Talk:One-party state

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One-party state article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

Politics: Political parties Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

De-facto one party states

De-facto one party states are mentioned once in the article, then not brought up again. Many people (perhaps more so outside of academia) understand the concept of one-party states to encompass de-facto one party states. De-facto one party states should be expanded on in their own section with some examples.

I can see that Dominant-party system already exists, but that article appears to be addressing a much more loosely defined concept - the phenomenon of any time a political party remains in power for more than one consecutive term. Moreover, it doesn't properly explain the concept of de-facto one party states and their characteristics. Barring a rewrite of that article, the concept of de-facto one party states should be expanded on more in this article. 180.150.37.114 (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a deep flaw in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the entire section should just be removed. The examples given are just too open to interpretation. At least everyone can agree that de jure places like the DPRK and Cuba are one-party-states, as soon as you start throwing in "authoritarian ersatz democracy" stuff you basically just turn this into a never-ending battleground and opinion piece for "Oh I think Russia's a one-party state!" "I think they're not!" sorta back and forth uselessness.

Dominant-party already has a page. I think it more than encompasses the situation given that logically, all dominant-party states are 'de facto one-party states' by default. It's just superfluous. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree. If there's no standard for what constitutes a de facto one-party state, it open the page up to whatever bias ethnic opportunists want to push. Japan and Paraguay are among the more absurd entries in the section, where Russia is one of the more absurd omissions. 2600:1003:B05F:487A:2C80:C8B2:8543:D288 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure group 102.88.36.46 (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further Representation in "De Facto" One Party States

I've undone a major deletion of two cited countries in this article's table. This is a page to discuss what should be added, how it should be presented, to prevent major edits of this new section without previous consensus and discussion. Before deleting any country, discuss it here. I want this to be a more general thread, so unless it is heavily agreed upon, talk here before adding or deleting entire countries. Some topics I would like to discuss are specifying who claims what; establishing how strict and formal this definition should be; and discussing the more controversial countries, like populist parties (such as Russia, Hungary, India, etc), increasingly multipartidary countries (like Mexico and Japan). And on the more extreme end, adding countries which have party bans (I don't really agree with most of these, but are valid arguments, and should be discussed). Nknka (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly, I still think that the entire section should just be deleted and just mention that "dominant-party states are often considered de-facto one-party states" and leave it there. Otherwise, it's just going to be a slinging contest of people adding and removing countries. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agreed - it makes more sense if the dominant-party system article is the home for those discussions/tables Superb Owl (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move Mexico to Former One-Party States

Shouldn't Mexico be in the former one-party states list? It literally says in the information section "The PRI held uninterrupted power for 71 years, from 1929 to 2000, but its power has since dwindled and the de facto one-party system in Mexico disappeared " MaxGame5o (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxGame5o I agree, but i believe it's still up to discussion wheter it should be added to a separate list for former de facto one party state, or if it would simply oversaturate the page with tables. I have a talk page just for this type of discussion. Nknka (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is correct, in fact before you had to have permission from the government to form political parties (leaving it in the middle of a de facto and de iure legal one-party system). ComradeHektor (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela ("Anti-fascist law")

In short, it is a law that allows the government (the PSUV) to outlaw any political party or organization considered "extremist" as well as prohibit demonstrations against it, effectively prohibiting any legal opposition to the PSUV, and only allowing those parties to participate if they submit to the new laws (same case as in China with the United Front).

- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-02/-anti-fascism-law-to-tighten-crackdown-on-venezuelan-opposition

-https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article287431415.html

At the moment Venezuela does not have a constitution, but with this at least it should be put in the place of "de facto one-party states". ComradeHektor (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a "Committee Against Fascism" will be formed separately from the National Assembly to review each case. In effect, this is a state ideology. ComradeHektor (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research from the article

Concept

One-party states justify themselves through various methods. Most often, proponents of a one-party state argue that the existence of separate parties runs counter to national unity.^{[citation needed]} Others argue that the one party is the vanguardof the people, being its most politically aware members, and therefore the party's right to rule cannot be legitimately questioned.^{[citation needed]} The Soviet government argued that the existence of multiple political parties would perpetuate class struggle, so only a single party could lead a classless proletariat; it therefore made the Communist Party of the Soviet Union the only authorised political party.^{[citation needed]}

