Jump to content

Talk:One-party state/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Single party states in Latin America

Some person has been re-introducing the Institutional Revolutionary Party of Mexico as a single party from the 1920s to 2000, but it was not. It was in fact a dominant party. More difficult to understand, this addenda was twice listed below a title implying that most Latin American countries had single party states during the cold war or anytime in the past, which is wrong. Only Cuba (de facto, since the 1960s) and Paraguay (in 1947-1962) were single party states. Military dictatorships, which were far more common, were not based on parties. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

However, I apologize for labeling the edit as "vandalism"; hitting the button happened quicker that thought. Hope this note explain the reversal. --IANVS (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Confederate States of America

The Confederate States of America had effectively only one political Party -- the Democratic Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a (talk • contribs) 05:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that once you take over a part of the contry, you can call yourself whatever you like. See: Peoples reupblic of China, and Republic of China. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin is not single party state

I noticed in the article an I.P put Wisconsin, a U.S state, down as a single party state. I reverted it, albeit before I logged in, and then checked the edit history. This same I.P has put Wisconsin down twice, and each time it was reverted. Wisconsin does not meet the definition for a dominant party state, much less a single party state. Given that their are currently elections going in that state, and from reading this page I've gotten the impression that there is some dispute about the election I'm going to assume that the I.P was trying to advance a POV. Wikipedia is not the place for advancing a POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Macgregor (talk • contribs) 07:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Haiti

Wasn't Haiti a single-party state under the Duvaliers? Josh (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Cuba

According to this article, Cuba previously had a semi-presidential system. Is there a source for this? Josh (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Likewise for South Vietnam. Josh (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Recording devices

I have heard the term 'one party state' also used to describe states where the consent of only 1 party (rather than both parties) is needed to record conversations. As opposed to a two-party state where both people need to consent to make a recording of a conversation. I am wondering if through disambiguation we could reflect this somehow. Ranze (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I added a disambiguation hatnote to that effect back in 2009, as well as one to Two-party state; the hatnote disappeared a couple of times recently, but I just re-added it. --Josh Triplett (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Taiwan

Taiwan should be added to the list of single-party states. --128.42.156.120 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. The Republic of China operated under one-party rule in the past, but not anymore. That's why it's listed under former section as "Republic of China (Kuomintang) 1928-1987". The current government system of what's commonly called Taiwan is a multi-party system. Abstractematics (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Split

A user has been attempting to WP:SPLIT part of the list on this article to List of single-party states (though hasn't actually followed through with the pasting part of the split) based on the premise that "This is an article, not a list, you do see the difference between an article and a list?" However, WP:EMBED clearly states that lists embedded within an article are perfectly acceptable. Are there any policy based reasons for a split? Given that this article is only 16kb, a split hardly seems necessary. What are others thoughts on this? TDL (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just fully protected the article due to the edit warring. Please discuss the matter here on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

single party system is not figting for two party so all country using single party system — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.46.125 (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Single?

There is no source for defining a "single-party state" as other than a state where there is only one party (e.g., the USSR). I would say when someone calls China a "single-party state" they are speaking loosely or ignorantly; this is not evidence for the definition used by this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It is like calling a single parent household a single person household. Etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Single-party state → Single-party system – request change so as to expand the relevance of the topic in relevance to other articles. At this stage I am particularly thinking of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which, despite its name, is not internationally recognised as a state. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 22:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ban-Ki Moon even went as far as to describe it as a Non-Islamic, Non-State. The disambiguation page State provides the interpretations of state as follows:

  • State (polity), an organized political community, living under a government
  • Sovereign state, a sovereign political entity in public international law; a society having exclusive domain over a territory
  • "State", in some contexts virtually synonymous with "government", e.g., to distinguish state (government) from private schools
  • Nation state, a state which coincides with a nation
  • Federated state, a political entity forming part of a federal sovereign state such as the United States, Australia, India and Brazil

Arguably only the third definition can apply to an unrecognised state.
For instance, in the article Sovereign state we read: "International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states." I think that the word system fits in as well as state and this would expand potential use. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Per nominator, as well as the example of Dominant-party system. --Sundostund (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is no indication this is about a system of governance in the proposed title, there are other single-party systems in the world having nothing to do with governance. Monopolies are single party systems (note that "party" is not the same thing as "political party", there are parties in lawsuits, and they are not usually political parties). Single-party system of governance would solve that problem. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

North Korea

Given that the succession of leadership in the DPRK has been from father to son for what is now the third generation should we look to moving it out of the single-party State category and putting it in the Absolute Monarchy category? In the case of a single-party state the Party normally chooses the leader on the death / retirement / arrest of the old leader. That does not seem to be the case here. Andrew (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

North Korea is not operating according to primogeniture: Kim Jong Un was not the oldest of Kim Jong Il's sons. Officially, the Workers Party continues to rule, via the Supreme People's Assembly, and the head of government is the Prime Minister of North Korea and the functioning head of state is Kim Yong Nam who is no relation...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Singapore?

