The Role of Party Members in Lithuania

Part of the St Antony's Series book series (STANTS)


This chapter examines the role of party members in Lithuania. Surveys and interviews were used to gather information about the roles of party members in the Homeland Union—Lithuanian Christian Democrats and the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party. Using this data, the sub-hypotheses developed in Chap.  2 are tested. It is found that Lithuania’s single member districts encourage candidate-centred campaigning, with parties’ efforts ‘targeted’ towards the specific districts where parties have the greatest chances of success. Grassroots campaigning strategies were adopted at the district level during parliamentary campaigns, and also during municipal campaigns. Lithuania’s 72-hour ‘silence period’ also increased the value of members as ‘ambassadors in the community’ and ‘loyal and reliable voters’.


  1. Carey, J. M., & Shugart, M. S.(1995). Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Order of Electoral Formulas. Electoral Studies, 14(4), 417–439.Google Scholar
  2. Cox, G. W. (1990). Electoral Rules and the Calculus of Mobilization. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 24(3), 387–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Duverger, M. (1954). Political Parties. Bristol: Western Printing Services Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. Gherghina, S. (2015). Party Organisation and Electoral Volatility in Central and Eastern Europe. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Ibenskas, R. (2012). Activists of Money? Explaining the Electoral Success and Persistence of Political Parties in Lithuania. Party Politics, Published Online 9th October 2012.Google Scholar
  6. Kirchheimer, O. (1969). The Transformation of the Western European Party System. In F. S. Burin & K. L. Shell (Eds.), Politics, Law and Social Change: Selected Essays of Otto Kirchheimer. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Mair, P., & Katz, R. S. (1997). Party Organization, Party Democracy and the Emergence of the Cartel Party. In P. Mair (Ed.), Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. May, J. (1973). Opinion Structure of Political Parties: The Special Law of Curvilinear Disparity. Political Studies, 21(2), 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Panebianco, A. (1988). Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Scarrow, S. E. (1995). Political Parties and Their Members: Organizing for Victory in Britain and Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Smith-Sivertsen, H. (2004). Why Bigger Party Membership Organisations in Lithuania than in Latvia, 1995–2000. East-European Quarterly, 38(2), 215–259.Google Scholar
  12. Tavits, M. (2013). Post-Communist Democracies and Party Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. van Biezen, I. (2003). Political Parties in New Democracies: Party Organization in Southern and East-Central Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Wellhofer, E. S. (1972). Dimensions of Party Development: A Study in Organizational Dynamics. The Journal of Politics, 34(1), 153–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wolinetz, S. B. (2002). Beyond the Catch-All Party: Approaches to the Study of Parties and Party Organization in Contemporary Democracies. In R. Gunther et al. (Eds.), Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Zittel, T., & Gschwend, T. (2008). Individualised Constituency Campaigns in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Candidates in the 2005 German Elections. West European Politics, 331(5), 978–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political DevelopmentsLandsmeerThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations