PS4304 LECTURE 3 NOTES

THE ONE-PARTY DOMINANT SYSTEM, CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR ITS

DEVELOPMENT, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION

1. Introduction
The objective of this theme is to expose you, students, to the literature on the debates on the
pervasive phenomenon of one-party dominance, as we have seen in the last theme, and its
implications for democratic consolidation in the region. Our focus, in this theme, is on the
pervasive phenomenon of the one-party-dominant system in the region. It will help you if you
read the prescribed and availed material here (Barnes, 1974; Suttner, 2004; Karume, 2004;
and Mthimkulu, 2009) to fully appreciate the debates on the theme.
Learning outcomes for the theme:
At the end of the theme, you should be able to:
 Critically discuss the concept of one-dominance as applied in the region.
 Explain the conditions under which one-party dominance evolved and endure.
 Assess the effect of one-party dominance on the democratic consolidation process in the
region.
2. The one-party dominant system: What is it?
There are many definitions, but a consensus is that it is one in which one party defeats all others
in several consecutive elections and heads the government for long time continuously or with
only ephemeral interruptions. It may not necessarily be a majority party but enjoy a plurality vote
(see Mtimkulu 2009). Giliomme (1999:140) alludes to the criteria for dominant parties’
identification:
 electoral dominance for a prolonged and uninterrupted period;
 dominance in the formation of governments; and
 dominance in determining the public agenda.
Since the beginning of the third wave of democratisation, the parties that won the transitional
poll have not lost elections, hence dominant (BDP Botswana, SWAPO Namibia, CCM Tanzania,
MMD Zambia, ANC South Africa, UDF Malawi, (LCD Lesotho, MPLA Angola, FRELIMO
Mozambique etc.) see Karume 2004 & Matlosa, 2021:106-109).
3. Conditions under which one-party dominance emerged
Mtimkulu (2009) argues that extra-ordinary circumstances prevailing at the time have led to the
emergence of the phenomenon and these include:
 organisational strength of dominant parties relative to others
 support from a strong socio-economic bloc
 penetration of society by the dominant party to win support and maintain it over a long
time
 pragmatism rather than radicalism and/or conservatism and the ability to embrace all
sections of the citizenry
 access to and the use of patronage
 leadership symbolism and/or charisma with a special appeal to wider citizenry
He presents the case of BDP in Botswana as well as the ANC in South Africa and argues that
they meet the above conditions
NB: PLEASE READ THIS WORK FOR DETAILS ON THESE CONDITIONS
1.4.2 One-party dominance and democratic consolidation
There are divergent views on the relationship between the two variables. Some scholars argue
that one-party dominance may be or is a threat to democratic consolidation because it leads to:
 elimination of the dividing line between the state and the dominant party with the two
becoming one thing
 arbitrary decision making which undermines democracy
 abuse of key public institutions (judiciary, legislature) and undermining the separation of
powers and checks-and-balances mechanisms that should enhance the democratic rule
 abuse of advantages enjoyed by incumbency leading to corruption and unaccountable
government (Gilliomee 1999:151)
Others argue that one-party dominance is not necessarily inimical to democracy or democratic
consolidation. Instead, it is a product of a democratic electoral process with legitimacy conferred
on it by the citizens.
According to Arian and Barnes (1974:593) one-party dominance has the following advantages:
 it suggests a model of how democracy and stability may be combined under difficult
conditions
 it is procedurally democratic because it permits more than one party to compete in
elections
  It mobilises citizens and substantively democratic
 it provides for stable government because it facilitates a majority either alone or in
coalition with partners that it is able to dominate

Case studies:
What is happening on the ground in some of the countries with one-party dominance?
a) South Africa
The ANC has won all electoral contests since 1994, thus fitting the model of a one-party
dominant system. Suttner (2004:758) refutes claims that the dominance of the ANC in the South
African political system will have adverse effects on the country’s democratic consolidation
process because:
 there are democratic institutions that serve to protect democratic rights and contribute to
far more towards consolidation than the existence of strong opposition (the Public
Protector, Constitutional court, Human Rights Commission, or Chapter 9 institutions of
the Constitution).
 Strong civil society expressing diverse opinions thus strengthening democracy.
Despite its dominant position, the ANC has according to Karume (2004) achieved this
through democratic means and represents the expressed interests of the majority.
 it has also used its position to foster national unity and reconciliation
 it has adhered to democratic principles and respected the independence of key state
institutions, the judiciary, police, the IEC, etc.
 it has operated within the confines of the constitutional provisions and maintained,
despite its dominance, a freely competitive political system
For him, therefore, ANC’s dominance does not pose any threat to democratic consolidation in
SA.
b) Botswana
 The BDP in Botswana, too, has behaved much like the ANC since the country’s
independence.
 It has also managed the economy of the country relatively well hence its dominance and
legitimacy.
  Karume concludes that some dominant parties in the region, namely, BDP, ANC,
SWAPO, CCM have not posed a threat to democracy.
 They have functioned within the framework of constitutional democracy.
 They have been guided and constrained by democratic procedures and rules, hence the
authors’ defense of dominant party systems, especially when dominance is a product of
democratic competitive elections.
c) Mozambique
 the state is separated from the ruling party (after stepping down as president, Chissano
remained the leader of Frelimo, Guebuza head of state and party’s secretary-general)
 it is a multi-party system dominated by two parties as a result of the PR model
 Civil society and state institutions are still very weak and unable to act against abuse of
power.
 But the opposition is relatively strong and is thus able to keep in check the ruling party.
 the political leadership too has not attempted to abuse power or manipulate state
institutions for political gains
NB: Thus, while also a one-party dominant system owing to Frelimo not having lost
elections since 1992, the Mozambigue case supports the argument that one-party party
systems do not necessarily undermine the democratic consolidation process.
d) Zimbabwe
Bauer & Taylor (2005:183-196, 200-201)
 It has a presidential system with a highly powerful executive president elected directly
from by the citizens under the FPTP model.
 Unicameral parliament of 120 members and 30 of them appointed by the president, which
has weakened the powers of parliament, impedes its independence and turned it into a
rubber stamp for executive decisions.
 The state and the ruling party are almost one thing, the Central Committee and politburo
take part in policymaking
 the military is highly politicised and enriched and forms an important part of state
oppression machinery, its generals “are intricately kinked to the ZANU-PF patronage
web” and any threat to the party’s status quo is a threat to the interests of the military.
  Its commander is reported to have stated clearly that the army would not support an
elected leader of the opposition.
 the judiciary too is subjected to executive influence and earlier attempts by some of its
members to remain independent led to their dismissal
 the judiciary is now plaint and any unfavourable decisions of the courts are ignored by
the executive
 civil society too suffers systematic harassment and intimidation for the state.
 But the political system itself has two strong parties, the ruling party has ensured
domination of the system by force rather than through democratic means as is the case in
other countries.
NB: Zimbabwe is a classic case of one-party dominant system, albeit with relatively strong
opposition, becoming dangerous to democratic consolidation.