Talk:One-party state/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Inquiry

Why do "single-party state" and "one-party system" exist as separate articles with links to each other, rather than one of them just being a redirect page pointing to the other? Michael Hardy 21:41 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I think you can safely go ahead and merge them. --Kaihsu 21:46 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

complete

Anyone want to go ahead and complete Political party, Christian democracy, and a proper Populism (scandalous gaping holes in Wikipedia)? --Kaihsu 21:53 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Two out of three now. Anyone taking Christian democracy? [1] --Kaihsu 17:50, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

PRC

If one-party state is one where no opposition parties are allowed, PRC is not a one party state. If a one-party state is one in which one party dominates, and other parties are inconsequential, you can call PRC a one party state. This needs to be cleared up in the article, though. Slrubenstein

Turkmenistan is NOT a multiparty presidential republic

In Turkmenistan, the so called Democratic Party of Turkmenistan is legally the only recognized political party and is the only party that can run candidates for political office. So the world map which has Turkmenistan coloured blue really should be changed.

Communism multi-party

East Germany and Communist Poland were not single-party. There were some Agrarian Party and so. Not that they were very effective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.224.97.143 (talk • contribs) 15:39, March 25, 2004 (UTC).

GDRs minor parties were controlled by SED and they were part of the socalled 'national front' so legally, yes there were other parties but in fact that was only a nominal thing 09:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)09:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk)

rigged

Those miniscule parties were allowed to exist as evidence of some measure of formal democracy, but they never could win enough seats to challenge the Communist Parties of the countries in question. Rigged elections ensured that small non-Communist parties not subservient to the Communists had no real power.

Even a guarantee of an assured majority for one Party, so long as that Party operates in lockstep, ensures that the Party will get its way in all parliamentary proceedings, and real power is in the Party leadership. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul from Michigan (talk • contribs) 06:01, June 30, 2006 (UTC).

Western Sahara

Is Western Sahara single-party (supposing it is a state, that is)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.224.97.143 (talk • contribs) 15:39, March 25, 2004 (UTC).

Morocco controls it and allows it to elect parliamentarians, so it is essentially subject to the Moroccan political system. —Sesel 20:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism

Where in the world has a one party state arisen from Capitalism? Let's see Hong Kong doesn't have a one party system, neither does the United States. Canada, the UK, please someone tell me where a one party state has arisen from Capitalism. Don't get it mixed up with Corporatism either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.71.223.140 (talk • contribs) November 11, 2005 (UTC) .

You obviously don't know about world history. Here are only 26 examples; there are MANY more:

• Bangladesh (Ershad)
• Burundi (Bagaza, Buyoya)
• Cambodia (Lon Nol)
• Cameroon (Ahidjo, Biya)
• Central African Republic (Dacko, Bokassa, Kolingba)
• Chad (Tombalbaye, Habré, Déby)
• Côte d'Ivoire (Houphouët-Boigny)
• Djibouti (Gouled)
• Dominican Republic (Trujillo, Balaguer)
• Equatorial Guinea (Obiang Nguema Mbasogo)
• Gabon (M'ba, Bongo)
• Guatemala (Ubico)
• Indonesia (Suharto)
• Kenya (Moi)
• Liberia (True Whig Party)
• Malawi (Banda)
• Mauritania (Daddah, Salek, Haidalla, Louly, Bouceif, Taya)
• Niger (Diori, Kountché, Saibou, Maïnassara)
• Pakistan (Ayub, Yahya, Zia)
• Paraguay (Stroessner)
• Philippines (Marcos)
• Portugal (Salazar, Caetano)
• Rwanda (Kayibanda, Habyarimana)
• Taiwan (Chiang Kai-shek and successors)
• Togo (Olympio, Eyadéma)
• Tunisia (Bourguiba)

—Seselwa 00:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You obviously don't know much about capitalism or economics, all of those countries have very low levels of economic freedom (capitalism). Hong Kong, Iceland, Estonia, Ireland, Luxembourgh, Singapore (dominant party state), Denmark, New Zealand, USA,UK, Australia all have the highest levels of economic freedom and (with the exception of Singapore) are unarguably not single party states. Get your facts together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.176.167 (talk • contribs) 20:29, June 30, 2006 (UTC).

Capitalism in and of itself is universally described as a system where the means of production are owned by private forces, so I would say that each of those nations fits very neatly into the description of being capitalists. Now what you refer to as being "economic freedom" may be more in line with classical liberalism in which you are right there are LESS dictatorships which practice such a system. However they have and DO exist, such as Chile under Pinochet which was had an extremely unfettered free market and even Saudi Arabia and most of the autocratic gulf states where government regulation over industry and commerce is minimal. Capitalism does NOT always equal democracy.

Your argument makes as much sense as me asking how many dictatorships have arisen from socialism, not state capitalism, Leninism, or totalitarianism but actual socialism. A political system where the workers themselves control the means of production. The awnser would be: absolutely zero! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.85.176 (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I have edited the article in an attempt at a more neutral point of view. As it stood before my edits, the article had a strong point of view that a single-party state was not democratic, and therefore was evil (for example the idea that a single party state needs to "justify" the fact that it is a single party state). I also attempted to move items dealing with the definition and function of a single party state more to the top of the article, and moved discussion on the overlap of dictatorship and the single party system more toward the bottom. Ignus 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this article is now biased slightly in favour of single-party states. The article cites supporters of single-party states; not enough people credibly hold this opinion for it to be given equal weight. The article should state more strongly the association between dictatorship and single-party states. A single-party state, after all, is not democratic. Alksub 07:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

One-party states aren't liberal democracies, but that doesn't make them inherently non-democratic. —Sesel 07:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

label

Can anyone please label the other colors in the first map shown in the article. It just states that 'brown' color are single party states, what about other colors ? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sai Kumar Banala (talk • contribs) 23:23, May 2, 2006 (UTC).

Singapore

This article is about states where there is extraordinarly power used to enforce single party (the consitution and/or military) and not merely a dominant political party, no matter how large it's voting margin. Accordingly, I'm dropping Singapore. Jon 18:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone added the Singapore entry with "other parties exist but face governmental and judicial discrimination" as justification. "Discrimination", however, is not the same as an outright constitutional ban as is the gist of this article. Which democracy today dosent feature discrimination between political parties, anyhow?--Huaiwei 15:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The article clearly differs between states that are de jure single-party states and de facto single party state. Singapore is a de facto single-party state, and should be included. [2] --Regebro 15:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Singapore has a opposition scene which is much more alive and kicking than what western liberals would like the world to believe, which far differentiates it from any of the so-called "de facto" single-party states. When you have a source saying "Citizens of Singapore cannot change their government democratically", it immediately looses all credibility as far as I am concerned. The ruling party wouldnt need to work so desperately hard, including having to get its usually straight-laced politicians to let themselves loose in night clubs if this was true!--Huaiwei 16:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right, all sources that doesn't agree with your opinion is automatically uncredible. That's serious. --Regebro 20:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Any why would I not be surprised we will come to this? See below [3] for my response. Thankfully, it cuts both ways.--Huaiwei 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The indentation below is getting silly, so I'll summarize the dispute:

The article divides Single-party states into two groups, one that by law forbids other parties, and one "de facto" group. I quote: In most cases, parties other than the one in power are banned, although some systems guarantee a majority for one favored party that ensures the impotence of any parties relegated by law or practice (including rigged elections) to a permanent status as a miniscule and impotent minority.

According to ALL independant sources on Singapores political system, Singapores ruling party is indeed using various law, practices such as jailing opponents, suing them into bancruptcy, controlling media with heavy censorship and even banning meetings: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005&country=6829 http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8166790&d=2007 http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/sgp-summary-eng http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17360&Valider=OK This has rendered the opposition in Singapore powerless, and Singaporeans have, and I quote from Freedomhouses report: "Citizens of Singapore cannot change their government democratically."

Thusly, the description in the article of a de-facto Single-party state fits Singapore perfectly. Singapore is a state where opposition parties are not illehgal, but where they are with undemocratic means prevented from functioning properly.

The Singaporeasn meanwhile refuse to acknowledge this, and claims that Singaporeans can change their goverment democratically, but that they have just chosen to not do so, despite overwhelming evidence to the opposite.

This discussion will not be able to go forward unless the Singaporeans can prove that both Freedomhouse, Amnesty international, Reporters without borders and The Economist all are incorrect on the topic of Singapore, and that Singapore in fact is a fully functioning democracy. --Regebro 09:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we did challenge you on the accuracy of reports from any of those sources. Did you respond in kind? Nah. You just tell us the answer is "embedded somewhere in those sources" as thou expecting all readers to infer the exact same conclusions as you would. Thankfully, the world is much more plural than that. So again I ask. Respond to each of my questions above, and lets have a point-by-point discourse. Are you up to the challenge?--Huaiwei 15:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you did not challenge me on this. You have said that I did not provide any sources. That is not a challenge on the accuracy of the reports. You are here again seemingly claiming that Amnesty International, Freedomhouse, The Economist and RFS (and HRW, although I didn't link to them) ALL are incorrect. For that to be true, they have to be in some sort of conspiracy together, as it is rather unlikely that they would have reached the same incorrect conclusion independantly.

I already asked to to go to a forum suited for those debates, like Wikireason, do discuss this issue, and I already noted that this is NOT a good forum for doing that. You did not. Hence, the question is are YOU up to the challenge? I think not. You haven't provided one single source to support your standpoint, You just claim that Singapore is democratic, with nothing to support that statetement. I think it is time for YOU to show some support for YOUR standpoint. --Regebro 16:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I symphathise with individuals who suffer from temporary amnesia (for a nicer reference to a state of denial), but I clearly did issue a challenge before [4]. Need I say further? ;)--Huaiwei 16:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

1. That is not a challenge for the accuracy of the sources. 2. I have supported my claim with sources, you have responded with insults. I rest my case. --Regebro 17:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No claim of inappriopriate (and simply dishonest) behavior is true until you could provide the relevant diffs. I did. Did you? As far as I remember, we are still awaiting your sources and your answers to many pertinent questions. Whether these questions are aimed at denting the factual accuracy of your sources should not be the main reason for your refusal to go into the details, unless you simply could not engage in such a discourse. I am hardly surprised if the later is true.--Huaiwei 22:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh while we are at this, I was reflecting on your suggestion on utilising Wikireason. I am sorry, but are you suggesting Wikireason is a valid source for wikipedia's factual verification process?--Huaiwei 13:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Factual verification is not an issue here. All independent sources agree on the facts. I'm suggesting Wikireason as an intriguing and novel way of discussing issues. --Regebro 13:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. The "independence" of your sources is being questioned. The "facts" as presented by them are being questioned. So for you to declare that "factual verification is not an issue equates to me talking to an authoritarian and tyrant attempting to squish out all nay-sayers, attempting to censor criticism, and outlawying all discourse. How very democratic indeed.--Huaiwei 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The independance of the sources has not been disputed. That you "question" it, that is say "it is really independant" can evidently not be taken as any sort of serious dispute or argument. You have also not disputed any of the references I have given, nor any of their claims with any sort of reference or source. So I guess that strictly speaking, yes they are being questioned. you are "questioning" them. You do however not try to actually dispute them or in any way back up any of your questions. Thus, factual verification is as of yet NOT an issue here. You have not disputed any facts.

