Dominant-party system

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Not to be confused with One-party state.

Part of the Politics series
Party politics
Political spectrum
Left-wing
Centre
Right-wing
Platforms/Ideologies
Types
Leaders and organization
Internal elections
Party discipline
Party systems
Coalitions between parties
Lists of political parties
icon Politics portal

A dominant-party system, or one-party dominant system, is a political occurrence in which a single political party continuously dominates election results over running opposition groups or parties.[1] Any ruling party staying in power for more than one consecutive term may be considered a dominant party (also referred to as a predominant or hegemonic party).[2] Some dominant parties were called the natural governing party, given their length of time in power.[3][4][5]

Dominant parties, and their domination of a state, develop out of one-sided electoral and party constellations within a multi-party system (particularly under presidential systems of governance), and as such differ from states under a one-party system, which are intricately organized around a specific party.[citation needed] Sometimes the term "de facto one-party state" is used to describe dominant-party systems which, unlike a one-party system, allows (at least nominally) democratic multiparty elections, but the existing practices or balance of political power effectively prevent the opposition from winning power, thus resembling a one-party state.[citation needed] Dominant-party systems differ from the political dynamics of other dominant multi-party constellations such as consociationalism, grand coalitions and two-party systems, which are characterized and sustained by narrow or balanced competition and cooperation.[citation needed]

In political literature, more than 130 dominant party systems between 1950 and 2017 were included in a list by A. A. Ostroverkhov.[6] For example, in the post-Soviet states, researchers classify parties such as United Russia and Amanat (Kazakhstan) as dominant parties on the basis that these parties have long held the majority of seats in parliament (although they do not directly form the government or appoint officials to government positions).[7] In Russian political science literature, such associations are often called "parties of power."[citation needed]

It is believed that a system with a dominant party can be either authoritarian or democratic. However, since there is no consensus in the global political science community on a set of mandatory features of democracy (for example, there is a point of view according to which the absence of alternation of power is, in principle, incompatible with democratic norms),[8] it is difficult to separate the two types of one-party dominance.[9]

Theory

Dominant-party systems are commonly based on majority rule for proportional representation or majority boosting in semi-proportional representation.[citation needed] Plurality voting systems can result in large majorities for a party with a lower percentage of the vote than in proportional representation systems due to a fractured opposition (resulting in wasted votes and a lower number of parties entering the legislature) and gerrymandering.[citation needed]

Critics of the "dominant party" theory argue that it views the meaning of democracy as given, and that it assumes that only a particular conception of representative democracy (in which different parties alternate frequently in power) is valid.[10] Raymond Suttner, himself a former leader of the African National Congress (ANC), argues that "the dominant party 'system' is deeply flawed as a mode of analysis and lacks explanatory capacity. But it is also a very conservative approach to politics. Its fundamental political assumptions are restricted to one form of democracy, namely electoral politics, and display hostility towards popular politics. This is manifest in the obsession with the quality of electoral opposition, and its sidelining or ignoring of popular political activity organised in other ways. The assumption in this approach is that other forms of organisation and opposition are of limited importance or a separate matter from the consolidation of their version of democracy."[10][non-primary source needed][excessive quote]

One of the dangers of dominant parties is "the tendency of dominant parties to conflate party and state and to appoint party officials to senior positions irrespective of their having the required qualities."

opposition parties are legally allowed to operate, but are too weak or ineffective to seriously challenge power, perhaps through various forms of corruption, constitutional quirks that intentionally undermine the ability for an effective opposition to thrive, institutional and/or organizational conventions that support the status quo, occasional but not omnipresent political repression, or inherent cultural values averse to change.[citation needed
]

In some states opposition parties are subject to varying degrees of official harassment and most often deal with restrictions on free speech (such as press laws), lawsuits against the opposition, and rules or electoral systems (such as

Protestant majority.[citation needed] Similarly, the Apartheid-era National Party in South Africa had the support of Afrikaners who make up the majority of White South Africans while English-speaking white South Africans tended towards more liberal and reform-oriented parties like the Progressive Federal Party.[citation needed
]

