What is one party dominance?

A dominant-party system, or one-party dominant system, is a system where there is “a category of parties / political organizations that have successively won election victories and whose future defeat cannot be envisaged or is unlikely for the foreseeable future.”

A wide range of parties have been cited as being dominant at one time or another, including the Kuomintang in the Republic of China (Taiwan), the African National Congress in South Africa, and the Indian National Congress in India. Such dominance has not always been a matter of concern, with for example the dominance of the Indian National Congress being seen by some as source of stability supportive of the consolidation of democracy.

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. 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 it’s 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.”

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.” However, in some countries this is common practice even when there is no dominant party.

In contrast to single-party systems, dominant-party systems can occur within a context of a democratic system. In a single-party system other parties are banned, but in dominant-party systems other political parties are tolerated, and (in democratic dominant-party systems) operative without over 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 clubs), 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

Barry Kosmin of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture breaks modem secularism into two types: hard and soft secularism. According to Kosmin, “the hard secularist considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate, warranted by neither reason nor experience.” However, in the view of soft secularism, “the attainment of absolute truth was impossible and therefore skepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion.”