the organs of popular power, constitute a system of transmission belts, linking the Communist Party with the toiling masses.In addition, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Third Edition, English, Vol. 17, p. 610.) notes the following:

One of the distinctive characteristics of people’s democracy was that universal, equal suffrage was, as a rule, maintained for all citizens, including the bourgeoisie. Even in the early years of Soviet power, Lenin emphasized that “the question of depriving the exploiters of the franchise is purely a Russian question, and not a question of the dictatorship of the proletariat in general” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 37, p. 265). The retention of the bourgeoisie’s right to vote in the people’s democracies during the period of transition to socialism confronted the working class and its Marxist-Leninist party with new tasks. It was necessary to fight to prevent the bourgeoisie from using the democratic electoral system in its own self-interest.

Another special feature of people’s democracy in a number of countries is the existence of several parties, with the Marxist-Leninist party retaining the leading role. With the establishment of people’s democracy, the counterrevolutionary and fascist parties were dispersed and banned, but a number of mass parties, which had evolved in fundamental ways and been purged of reactionaries, did not stop their activities under the dictatorship of the proletariat. In cases where the majority of the members of a particular party were workers, the struggle led to the confirmation of leaders ready to adopt and defend a program of socialist transformations. However, in parties with a more heterogeneous composition, a broad campaign of explanation and special forms of struggle were necessary before progressive figures—people capable of collaborating in socialist construction—rose to positions of leadership.

Another important feature of people’s democracy was the National (or Patriotic) Front, which emerged during the first stage of the revolution and, in the socialist stage, united all the political parties, as well as the trade union, women’s, youth, sports, and other mass organizations. The National Front created favorable opportunities for uniting diverse progressive social forces. Its program, and often its bylaws, assigned the leading role to the Marxist-Leninist party. The National Front sets the tasks for all parties, presents a common slate of candidates for the bodies of state power, organizes the masses, and guides their activity in building socialism.

As historical experience shows, the essence of the Soviet system and that of people’s democracy are the same in the stage of socialist construction. “They are two forms of the dictatorship of the proletariat” (G. Dimitrov, Izbr. proizv., vol. 2, Moscow, 1957, p. 670).
Were genuine popular polls conducted instead beforehand, or even as an integral part of the arbitrary seat assignments? Here, I mean that the popular results would itself have been submitted to the public at large like a CPSU candidate for some sort of voter loyalty test. The voter is presented a ballot with summarized results, then can drop that ballot in an open area, write open comments or petitions for local or regional socioeconomic projects before dropping it in said open area, or shuffle off to a private booth (very likely for suspicious reasons).From an American Communist defector to East Germany, in his memoirs: "Candidates for the People's Chamber were questioned at neighborhood meetings and occasionally met disapproval. But most voters dutifully deposited in the box their unmarked ballot with the one National Front slate. Only a few brave souls used the tiny voting booth in the rear. Most people feared that it might seem that they were crossing out names, and who wished to risk a possible bonus or promotion just for a secret ballot? When a fellow student found no pencils in the booths, he circulated an angry petition to Premier Grotewohl. For his efforts he was censured by his SED party group. That was his only punishment; he earned no enmity from other students, but the authorities surely had labeled him a potential troublemaker." (Crossing the River, p. 140.)

At National Front meetings candidates were "suggested" by local Front officials and there really wasn't much of a chance at them being seriously questioned. Even municipal elections saw 99% turnouts and 99% of the voters selecting the candidates of the Front.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes. In the GDR for instance the four other parties besides the SED had 52 seats in the 1981 and 1986 elections. In the 1963, 1967, 1971 and 1976 elections they had 45 seats each.

Why the arbitrary assignment of seats? Couldn't there be at least some popular jockeying amongst the junior parties?

[Ismail]

Why the arbitrary assignment of seats? Couldn't there be at least some popular jockeying amongst the junior parties?Evidently the SED leadership didn't want the parties doing that. The four other parties within the Front were totally subservient to the SED and rarely conducted their activities independent of SED initiatives. Assigning all of them 52 or 45 seats each guaranteed that they would be content with equal representation amongst themselves without any debate or discussion on the matter.

The elections produced super-apathy to begin with. The SED (and this applies to every other CP in the Eastern Bloc and likeminded countries) didn't want people being interested in the electoral process because that would promote debate and discussion detrimental to the SED's hold on power. Most East German simply were instructed to go vote, were given an unmarked ballot, and then proceeded to deposit it as if it were an obligation that you just did to get the whole thing over with. There were no real discussions outside of the local level, just a lot of sloganeering and generic speeches on how awesome the GDR is, the cause of peace and peaceful coexistence, the greatness of socialism, the unity of the people as embodied in the work of the National Front, etc.

A good read (although written by an anti-communist) about the East German electoral system is contained in Oppression and Scarcity by Peter W. Sperlich.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The elections produced super-apathy to begin with. The SED (and this applies to every other CP in the Eastern Bloc and likeminded countries) didn't want people being interested in the electoral process because that would promote debate and discussion detrimental to the SED's hold on power.

They really, really downplayed politics, to say the least.

Indeed, I don't approve of their particular implementation of a managed multi-party system, because of the lack of popular competition and because of even the mere existence of albeit paper liberal and Catholic parties, as opposed to popular socialistic competition.