Progressive Conservatives from 1971 to 2015. On the other hand, where the dominant party rules nationally on a genuinely democratic basis, the opposition may be strong in one or more subnational areas, possibly even constituting a dominant party locally; an example is South Africa, where although the African National Congress is dominant at the national level, the opposition Democratic Alliance is strong to dominant in the Province of Western Cape.[citation needed
]

Methods of dominant-party governments

In dominant-party governments, they use institutional channels, rather than repression, to influence the population.[11] Coercive distribution can control citizens and economic elites through land reform, poverty alleviation, public health, housing, education, and employment programs.[12] Further, they distribute private goods to the winning coalition (people who are necessary for its reign) in order to stay in power.[13] Giving the winning coalition private goods also prevents civil conflict.[14] They also use the education system to teach and uphold compliance. The recruiting, disciplining, and training of teachers allow for authoritarian governments to control teachers into following their objective: to foster compliance from the youth.[15] Another way that they maintain control is through hosting elections. Even though they would not be fair elections, hosting them allows citizens to feel that they have some control and a political outlet.[16] They can also enhance rule within their own state through international collaboration, by supporting and gaining the support, especially economic support, of other similar governments.[17]

Current dominant-party systems

Africa

Americas

Asia and Oceania

Eurasia

Europe

Formerly dominant parties

North America

  •  Mexico:
    • The
      states until 1989 and controlled both chambers of congress until 1997. As of 2023, the PRI has continued an uninterrupted hold of the governorship in one state: Coahuila
      .
    • The Liberal Party, later known as the National Porfirist Party, ruled consistently from 1867 to 1911.
  • Southern  United States:
    • Before the Civil War and through the
      Jim Crow era and until the 1990s, the South (usually defined as coextensive with the former Confederacy) was known as the "Solid South" due to its states' reliable support of the Democratic Party, enabled in party by significant amounts of voter suppression and outright election subversion.[33][34][35]

Caribbean and Central America

South America

Europe

Asia

Africa

Oceania

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Presidents in Singapore are not allowed to belong to any party
  2. ^ a b c The predecessors of the ÖVP are the Christian Social Party ruled from 1907 to the renaming 1933 and the Fatherland Front ruled from 1933 to the Anschluss 1938.
  3. ^ a b Formerly its predecessors PSI (before 1924), PCI, PDS and DS.
  4. ^ a b Formerly its predecessor People's Alliance (before 1989).
  5. People's Labor Party (with SHP), People's Democracy Party, Democratic People's Party, Thousand Hope Candidates and Labour, Democracy and Freedom Bloc
    .

