Dominant-party system

A dominant-party system or one-party dominant system, is a system where there is "a category of parties/political organisations that have successively won election victories and whose future defeat cannot be envisaged or is unlikely for the foreseeable future."[1] Many are de facto one-party systems, and often devolve into de jure one-party systems. Usually, the dominant party consistently holds majority government, without the need for coalitions.

Examples commonly cited include: United Russia in Russia, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey, the People's Action Party (PAP) in Singapore, the Barisan Nasional (BN) in Malaysia, the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa, Bangladesh Awami League, Jatiya Party, and Bangladesh National Party in Bangladesh, and the ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe.[1]

Most dominant-party states are semi-democracies, with a tendency of suppressing freedom of expression and manipulating the press in favor of the ruling party.

Historical overview

Opponents of the "dominant party" system or 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.[1] One author 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, electoral politics and hostile to 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."[1]

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."[1] However, in some countries this is common practice even when there is no dominant party.[1] In contrast to one-party systems, dominant-party systems can occur within a context of a democratic system. In a one-party system other parties are banned, but in dominant-party systems other political parties are tolerated, and (in democratic dominant-party systems) operate without overt legal impediment, but do not have a realistic chance of winning; the dominant party genuinely wins the votes of the vast majority of voters every time (or, in authoritarian systems, claims to). Under authoritarian dominant-party systems, which may be referred to as "electoralism" or "soft authoritarianism", 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, or inherent cultural values averse to change.

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 club), lawsuits against the opposition, rules or electoral systems (such as gerrymandering of electoral districts) designed to put them at a disadvantage. In some cases outright electoral fraud keeps the opposition from power. On the other hand, some dominant-party systems occur, at least temporarily, in countries that are widely seen, both by their citizens and outside observers, to be textbook examples of democracy. The reasons why a dominant-party system may form in such a country are often debated: Supporters of the dominant party tend to argue that their party is simply doing a good job in government and the opposition continuously proposes unrealistic or unpopular changes, while supporters of the opposition tend to argue that the electoral system disfavors them (for example because it is based on the principle of first past the post), or that the dominant party receives a disproportionate amount of funding from various sources and is therefore able to mount more persuasive campaigns. In states with ethnic issues, one party may be seen as being the party for an ethnicity or race with the party for the majority ethnic, racial or religious group dominating, e.g., the African National Congress in South Africa (governing since 1994) has strong support amongst Black South Africans, the Ulster Unionist Party governed Northern Ireland from its creation in 1921 until 1972 with the support of the Protestant majority.

Sub-national entities are often dominated by one party due the area's demographic being on one end of the spectrum. For example, the current elected government of the District of Columbia has been governed by Democrats since its creation in the 1970s, Bavaria by the Christian Social Union since 1957, and Alberta by Progressive Conservatives 19712015. 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.

Examples

Current dominant-party systems

Africa

 Algeria
 Angola
 Botswana
 Cameroon
 Chad
 Republic of the Congo
 Djibouti
 Equatorial Guinea
 Ethiopia
 Gabon
 Mozambique
 Namibia
 Rwanda
 South Africa
 South Sudan
 Sudan
 Tanzania[7]
 Togo
 Uganda
 Western Sahara
 Zimbabwe

Americas

 Antigua & Barbuda

 Canada

Canada has a multi-party system federally, however only two parties have ever held power, the Conservatives and its predecessors, and the Liberals. However, in some provinces, a party holds hegemonic status over all other parties.

 United States

The  United States as a whole has a two-party system, with the main parties since the mid-19th century being Democratic Party and the Republican Party. However, some states and cities have been dominated by one of these parties for up to several decades.

Dominated by the Democratic Party:

Dominated by the Republican Party:

Dominant-party systems can also exist on native reservations with republican forms of government. The Seneca Nation of Indians, a tribe with territory within the bounds of New York State, has had the Seneca Party as the dominant party in its political system for several decades.