I have repeatedly given sources to back up my claims. You respond with insults and claims that I don't back up my statements. I don't think that will convince very many. --Regebro 17:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Singapore a single-party state?

[5] - User:Huaiwei has insisted that Singapore is not a single-party state, despite it's decribed as such elsewhere from Wikipedia [6] [7], even by an academic from the National University of Singapore [8] ([9]). He argued Singapore has a dorminant-party system [10] but not a single-party system, since in single-party states no parties other than the governing ones exist [11]. He also challenged to accept the fact that non-governing parties in the People's Republic of China, North Korea and Syria are legal [12].

The real side of the fact is that in countries like Japan there's no law preventing other parties to challenge the governing party. In Singapore politicians in opposition are frequently sued by the government into bankruptcy, and the electoral system is such designed that the opposition parties have trouble to fill candidates to stand in elections. Although not a good thing according to modern western standard, this can be a good thing and might have been a positive factor contributing to Singapore's economic success. Yet he has accused me for being disruptive, and has requested attention on my edits from his fellow Singaporeans [13]. — Instantnood 19:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Huaiwei is right, Singapore is not a single-party state. --Vsion 04:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparantly my request has been proven effective. Your only justifications to call Singapore a "single-party state" are based on what you consider "real". Are you therefore suggesting all other contributors are faking things here on wikipedia? I would certainly think this comment warrants the attention of the entire Singaporean wikicommunity, irrespective of where they marked their crosses on their voting slips a few months ago.

You argue, that "politicians in opposition are frequently sued by the government into bankruptcy". Have you done a profiling exercise on these individuals to form a nuetral position on this issue? Are you able to show, that politial parties are rendered illegal by this action? Has the opposition been sued to oblivion? Just how many opposition members were sued, in ratio to the entire opposition community here?

You argue, that "the electoral system is such designed that the opposition parties have trouble to fill candidates to stand in elections". Care to elaborate on this electorial system, and how it works to that effect? Also mind telling us if all other democracies on planet earth do not engage in similar actions to maintain and/or enhance their own political position?--Huaiwei 13:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And by the above, I hope you are not calling Singapore a "single-party state" on just these two points alone?--Huaiwei 13:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand how one would loves his country, but it's never a rational manner to called upon attention of any community, with the only reason to be shared geographical origin. From the perspectives from within Singapore these politicians may be deserved for their sentences, but there are many different views from the rest of the world, and these views should also be represented on Wikipedia. As for the electoral system, I guess I've explained why. To elaborate, parties in opposition have difficulties to fill candidates in the multi-member constituencies, allowing candidates from the ruling party to be declared winners unopposed. No ruling party in any liberal and democratic polity in the world would have manipulated the electoral system as such. The Singapore experience is far more an issue than, say, Gerrymandering. — Instantnood 10:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I note with a touch of humour that the word "love" is being used in such a context and in this discussion. Could you discuss how someone's "love" for a country is of any relevance to a discourse on a political system in a said political entity?

If it is never "rationale" to call up wikimembers from a community in this instance, would you stand by the assertion that all such similar actions are irrational and unjustified in all instances in wikipedia? And would you dare swear to God that you have never done the same?

On what basis do you comment that the perspective from within Singapore supports the sentencing each of the said politicians receive? Are you therefore suggesting, that the world abeit Singapore is against these sentences? That all 4 million souls in Singapore are supporting these sentences with both hands raised? That Singaporean contibutors are unable to write balanced, NPOV articles without the help of the global community?

Your statement on the electoral system is simply a longer sentence from your original comment, with no new information added, and no explaination whatsoever. Just how is this political tool unique to Singapore, how "serious" is it in relation to the global democratic community, and if being "unique" means greater damage to the democratic process? Perhaps you also missed the point of my original comment. I used the words "similar actions", but this does refer merely to what you are attempting (quite poorly) to describe, but includes every means of keeping a political party in power. How would you like to comment in this?

If the "Singapore experience" goes beyond Gerrymandering, mind telling us just what goes beyond that? How do these collectively render Singapore a single-party state? Since you consider yourself in the position to critique Singapore's political system to the point of calling it a single-party state, I would certainly think you have much more to say than this? What is holding you back? Self-censorship?

It appears to me that in one fell swoop, you have made plenty of dangerous comments. I would think we all (and that doesnt refer only to Singaporeans) deserve a full explaination on each of them.--Huaiwei 10:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You can find the answer to most of your questions here: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005&country=6829 Singapore is not a democracy, and is de facto a single-party state. --Regebro 15:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I challenge you to answer each question above based on that source. Then we can get about debating over them point by point.--Huaiwei 16:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. This is not a very good discussion forum, and there is nothing to discuss. All authorities on the question hold singapore as a non-democratic state. In addition to Freedomhouse there is also the Economists democracy index: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf , http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8166790&d=2007, Amenstys report on Singapore is here http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/sgp-summary-eng, mentioning the restrictions in political freedom, and Reporters with out Borders report on Singapore reporting about how the press has no freedom: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17360&Valider=OK.

Singapore simply is not a democracy, but a single-party state. There is no judgement in stat statement, it is just a simple statement of fact. There was a request for comment done, this is my comment. This is not a conflict wich requires mediation, you are simply factually incorrect in this question. --Regebro 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's what Amenstys, Reporters with out Borders and Economist think and that's their view, I can't say anything. I beg to differ that Singapore is a single-party state. The Singapore government does not ban any opposition party, and parties are allowed to be set up and have candidates contesting in the elections. If there was an election six months ago, is it still considered a single-party state to you? I don't see any bias in the electoral system and any proper evidence why Singapore is a single-party state. The PAP is a social democratic party, I don't think in anyway the government is a single-party state. There are three opposition MPs in Parliament (One NCMP and two MPs), does that still make you think Singapore is a single-party state? --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 01:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Singapore is not a single-party state, but a dominant-party system. We have elections here, and 2 opposition parties (the WP and SDA) have a seat each. Opposition parties may be discriminated against, but are not outright banned. The following paragraph in the lead section of dominant-party system seems to describe the political situation in Singapore.

"However, in some dominant-party systems, opposition parties are subject to varying degrees of official harassment and most often deal with rules and electoral systems (such as gerrymandering of electoral districts) designed to put them at a disadvantage or in some cases outright electoral fraud."

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the article clearly differentiates between countyries who are formally one party states, and those who are formally multi-party states, but who are in practice a single-party state. Singapore is correctly listed under the latter heading. Neither of the articles make a clear distinction betwen de facto Single-party states (as Singapore) and Dominant-party states, as for example South Africa, and Singapore therefore currently matches both. Maybe we should define such a difference, maybe not. But the current issue is weather Singapore is a defacto one party state within the definition made in this article, and it is.

From the article: "In most cases, parties other than the one in power are banned, although some systems guarantee a majority for one favored party that ensures the impotence of any parties relegated by law or practice (including rigged elections) to a permanent status as a miniscule and impotent minority." This description fits Singapore completely. --Regebro 11:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no such guarantee, in fact G.W. Bush just said recently that Singapore is a model for neighbouring countries. Singapore's case is not unique, for parlimentary system of a small political entity (whether is it a county, province or nation), it is common for political parties to win big or lose big, and for one party to dominate for some time before another took over. This however should not be mistaken as a Single-party system. --Vsion 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There is such a guarantee, thanks to the majority parties opression of political rights and freedoms. If you like to discuss weather Singapore is a democracy or not, maybe we can do that at www.wikireason.org, which I discovered today? There we can discuss the issue. But until then, the global consensus of all experts and organisations is that Singapore are in practice a single-party state. This is a fact. If you don't like it, I suggest you try to do something about it. But Wikipedia is here to tell the truth and the facts, not to present a polished version. --Regebro 18:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty bold to claim the existance of a guarantee without the support of any hard evidence. For a system to "guarantee a majority for one favored party", I would not think it possible unless it is constitutionalised. Could you find such a guarantee from the Constitution of Singapore? Or for that matter, any part of Singapore's law books [14]? You insisted on adding Singapore for its "de facto" single-party status. To claim it is a single-party system by quarantee, however, is as good as claiming it is one by de jure. As for any factual claims in wikipedia, we await your relevant sources is support of your statement.--Huaiwei 23:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the so-called "global consensus of all experts and organisations", I find it interesting that you have yet to find a single source which explicitely classifies Singapore as a Single-party state, whether by default or otherwise. And even if you could, whether this view is itself a widespread enough to represent "global concensus". Your view that it is one by de-facto amounts to your inference based on a set of evidence, a conclusion few other publications has actually arrived at. This smells very much like original research to me.

