Dag Anckar

WHY ARE SMALL ISLAND STATES DEMOCRACIES

Empirical findings in the democracy literature suggest that small-sized and insular units hold democracy in high esteem. Utilizing Freedom House data on a comparative basis, this study verifies the existence of a strong link between small s ize and ins ularity on the one hand and dem ocracy on the other hand. Modernization theory is unable to explain this association between small size and democracy, and the same is true of the literacy and education aspect of modernization. Furthermore, an analysis of the impact of colonial heritage indicates that this factor does not challenge the explanatory power inherent in smallness alone. The usual determinants of democracy thus performing less well, contesting assumptions are called for, and a set of propositions is put forward that may prove helpful in future attempts to understand why small size is such a fertile soil for democratic standards.

Democracies without Parties

The belief that modern democracy is party democracy is widespread. However, the belief may be questioned. A number of small independent island states that subscribe to a high extent to democratic values, standards, and institutions manage without political parties. In all, six such cases exist, namely, Belau (Palau), the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Tuvalu. The analysis of these cases is guided by three general assumptions: (a) the impact of diminutive size on the existence and number of parties, (b) the corresponding impact of geographical noncontiguity, and (c) the impact of culturally defined resistances against party life and party rule. Comparisons with conditions in other small island states suggest that the assumptions are valid given that extreme values are entered into the analysis. Extreme smallness, an extremely archipelagic geography, and an intense cultural resistance all contribute to an absence of political parties in democracies.

Homogeneity and Smallness: Dahl and Tufte Revisited

In their well-known volume on ‘Size and Democracy’ (1973), Robert Dahl and Edward Tufte argue that small units are likely to be more homogeneous, whereas larger units are likely to exhibit more diversity. This study of the microstates of the world and of selected control groups of states supports this view only in part. In terms of attitudinal diversity, smaller units are indeed more homogeneous. In terms of ethnic and religious diversity, however, no significant differences emerge between small states and large states. This suggests that categoric differences are transformed in larger units to a greater extent into attitudinal differences. Bearing in mind that most microstates are island states, the capacity of microstates to manage ethnic diversity may in several cases be due to the intimacy of island communities which binds members together in mutual solidarity.

Small Is Democratic, But Who Is Small?

Several studies indicate a significant correlation between small states and democracy, smallness usually being defined in terms of microstates with populations of less than one million. However, no convincing model has emerged so far of the mechanisms that serve to transform smallness into democratic conduct. This is probably in part a consequence of the negligence of the fact that the smallness-democracy relation is within the microstate camp time-dependent as well threshold-dependent. A mechanical application of the conventional microstate criteria therefore appears a somewhat doubtful method to achieve an understanding of the true impact of smallness.

Lilliput Federalism: Profiles and Varieties

Although federal states as a rule are big states, this is a rule with exceptions. Several federations are middle-sized or even small, and among them are indeed four microstate cases, namely Belau, Comoros, Federated States of Micronesia and St Kitts-Nevis. These diminutive polities satisfy reasonably well the usual criteria and attributes of federal states, but represent deviations from the American federal model, characterized, according to Alfred Stepan, by coming-together federalism, symmetry and demos-constraining political consequences. Whereas microstate federalism is predominantly symmetric and demos-enabling, more than coming-together it stands for holding-together and putting-together varieties of federalism.

Bicameral microstates: A commonwealth category

More than half of the worlds microstates—those with a population of one million or less—are members of the Commonwealth. A high proportion of microstates which, despite their small size have bicameral legislatures, are in the Commonwealth. In larger states bicameral legislatures have two essential functions. They secure access of regional and similar interests to a parliamentary arena from which they might otherwise be excluded; and they allow for a moderating and revising role by an upper chamber. The paper examines the relevance of these functions to microstates with bicameral legislatures and compares them with unicameral microstates in the Commonwealth. The relevance of uni‐ or bicameralism to microstates where the party of government dominates the lower houses is also examined.

Assembly quotas in microstates

SUMMARY In several countries a certain number of parliamentary seats are reserved for designated groups, organizations or interests, and these reserved seats are often filled by methods that are different from the normal method that is used in national elections. The use of this mechanism is comparatively frequent in microstates, and this is rather surprising as small territories, precisely because they are small, could be expected to be less than obvious candidates for the maintenance of devices for the representation of particular interests. An empirical investigation of the practice in microstates suggests that the introduction of the device may serve very different ends in different systems and that the use of the device is in individual cases due to different considerations, the level of democracy and a non-contiguous geography being the foremost explanatory factors.

Foreign Policy Leadership in Finland: Towards Parliamentarization?

Anckar, D. Foreign Policy Leadership in Finland: Towards Parliamentarization? Cooperation and Conflict, XIX, 1984, 219-233. According to the Finnish Constitution, the President determines Finlands relations with foreign powers. It is commonly believed in Finland that this arrangement is expedient and to the benefit of the nation. This is generally backed with arguments pertaining to the specific nature of foreign policy and to the need for continuity in political life. This paper calls these arguments into question, and it is argued, on the one hand, that the doctrine which emphasizes the specific nature of foreign policy is not well substantiated, and, on the other, that the potential of the presidency lies in discontinuity rather than continuity. It is also argued that attempts at moderating the role of the President in Finnish political life must, if they are to be realistic, involve interferences with his powers in foreign policy.

Party Strategies and Foreign Policy: The Case of Finland, I955-63

The author tries to explain why the foreign policy debate in the party press in Finland, 1955-63, actually took the form it did. The scheme of analysis developed by Gunnar Sjöblom for party strategies in a multiparty system is used as a theoretical frame of reference and is applied to a material consisting of editorials in 19 party papers in connection with debates on 9 foreign policy situations. As to the value systems of parties, the author makes a distinction between three foreign policy approaches: (1) lim itative, (2) adaptive, and (3) augmentative interpretations. A quantitative analysis suggests that the parties put forward their interpretations in accordance with a pattern which corresponds to the ideological rankings of parties. This is followed by an analysis of how the parties in their propaganda have tried to advance the vote maxima tion goal and the maximation of parliamentary influence goal, and by discussions of how the parties have solved conflicts between strategic goals and programme goals in different types of situations.