Introduction

As discussed in the preceding chapter, current theory suffers from a number of inadequacies. The task in this chapter is to fully explicate and propose possible solutions to these problems and then formulate a different explanation for electoral continuity. First, I show how redemocratizing state-socialist countries in general, and Hungary in particular, challenge our understanding of the roots of political continuity. As we shall see, extant theories are either inapplicable to former state-socialist countries or, if they are applicable, cannot explain the remarkable levels of persistence we see in such deeply disrupted societies. Second, I identify and resolve a number of theoretical and empirical inconsistencies that have prevented the formulation of a theory that can apply to both stable democracies and redemocratizing countries. Finally, I advance a new view of persistence.

Theoretical Approaches

Two Views of Persistence

The literature on electoral persistence can be broadly divided into “instrumental” and “expressive” approaches. The distinction between the two schools of thought is pithily summarized by Schuessler (2000) as one of “Doing” versus “Being.” Instrumental approaches view the voter as deciding among parties (or candidates) based on what parties do. Expressive approaches, by contrast, emphasize instead the importance of what parties are. This distinction is not meant to be essential, as one could argue that what parties are in the minds of the voters is ultimately a function of what they do (and vice versa).