That is indeed interesting as I linked to one above. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005&country=6829 No, they don't use the exact wording "Single-party state", but it is clear from that article and the others I linked to that Singapore fits the description as a de facto Single-party state as given in this article. --Regebro 01:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You arent new to this site, but I find it worrisome that you appear to have rather radical views on the purpose and essense of this site. I sense you see it as an agent to advance your political viewpoints, especially given your outright attempt to incite political action. Why should you think citizens of another country would heed your suggestion to "do something about it"? Because they want to remove their country from a wikipedia article? May I also just gently remind, that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and is not a reflective pool for a single political view, in this case the western liberal one. By insisting on one view as fact, you effectively deny the existance of other viewpoints, which is not in sync with wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. Wikipedia is about "truth and facts"? Not exactly. Wikipedia is about fairly representing the views as propagandered by all factions. Which of these constitutes as "the truth" is not within this site's jurisdiction to determine.--Huaiwei 00:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and it is not a place to advance political viewpoints, and articles should be NPOV. And therefore, this article should reflect the fact that Singapore meets the criteria for a Single-party state as defined in the article. Your refusal to acknowledge this fact despite overwhelming evidence makes it impossible to have any constructive discussion with you. We will not get further on this issue. --Regebro 01:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Your response smacks of sheer hypocracy. Is NPOV = Freedomhouse, the Economist, Amnesty International, etc? Is NPOV = "overwelming" evidence (but all from the same inclination)? Is NPOV = your view on Singapore's democratic system? You insist I am in a state of denial, and claims no constructive discussion can arise. But it takes two persons to be in such a mental state for such an impasse to happen. Before insisting you have the backing of "overwelming evidence" (non of which actually support your view), why do you not take a step back and realise you may have a part to play in invoking a very undemocratic process here?--Huaiwei 15:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not take two persons for one person to be in a state of denial, that statement is very strange. Even stranger is your claims that I somehow would be a part of an undemocratic process, a claim I can't interpret anything else than an attempt to some sort of argumentum Ad Hominem. I would prefer this discussion to not be about me or you, but about the topic. And the topic is that you think that Singapore should not be on the list of de-facto Single-party states, even though it matches the definition, according to all independent observers. Your response to this has been to deny that all independent observers agree on this issue, even though you have not been able to explain why, or come with any independant sources that declare singapre a democracy. If you want to call that "being in denial", then that's up to you. --Regebro 16:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It is nothing strange, unless one has issues in basic English comprehension. My statement reads But it takes two persons to be in such a mental state for such an impasse to happen. I didnt say But it takes two persons to be in such a mental state for one person to be in a state of denial. A state of denial, perhaps? Now if Wikipedia were indeed a democracy, then I am afraid you will just have to bite your tongue and go home to your mum, coz this discussion is clearly numerically against your favour, the very tenent of a democratic process. It it interesting to note that you cant even recognise you are part of an undemocratic process. A state of denial, perhaps? But you certainly deserve credit for finally admitting the fact that this discussion is skewed towards individuals, what with your constant berating comments on individuals here who dared to oppose your views. But I find it so damn humurous that you then immediately launch into "And the topic is that you think...". I am sorry, but this isnt about what I think. Its about what the community and third party sources think. If you cant even do what you preach, you dont really have to try too hard. The sense of denial can creep in very easily as a result. ;)--Huaiwei 16:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, how do you claim that "the global consensus of all experts and organisations is that Singapore are in practice a single-party state"? If you can't provide a single reliable source, your statement here is hardly convincing. --Vsion 01:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Denouncing Freedoumhouse, Amnesty international and reporters without borders as not being reliable does not exactly help your credibility. --Regebro 01:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop playing tricks, you haven't provide any source to support your statement. --Vsion 02:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I provided above links to four different internationally respected sources, three neutral NGO's and the respected magazine The Economist. These all support me in my statements. I therefore read your claim that I haven't provided any sources with great disbelif. I have a hard time believing that you actually wrote that. The sources are given above, please read them. These organisations are the ones you need to convince that Singapore is democratic, not me. --Regebro 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may just sidetrack this discussion abit, but how would you conclude those sources are "internationally respected" and "neutral"? By the number of awards they receive from organisations who represent the international community, and organisations who advocate any other political stand? By the fact that they arent propaganding any political viewpoint?--Huaiwei 15:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

All above and more. Are you honestly trying to say that Amnesty International, Freedomhouse, Reporters without Borders and Human Rights Watch are all together in some sort of anti-Singaporean conspiracy? If you are not saying that, then I don't understand your point. These organisations ARE non-partisan well respected international organisations on human rights. --Regebro 16:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Did Amnesty International win allocades from the PRC government for its "honest" comments on the state of affairs there? I have yet to hear of this one, but you boldly claims it is true...and more? Perhaps the North Korean regime lauds the Economist for being a "non-partisan" publication? My point is not merely pertaining to how they paint the Singaporean image to their audience. My concern is your insistance that each of these publiations or organisations reflect wikipeda's NPOV policy.--Huaiwei 13:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would PRCs opinion of Amnesty internationals reports have ANY bearing on this? I do not insist any any such thing, please stop discussing me and keep to the topic. --Regebro 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am VERY well on topic, thank you very much. You claimed each of your sources are "internationally respected", are "nuetral", and "non-partisan". I would certainly think these bold claims need verifications, wont you think? I asked if these are respected by the global community, including by states or organisations of any political ideology. You resoundedly proclaimed "All above and more". This is the second time I notice you partook in dishonest behavior. While this be the last time? I doubt so. Again I insist. Show us these publications are indeed as "internationally respected", are "nuetral", and "non-partisan" as you claim, and show us they represent Wikipedia's NPOV policy, failing which you have zero grounds to insist your sources as factually correct.--Huaiwei 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read up: Freedomhouse, Amnesty International, The Economist, Human Rights Watch, Reporters_Without_Borders. It is you who has to prove that that these organisations are partial. Especially Amnesty gets universal respect from all humanists. --Regebro 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Your sources didn't say that Singapore is a "Single-party state". --Vsion 02:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My sources clearly say that the oppposition have no legal and peaceful means to win an election, which makes Singapore a de-facto one-party state according to the definitioned provided in this article. --Regebro 09:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My God. Your sources actually say it is illegal for the opposition to win an election in Singapore? That the opposition cannot win an election without bloodshed? Citations please!--Huaiwei 13:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No, my sources do not say that. My source said that there are no legal/peaceful means to win an election. That does not mean that it is "illegal to win". It means it is IMPOSSIBLE to win using legal and peaceful means. --Regebro 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you arent familiar with the English language, the word "impossible" means zero chances irrespective of all circumstance. It means even if more than 50% of Singaporeans vote for an opposition party, that party will not come to power. It means all votes ever cast by Singaporeans are null and void. Could you explain to me how would it possible for that to happen, unless the law say so? Or are you suggesting the PAP will refuse to accept an election result which is not in their favour, and will break the law to that effect? Could you or your sources answer these questions?--Huaiwei 16:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your constant insults will now require me to ask other people for help in handling you, as you seem unable to discuss seriously. I am very familiar with the language, and I know "impossible" and "illegal" are not the same word. Yes, it means all votes ever cast by all Singaporeans are null and void. Singapore is not a democracy, which I have repeatedly proven here. Yes, my sources can answer your questions. I think it's time for you to read them now. The laws are currently such that nobody will have a chance to get 50% of the votes, since everybody that becomes any serious threat are jailed of fined or bancrupted. --Regebro 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I can explain it this way: Singapore is just as much or as little a single-party state as all the states in that list. If you remove Singapore, you should remove ALL of them, and completely remove all mention of de-facto single-party states. But you didn't, you just removed Singapore. Did that make it clearer? --Regebro 13:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Please find me ANY other state in this list (including the de-facto ones) which holds regular elections, with the last election contested by four political parties/alliances which are not puppets of the ruling party, where the ruling party candidates huddle in tears over fears of losing seats, where the opposition cheekily asked the crowd if they would like to work till the grand old age of 82, where the Prime Minister himself found it neccesary to tour all over the country, and stake his personal reputation on the election result of wards which are not his own, where the opposition, despite fielding teams with newbies in their mid-20s and pitting directly against the PM in his own ward, managed to grap as much as 1/3 of the votes, and where you have the ruling party's rallies attracting crowds of several hundreds at most, while the opposition sees crowds like these:

A large number of supporters turn up at the last Worker's Party Rally for Aljunied GRC, filling up much of the field in Serangoon Stadium.

The huge crowd attending a Workers' Party rally in Hougang on 30 April 2006. Photo courtesy of www.yawningbread.org

Could you?--Huaiwei 15:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please find me ANY other state in this list (including the de-facto ones) which holds regular elections: Egypt and Western Sahara. contested by four political parties/alliances which are not puppets of the ruling party: Egypt again. where the ruling party candidates huddle in tears over fears of losing seats, where the opposition cheekily asked the crowd if they would like to work till the grand old age of 82: Please try to remain serious. They other two countries on the list, Eritra and Myanmar, are also legally multi-party democracies.

So, my attempt to explain this from another point of view failed. The problem remains. You, despite overwhelming evidence provided by me, continue to claim that Singapore is a democracy, when this is clearly not so. I'm trying to reason with you, but that is failing. So I ask: What kind of proof would convince you that Singapore is not a democracy? --Regebro 16:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Cut the nonsense and answer all the questions. Your persistant failure to face the factual questions at hand, while continuously hiding behind the veil of "overwhelming evidence" is beginning to raise questions on your personal integrity, just as much as you attempt to discredit others and question their integrity.--Huaiwei 16:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The only nonsense here is your questions. Do you really believe that a requirement of a democracy is that the "opposition cheekily askes the crowd if they would like to work till the grand old age of 82"? That question is not a serious question. As I have repeatedly said: This is not a good discussion forum. I will not discuss the details here. I have said that we can discuss this in a better forum, like wikireason if you will. But HERE we should discuss the ARTICLE. --Regebro 16:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont have much time to reply, so I'll just make some brief comments for now. My questions above each have a background meaning to it. For you to conclude they are nonsensical tels us several things, including your obvious unfamiliarity with Singapore's political situation beyond Western liberal propaganda. Anyone who even tacitly follows Singapore's most recent general election, which was held just a few months ago, would have understood what each question refers to. You arent even familar with such a recent and major event when there are more than ample sources from the internet on this topic and analysing it from any viewpoint, whether liberal, conservative, authoritarian or othewise. What does that say about your political inclinations and agenda?--Huaiwei 22:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Countries like Japan, India and Sweden also have parties that dorminate the parliaments over long periods of their history. Why aren't these countries ever described as single-party, but Singapore? Would you be able to deny the fact that the ruling party in Singapore has been doing as much as it can to avoid the emergence of an effective opposition? — Instantnood 23:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This question is for you, the person attempting to add information to this article, to find out, which you didnt. Meanwhile, would you be able to declare that no ruling party in any democratic state on planet Earth does not invest maximum effort in denying the emergence of an effective opposition which may treaten their hold on power?--Huaiwei 13:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The significant difference here is whether they use democractic methods to do so or not. --Regebro 13:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Elaboration please. Of course some reference to real examples would be most helpful.--Huaiwei 13:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This elaboration has been done many times in this discussion already, and even more elaboration is done in the links that I have provided, where there are ample examples of Singapores undemocratic methods to keep in power. Singapores government jail opponents, the sue all opponents and all critical media into bancrupcy, there are restrictions on the freedom of meeting, there are severe restrictions on the freedom of media as well as political censorship, and there are no free press. All newpapers are owned either by the government or one company that has close ties with the government. None of these things would be true in a democracy. --Regebro 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that is the kind of "discourse" we have all been waiting for. Lets now get down to business:

"Singapores government jail opponents, the sue all opponents and all critical media into bancrupcy" Please provide relevant evidence to show that ALL opponents and critical were sued by the government into bankcruptcy (jeez...that must be hell lots of work for the courts here. :D). Several politicians were indeed jailed, but could you show for what reason they ended up behind bars? For being opposition politicians?

