One-party system : a one-party system cannot produce a political system as we would identify it in Britain. One party cannot produce any other system other than autocratic/dictatorial power. A state where one party rules would include the remaining communist states of the world (Cuba, North Korea and China), and Iraq (where the ruling party is the Ba’ath Party). The old Soviet union was a one party state. One of t he more common features of a one-party state is that the position of the ruling party is guaranteed in a constitution and all forms of political opposition are banned by law. The ruling party controls all aspects of life within that state. The belief that a ruling party is all important to a state came from Lenin who believed that only one party - the Communists - could take the workers to their ultimate destiny and that the involvement of other parties would hinder this progress. Two-party system : as the title indicates, this i s a state in which just two parties dominate. Other parties might exist but they have no political importance. America has the most obvious two-party political system with the Republicans and Democrats dominating the political scene. For the system to work, one of the parties must obtain a sufficient working majority after an election and it must be in a position to be able to govern without the support fr om the other party. A rotation of power is expected in this system. The victory of George W Bush in the November 2000 election, fulfils this aspect of the definition. The two-party system presents the voter with a si mple choice and it is believed that the system promotes political moderation as the incumbent party must be able to appeal to the ‘floating voters’ within that country. Those who do not support the system claim that it leads to unn ecessary policy reversals if a party loses a election as the newly elected government seeks to impose its ‘mark’ on the country that has just elected it to power. Such sw eeping reversals, it is claimed, cannot benefit the state in the short and long term.
The multi-party system : as the title suggests, this is a system where more than two parties have some impact in a state’s political life. Though th e Labour Party has a very healthy majority in Westminster, its power in Scotland is reasonably well balanced by the power of the SNP (Scots Nationalist Party ); in Wales within the devolutionary structure, it is balanced by Plaid Cymru; Cymru; in Northern Ireland by the various Unionists groups and Sein Fein. Within Westminster, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats provide a healthy political rivalry. Sartori defines a multi-party system as one where no party can guarantee an absolute majority. In theory, the Labour Party, regardless of its current parliamentary majority, could lose the next general election in Britain in 2006. Even its current majority of 167 cannot guarantee electoral victory in the future. A multi-party system can lead to a coalition government government as Germany and Italy have experienced. experienced. In Germany these have provided reasonably stable governments governments and a successful coalition can introduce an effective system of checks and balances on the government that ca n promote political moderation. Also many policy decisions take into account all views and interests. In Italy, coalition governments have not been a success; many have lasted less than one year. In Israel, recent governments have relied on the support of extreme minority groups to form a coalition government and this has created its own problems with such support being withdrawn on a whim or if those extreme parties feel t hat their own specific views are not being given enough support.
Dominant-party system : this is different from a o ne-party system. A party is quite capable within the political structure of a state, to become dominant to such an extent that victory at elections is considered a formality. T his was the case under the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. For 18 years (1979 to 1997), one party dominated politics in Britain. In theory, the Conservatives could have lost any election during these 18 years. But such was t he disarray of the opposition parties - especially Labour - that electoral victory was all but guaranteed. The elections of the 1980’s and 1990’s were fought with competition from other part ies - hence there can be no comparison with a one-party state. During an extended stay in power, a dominant party can s hape society through its policies. During the Thatcher era, health, education, the state ownership of industry etc. were all massively changed and re-shaped. Society changed as a result of t hese political changes and this can only be done by a party having an extended stay in office. Other features of a dominant system are: the party in power becomes complacent and sees that its position in power is ‘guaranteed’. Such political arrogance is seen as one of the reasons for the public’s overwhelming rejection of the Conservatives in 1997 1997.. the difference between the party in power and the state loses its distinction. When both appear to merge, an unhealthy relationship develops w hereby the state’s machinery of carrying out government policy is seen as being done automatically and where senior state officials are rewarded by the party in power. T his scenario overshadowed the Thatcher governments when the Civil Service was seen as a mere rubber stamp of government policy to do as it was told and senior Civil Servants were suitably rewarded in the Honours lists. An era of a dominant party is also an era when when opposition parties are in total disarray. This This was true during the Conservati ves domination of Britain in the 1980’s. Once the Labour Party started to strengthen in the 1990’s and internal problems were resolved, the whole issue of a dominant party was threatened leading to t he defeat of the Conservatives in 1997 1997..