References

  1. doi:10.30570/2078-5089-2017-87-4-133-149
    .
  2. doi:10.30570/2078-5089-2017-86-3-136-153
    .
  3. ^ "Natural Governing Party". The Dictionary of Canadian Politics. Campbell Strategies. 2022. Retrieved December 5, 2022.
  4. ISBN 9780307743879
    . The Republicans had come to see themselves as the natural governing party of the United States. Leaving aside the Cleveland and Wilson accidents, they had been in power since Grant's day. If Republican delegates declared an uncharismatic Hoover worthy of the presidency, voters were unlikely to argue.
  5. ^ Chin, James (November 15, 2022). "UMNO intends to return as Malaysia's natural governing party". Nikkei. Retrieved December 5, 2022.
  6. ^ Ostroverkhov, A. A. (2017). "В поисках теории однопартийного господства: мировой опыт изучения систем с доминантной партией (II)" [In search of a theory of one-party domination: world experience in studying systems with a dominant party (II)] (PDF). Politeia (in Russian). 4 (87). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 8, 2020.
  7. ^ Isaacs, R.; Whitmore, S. (2013). "The Limited Agency and Life-Cycles of Personalized Dominant Parties in Post-Soviet Space: The Case of United Russia and Nur Otan". Democratization. 4 (21).
  8. ^ Przeworski, A. (2000). Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 16.
  9. ^ Ostroverkhov, A. A. (2017). "В поисках теории однопартийного господства: мировой опыт изучения систем с доминантной партией (II)" [In search of a theory of one-party domination: world experience in studying systems with a dominant party (II)] (PDF). Politeia. 4 (87): 134. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 8, 2020.
  10. ^ a b c d Suttner, R. (2006), "Party dominance 'theory': Of what value?", Politikon 33 (3), pp. 277–297
  11. ISBN 978-0-19-088019-4. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help
    )
  12. ISSN 1094-2939
    .
  13. OCLC 1156414956
    .
  14. S2CID 204450972
    .
  15. S2CID 245164001
    .
  16. S2CID 13901166
    .
  17. ISSN 0304-4130
    .
  18. ISBN 978-90-04-17811-3
    .
  19. ^ "2012 • Transformationsindex". Archived from the original on April 1, 2012. Retrieved April 1, 2012. (in English)
  20. ISBN 978-1-137-01170-1
    .
  21. ^ "Botswana's ruling Democratic Party wins general elections". BBC News. BBC. October 26, 2014. Retrieved October 22, 2015.
  22. S2CID 17134713
    .
  23. ^ "Archived copy". www.un.org. Archived from the original on September 4, 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  24. ^ The state's first PAN governor, Carlos Medina Plascencia, took office on an interim basis without going to the polls.
  25. ^ Vicente Fox was the first democratically elected PAN governor of the state.
  26. ^ "Kelantan Emergency of December 1977 - the Malaysian Bar".
  27. ^ "Singapore Elections Department – Parliamentary Election Results". Archived from the original on September 10, 2015. Retrieved September 9, 2015.
  28. ^ David Aprasidze, David S. Siroky: Technocratic Populism in Hybrid Regimes: Georgia on My Mind and in My Pocket, Politics Gov., Vol. 8, No. 4 (2020).
  29. ^ Phillip Oravec, Edward C. Holland: The Georgian Dream? Outcomes from the Summer of Protest, 2018, Demokratizatsiya, Vol. 27, No. 2 (2019), pp. 249–256.
  30. ^ To Understand Georgia's Constitutional Reforms, Look Beyond the President, Democracy & Freedom Watch, 6 May 2017, retrieved 7 January 2023.
  31. ^ Dresden, Cornelius Pollmer (August 31, 2014). "CDU sucht nach einem neuen Partner". Sueddeutsche.de.
  32. ^ "Геннадий Кернес, хозяин Харькова в инвалидном кресле". BBC News Русская служба (in Russian). Retrieved January 30, 2024.
  33. ^ Maxwell, Angie; Shields, Todd (June 24, 2019). The Long Southern Strategy: How Chasing White Voters in the South Changed American Politics. Oxford University Press.
  34. ^ Mickey, Robert (February 19, 2015). Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America's Deep South, 1944-1972. Princeton University Press.
  35. ^ Trende, Sean. "Misunderstanding the Southern realignment". Real Clear Politics.
  36. ^ "Bundestagswahlen – Baden-Württemberg".
  37. ^ "Wahlen zum Europäischen Parlament in Baden-Württemberg".
  38. ^ "Landtag Bayern 1869–1918".
  39. ^ "Landtagswahlen im Saarland seit 1945".
  40. ^ "Bundestagswahlen – Saarland".
  41. ^ "Wahlen zum Europäischen Parlament im Saarland".
  42. ^
    ISBN 9789631976281
    .
  43. ^ Part 2: Communist take-over, 1946–1949. The Institute for the History of the 1956 Revolution.
  44. ^ "Learning to Lose: Adapting to Democracy in One Party Dominant Systems…". Archived from the original on June 4, 2014.
  45. ^ "Turkey Under the AKP: The Era of Dominant-Party Politics". journalofdemocracy.org. January 19, 2012. Retrieved May 30, 2015.
  46. ^ "Turkey's undecided voters are leaning towards opposition alliance". June 10, 2021. Retrieved April 8, 2022.
  47. ^ Stacey, Kiran (May 8, 2015). "SNP ends Labour domination in Scotland with election landslide". Financial Times.
  48. ISBN 978-0-230-39046-1
    .
  49. ISBN 978-0-582-89431-0
    .
  50. ^ Democracy, Peoples' (June 24, 2007). "West Bengal: How The Left Front And Its Government Emerged". Archived from the original on August 15, 2017.
  51. ^ "GE15: PN win 14 state seats in Perlis to form government". Bernama. Astro Awani. November 20, 2022. Retrieved November 23, 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominant-party_system&oldid=1226459755"