ALL? Why all? It is undemocratic to jail ONE person because he is a political opponent. You do not nee to jail all, just ONE. --Regebro 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"there are restrictions on the freedom of meeting" Huh? Freedom of meeting = democracy? And the freedom to meet is against the law in Singapore? I must be a very uncivil citizen then, considering the sheer number of times I have been involved in meetings all my life. :D

Same thing again. I did not say that ALL meetings are illegal. I said that there are restrictions on how you can meet. --Regebro 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"there are severe restrictions on the freedom of media as well as political censorship, and there are no free press. All newpapers are owned either by the government or one company that has close ties with the government" Hmm....all newspapers are owned either by the government or one company that has close ties with the government? How about the foreign newspapers which are freely available in newstands? How about numerous other publications other than newspapers? Do they all face similar censorship? I arent gonna deny there is some form of media control, but to use the word "severe" seems grossly passe in contemporary Singapore. The Singaporean media is much more self-censored than state-censored. Could you name any Singaporean journalist who was ever persecuted in the past decade for passing the OB Marker? Does the Singaporean "state controlled" papers fail to report any article, letter, or commentary which is critical of the government or its policies? Do you have such evidence?

Foreign newspapers are NOT freely available in newsstands, but often censored. Other publications are NOT free, but who can publicice and what is controlled by the government. Yes, I can mention several singaporean journalists that have been persecuted. I have given references to all this before. Let me quote just a bit from the lastets release fom RSF on Singapore "An activist with the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), Yap Keng Ho, was sent to prison for ten days by a court on 23 November 2006 after he refused to pay a fine of 2,000 dollars for speaking publicly and posting film on his blog (http://uncleyap-news.blogspot.com/) of an illegal rally of his party. He was taken immediately to jail after refusing to pay the fine and said he would go on hunger strike to protest at his imprisonment and to expose the regime’s corruption. Another party activist, Ghandi Ambalam, and one of the SDP’s leaders, Chee Soon Juan, are also serving a three-week prison sentence for having taken part in the same rally, on 22 April. In Singapore, no gathering of more than four people is permitted without police approval." You can readn about this and more on http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19702. You only need to go to the front page to get support for all the things I said. I HAVE given you references PLEASE read them. It may also, for your safety, be noted that the Singaporean government propose changes to the law that makes internet usage in Singapore follow the same laws as the press, in which you will be fined or put to jail f you write anything "libellous" about Singapore. So with these changes, you would be in direct risk of fines or jail if you ever admit that singapore is not a democracy. In fact, since I have written this, with the proposed changes, I would risk fines or jail should I ever set my foot in Singapore. http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19702 . Do you honestly think thats democratic? Of course not. --Regebro 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"None of these things would be true in a democracy." Oh is it? Would you swear that every democracy on Earth will not have elements of each of the three points mentioned above?--Huaiwei 16:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Regebro 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(response to user:Huaiwei's comment at 13:16, November 26) " This question is for you, the person attempting to add information to this article, to find out, which you didnt. " - Please kindly clarify whether you are telling everyone who're reading this page that I was the person who added Singapore to this list. — Instantnood 21:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, yes. After so long in wikipedia, and you arent even aware that the onus to justify adding information to any wikipedian article dosent just lie in the original writer, but on every single person attempting to add information, including previously removed ones?--Huaiwei 21:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What was removed from the list? And who was the person removed it from the list? Why was it removed? — Instantnood 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

How in the world would anyone be able to answer those questions if you cant even tell what was removed? lol!--Huaiwei 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please go read the very beginning of this thread of discussion. — Instantnood 22:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But why should I do that when you are the one asking the question? ;)--Huaiwei 15:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here you go [15] [16]. No more pretending please. — Instantnood 18:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I am still expecting answers to the above. I notice you respond pretty fast when it comes to thumping your chest and showcasing your ego, yet repeatedly clams up when asked to go into factual details.--Huaiwei 13:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You have gotten answers to any reasonable question you have asked. I repeat, the opposition cheekily ask[ing] the crowd if they would like to work till the grand old age of 82 is NOT a requirement or an indication of democracy. I will NOT let you drag me down in to your style of debate. --Regebro 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And I repeat. If you consider the above questions irrelevant, then is it fair for me to conclude, that you arent aware of the context behind them, and which therefore reflects your lack of basic ground knowledge on local politics beyond a few "internationally-respected" publications?--Huaiwei 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I came in here via WP:RFC where this was listed, so I'm just going to make my comment and leave. I don't want to be embroiled in the argument. I think all parties here, especially Huaiwei, need to take a deep breath and relax. I do agree that, on the evidence in those external links that Regebro has provided, Singapore is "effectively" (to use the wording in that section) a single-party state, and therefore deserves to be listed in that section. To quote from one of them, "In practice, however, the ruling PAP dominates the government and the political process, and uses a variety of indirect methods to handicap opposition parties" and this thread seems to be repeated in the other articles. So, if the current section is to remain as is and with that scope, I believe Singapore should be included.

I agree with Regebro that his links are to reputable and well-known organisations. Of course, some of these are organisations with an agenda to promote freedoms, and one might suspect that the information is biased towards showing a more negative view towards certain governments; but what good would such bias do to them? Hence, my primary suggestion is actually the removal (or substantial alteration) of that section. Determining whether something has a property de facto necessarily involves a subjective judgement, and I've always thought that it is not for us to determine these things for our readers. For example, this report on Russia is quite damning, and justifies its inclusion in that list, yet it is currently not included.

However, I think we will not be doing the article justice if we do not mention that certain organisations have called certain states rather undemocratic despite their being democratic on paper and in their constitutions. So could we perhaps write, "Organisation X has said that country Y is de-facto a single-party state because of reason Z."? The guideline Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words comes into mind; it's not applicable here, but a similar rationale applies.

Overall, I think what we have here is a definitional issue: define what the sections include precisely and we will be one step closer to a solution. enochlau (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What you suggest violates Wikipedia:No original research and NPOV. The description you provideed merely indicates that Singapore is a "dominant party state" and satisfies none of the criteria of a "Single-party state". Please understand the differences between the two concepts. --Vsion 17:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That his "understanding" of the concepts differ from yours doens't make him wrong. His understanding accord with (and probably derives from) the definition in the articles, which you have not so far critizied. I think this may be a useful suggestion. Let's try that. --Regebro 19:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me just chime in quickly to say what I think on this: While it is technically possible for other parties to win elections, it has never happened in Singapore's long electoral history and many different independent and objective sources assert that due to Singapore's deficient democratic standards and due to the ruling party's influence, it is completely impossible for other parties to win the elections. Singapore is de iure a multi-party system (but hey -- *ALL* two-party states are de iure multi-party states, anyway), but it's still de facto a single-party system. One could possibly argue in favour of calling it a dominant-party system instead, but I'm not quite sure it is. —Nightstallion (?) 19:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A dorminant-party system is where the voters themselves choose to have the government formed by the same party, by way of free, fair and open (i.e. democratic) elections, again and again. No manipulation by the governing party would exist in free, fair and open elections. Sources presented by user:Regebro shows elections in Singapore is not quite democratic, with respect to international standard. — Instantnood 06:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of concepts?

Today we have three articles about the political systems according to the number of parties. They are:

1. Multi-party system
2. Two-party system
3. Single-party system
4. Dominant-party system

However, some of these concepts are not quite clearly defined against each other. I would suggest that countries actually are divided into the following groups:

1. Countries where there are several parties who all work under similar legal and practical conditions, and where ruling power switches between different parties and/or coalitions.
2. Countries where there are several parties who all work under similar legal and practical conditions, but two parties dominate to the extent that other parties have no or very few seats in parliament.
3. Countries where there are several parties who all work under similar legal and practical conditions, but one party dominate to the extent that other parties never actual get ruling power.
4. Countries where there are several parties but where the ruling party uses undemocratoc methods to keep the other parties from power.
5. Countries where only one party exists because other parties are outlawed.

As we see, these are at least five divisions. We need to discuss how normal use of the above concepts apply on the five divisions. Which divisions go under which concept. It seems obvious to me that the distinction between countries where one party dominates because it keep power by democratic means (like South Africa) and countries where one party dominates by undemocratoc means are a relevant distiction. This distinction is not entirely clear today, as for example the article on Dominant-party systems can be interpreted as covering both cases, and make no effort to explain the difference.

