NationStates Jolt Archive

This is from an editorial in the Samoa Observer:


ONE-PARTY STATE
This is when a political party dominates completely since there is no opposition. In such a system, there are no free elections so that the party in power stays in power permanently. This then is a dictatorship which rules with an iron fist, denies everyone his basic rights and freedoms, and have dissidents jailed or killed.

In our case, the HRPP has been in power for the most part of 25 years. We ask: Does that make it a one-party state? We don’t think so, even though there are signs it is heading in that direction.

What must be taken into account is that our system allows any number of political parties, and that an opposition party does exist even if it is in disarray and therefore ineffective. In any case, this is their own fault since instead of consolidating, they squabbled among themselves which ultimately destroyed party unity.

What’s more, we have free elections where voters exercise their right to elect the government of their choice. Incidentally, these freedoms are not allowed in one-party states, so they don’t exist there.

We agree that since the government has access to the public purse whereas the opposition does not, the government is able to undertake certain projects that win over public support. But then that’s the privilege that comes with being the government, which the opposition gets to enjoy should they one day win the elections.


(link (http://www.samoaobserver.ws/opinions/OPPages/1007/2807op001.htm))

If I recall correctly, there were two parties represented in Parliament, until the Opposition members disagreed amongst themselves and split, and those that were left were too few to be recognised as forming a party bloc in Parliament (they sit as independents instead). Consequently, there is only one party officially represented in Parliament (the Human Rights' Party, I think).

It's certainly an interesting situation. What does one say when the democratic process leads to a single-party outcome, with no organised Opposition?

What does one say when the democratic process leads to a single-party outcome, with no organised Opposition?Not sure; ask the Whigs? Or the Federalists. It's happened a couple times in America when the opposition party barely even mustered token resistance (hell, the Federalists couldn't even manage that in 1820), but another party has always come along. Sure, twenty-five years is a long time, but it's not unheard of.

And, well, Mexico was, essentially, a single party state until Fox was elected; a lovely 80 year streak.

It's certainly an interesting situation. What does one say when the democratic process leads to a single-party outcome, with no organised Opposition?

Darn?

Or maybe "damn" if I'm feeling particularly spunky.

Singapore, if I am correct, also has that situation. Or shall we call Singapore "democratic" in quotation marks?

This is from an editorial in the Samoa Observer:



(link (http://www.samoaobserver.ws/opinions/OPPages/1007/2807op001.htm))

If I recall correctly, there were two parties represented in Parliament, until the Opposition members disagreed amongst themselves and split, and those that were left were too few to be recognised as forming a party bloc in Parliament (they sit as independents instead). Consequently, there is only one party officially represented in Parliament (the Human Rights' Party, I think).

It's certainly an interesting situation. What does one say when the democratic process leads to a single-party outcome, with no organised Opposition?

Jersey is kind of similar these days, or it was when i left. there have been some reforms since, which i haven't followed. the jersey parliament (The States Of Jersey) used be solely composed of independents, most of whom campaigned on fairly centrist economic and conservative social platforms. then after some reforms a single party was formed by a maverick politician with a rather shady past (having just been driven out of Australia for corruption and the like) who has since been disgraced, in part thanks to my dad (lol). not sure what has happened since.

Singapore, if I am correct, also has that situation. Or shall we call Singapore "democratic" in quotation marks?CIA calls 'em a parliamentary republic. I think they're more in the middle of a... um... "worrisome situation":

election results: Sellapan Rama (S R) NATHAN appointed president in August 2005 after Presidential Elections Committee disqualified three other would-be candidates; scheduled election not heldLooks like the big test will be in August 2011 when the next election is scheduled.

They seem to have four major political parties (People's Action Party, Singapore Democratic Alliance, Singapore Democratic Party, and Workers' Party), but it doesn't give any indication on their power or status.

At least the people of Samoa have different political parties to choose from compared to the recent Cuban municipal election results in a one political party state were according to the Cuban government over 95.44 % of Cuban voters voted and all nominated and winning candidates are government candidates.

Were according to the Cuban government over 95 % of Cuban voters supported a petition to amend the Cuban Constitution to declare Cuba's democratic, political, economic and social system as irrevocable.

According to the Cuban government 91.35 % of voters in a one political party state government choose the united vote block option, a vote for all of the above winning candidates across the entire nation, even though elections are supposed to be by municipal districts.

Cuba 2003 Election Results :

Electoral results
By Maria Julia Mayora
609 deputies and 1 199 provincial delegates were elected. 91.35% of the voters chose the united vote(block) option. For the first time in Cuba, the amount of citizens that went to the polls exceeded the eight millions.

According to the information offered by Dr. Juan Vela, president of the National Electoral Commission(CEN), the updated voter's registry included 8 313 770 people, and 8 115 215 of them exercised their constitutional right, having a 97.61% of attendance.

