One-Party Systems Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

One-party system is an imprecise term used to refer to a broad range of political phenomena, ranging from the communist states, such as the former Soviet Union, to party systems in which one party always dominates, as illustrated by Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) predominance in Japan. As Giovanni Sartori argues, when speaking in terms of party systems, a one-party system cannot exist since the concept of system implies multiple parts. When speaking of political systems or regimes, however, a one-party system suggests a regime in which only one political party operates. Despite these apparent definitional inconsistencies, scholars and political actors alike employ the term to refer to many political regimes in which one organization that labels itself a political party regularly occupies all or most important political positions in a given country.

One-Party States

One-party states are political regimes in which one and only one party is allowed to exist. Typically, this situation results from legal proscription of alternative parties or constitutional prescription of a leading role for the one party that does operate. The communist single-party states serve as the most common example, although the German Nazi Party and Baathist parties have also been parties of the state. In the communist states, such parties typically defined their role to be to serve as the vanguard of society, leading the citizenry rather than representing it. In its 1977 constitution, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was described as “the leading and guiding force of the Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system” while the Syrian constitution describes the Baath Party as “the leading party of society and state.” Ideological conformity may be stressed more or less in one-party states, with the more ideologically unitary and totalizing regimes called totalitarian. In authoritarian one-party states, such as some African party states, ideology has been less central to the regime’s self-definition.

In one-party states, where elections only serve to confirm the next occupant of an electoral position, parties nevertheless perform a key recruitment role. Career advancement in the communist regimes was often tied to membership in the party. At important moments, single parties have proved extremely effective at mobilizing the society to accomplish collective tasks identified by the leadership. However, because of the constant threat of repression of dissidence, single parties’ capacities to provide their leadership with accurate information about their own societies tended to degrade over time, as party functionaries told their superiors just what they wanted to hear. This tendency became manifest in the rapidity with which the communist states as well as Iraq’s Baathist regime collapsed.

Hegemonic-Party Systems

Observers have used the term dominant party imprecisely to refer to cases that fall into both hegemonic-party systems and predominant-party systems, as well as any situation where one party easily outpolls the others on a regular basis. More specifically, Sartori uses Jerzy Wiatr’s term hegemonic-party system to refer to situations in which multiple parties exist but only one is permitted de facto to win most offices. The other parties exist to provide the semblance of competition; effectively they are licensed as minor parties. The governing parties in hegemonic party systems may be either ideological or pragmatic in their orientation. Hegemonic parties play a key political recruitment role in their societies. Because they permit some pluralism of political representation, they allow for more effective political communication to flow between elites and masses than do their counterparts in one-party states.

The Polish United Workers’ Party, the governing party in communist Poland, despite claiming the “leading role” in that society, permitted two smaller parties to operate as part of its governing coalition. In Mexico, the long-ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) allowed several small opposition parties to exist, some of which offered genuine—though loyal—opposition, others offering nothing more than token opposition in return for congressional seats. For decades, the PRI resorted to fraud both to defeat genuine oppositionists and to create congressional seats for unpopular nominal opposition parties. Taiwan, under the Kuomintang (KMT), was initially a noncommunist one-party state but became a hegemonic-party system when the KMT began allowing opponents to operate in the 1980s. In Mexico and Taiwan, parties that were once token opposition eventually developed strategies that allowed them to take power from the hegemonic parties.

Predominant-Party Systems

Where genuine political competition exists but rarely wins office or fails to take a significant number of legislative seats, a predominant-party system may be said to operate. Examples include India under Congress Party dominance, Japan under the LDP, and postwar Italy during which the Christian Democrats led most governments. Some scholars would include state or regional-level party systems in the United States, such as the one-party South. Observers often refer to such situations as one-party systems because those parties other than the one that dominates have little access to decision-making power. In such contexts, the politically ambitious will be naturally attracted to the predominant party and that party must serve as a so-called big tent. This gravitation of the politically ambitious to the regular winner reinforces other factors that favor predominant parties; these factors can include the ideological sentiment of the voters, the capacity of governing parties to distribute pork or patronage, and electoral rules that can encourage opposition fragmentation.

Bibliography:

Brooker, Paul. Non-democratic Regimes:Theory, Government and Politics. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000.
Fainsod, Merle. Smolensk under Soviet Rule. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958.
Huntington, Samuel P., and Clement H. Moore, eds. Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society:The Dynamics of Established One-party Systems. New York: Basic Books, 1970.
Key,V. O., Jr. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Knopf, 1949.
Pempel,T. J., ed. Uncommon Democracies:The One-party Dominant Regimes. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1990.
Sartori, Giovanni. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Smith, Peter H. Labyrinths of Power: Political Recruitment in Twentieth-century Mexico. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978.
Widner, Jennifer A. The Rise of a Party-state in Kenya: From “Harambee” to “Nyayo!” Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.

This example One-Party Systems Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.