Opinions? --Regebro 01:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:No original research, there is no need to redefine what is "Single-party system" as it is already clearly described in the article. The characteristics include:

1. No other parties are permitted to run candidates for election
2. Constitutionally-defined single party states
3. Having legal or military measures make these effectively (de facto) single-party states (e.g. Myanmar)

None of these applies to Singapore. Regebro, you brought up Myanmar as an example in the above. Then surely you know the situation in Myanmar. Why is Myanmar considered a Single-party state? please explain. --Vsion 04:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to make this into a discussion about Singapore. This is not about singapore. I think it would be best if you removed the above comment and instead discussed the issue. --Regebro 10:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

From your reply, i take it that you agree Singapore satisfies none of the criteria listed in the article.--Vsion 23:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And the agenda behind the initiation of this discussion is clearly pinned on the fate of Singapore's appearance in this article. Afterall, no one could find your constructive constibutions to this article except to argue over the Singapore issue. Are you therefore in the position to tell others to shift their focus when the root of the issue is plain clear?--Huaiwei 13:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am. --Regebro 13:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We shall see.--Huaiwei 13:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "Single-party state" is being defined too widely in the current article. Constitutional single-party states obviously qualify, and so do places like Myanmar and Eritrea where no non-ruling party political activity is allowed, but I don't think Egypt (post-2005) belongs on this list and neither does Singapore. Both are little tinpot dictatorships that quite blatantly rig the system, but there are genuine opposition members in Parliament in both countries, and hence they're merely undemocratic dominant-party systems. Jpatokal 04:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think instead we should expand the dominant party system into covering both undemocratic and democratic states, or should dominant-pary system cover only undemocratic states? --Regebro 09:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you are in the mood to "clarify concepts", mind telling us just what is an "undemocratic" state?--Huaiwei 15:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing: An undemocratic state, is a state that is not a Democracy--Regebro 17:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So what is a Democratic state?--Huaiwei 17:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please read the references I give you? --Regebro 17:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Freedom House classifies many systems that are having one big party over a considerable period of time to be electoral democracies. Singapore is not considered to be an electoral democracy. I'd rather say some folks here are defining "dorminant party system" too widely. IMO only those polities that are generally free from government manipulation, and which outcomes are almost purely results of voters' choices, are dorminant party systems. — Instantnood 18:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (modified 18:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

So, Jpatokal thinks that category 4 should not be in Single-party state, and Instantnood thinks it should not be in Dominant-party state. :) So, where should it then go? Nowhere? :) --Regebro 09:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hildaknigt in the straw poll below clearly indicates that he thinks category #4 is a type of "dominant-party system". We don't seem to get ANY consensus on this, everybody seems to have his own view. I therefore change my mind from including #4 in Single-party state, to suggesting that we do one of these two mutually exclusive changes:

1. Include category 4 in BOTH Single-party state AND Dominant-party system. Words and concepts are fuzzy, and often overlapping. This seems to be the case here. Or:
2. Split Dominant-party system state into Dominant-party system and Dominant-party democracy, to clarify the difference, and move all De-facto single-party states into Dominant-party system. Or:
3. MERGE Dominant-party system and Single-party state into one article, there clarifying the difference between democratic states that just have one dominating party, states where the dominating party uses undemocratic means to stay in power, and states where all but one party are illegal.

Opinions on that? --Regebro 14:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidently not. I'll shake things up a bit by proposing a merge. ;) --Regebro 11:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

This below two sections were removed by me as original research. They were reinstate by User:Vsion without comment.

Arguments for and against a single party-system

Supporters of a single-party state often appeal to a sense of unity, strength and commonality that a single-party government can lend a state. They argue that multi-party systems introduce too much division and are unsuitable for economic and political development. This argument was particularly popular during the mid-20th century, as many developing nations sought to emulate the Soviet Union, which had transformed itself from a backward, agrarian nation into a superpower.

A common counter-argument is that one-party systems have a tendency to become rigid and unwilling to accept change, which renders them unable to deal with new situations and may result in their collapse. This counter-argument became more widely held as the 20th century drew to a close and the Soviet Union and the countries of the Warsaw Pact collapsed. Finally, one-party states have often been criticized for their disrespect towards human rights, however, this is more a reflection on the ideology of the party in power, rather than on the system itself.

"however, this is more a reflection on the ideology of the party in power, rather than on the system itself." That's a biased opinion. Personally, I think it IS a reflection on the system, because the party in power will inevitably be corrupted by the power that comes with being the only ruling party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Democracy, dictatorship and the single-party system

Some do not consider a single party system to be truly democratic. This is due, in part, to the perception that a single party represents a single choice for a voter, which is seen to be no choice at all. While this is often true it is not necessarily the case. For example, under Mussolini's National Fascist Party numerous candidates ran for election in each constituency, albeit under the Fascist Party.

Furthermore, the single-party system is heavily associated with dictatorship. As there is only one party, political power tends to be concentrated solely within the ruling party. As a result it is usually easy for the party in power to disregard previous laws or the constitution of the state, creating a dictatorship consisting of the party. Further contributing to the association of dictatorship and the single-party system is the fact that many dictatorships have adopted a single-party system. This may be a means of legitimizing the dictatorship under that nation's constitution, or to present a veneer of democracy to other democratic nations, or the ideology of the party may require that the dictatorship rule "by the will of the people".

Although many dictatorships represent themselves as one-party states, a one party-state is not a requirement of dictatorships. Examples of a dictatorship that is not a one-party state includes military dictatorships wherein the political power resides with the military, who exercise their authority without regard to political parties or elections.

Below are the guidelines of WP:No Original Research.

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following: It introduces a theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

Would User:Vsion or any other user like to justify how the removed section corresponds with the core policy quoted?--Zleitzen 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the content as OR, rather it seems to be mainstream history and politics. Some references will help. --Vsion 23:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The first section is pure original research. Exactly the kind of thing we should be discouraging and removing on sight. It reads like an a argument in a bar, or a debating class. The second section is riddled with low-brow theorising. Not sourced, nor attributed, not really very enlightening. Just some editors' opinion.--Zleitzen 00:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research or not, it's unverified, without references and partly controversial. I don't think there is ANY serious independant social scientist that would argue that a single-party state can be democratic. I could be wrong, by I suspect that any person who claims such a thing would be a member of or supporter of some undemocratic single-party system. It's also a topic that fits better in the general "Democracy"-page, I think. There is already a criticism section there, which is notably lacking in the rather common opinion (not common in western democracies, but if you look gobaly vey common) that it's good for a state to have a powerful man in the top, and opinions similar to that. There is also the discussion of Anarchy vs Democracy, and I don't think a discussion about multi-party vs no-party systems would be out of place. --Regebro 10:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In countries such as India, Japan and Sweden, and perhaps Ireland, a party may be dorminant throughout a certain period of time by democratic means: the voters choose to have the government formed by the same party again and again. But that's not one-party system. — Instantnood 06:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the chapters again. I hope no-one re-adds them without proper references. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Singapore issue

Will all parties involved in the singapore issue come here to talk about moving this to Medcom. If not, then I support a vote. WikieZach| talk 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind moving it to medcom. --Regebro 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I will sumbit the case tomorrow. Until then, the poll will continue to try to reach an agreement. It will end a week from when I first posted it. WikieZach| talk 00:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(response to user:Wikizach's comment at 22:55, November 28) I consider it a straw poll, a non-binding one. And I don't agree a simple head count would be helpful. What about inviting a panel of 5 or so wikipedians who have political science faculty background to provide necessary evidence, both for and against, so as to assist the medcom to resolve the matter? — Instantnood 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have that backround (I work in International Affairs with CNN). The issue has no precident with Arbcom rulings. A simple head count is what this is. It helps me see when someone's talking I know what they agree and dissagree with. That helps in Mediation. WikieZach| talk 11:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Such head counts usually end up being cited as consensus (quote and quote). In reality they're simply showing up of personal wills, with little if not no academic foundations. — Instantnood 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Should the nation of Singapore be listed under the countries that have a Single-party state political system?"

Are Singaporeans a nation? — Instantnood 06:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. It matches the current definition of de-facto single-party state, and then it should be there. --Regebro 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reject

1. Vsion 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Although opposition parties face discrimination and lawsuits, they still managed to garner 2 seats and 33% of the votes. Therefore, Singapore is a dominant-party system and not a single-party state. I hope Instantnood's POV-pushing attempts are foiled before this escalates into a fourth arbitration case. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
3. I'd have to agree that it is a dominant-party system after carefully reviewing the case, aye. —Nightstallion (?) 14:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: I am afraid that's not what dorminant-party system is meant to be. — Instantnood 06:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

   Meant to be or not, Singapre currently matches teh definition used in Dominant party system, so it is one. Nightstallions mistake is to view this as being mutually exclusive with Single-party state, Singapore is evidently both. All de-facto single party-states are of course also dominant-party states. --Regebro 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Mailer Diablo 01:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Terence Ong 11:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Chensiyuan 05:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Note that I do not contest the fact that Singapore is a dominant party system. According to the definition in that article, it clearly *is* a dominant party system. But according to the definition of De-facto single-party state, Singapore clearly matches that description *as well*. This straw poll is only about whether Singapore should be listed as a de-facto single party state or not. Nobody has suggested removing it from the list of Dominant party systems. As the articles stand, these definitions overlap, and Singapore should be listed in both articles. See discussion above about clarification of concepts. --Regebro 14:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't match these criteria:

1. No other parties are permitted to run candidates for election
2. Constitutionally-defined single party states
3. Having legal or military measures make these effectively (de facto) single-party states (e.g. Myanmar)

