scholarly journals In Searching for Theory of One-Party Dominance: World Experience of Studying Dominant-Party Systems (I)

Author(s):  
A.A. Ostroverkhov
Author(s):  
Teimuraz Kareli

The article deals with the features of formation of the party systems in the post-Soviet space. To understand the specific processes, the attention is focused on the inverse logic of the post-Soviet states, the basic features of which can be expressed by the concept of neopatrimonialism. In this context the functioning features of political parties, their principal tasks and the logic of creating the "power party" are described. The article examines the key criteria for the concept of the dominant party, such as its ability to consistently and steadily win the elections, the significant duration of its stay in power, as well as its personnel Control over the government. In the sociopolitical discourse the "power party" enjoys a privileged ideological position and has more opportunities compared to its competitors to appeal to voters. Along with that the party dominance reveals itself not only in its external manifestation (the stay in power), but also in the substantial one – the ability to exercise an effective political choice. The article analyzes the factors of sustainability of the "power party" systems: the historical merits of the "power party"; the ruling party’s ability to effectively take advantage of the electoral system; its strong relationships with the most affluent social groups and major corporations, as well as with the predominant ethnic or linguistic social groups; a privileged access of the ruling party to media resources. These factors are also effective in the polycentric political systems without any dominant party. However, under the dominant party systems they manifest themselves in a complex way, providing the ruling camp with a multi-layered protection due to a synergy effect. Particular attention is paid to the phenomenon of clientelism, widely used by the ruling party as a strategy of political mobilization. However, if discrimination arose by clientelism reaches the level that denies clients the right to choose, this is certainly not consistent with the rules of democracy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-111
Author(s):  
Ryan E. Carlin ◽  
Gregory J. Love ◽  
Daniel J. Young

AbstractHow does single-party dominance influence interpersonal trust? We draw on evidence from trust games played by more than 2,000 subjects in South Africa, where, since Apartheid, race-based social enmity has persisted under democratic competition characterized by single-party dominance. We find that partisan-based trust discrimination is most pronounced for those who identify with the main opposition party and is driven by strong distrust of rival partisans. These findings underscore how electoral competition, in general, shapes trust across party lines and suggests one-sided competition, in particular, has asymmetrical effects between parties in dominant party systems. Moreover, this study provides additional evidence regarding the relative weights of trustworthiness stereotypes tied to partisanship and race.


Politics ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aris Trantidis

Is government contestability an integral part of the definition of democracy? The answer to this question affects the way we classify political systems in which, despite a formally open political structure, a dominant political group faces weak opposition from other political parties and civil society organizations – an indication of a low degree of government contestability. In Robert Dahl’s polyarchy, contestability is an essential dimension of democracy and, consequently, one-party dominance is classified as an ‘inclusive hegemony’ outside his conception of democracy. For procedural definitions of democracy, however, dominant party systems are legitimate outcomes of electoral competition provided that there have been no formal restrictions to the exercise of civil and political rights. The article examines the boundaries between democracy and authoritarianism, broadens the notion of authoritarian controls to include soft manipulative practices and explains why government contestability should be regarded as a constitutive property of democracy.


2013 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 290-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Langfield

What is responsible for the decline of democratically dominant parties and the corresponding growth of competitive party systems? This article argues that, despite a ruling party's dominance, opposition forces can gain by winning important subnational offices and then creating a governance record that they can use to win new supporters. It focuses on South Africa as a paradigmatic dominant party system, tracing the increased competitiveness of elections in Cape Town and the surrounding Western Cape province between 1999 and 2010. These events show how party strategies may evolve, reflecting how party elites can learn from forming coalitions.


2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
M. Moniruzzaman

<p>Political stability is desired by every state. But is it contingent upon regime types or party systems? Existing studies on political stability suggest that regimes such as authoritarianism, democracy, and dictatorship and their variants have variously influenced political stability. Some have proved to be friendly with political stability in certain countries, while counterproductive for some other. However, the existing literature has exclusively focused on regime types alone neglecting the factor of party systems. This article argues that not only regime types but party systems also influence political stability. Based on data from Asia, Africa and Latin America this article examines the following four assumptions. Firstly, absolute monarchy and absolute authoritarianism together with no or one party system generally maintain political stability. Secondly, constitutional monarchies together with multiparty system generally maintain political stability. Thirdly, presidentialism together with dominant party system generally maintains political stability. And finally, parliamentarianism together with multi-party system is generally negatively related with political stability.</p>


Author(s):  
Catherine E. De Vries ◽  
Sara B. Hobolt

Challenger parties are on the rise in Europe, exemplified by the likes of Podemos in Spain, the National Rally in France, the Alternative for Germany, or the Brexit Party in Great Britain. Like disruptive entrepreneurs, these parties offer new policies and defy the dominance of established party brands. In the face of these challenges and a more volatile electorate, mainstream parties are losing their grip on power. This book explores why some challenger parties are so successful and what mainstream parties can do to confront these political entrepreneurs. Drawing analogies with how firms compete, the book demonstrates that political change is as much about the ability of challenger parties to innovate as it is about the inability of dominant parties to respond. Challenger parties employ two types of innovation to break established party dominance: they mobilize new issues, such as immigration, the environment, and Euroscepticism, and they employ antiestablishment rhetoric to undermine mainstream party appeal. Unencumbered by government experience, challenger parties adapt more quickly to shifting voter tastes and harness voter disenchantment. Delving into strategies of dominance versus innovation, the authors explain why European party systems have remained stable for decades, but also why they are now increasingly under strain. As challenger parties continue to seek to disrupt the existing order, the book shows that their ascendency fundamentally alters government stability and democratic politics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document