Not only the high rate of participation is transcendent but also the quality of the elections. Vela indicated that 7 803 893 ballots were valid(96.14%), which surpasses last October's 241 378 valid ballots when the district delegates were elected.

This opportunity the balance of ballots in blank(243 431) and the spoilt ones(69 863), was smaller. In October they averaged the 2.78% and 2.54% respectively; this time they represented the 3% and 0.86%. This is a clear demonstration of the Cuban people position, even though U.S. employees persistent calls to sabotage the elections.

Our people, commented the university professor and President of CEN, knows what it wants, it is convinced of its principles and demonstrates this through the secret vote.

A 91.35% of the united vote, commented Ruben Perez, secretary of CEN, is a fact of extraordinary value. It means that some other 14 992 electors chose this alternative compared with the general elections of 1997-98. That percentage, he said, remarks the popular support that enjoys the Cuban democratic system, and expresses the level of unity and political culture that has been reached during this 44 years of Revolution.

SUCCESS IN THE TWO EVALUATIONS
What has happened this January is also evidence of the rigor that presided the nomination process of the 609 deputies candidates and the 1 199 provincial delegates candidates. Ernesto Freire, president of the National Candidacies Commission, pointed out that there were two important evaluations to be made for the representatives of the electoral commissions. One, derived from the fact that the municipal assemblies had the right to approve or reject the proposals, and the second one with the voting results because all nominees were elected, they need to win more than half of the valid votes.

In addition, Freire summarized the amplitude and meaning of the exchanges between the candidates and the people. Altogether, 11 102 meetings took place with the presence of more than 2 161 150 Cubans. (February, 2003)

More than eight million Cubans vote
Conclusive evidence of popular support for the homeland, the Revolution and socialism

BY MARÍA JULIA MAYORAL -Granma daily staff writer-WITH the participation of 8,115,215 voters in this Sunday's elections, the Cuban people once again offered conclusive evidence of their support for candidates for the National and Provincial Assemblies, but also for the homeland, the Revolution and socialism.

According to preliminary information given by Juan Vela, president of the National Electoral Commission (CEN), 97.61% of persons on the electoral rolls voted, on a day characterized by organization, the early attendance of millions of electors at the polling stations and the special patriotic spirit offered by the presence of thousands of young pioneers guarding the ballot boxes.

At the close of this bulletin the count was underway, beginning with the votes cast for deputies. Vela explained that once that was completed, they would proceed to validate the election of 609 candidates to the National Assembly and then the 1,199 provincial delegates. In the case of the former the responsibility lies with the CEN and, in the latter, with the corresponding provincial electoral commissions.

In order to be elected, each nominee must receive more than half of the valid votes cast in the municipality or district where they were proposed.

The CEN president emphasized the good functioning of communications systems in spite of heavy rain in parts of east Cuba, like Santiago de Cuba, Holguín, Granma and Las Tunas. He likewise praised the excellent labors of more then 180,000 citizens who voluntarily staffed the constituency tables, and the work of the commissions at all levels.

The most recent electoral process to elect municipal, and provincial delegates and members of the national Parliament, ended on January 19, 2003 with a voter turnout of 95.75 percent to elect the municipal and provincial delegates, and a 97.61 percent turnout when the elections for the national Parliament took place.

(Taken from: Granma)

I support one-party states, democracy is about the commons - that is we all have common interest etc, we only don't have anything in common when class distinctions and social stratification divides society into the capitalist and proletarian camps. In such a common society where we all alike and unified, disagreement is dangerous and socially corrosive, democracy should be about harmony and not the vile competition of 'liberal democracy' which corrodes politics into a superficial fast which breeds indifference and cynicism to public life and politics.

The capitalist classes created 'liberal democracy' to give the commons just enough power to keep them in line but not enough to make any difference over the wealthy oligarchies who in reality control the politics through corruption and economic clout. In a truly equal society disagreement would ultimately mark reactionary counter-revolutionary aspirations against the common democratic masses. Harmony and mutual concern would mark this society. Once a truly communistic society is properly formed, then political parties representing the 'left vs right' class struggle would be unnecessary as vice will have banished virtue to the abyss of history.

I will admit that I never studied Samoan politics, but there are basically two types of one-party rule:

(1) One party wins most of the elections due to popularity or because the other partie(s) have no good candidates. In 1788, for example, the federalist presidential candidate (George Washinton) ran unopposed, and they held 18 of the 26 senate seats.
(2) One party wins most or all of the elections because the other partie(s) are either outlawed or widely repressed by the government -- see modern China (where the only legal party is the communist party) and Zimbabwe (where opposition leader Tsvangirai was arrested and beaten "because he was not allowed to attend a banned rally").

#1 is democratic, #2 isn't.