--Vsion 15:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• It matches the requirement for de facto single party state. This has been repeatedly proven in the discussion above. You are welcome to read and contribute to that discussion should you so desire, but don't ignore it. --Regebro 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• The so-called "matched" has proven to be false. Please don't ignore the description provided in the article, which I'm using, and which you are trying to modify.--Vsion 15:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't modified anything, I don't know what you are talking about. And you haven't even tried to prove me false. I have supported my standpoint with numerous argumenst and references. This you have countered only with claiming that I have given no references or with silence. This can hardly be called "proof" for your standpoint. Several uniased people coming here from the RfC (and for the record, I'm one of those) agree that Singapre clearly matches the definition of a de facto single-party state. You can't then just come here and say "no" with no further argumentation and pretend that that proves anything. --Regebro 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Singapore clearly does not match any of the three criteria listed in the article and which I have reproduced twice above and other users have mentioned them earlier too. I don't think you have ever disputed that. Instead you repeatedly came up with a broad and vague "use of undemocratic means", and declared that "it matches the definition of a de facto single-party state". You would be surprised to learn that the entire article makes not a single mention of "use of undemocratic means". --Vsion 17:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Singapore clearly matches, as has been repetedly shown, the third criteria, and is thus a de facto single-party state. You say I haven't disputed the claim that it does not match. That is a ludicrous statement. See above discussion. It is ALL about disputing that. I have REPEATEDLY quoted the definition for de facto single-party state (the definition which is the basis for your thir dpoint) and shown how Singapore matches it. Your refusal to partake or even read the discussion is not helpful. --Regebro 17:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  What are the legal measures? (The military is obviously not pointing at the opposition. :-) ) — Instantnood 06:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A note to all parties involved, I will sumbit the case within the next few hours. WikieZach| talk 17:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this weekend. WikieZach| talk 02:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have said earlier, single-party system is not necessarily evil. Single-party system may perhaps, indeed, be successful. There are rare yet actual examples of such countries which perform incredibly well economically, and the citizens are happy even though their rights to choose are stripped off. It's interesting to see the way Wikipedia fellows from Singapore react to Singapore being classified a single-party system. — Instantnood 06:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather amusing that Instantnood plays up the word "evil". Why the use of this word, and why does he presume such an association exists? Is he suggesting that Singaporeans are reacting strongly in this discussion because they refuse to have their country associated with an "evil" system? And does it also suggest that he is pushing this agenda to establish this association, thus making a deliberate attempt to antagonise Singaporeans? If it all boils down to the acceptance of "evil, then where is the depth, understanding, and maturity in this discourse?--Huaiwei 13:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not intending to associate their refusals with whether or not single-party system is evil. I should have put them in two paragraphs. — Instantnood 14:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is one paragraphs or a million paragraphs, the one introducing the concept of evilness into this equation is instantnood. The agenda behind his actions is becoming plain clear, by nothing but his own unforced comments. But at least he finally realises he has to quit singling out individual wikipedians in section headings. Persist in doing so, and I will give him a taste of his own medicine until he repents. He dosent seem to know how to learn how to be more respectful and less spiteful/personal by any other means available.--Huaiwei 14:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If Instandnood doesn't suggest that, then I do. The fact is that without a doubt this is a case of a whole bunch of Singaporeans trying to downplay the fact that their country is not a democracy. I'm imporessed by the online community Singaporeans evidently have here on Wikipedia. But that shouldn't be allowed to distract from the facts of the question. --Regebro 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but is this an outright attack on an entire community from a country? You appear to have transcended the No personal attacks ruling by hitting out not just at an individual, but at a "whole bunch of Singaporeans".--Huaiwei 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not an attack on anybody. A whole bunch of Singaporeans ARE trying to downplay the fact that Singapore is not a democracy. This is not an attack, it's a factual observation, which can be viewed in this discussion and the straw poll above. --Regebro 08:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading through the article as well as the one on dominant-party system, and speaking from the viewpoint of a Singaporean, I am inclined to say that Singapore is more of a dominant-party system than a single party state. However, this is based solely on the definitions provided in the article - which as enochlau has pointed out is the main problem in this discussion. What I propose as the solution is to delete the entire list of de facto single-party states - the whole thing reeks of original research to me, anyway. Or, at the very least, the article should make it clear that the whole definition of "de facto single-party state" is a contentious one. I don't think a merge or ArbCom is necessary; this looks to me like a fairly simple issue of definitions blown out of proportion.

At any rate, take a deep breath and be civil! This applies especially to Huaiwei; I understand your feelings on this issue, but there's no need for insults - let's all assume good faith and resolve this issue peacefully. -ryand 14:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was taken away by what I considered as personal insults the kind of comments fellow wikipedians made above, and responded in kind. For that, I apologise, for it is clearly unnecesary and does not help the situation here. Thank you for the reminder, and I did not know you are Singaporean btw. It is heartwarming to know there are indeed Singaporeans who can think rationally and with a fair level of NPOV, quite unlike the stereotype some fellow wikipedians are trying to form of Singaporeans in general. :D (the last comment is tongue-in-cheek of coz)--Huaiwei 15:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the proportion of seats that are contested, the requirement on ethnicity that makes opposition parties difficult to fill a full list of candidates in GRCs, the administration of electoral affairs by a governmental department, and the frequent lawsuits against politicians in the opposition, it's not easy to agree that the outcome is merely a result of voters' preferences and free from government manipulation. — Instantnood 15:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like instantnood is refreshing old comments he would not elaborate on, but allow me to just make a few comments. Singapore's ethnic composition is not the fault of any political party, ruling or the opposition. The rules which applies to the opposition are equally applied to the ruling party. If the opposition chooses to be aligned to only one ethnic group, then it only has itself to blame for being unable to contest in GRCs. So based on what are you commenting on "difficulties" here, and could you comment on the opposition's ability to almost topple several GRCs by razor thin margins in the past elections? Second, do you have evidence to show that the "administration of electoral affairs" is "by a governmental department", and what is the result of such an arrangement? Third, could you comment on just how many lawsuits are filed, how many politicians were so affected, and for what charges where they found gulty of? Finally, how does each of the three factors above directly affect voting outcomes? Please comment on each of these points in sufficient detail.--Huaiwei 15:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You can find the information in the links gven to you REPEATEDLY. You however clearly refuse to read any references given, as you continue to claim, against overwhelming evidence, and with absolutely nothing to support your standpoint, that Singapore is a democracy. --Regebro 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am merely asking him questions so that a discussion can take place. It does not amount to any conclusive stand just yet, so why your immediately conclusion that I am refusing to read references and to accept evidence? Your conduct is not conducive for discussion, is outright rude, and I take it as a personal attack on my respect for factual integrity and my liberty to hold my own views on various matters. Your constant hording over my every response (and also those made by everyone which disagrees with you) is becoming very distasteful.--Huaiwei 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have a discussion, why don't you start with reading the references and links I have given you? If you had, then you would not ask these questions. You claim you want a discussion about details, each time this is done, you get silent, and then later you again ask for information you have already been given. If something is "not conducive for discussion", then it is your behaviour. And that you should accuse me of rudeness I find rather ironic. You can take anything you want as an attack on your respect for factual integrity of you want. I have given you the facts, you ignore them. What that means for your respect for factual integrity is not up to me to say.

If you wnat a serious discussion, why don't you read the sources first, and we can have a factual discussion later? Constantly being asked questions, and answering them, and having the answers ignored, is highly frustrating. So if I sound frustrated, that's because I am. Just read the bloody sources, will you? --Regebro 09:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

i read your sources. they don't sound particularly fantastic. but i reserve my entire opinion until i have proven you wrong the way you wished to be proven wrong.Chensiyuan 05:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryan: The definition given in the article is completely clear, see the above discussion. Singapore is with absolutely no doubt (which has been confirmed numerous times by unbiased people) a de facto single-pary state under the definition given in this article. You, like many others before, say that it isn't a single-party state, but a dominant party system. With the definitions currently given in these articles it is without any doubt whatseover both. I have suggested, as a way to end the dispute, that the articles be merged, and the different types of dominant-/single-party states be discussed in the same article. --Regebro 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Syria

Is not a single party-state. Communists in Syria are legal and posess a notable following. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.102.211.115 (talk • contribs) 02:55, November 30, 2006 (UTC).

"The only legal political parties are the Baath Party and its six small coalition partners in the ruling National Progressive Front (NPF). All 167 of the NPF's candidates won seats in the March 2003 parliamentary elections, with heavily vetted independent candidates taking the remaining 83 seats." [17] Only the NPF is legal. The communist you mention are a part of the NPF-coalition. All opposition is therefore outlawed, and you can't vote for the opposition. This regrettably makes Syria a de jure single-party state. --Regebro 10:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the NPF coalition consists of multiple parties fails to qualify Syria as a single party state. In fact there is a large degree of criticism employed by the Communists on the domestic level. The source "Freedom House" you cite is rubbish. It is led by the CIA director Woolsey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.128.87 (talk • contribs) 21:00, December 3, 2006 (UTC).

No, it does not fail to qualify Syria as a single-party state if you had bothered to actually read the article. This is again proof that this articles should be merged with otehr like it, because people evidently do not read more than the heading, and therefore thinks that "Single-party state means there exist only one party". I'm sure that if we have only states where only one party is legal, people will complain that "Långtbortistan is not a single party state because there exists two illegal parties as well". ;) Claiming that Freedom House is rubbish means that whatever you say can't be taken seriously, sorry. --Regebro 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Parties in a Mediation com. Case

Please sign your name using the ~~~~ symbol if you are someone who has either contributed to this article or/and participated in the debate over the Singapore Question. WikieZach| talk 21:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Here? OK:

Regebro 09:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody has protested, or even commented, a merge of the two articles, I think that can be a reasonable solution. Should we try that first, maybe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Regebro (talk • contribs) 09:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC). --Regebro 09:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think dorminant party system and single-party state are the same thing, as I've elaborated earlier. — Instantnood 14:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to be able to agree what the difference is, I think we need to include them in the same article. --Regebro 18:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they overlap, or at least they don't overlap that much. A dominant-party system is where people are generally free to choose, yet they choose to have the same party forming the government again and again. In such countries the governing parties cannot do much to oppress other parties or manipulate the electoral process to favour itself with their advantage as governing parties. A one-party state is, in contrast, where the governing party does some certain things to keep itself in power. — Instantnood 18:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement on being free to choose with the current definition of dominant-party system in that article. It sais that "dominant-party systems can occur within a context of a democratic system". Notice the "can". It doesn't anywhere in that article say that dominant-party systems must be democratic. And if we want to change it, we need to find some sort of authorative source on the issue, that sais just that, and I sure haven't seen any. The political party article sais "In the latter case, the definition between Dominant and single-party system becomes rather blurred." --Regebro 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We'd better look into the definitions in authoritative academic literature first. — Instantnood 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have tried to find definitions and failed. I've looked at how human rights institutions use the words and it's simply very fuzzy. --Regebro 09:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Shall we request for assistance from the folks at portal:politics? — Instantnood 21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea! --Regebro 22:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

RFM

Please note that a request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee. If you are a party please visit here, and if you aren't but believe you are, please send me a talk message ASAP so I can add you to the list of parties. Remember, no discussion is allowed on the Medcom request page. WikieZach| talk 02:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: The RfM is actually debating the *removal* of the info, not the addition as claimed by Huawei. So according to the logic given by him in a edit summary, the information should stay until the RfM is finished. So I added it back. --Regebro 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't abuse the RfM by using it as an excuse for inserting your POV. --Vsion 22:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my opinion. I'm happy we agree on that. Lets not, for example, edit the RfM to insert our point of view in the description of the conflict. That wouldn't be very nice. --Regebro 23:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Prior to Instantnood's revision, Singapore was not listed. Hence, Singapore should not be listed until the dispute has been resolved.