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/party_systems.htm One party system Disadvantage: Lack of re[presentation. Nobody to counter-argue the decisions being made, and therefore no reason to validate the choices of the ruling party. Advantage: No time wasted on politics a nd campaigns. Time can be better spent r unning the bloody country. 1) it is against the basic principle of democracy bcoz any democratic democratic country should allow atleast 2 parties to compete in elections and provide a fair chance for competing parties to come to power. 2) single party system is very near to dictatorship
1) A single party system is when only one party is present thorughout the country. Then prople have to vote for the same party again and again every election. This means even if the people want to vote for someone else, they can 't. So a single party system is against the spirit of Democracy. 2) A single party system has no opposition since only one party is present. This means there is no one to stop the party form doing what is wants. So it becomes a kind of dictatorship.
he main advantages that can be assigned to the one-party, one-ideology system are: political stability (or better described as continuity), efficiency and ability to manoeuvre quickly and reorient between different policies. The main disadvantages of such a system are the lack of checks and balances, which drives regimes to misuse and excesses of power and eventually brings about disorder and inefficiency. Furthermore, in many cases it is the features that at first glance seem to be advantages of the system, revealed to be only skin-deep advantages and actually become acute operational disadvantages. Another weakness of the one-part y system became corruption and patronism, which led to disorder and inefficiency. a one-party state and ideological unity can be a good tool for mobilisation, but the other side of the coin is that power corrupts, a nd a system which cannot be corrected through opposition or elections can be a grave danger to the society.
Two party system
What Are the Disadvantages of a Two-Party System? By Justin Beach, eHow Contributor
The founding fathers of the United States were generally opposed to political parties. George Washington and Alexander Hamilton felt that political parties diminished the political process. Political parties nevertheless sprang up quickly and, except for bri ef periods, the U.S. has had a predominantly two-party system ever since.
1. Lack of Choice o
One of the immediate problems represented by a two-party system is a lack of choice. Voters only have two options at the polling station and their only option, if they don't like either of the choices presented, is to not vote at all. This may, in part, account for the decline in voter turnout in recent decades. In multi-party systems, smaller parties can speak for disenfranchised people and regions, even if they don't ultimately hold power.
Limits Potential for Change o
In a multi-party system, new ideas have a greater c hance of emerging. Parties, especially smaller parties, have a keen interest in new ideas they feel may appeal to the public and increase their standing. Not all of these ideas are good ones, but a greater variety of ideas can be brought before the public for approval. In a two-party system, where there is great competition for moderate "swing" voters, there is a reluctance to embrace new ideas until they have been approved by a sufficient percentage of the public.
Need for Compromise o
There are times in a two-party system when the two parties need to share power. For example, in the United States, one party can control the White House and the other the Congress, which forces the two parties to compromise. At other times, one party can control the entire government, which means that party doesn't have to compromise with anyone and a significant portion of voters' needs are ignored. I n a multi-party system, it's rare for one party to have absolute power. Parties must always compromise with other parties in order to gather the votes needed to pass legislation.
Negative Politics o
Many people claim to dislike attack ads and negative politics, but politicians keep using them because they've been shown to work. This is especially true in a two-party system. With only two candidates in a race, giving voters a reason not to vote for an opponent automatically earns votes for the candidate doing the attacking. In a multi-party system, it does not because voters, having decided they dislike one candidate, have multiple other options. In a multi-party system, there is a greater need for parties and candidates to give the public a reason to vote for them, rather than against an opponent.
http://www.ehow.com/info_8686142_disadvantages-twoparty-system.html
The Advantages of a Two-Party System
By Kate Coen, eHow Contributor
A two-party system, a political system in which only two parties dominate, competing with each other in elections for each level of government, has many advantages/ Some of the benefits of a two-party system are that is encourages stability; there is a simple process for voting; it is easy to govern; and there is less corruption. as parties are more likely to respond to their country's citizen's needs and desires.
1. Political Stability o
Historians contend that having a two-party system encourages the political stability of a country. Because the two leading political parties have to negotiate a common position that will benefit the whole country, this kind of system promotes agreement. In order to appeal to 'floating voters.' each of the to par ties must moderate their political arguments. The two-party system also promotes negotiation among legislators, increasing the political stability of a country.
Voting Process o
A two-party voting system is simple and easy for voters, who don't have to take a great amount of time to choose between many parties. Voters who are unsatisfied with one party can simply choose to vote for the opposing party. Having just two choices makes the entire voting process far quicker than a multi-party system with a great range of candidates. Voters who do not regularly vote for one party, called 'floating voters', are given an easy choice of just two parties when voting.
Governing o
A two-party system is advantageous because it is very easy to govern, with less friction and a more harmonious political environment. Indeed, the two-party system can encourage greater participation by legislators. In order for the two-party system to be most advantageous, one of the two parties must be able to obtain a sufficient majority at the outcome of an election. The party must also be in a suitable position to govern without the other party's support.
Less Corruption o
There are linkages between the two-party system of governance and lowered cases of corruption. This can be attributed mainly to leaders being forced to think of the citizens they are r epresenting, since the people of a country can very easily vote for the rival party at an upcoming election. A two-party system prevents the occurrence of a government that is not responsive to the people's desires and needs, which encourages better governance and far less corruption.
o
http://www.ehow.com/print/info_10038993_advantages-twoparty-system.html
