Small states &
representation
Dr. Liam Weeks
Department of Government
University College Cork
Structure
• Small states and democracy
• Small states and direct democracy
• Small states and political institutions
• Small states and political parties
Background
Microstates (<1m)
Small states and democracy (1)
• Small states:
• Increased social cohesion
• Increased level of community
• More attachment by citizens to the public good & direct
communication between citizens & representatives
• More homogenous populations
• Citizens have thus more political efficacy
• This benefits governability of state
• Facilitates more liberal and republican types of government
• So population size correlated with democracy but are we
wholly sure why?
Small states and democracy (2)
But, smallness can produce anti-democratic tendencies:
• Personalistic and particularistic politics
• Very powerful executive
• Smallness reduces number & variety of political interests, diminishing
ideological competition
• Helps a dominant majority maintain its tyranny
• Can result in greater likelihood of authoritarian states
• Political conflict less likely to occur, but when it does can be more
explosive & polarising, due to increased social intimacy (Dahl and
Tufte, 1973: 92-3)
• Result is political decisions left with childhood friends and cannot
separate public and private interests
• Study of Faroes, Malta & Isle of Man found that this personalised
environment can work against the formation of parties and result in a
muted opposition role (Richards, 1982: 170)
• Also means that politicians meet outside public sphere & political
institutions tend to be ignored; so a study of formal institutions
doesn’t tell us the real story
Small states and democracy (3)
• Dahl and Tufte (1973) Size and Democracy seminal work
• Of the 20 smallest UN members, only one not a democracy
• So small states are more likely to be democratic than larger
ones (Hadenius, Diamond and Tsalik, Anckar, Ott, Srebmik)
Source: Veenendaal (2013: 2)
Small states & democracy (4)
• Hadenius (1992) study: 132 3rd world countries ranked by level
of democracy
• Only 7 got max score of 10: Barbados, Cyprus, Dominica, FSM,
Marshalls, St Vincent & Grenadines, Tuvalu
• Kiribati 9.9; Belize, Costa Rica, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, T & T:
9.8
• 2 of top 13 are small island states
• Anckar (2002) repeated this using Freedom House scores:
• 43 micro states (<1m) vs 149 others
• 48 island states vs 144
• 29 small island states vs 153
Small states & democracy (5)
Size matters: micro-states more likely to be democracies
Insularity (ie island status) seems to matter
Small island states a distinctive group
Source: Anckar (2002: 377)
Why are small island states
more democratic?
• Modernisation theory? Wealth doesn’t seem to matter
Modernisation theory: literacy
Colonisation
Why are small island states
democratic?
• Anckar (2002): Four propositions
• Remote & small units more likely to promote feelings of
fellowship and sense of community
• Easier for citizens to orient themselves to political life
• Open channels of communication make leaders more likely to
seek out and understand preferences of community
• Greater attitudinal homogeneity – this promotes knowledge,
consideration and anticipation
Is smallness that linked to
democracy?
• Veenendaal (2013) disputes this
• Finds that presence of democratic institutions in Pacific islands
masks an anti-democratic reality:
• Studies San Marino, St Kitts & Nevis, Seychelles, Palau & finds
‘personalistic politics, polarization and victimization,
disproportionate executive dominance, patron-client linkages, and
particularistic forms of political participation’ (2013: 15)
• Of greater impact in terms of democratic presence are
• Colonial history
• Geographical location (in ‘democracy-stimulating’ regions?)
• International relations (international clientelism & patrons)
• E.g. San Marino’s political history has mirrored that of Italy, & Italy also
protects SM’s democracy (1957 crisis)
• Concludes that link between size & democracy could appear to be
spurious & at best is indirect
Direct democracy in small
states
• See Anckar (2004), ‘Direct democracy in microstates & small island
states’
• Should be more prevalent
• Size encourages greater participation
• Size & intimacy means more knowledge of issues
• Size prevents special interests manipulating systems
• Higher turnout
Alternative Hypothesis:
• Leaders & followers have closer relationship so latter know
preferences & no need for referendum
• Homogeneous states have no need to ask everyone- parliament will
suffice
Most micro & small sates do not use direct democracy (81%)-30% have
no such devices, 50% have but don’t use
• Of those that have Andorra, Belau, Maldives, Seychelles used 1-2
• Liechtenstein most frequent user (c. 30), San Marino also active
Direct democracy: typology
Source: Anckar (2004: 383)
Direct democracy variables in
microstates
What matters? Not size, nor homogeneity (heterogeneous countries more
frequent users), nor insularity (only 5/29 island countries use direct democracy;
5/13 non-islands do). British colonial background matters (2/12 DD are ex-GB;
50% non-users are)
Source: Anckar (2004: 385)
Direct democracy (3)
Patterns:
• Small states used referendums more
• Larger states use policy votes
• But half of microstates without a British colonial background use policy vote
(vs. 9% with one), so size doesn’t affect propensity to use policy vote
• But no such pattern evident for referendums: 55% of small former GB
colonies use it; 33% of larger colonies don’t
What institutions do small states
use?