P.S. Although I am not currently listed as an involved party, if you add me to the list, I will be willing to mediate. Should the mediation fail, consider a fourth arbitration case against Instantnood.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, simply not true. The addition was done in May, buy Koavf [18] very soon after the addition of effective single states list [19], and has been there for most of the time until Huwaei removed Singapore from the list: [20]

I don't care if it's on or off during mediation, I just followed what Huwaei himself said in his comment. He removed my inclusion with the claim that the dispute where about adding it, and that's not true.

I'm sorry, Hildanknight, I have a big problem with letting any Singaporean mediate in this topic. You have a vested interest. Neither do I understand how this in any way could be construed as leading up to an arbitration case against Instantnood, which I find a very strange comment. --Regebro 09:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding. By "willing to mediate", I did not mean that I was offering to play the role of mediator, but that I will automatically sign in the "Parties' agreement to mediate" section, if I am listed as an involved party.

Instantnood has repeatedly engaged in edit warring and POV-pushing on articles about China and Singapore politics. Three arbitration cases have been filed against him, and he has been banned from many articles (including Singapore) and placed on indefinite general probation. Hence the suggestion of a fourth arbitration, which I previously raised.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I misunderstood you. You haven't been a party of this dispute, so thats why I thought you were offering to mediate. You are now the second Singaporean wanting to be included in the mediation, although you haven't really been involved in the dispute. I find that interesting. (oups, forgot to sign: --Regebro 15:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

Having already indicated a blanket accusation against all Singaporeans as fact [21], I suppose all Singaporeans are now involved parties by default. ;)--Huaiwei 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not indicated any accusations against anybody, neither blanket nor any type. That is not and can not be construed or misinterpreted as any sort of accusation. --Regebro 19:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Which once again vindicates the suggestion that Regebro is gulty of making a personal attack against several members here by discriminating against their nationality, a direct insult on all citizens from a country by suggesting all of them are brainwashed government lackeys incapable of independent, rational thought. If the mediation fails, it appears a RFC is most needed for Regebro.

As far as wikipedian policies are concerned, Wikipedia:Verifiability clearly states that the burden of proof lies in the person who adds or restores material. Materials who's verifiability is disputed can and will be removed if no credible source emerges after a reasonable amount of time is given to do so. I would think two months offers more than enough temporal opportunity for this to happen, which bore no fruit.

Finally, I expect my name to be spelt correctly, given the simple ability to copy and paste should anyone have trouble in finger-eye coordination. I consider the above as a personal attack.--Huaiwei 13:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I have of course made absolutely no such suggestion. I'm just pointing out that in this dispute, your standpoint consists of people from Singapore, people who quite naturally have a bias in the issue, while all independent sources disagrees with you. I have not in any way speculated in why this is so, and will not speculate in, as it is rather besides the point. Why may be interesting if I wanted to convince you. I don't think I have a snowballs chance in hell of convincing you of anything. My objective is only to make sure the article reflects the truth.
2. You (again) claim that there are no credible source, depite the fact that I have provided several independent credible sources that agrees with me. Here are the three most notable ones again: [22] [23] [24]. Your response to this overwhelming proof is now, as always, to completely ignore it and pretend that it has not been presented to you. I will therefore, again, ask you to read the sources I have given you, something I must assume you have not done since you claim they don't exist.
3. The only one who has come with personal attack here are you, which you have been warned for (and indeed the statement about finger-eye coordination could be construed as onother one). I would suggest to you that you try to keep the debate factual. The only reason for not doing that is if you know the facts speak against you.
4. I'm sorry for misspelling your name. I'll try a bit harder in the future. --Regebro 14:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again, even when the mediation process is supposed to commence somewhere. My response is pretty simple: 1. You need not convince anyone here of your innocence. Leave it to the mediator. 2. And you again ignore the fact that non of the "credible", "NPOV" sources you cite actually call Singapore a single-party state. How is it possible for someone "ignoring your credible sources" to be able to notice this glaring omission? Again, we shall revisit this issue soon. 3. As above. I don't see why I should comment on this until mediation occurs. Since a comment which is not even directed at you is being construed as a "personal attack", then I suppose either you take every possible statement as an attack, or you see some truth in it to feel this offended. But again, this isnt a conclusion for me to make. 4. Thank you for your efforts. Certainly very much appreciated.--Huaiwei 16:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I see no reason to let false accusations against me stand uncorrected. 2. The sources clearly provide proof that Singapore fits the definition of de facto single-party state as given in the article. If you think that the term "de facto single party state" should not be used or you don't agree with that definition, then I have several times tried to start discussions about that and propose reformulations and alternative solutions to this. None of them has received any kind of larger support, and they have all been mostly ignored by you. Since you have given no criticism against the definition of "de facto single party state", neither voiced the opinion that it shouldn't be in this article, nor said that you would like to change the wording and not given any sources or other support for your standpoint, then it must be concluded that Singapore matches the definition, and that the definition is correct and should stay. Right? --Regebro 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I apologize for not replying swiftly to the discussion above, but I've been overseas for the past week. Reading through the discussion more thoroughly, I agree that the the sources given do, in effect, state that "Singapore is with absolutely no doubt (which has been confirmed numerous times by unbiased people) a de facto single-party state under the definition given in this article". What I am uncomfortable with is the fact that "de facto single-party states" are listed instead of discussed. No nation is a true democracy; every political party takes measures to undermine their opponents, legally or otherwise. How extreme does a ruling party's measures have to be before the state is considered a "single-party state"? How many seats does the opposition have to win before they are no longer considered a "miniscule and impotent minority"? While many sources consider Singapore an effective single-party state, that this dispute exists at all proves that this is a contentious claim. I'd rather the complex and unique situation of each country be discussed thoroughly and in detail - but of course, that information really belongs in each country's respective "Politics of" article. A merge might be a viable solution, but I'd prefer that:

• the entire "Effective single-party states" list be deleted, or
• the lead for the list be edited to reflect the fact that the listed countries are "considered by many sources" to be de facto single-party states, but that the claim is contentious.

Comments? -ryand 20:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you would need to re-read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research if you have not. My main contention over including the Singapore entry based on those sources is the simple fact that none of these sources classify or label Singapore as a single-party state, whether directly or by de-facto. Wikipedia is not a reflection of individual wikipedians' conclusion on what constitutes "de-facto", when no credible source makes the same conclusion. The points raised may be verifiable. The conclusion made from these points is not. Making such a conclusion is an outright violation of both policies as stated above.

The points you raised with regards to the level of "tolerence" is the same set of questions I would bring up too, actually, but notice once again that we are already entering a forbidden zone. Are wikipedians in the position to come up with these distinctions independently from published sources?--Huaiwei 00:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. That was, in fact, what I was thinking of when I was rambling on about lists and discussion, but you've put it better than I can. You are right; the three sources provided do not explicitly label Singapore as a single-party state. The jump from "the Singaporean government employs many methods to inhibit political expression in the country" to "Singapore is a de facto single-party state" can be considered synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Maybe it would be clearer if we looked at the closest each of the three sources come to labelling Singapore as a single-party state:

• Amnesty International — "The threat of potentially ruinous civil defamation suits against opponents of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) continued to inhibit political life and engendered a climate of self-censorship."
• freedomhouse.org — "Though general elections are free from irregularities and vote rigging, the PAP's manipulation of the political system means that they cannot be termed fair. Opposition parties are constrained by the ban on political films and televised programs; the curtailing of expressions of political opinion by the threat of libel or slander suits; strict regulations and limitations on associations, including political associations; and the PAP's influence of the media and in the courts, among other things. The net result is that there is no effective opposition. The ruling party is quick to counter that its success is due to its strong track record concerning the economy, as well as opposition parties' disorganization and lack of credible candidates and ideas."
• Reporters Without Borders — "The government uses around a score of draconian laws, particularly those on the granting of licences for publications, on films, religious and political website managers and on national security, to stifle any criticism."

Amnesty International does not explicitly state that the Singapore system "guarantees a majority for one favored party that ensures the impotence of any parties relegated by law or practice (including rigged elections) to a permanent status as a miniscule and impotent minority." Rather, it uses the term "inhibit". freedomhouse.org is probably the strongest source out of the three given, and it does state that "the PAP's manipulation of the political system means that they cannot be termed fair" and concludes that "there is no effective opposition". Yet it also makes no mention of the term "de facto single-party state". I'm not sure how close this cuts to synthesis of published material, but let's ignore it for the moment and call it a strong source. The entirety of the Reporters Without Borders report discusses the freedom of the media in Singapore, and is weak evidence if any for the curtailing of politics.

In conclusion, it appears we only have one credible source that comes close to labelling Singapore as a de facto single-party state. Regebro, do you think you could find sources that explicitly classify Singapore as a single-party state, de facto or otherwise? -ryand 04:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC) _{(P.S. I don't think anyone's insulting anybody or is guilty of blanket accusations - we're just all victims of Wikistress. Take a deep breath before continuing this discussion?)}

The claims of original research would possibly be valid for the whole concept of "de facto single-party states". I have been trying to engage people in a discussion about the concepts and wordings used and to which article it belongs and so on, but this has largely failed. In particular the persons who want Singapore off the list has pretty much ignored all discussion about this issue, which can only be interpreted as that they find the existance of the list OK, and that the definition of de facto state is fine, and that it is in the right article. So I conclude that they find the list should stay. And if the list should stay, Singapore should be on it.

Saying that the RSF sources are weak evidence for curtailing of politics is honestly rather strange. There are many reports in that database of exactly just that. But I agree, we have only one source that straight out sais that Singaporeans can't change the government peacefully. But because Freedomhouse is one of the few independent organisations to say these kinds of things at all, you'll be hard-pressed to find any more. And how many can you find that sais that Singaporeans CAN change their government peacefully? We have seen absolutely no support for that statement here, except Huaiweis implications, and not even he says it straight out, if I remember correctly. --Regebro 10:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We would be hard-pressed to find credible, reliable sources either way because of the fundamental problem that we don't know if Singaporeans can change their government peacefully. The facts are, for both sides, that a) the People's Action Party uses many methods that can be construed unfair to inhibit the success of their opposition, and that b) the opposition has however managed to gain seats in Parliament, and have gained an increasing percentage of votes in the recent general election. We don't know for sure that the Workers' Party, for instance, will be unable to become a significant opposition party in the next decade, or that political opposition in Singapore will permanently remain "minuscule and impotent". Any source that says straight out that Signaporeans can or cannot change their government peacefully would be presenting an opinion, and not a fact.