Conversely, Russian historian Vadim Rogovin attributed the establishment of the one-party system to the conditions which were "imposed on Bolshevism by hostile political forces". Rogovin highlighted the fact that the Bolsheviks made strenuous efforts to preserve the Soviet parties such as the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and other left parties within the bounds of Soviet legality and their participation in the Soviets on the condition of abandoning armed struggle against the Bolsheviks.^[1] Leon Trotsky argued that he and Lenin had intended to lift the ban on the opposition partiessuch as the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries as soon as the economic and social conditions of Soviet Russia had improved.^[2]

Some one-party states only outlaw opposition parties, while allowing allied parties to exist as part of a permanent coalition (such as a popular front).^{[citation needed]} However, these allied parties are largely or completely subservient to the ruling party and must accept the ruling party's monopoly of power as a condition of their existence.^{[citation needed]}Examples of this are the National Front in former East Germany and the Democratic Front for the Reunification of Koreain North Korea. Other states outlaw all other parties yet allow non-party members to run for legislative seats as independents, as was the case with Taiwan's Tangwai movement in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as the elections in the former Soviet Union. Still others have only a single legal party, membership of which is a prerequisite for holding public office, such as in Turkmenistan under the rule of Saparmurat Niyazov or Zaire under Mobutu Sese Seko.^{[citation needed]}

Within their own countries, dominant parties ruling over one-party states are often referred to simply as the Party. For example, in reference to the Soviet Union, the Party meant the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; in reference to the pre-1991 Republic of Zambia, it referred to the United National Independence Party.^{[citation needed]}

Most one-party states have been ruled by one of the following:^{[citation needed]}

A party which supports the ideology of Marxism–Leninism and vanguardism (sometimes described as "communist states", such as the Soviet Union)
A party which supports a nationalist or fascist ideology (such as the Kingdom of Italy under the National Fascist Party or Germany under the Nazi Party)
A party that came to power in the wake of independence from colonial rule. One-party systems often arise from decolonization because a single party gains an overwhelmingly dominant role in liberation or in independence struggles.

Superb Owl (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rogovin, Vadim Zakharovich (2021). Was There an Alternative? Trotskyism: a Look Back Through the Years. Mehring Books. pp. 13–14. ISBN 978-1-893638-97-6.
^ Deutscher, Isaac (5 January 2015). The Prophet: The Life of Leon Trotsky. Verso Books. p. 528. ISBN 978-1-78168-721-5.

North Korea, China and others...

A one-party state is not defined by the existence of a single legal political formation (rather, this has been the exception rather than the norm), instead it is better defined as a state where either by the constitution or By a legal rule or decree, a political party holds the monopoly of political power, and other legal parties may in fact exist (as in people's republics). Of course, these formations must be subordinated to the laws and therefore adopt a minor or irrelevant role. ComradeHektor (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like a Dominant-party system.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. A "dominant-party system" implies that there are still opposition parties and they run against the ruling party. That isn't the case in China, the DPRK, or in certain countries in the past (like the GDR) where the other parties run on the same electoral lists as the ruling party and recognize the latter's leading role in the state and society. --Ismail (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia is a de facto one party state

https://www.hrw.org/asia/cambodia https://www.voanews.com/a/cambodia-set-to-become-one-party-state/4505567.html https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/17/cambodia-becomes-the-worlds-newest-one-party-state-china-democracy-dictators/ Monochromemelo1 (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary and Russia

As of August 2024, Hungary and Russia are certainly De facto one-party states. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

I have readded the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic to the list of current one-party states. While not the most reliable source, Freedom House, which is used multiple times in the article, refers to a "ban on other political parties" in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. This list refers to the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic as a one-party state, and a one-party system is implied both by this article and the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. However, I am unsure of which source to cite. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 16:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Rogovin, Vadim Zakharovich (2021). Was There an Alternative? Trotskyism: a Look Back Through the Years. Mehring Books. pp. 13–14. ISBN 978-1-893638-97-6.

[books.google.com-2] Deutscher, Isaac (5 January 2015). The Prophet: The Life of Leon Trotsky. Verso Books. p. 528. ISBN 978-1-78168-721-5.

[1]

[2]