• Electoral systems –tends to be that of their colonial masters, or that
imposed by such masters, or that of a dominant neighbouring power
• Party systems? Doesn’t always follow Duverger’s rule, eg St Kitts &
Nevis (SMP) has a four-party system, Palau has no parties
• But institutions don’t seem to matter too much in small/microstates:
• Veenendaal study of 4 microstates (St Kitts & Nevis, San Marino, Palau
& Seychelles) found that with different electoral & party systems &
executive institutions they don’t affect the nature of political
competition, which is pretty much the same across these most
different systems – personality & interpersonal relationships matter
• Institutions often ignored in these settings – so a study of institutions
not always revealing: some have no parties, where some do, merely
personal vehicle tools
Guide: Comparison 1. 76% of SIS are democratic vs 37% of all other states.
Source: Anckar (2006: 48)
Islandness and smallness
Source: Anckar (2006: 49)
• Small island states make a difference and they don’t
• Islandness contributes more than size
• But small size & islandness seem intertwined by impact and
causation
• Newitt (1992: 16): ‘Not all small states are islands and not all island
states are small; but the problem of ‘smallness’ is given an added
dimension in the case of an island, and insular isolation can be
considerably intensified if you are also small’
Parliaments: structural nature
Small states and parties
•
•
•
•
•
In some small states there are no parties
Why?
All these cases located in the Pacific, so is it political culture?
As table in next slide shows, no single factor decisive
Geography seems important, in terms of location, contiguity
(being dispersed archipelagos) and size
• Source: Anckar (2000: 242)
Small states and parties
Source: Anckar and Anckar (2000: 232); Diversity=closer to zero, more homogeneous
Is it size or island status?
• Most small states in Europe not islands
• Most small states are islands
• Is the absence of parties in small island states due to size or
island status
• See Anckar (2006) ‘Islandness or smallness’
• Some small island states have many parties: Comoros
(600,000 & 16 parties); Solomons (300,000 & 8 parties);
Vanuatu (150,000 & 7 parties); Iceland (300,000 & 9 parties)
Small states and parties
•
•
•
•
Why would size affect type of representation?
What is the direction of the relationship?
Does their size result in a certain type of representation?
Or because of their type of representation are particular type
of institutions adopted to reflect this culture
• Example: electoral system of PR-STV (single transferable vote)
used in Ireland and Malta
• Very personalistic political cultures in both
Small states and parties
• Independents the smallest political form of representation
• Small island states the smallest political unit
• Does it stand to reason that we’re more likely to see
independents in these small island states?
• One small (how small?) island in Europe has more
independents than the rest of the western world combined
• 2012: 17/32 independents in 36 parliaments sit in Irish
parliament
1
19 9 2
27 3
19 (1
27 )
(2
19 )
3
19 2
3
19 3
3
19 7
3
19 8
4
19 3
4
19 4
4
19 8
5
19 1
5
19 4
5
19 7
6
19 1
6
19 5
6
19 9
7
19 3
7
19 7
19 8
82 1
19 (1
82 )
(2
19 )
8
19 7
8
19 9
9
19 2
9
20 7
0
20 2
0
20 7
11
Presence of independents in Irish
parliament, 1923-2011
18
16
14
12
% Seats
N Seats
10
8
6
4
2
0
Success of independents in Ireland an exception
Number of independent MPs since 1945
Total no. of seats won
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Malta
Australia
Canada
UK
US
New
Zealand
Ireland
2011 Independents
Impact of independents on
government
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2008-2011 Cowen
2007-2008 Ahern
1997-2002 Ahern
1989-1992 Haughey
1987-1989 Haughey
1982 Haughey
1981-1982 FitzGerald
1965-66 Lemass
1961-65 Lemass
1954-1957 Costello
1951-1954 de Valera
1948-1951 Costello
All needed independent
vote in parliament:
formal arrangements in
most cases
So why are there independents
in that small European state?
• Political culture?
• Electoral system?
• Electoral regulations?
• Size?
• Party system?
• Homogeneity?
• Why are there no independents in other
small European states?
Conclusions
•
•
•
•
Small states have different politics
Are states in Europe not small enough?
Do they need insularity (island status) to be distinctive?
Is politics in small island states the closest to the Athenian
city-state model of democracy?
• Is it a façade?
• Thoughts/comments?
References
• Anckar, D. (1996) Noncontiguity and political architecture: the parliaments of small island
states, Political Geography, p 702, Vol 15, No 8.
• Anckar, D., & Anckar, C. (2000) Democracies without parties. Comparative Political Studies,
33(2), 225–247.
• Anckar, Dag. “Why Are Small Island States Democracies?” The Round Table 91, no. 365
(2002): 375–390.
• Anckar, Dag. “Regime Choices in Microstates: The Cultural Constraint.” Commonwealth and
Comparative Politics 42, no. 2 (2004): 206–223.2006
• Dahl, Robert A., and Edward R. Tufte. Size and Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press, 1973.
• Hadenius, Axel. Democracy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press,1992.
• Newitt, M. (1992) ‘Introduction’ in H.M. Hintjens & M.D.D. Newitt, eds., The Political
Economy of Small Tropical Islands, Exeter, University of Exeter Press, pp. 1-17.
• Richards, Jeffrey. “Politics in Small Independent Communities: Conflict or
Consensus?”Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 20, no. 2 (1982): 155–171.
• Veenendaal, Wouter P. “Size and Personalistic Politics: Characteristics of Political
Competition in Four Microstates.” The Round Table 102, no. 3 (2013): 245–257.
• Veenendaal, Wouter P. “Democracy in microstates: why smallness does not produce a
democratic political system”, Democratization, published online 25 October 2013