I am aware that the issue on POV and OR has already been brought to MedCom for mediation, and that the case has already been accepted. What happens during the mediation is entirely up to the involved parties, and I hope that a reasonable solution can be reached without too much bloodshed. I am sorry that your attempts to discuss the concepts and wordings have failed, but I for one oppose the existence of the list, and would support and participate in a discussion on how to rewrite the article (or the series of articles) to reflect a clearer stand. -ryand 16:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This reasoning is using a definition of know that means we can't know anything for sure, and that everything is just a POV. I don't agree with that view, but that's a rather philosophical question. :-) That fact is that that we do know, för any reasonable definition of know, that Singaporeans can't change their government, and that we have one credible source to say exactly thatand none that contradicts it. We also have many other credible and verifiable sources to show that Singapore matched the definition used here, and as have been pointed out before, not one single source or shred of evidence that it does not. So if we restrict ourself to the dicussion about whether Singapore should be on the list, the evidence is simply overwhelming that it should be. One can simply not keep the list but keep Singapore out of it and still have a NPOV and intellectually honest article. --Regebro 19:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not here to have subjectivist arguments with you. It is not a fact that Singaporeans cannot change their government peacefully - your one source doesn't even fully support that statement, it states, to quote, that "the net result [of the restrictive measures undertaken by the PAP] is that there is no effective opposition".

It is a fact, and Freedomhouse clearly states it. --Regebro 08:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note that I am not arguing for Singapore's status on the list - I have been arguing for the list to be removed, and/or for the concepts to be clarified and restructured. I have been using Singapore as an example only because its political system is the most familiar to me. My stand is that, as the article and the definitions exist in their current state, using any source that does not explicitly label the country in question as a "de facto single-party state" constitutes synthesis of published material to advance a position, and would not result in a "NPOV and intellectually honest article". Since it is clear that we disagree on this point, I'll leave it to MedCom to settle the dispute. -ryand 08:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryan-D, for that very detailed reply. I can see you have deligently reflected on and researched on points raised by others in a very nuetral and matter-of-fact manner, and I feel you deserve respect for that. I just hope this kind of discourse would prevail during the mediation process, in contrast to the kind of insults peppered all over the response immediately above mine.--Huaiwei 12:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of coming with "blanket accusations", I would suggest that you start that RfC against me you threatened with above. --Regebro 14:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned an RfC appears to be most needed if the mediation process fails. If you consider this a threat, then I suppose your "warnings" in my talkpage [25], plus an attempt to pull in another member [26] to drop the same warning there constitutes a calculated attempt in sanctioning me for libel?--Huaiwei 15:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm merely following the recommended process for dealing with people who do not follow Wikipedia policy, as I am sure that you are aware of. --Regebro 19:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

To the both of you: Wikipedia is not a battleground. -ryand 16:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC against Huaiwei.

I have started an RfC against Huaiwei here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Huaiwei_2 about his behaviour when discussing, mainly his constant ad hominem argumentation, here and elsewhere. --Regebro 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest. Be prepared that this can be a double-edged sword.--Huaiwei 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If I am at fault, I am prepared to change my ways. Are you? --Regebro 17:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just what are you trying to imply by that statement of yours?--Huaiwei 17:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise solution

I've mentioned this possible compromise in passing before, or as a part of several possible compromises. I think I should take ut up under it's own heading, to make it clear, as I think it's the best solution.

I suggest that we move the whole "de facto" concept into Dominant party system, including the list of de-facto states, as it seems hard to find support for the use of that terminology. We should then also in Dominant party system clarify the difference between fully democratic states where one party dominates still dominates (such as South Africa, or Sweden in the 50s and 60s) and states where the dominant party uses undemocratic methods to suppress a functional opposition.

How does that sound? --Regebro 14:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at what "de facto" means, in the case of Myanmar. The NLD won the election in 1990, but the military junta refused to handover power, hence the country became a "de facto" Single-party state. The situation is very different in Singapore, where free elections were held but the voters simply chose the same party at each election since 1959. You cannot denied that PAP is a democratically elected government. What I'm trying to say is, it is accurate to list Myanmar as a "de facto" Single-party state in this article, but it is not right to broaden the defnition of "de facto" to include countries like Singapore, which can better be described as having a "dominant party system". --Vsion 15:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Singapore is not a democracy. [27], [28], [29], [30].

And please, lets discuss my proposed change here, and nothing else. This horse has been beaten to death multiple times above. --Regebro 15:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal makes sense at first, until you reach the point whereby you somehow see a need to form a distinction between what is "democratic" or not. It seems apparant that you are prepared to bring up the same ghost all over again, albeit in a different article.--Huaiwei 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How is that unreasonable? If we don't make that distinction, you would just group totalitarian states together with democracies and pretend that they are the same and that there is no significant difference. Wouldn't that be extremely POV? --Regebro 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think I mentioned the word "unreasonable". I do, however, find it hyprocritical that you consider it an issue grouping "totalitarian states together with democracies" in this instance, while finding it perfectly alright to group a military state like Myanmar with a democracy like Singapore. I suppose this isnt a POV in your books?--Huaiwei 16:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Singapore is not a democracy. [31], [32], [33], [34]. --Regebro 15:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources say so.--Huaiwei 17:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

All of those sources say so. --Regebro 17:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There you have it. A "compromise" of sorts. Snort. ;)--Huaiwei 17:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed compromise.

Regebro using these sources to back up his claim tha Singapore is a single-party state is synthesis of published material to advance a viewpoint. However, Regebro pointed out in a conversation on IRC that my argument would make the entire "de-facto single-party states" list original research.

Therefore, we should remove the distinction between "de-facto single-party states" and "dominant-party systems where the ruling party uses various undemocratic means to disadvantage opposition parties". After all, Regebro's sources do state that the PAP uses various undemocratic means to disadvantage opposition parties.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Huaiwei that none of the sources say so, but Regebro's proposed compromise looks good to me, so long as the difference between blah and blah is clarified (not uh, removed, as J.L.W.S. The Special One put it). It is true that Singaporean voters have been electing the PAP over and over again for the past half-century or so, but it is also a fact that the PAP are nonetheless paranoid enough to keep suing the opposition members into bankruptcy. -ryand 03:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you maybe misunderstood him, and that you (and me) probably are saying the same thing. :) --Regebro 07:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you think wrong. I don't fully agree with either of you, but I do want to see this issue resolved. -ryand 11:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, then I don't undrstand what you are saying. So lets clarify by trying out the change. At least everybod seems to agree that the list of de facto single-party states should somehow be merged into Dominant party system. So lets do that and then move the discussion there for further clarification. Anubody should feel free to go ahead. I might have time later today otherwise. --Regebro 11:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If i understand you correctly, you are moving the Myanmar entry, a military regime, to be listed as a Dominant party system? I don't think there is any

Eritrea

Does Eritrea qualify as a single party state although it does not consider itself (in its National Charter among other things) as a political party? Rather it is described as a movement. --Merhawie 13:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is no discussion I will go ahead and remove it from the page. --Merhawie 12:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be excused simply because it doesn't call itself a "political party". No other parties are allowed to form; the "movement" label is just a matter of semantics. —Sesel 13:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for replying promptly. Second of all, in the three elections held in Eritrea (especially the last two) the ballots contained no reference to the People's Front for Democracy and Justice. Further, each candidate was independent of a central "party" authority, which lends credence to the idea that Eritrea is more of no-party case rather than a single-party example. --Merhawie 14:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware that Eritrea had any elections since independence, as the Constitution is not yet in effect. From what you describe, the process there sounds similar to claims I have heard about Cuba, where all candidates are also nominally unaffiliated. However, Cuba is also described as a one-party state. —Sesel 21:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Because I was under the impression that the Communist Party of Cuba was the only recognized political entity within Cuba and is actually the official party of Cuba. This is not quite the case in Eritrea. For one, the PFDJ is not recognized as a political party, no loner participates in elections (only did so in 1994, not 2002 and 2005). --Merhawie 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Uganda

Considering Uganda was a "no-party" state (political parties were banned), and the NRM was not a political party but a movement, shouldn't Uganda be removed from the list? Josh (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

Is Zimbabwe really a single-party state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JethroOlympiad (talk • contribs) 21:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkmenistan no longer one party state

Turkmenistan no longer one party state link title [[35]] bbc says that olny supporters say that but Just google Turkmnistan allows more parties —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.132.214 (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Croatia

Croatia under Ustaše rule wasn't a single party state. Their Parliament members were from 3 (former) parties: HSP, HSS, HSRS and representives of German national minority and Orthodox minority, but also, all parties were forbidden during the war (including HSP which was Pavelić's party), so that was no-party state. Ustaša wasn't a party, it was more like a military junta which took government during the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.109.125 (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Original research and havy lack of Primarysources

1. The article in current condition looks like violation of WP-rule: Wikipedia: No original research. We have an analysis/synthesis without a proper reliable sources (the article Single-party state has only one minor link on a derivative source).
2. The point Single-party state placed in category 'Party system' in the box on the article page, but in the article Party system where the category link leads there is no such categorization at all - it's all a bit messy.--Piyavkin (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

seems to be impossible

If there is only one party, then that "party" is not actually a party. It's part of the government.

Factions within that "party", if any, are in fact the real parties. If none, then there are no parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.45.79 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It means that either the party is just an appendage of the state, or that the state is subservient to the party. The former I'd imagine would be the case for most one-party African states from the 1960's-1990's (except maybe the pro-Soviet "Marxist-Leninist" ones), with Zaire coming to mind due to Mobutu's "Popular Movement of the Revolution." In both cases the party exists, but the difference is that in the former it's just a tool for legitimacy and extending the outreach of the state, whereas in the case of the latter it is the state which is a vehicle at ready for the party's whims or goals. Such was the power the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had. --Mrdie (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)