 Nicaragua

Asia / Oceania

 Cambodia

 Israel

 Malaysia

 Samoa[12][13]

 Singapore

 Syria

 Tajikistan

 Turkmenistan

 Yemen

Eurasia

 Armenia
 Azerbaijan
 Kazakhstan
 Turkey[16][17][18]
 Russia
 South Ossetia

Europe

 Luxembourg

 Germany

 Hungary

 Italy

 Portugal

 Montenegro

 Serbia

 Wales[20][21][22]

 Scotland[23]

Former dominant parties

North America

  • The South (usually defined as coextensive with the former Confederacy, with the exception of most of Texas) was known until the era of the civil rights movement as the "Solid South" due to its states' reliable support of the United States' Democratic Party. Several states had an unbroken succession of Democratic governors for several decades or over a century.
  •  New Hampshire had mostly Republican governors from 1857-1997 (140 years) – Republicans held the governorship for all but 15 years (were only twice out of office for more than two consecutive years)
  •  Vermont had only Republican governors from 1855–1963 (108 years)

Caribbean and Central America

South America

Europe

Asia

Africa

Oceania

Note

A Presidents in Singapore are not allowed to belong to any party.
Tony Tan (former PAP member) 35.20%
Tan Cheng Bock (another former PAP member): 34.85%
Tan Kin Lian: (another former PAP member): 4.91%

B The predecessors of the CSU are the Bavarian Patriotic Party ruled from 1869 (won in the Zollparlament election, 1868) to the November Revolution 1918 and the BVP ruled from 1919 to the Machtergreifung 1933 .

See also

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Suttner, R. (2006), "Party dominance 'theory': Of what value?", Politikon 33 (3), pp. 277-297
  2. King, Stephen J. (2009). The New Authoritarianism in the Middle East and North Africa. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. p. 208. ISBN 978-0-253-35397-9.
  3. Mehler, Andreas; Melber, Henning; Van Walraven, Klaas (2009). Africa Yearbook: Politics, Economy and Society South of the Sahara in 2008. Leiden: Brill. p. 411. ISBN 978-90-04-17811-3.
  4. http://www.bti-project.org/country-reports/esa/ago/ (in English)
  5. Doorenspleet, Renske; Nijzink, Lia (2014). Party Systems and Democracy in Africa. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 174. ISBN 978-1-137-01170-1.
  6. "Botswana's ruling Democratic Party wins general elections". BBC News. BBC. 26 October 2014. Retrieved 22 October 2015.
  7. O'Gorman, Melanie (26 April 2012). "Why the CCM won't lose: the roots of single-party dominance in Tanzania". Journal of Contemporary African Studies. Taylor & Francis. 30 (2): 313–333. doi:10.1080/02589001.2012.669566. Retrieved 11 July 2015.
  8. https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/34/37&Lang=E&Area=RESOLUTION
  9. "State of Kansas Governors". TheUS50.com. Retrieved August 26, 2014.
  10. "Biography: Office of the Prime Minister". Office of the Prime Minister of Malaysia. 30 April 2014. Retrieved 12 November 2014.
  11. "13th Malaysian General Election". The Star. Petaling Jaya. Retrieved 12 November 2014.
  12. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2011-03-09. Retrieved 2011-03-06.
  13. 2010 Human Rights Report: Samoa, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, April 8, 2011
  14. "Singapore Elections Department - Parliamentary Election Results". Retrieved 9 September 2015.
  15. "Singapore Elections Department - 2011 Parliamentary Election Results". Retrieved 9 September 2015.
  16. "TURKEY - AKP ushering in 'dominant-party system,' says expert". hurriyetdailynews.com. Retrieved 30 May 2015.
  17. "Turkey Under the AKP: The Era of Dominant-Party Politics". journalofdemocracy.org. Retrieved 30 May 2015.
  18. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2014-07-14. Retrieved 2014-06-04.
  19. 1 2 Formerly its predecessors PCI, PDS and DS
  20. http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2017-06-07/labour-are-on-course-to-retain-their-dominance-in-wales-according-to-our-latest-poll/
  21. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/06/its-no-fluke-poll-labour-heading-landslide-wales
  22. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/06/welsh-labour-electoral-welsh-voters
  23. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/19/the-guardian-view-on-the-election-in-scotland-a-pivotal-poll-for-the-snp
  24. Canada's 'natural governing party'. CBC News in Depth, 4 December 2006. Retrieved 2012-08-10.
  25. http://www.utoronto.ca/ai/learningtolose/participants.html%5B%5D
  26. Garnett, Mark; Lynch, Philip (2007). Exploring British Politics. London: Pearson Education. p. 322. ISBN 978-0-582-89431-0.
  27. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f350d9ac-f4fa-11e4-8a42-00144feab7de.html#axzz3pFUtHHx8
  28. Cairney, Paul; McGarvey, Neil (2013). Scottish Politics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan Limited. p. 58. ISBN 978-0-230-39046-1.
  29. Johari, J. C. (1997). Indian Political System: a Critical Study of the Constitutional Structure and the Emerging Trends of Indian Politics. New Delhi: Anmol Publications. p. 250. ISBN 978-81-7488-162-5.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.