A one-party state, single-party state, one-party system or single-party system is a governance structure in which only a single political party controls the ruling system.[1] All other parties are either outlawed or only enjoy limited and controlled participation in elections. Sometimes the term "de facto one-party state" is used to describe a dominant-party system that, unlike the one-party state, allows (at least nominally) democratic multiparty elections, but the existing practices or balance of political power effectively prevent the opposition from winning power.
World's states coloured by systems of government: Parliamentary systems: Head of government is elected or nominated by and accountable to the legislature
Presidential system: President is the head of government and is independent of the legislature
Presidential republic
Hybrid systems:
Semi-presidential republic: Executive president is independent of the legislature; head of government is appointed by the president and is accountable to the legislature
Assembly-independent republic: President or directory is the head of government and is elected by the legislature, but is not accountable to it
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. Others argue that the one party is the vanguard of the people, being its most politically aware members, and therefore the party's right to rule cannot be legitimately questioned. 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.
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.[2]Leon Trotsky argued that he and Lenin had intended to lift the ban on the opposition parties such as the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries as soon as the economic and social conditions of Soviet Russia had improved.[3]
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.
With such a small winning coalition, leaders in one-party states usually lack the incentive to care about the well-being of citizens.[4] Rather, they give out private goods to fellow elites to ensure continued support. One-party, compared to dominant-party dictatorships, structure themselves unlike democracies. They also turn into democracies at a lower rate than dominant-party dictatorships.[5] While one-party states prohibit opposition parties, some allow for elections at the smallest local level. One-party states lack any legitimate competition. Therefore, they place elites and sympathetic candidates in key administrative races.[6] For example, the Chinese Communist Party exercises political control by infiltrating village administrations.[7] They view these positions as crucial for gathering information on the population and maintaining a presence in the far reaches of their borders.[8] One-party states recognize the trade-off between election victory and gathering valuable data.[9] To account for this, the regimes have been observed placing local nobility in easy-to-win races.[10] One-party states have also been observed using elections to ensure that only the most popular elites get chosen to office.[11] They also gather data from elections to indicate if a local official is performing poorly in the eyes of the residents.[11] This gives locals the opportunity to monitor local officials and communicate satisfaction with the local government.[11] Throughout the country, members of the one party hold key political positions.[5] In doing so, the party avoids committing outright fraud and rather sustains their power at the local level with strategic appointment of elites.[8] It is also worth noting that it is difficult to gather clear data on these regimes, given their private nature.[6]
One-party states are usually considered to be authoritarian,[12] to the extent that they are occasionally totalitarian. On the other hand, not all authoritarian or totalitarian states operate upon one-party rule. Some, especially amongst absolute monarchies and military dictatorships, have no need for a ruling party, and therefore make all political parties illegal.
Current one-party states
As of 2024 the following countries are legally constituted as one-party states:
A de facto one-party system is one that, while not officially linking a single political party to governmental power, utilizes some means of political manipulation to ensure only one party stays in power.[19] Many different countries have been claimed to be de facto one-party states, with differing levels of agreement between scholars, although most agree that the African continent is marked by this political system.[20][21] Below are just a few examples of governments that have been claimed to have single party rule due to political manipulation.
The MPLA has ruled Angola since its declaration of independence from Portugal, starting as a de jure one-party state, then initiating a multiparty system in 1991.
The People's Republic of the Congo was a one-party state, until the establishment of a multiparty system in 1990 and the subsequent loss of the PCT, leading to a civil war in 1997, from which point the PCT has been the sole ruling party since.
Despite not having any constitutional relation between the government and the PDGE, there is a link between the 1982 constitution and Theodoro Obiang, leader of the PDGE, leading Equatorial Guinea since 1979, and having won every election by at least 92% approval, with all "opposition" parties adamantly supporting Obiang, and never holding more than 32% of seats in any house.
After the signing of the Treaty of San Francisco, the estranged right wing parties began gaining power, and with incentives from the CIA,[22] they formed the LDP, counteracting the formation of the JSP, establishing the 1955 System (also known as the One and a Half Party System), in which the LDP has ruled in all but 4 years.
The FRELIMO has ruled Mozambique since its declaration of independence from Portugal, starting as a de jure one-party state, then initiating a multiparty system in 1994.
Since 1947, the Colorado party has been dominant in Paraguayan politics, ruling as the only legal party between 1947 and 1962, and has controlled the presidency since 1948 notwithstanding a brief interruption between 2008 and 2013. With almost 2 million members, it is the largest political party in the country. Despite the party's grip on power, the government still sustains the defining characteristics of a procedural democracy [23]
Although Rwanda is nominally democratic, elections are manipulated in various ways, which include banning opposition parties, arresting or assassinating critics, and electoral fraud.[24][25]
.jpg)
.jpg)