Given the loose definition used in this article, why not include Singapore?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Singapore is actually more like a dominant-party system, one where multipartism is allowed (unlike the single-party state) but where several factors make it very unlikely that the dominant party is defeated, at least during a long period of time. Other examples are the ANC in South Africa, the PRI in Mexico or the LDP in Japan (the last two ended up losing power after 50-some years of dominance). Place Clichy (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
But in China, North Korea, etc, multiple parties are allowed.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Allowed? Yes, they allow other parties as long as the people in those parties don't mind losing their families. Ezza1995 (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. Check the facts before spouting your opinion. For example, North Korea has the religiously-based Chondoist Chongu Party; China has the Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang (the "patriotic" Nationalists).--Jack Upland (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The list is well supported by sources. Single party states are not defined by the presence or absence of multiple parties, as suggested above, but rather by the fact that "only one political party is legally allowed to hold power". All of the entries (excluding SADR) on this list are listed by that source and by others. If you can find a source which says Singapore is a single party state, it too should be added. But without sources it should not. TDL (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Rubbish. There is no law in North Korea that says that the Labour Party is the only party allowed to hold power. If you disagree, cite the law.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
At your request:

"The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea shall conduct all activities under the leadership of the Workers’ Party of Korea."

— Constitution of North Korea
Regardless, your interpretation of North Korean law is irrelevant as it is WP:original research. On Wikipedia we must follow what WP:reliable sources say on the matter, not the personal opinion of wikipedia editors. I've provided a source which supports the fact that North Korea is a single party state. There are ample others: [1][2][3][4][5]. Britannica describes North Korea as a "unitary single-party republic". If you think all these reliable sources are "rubbish", then please provide sources which refute them. TDL (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
But the Constitution also says: "The organs of State power at all levels, from the county People’s Assembly to the Supreme People’s Assembly, are elected on the principle of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot." Admittedly it is not easy to reconcile this with the article you quote, but it is wrong to say no other party can legally hold power. Clearly, the people are legally able to elect the candidate of their choice. Therefore another party could legally win the election. In any case, the "leadership" of the Labour Party does not preclude another party holding power in a coalition with the Labour Party. Arguably another party could rule on its own, and the Labour Party could "lead" as a loyal opposition and guardian of the principles of the state that it founded. More likely, if another party did win they would need to change the Constitution before they could deviate from the Labour Party line. But all this could be done legally. QED.
Of course there are sources which say North Korea is a "single party state", because "single party state" (or "one party state") is a pejorative term from the Cold War which is loosely applied to many countries, as this Talk page amply demonstrates. For example, Gore Vidal said, "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party ... and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat"[6]
As for Singapore:[7], [8] etc. Of course, others will argue that Singapore is not a single party state, and the People's Action Party just wins every election fair and square. My fundamental point is this page is inevitably a violation of the NPOV policy. Enemies of particular states will often brand those states "single party states", but there is no universally accepted taxonomy (as Wikipedia currently implies) which allows us neutrally to say that North Korea is a single party state, but Singapore isn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes there are elections in North Korea, but there is only one candidate per riding. And the Worker's Party has the power to decided who goes on the ballot. So it's rather misleading to say that "people are legally able to elect the candidate of their choice". Regardless, your and my personal interpretations of the constitution, and semantical arguments, are OR. I've provided numerous sources which support the fact that only the Worker's Party can legally hold power, and I've seen none to the contrary.
You are conflating single-party vs dominant party states with democratic vs undemocratic states. Whether the People's Action Party wins elections "fair and square" is not relevant to the question of whether they are a single-party state. The point is that they legally could lose power in principle since there are no constitutional provisions guaranteeing them power. There are plenty of dominant party states which are NOT single party states in which the elections are certainly NOT fair. But they retain their power through other means, ie. voter intimdation. This distinction is explained in detail here. A perfect example of this is Syria. They recently changed their constitution to eliminate the analogous Article to the North Korean one I listed above ("the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party leads the state and society"). Since their power is no longer constitutionally entrenched, they are not a single-party state. Whether their elections were "fair and square" is a separate issue entirely.
This article is not based on the statements by "enemies", it is based on the analysis of reliable sources. A loosely applied definition in a letter to the editor or by a novelist is hardly convincing otherwise. (Note that this source you linked to defines Singapore as a "single-party dominant state", which is what is listed at dominant party state, not here.) There is a very clear and well sourced definition of what a single party state is, as well as which states satisfy this definition. I understand that you find the term perjorative, but wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. NPOV doesn't say we can't write things that might upset some people, it says we must follow what the sources. And as far as I can see, the sources are unanimous on this issue. That a few anonymous editors on the internet think other states belong on the list does not change that fact. TDL (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The sources are not "unanimous". It is just you dismiss or distort sources that don't fit your predetermined position. To argue that an article entitled "The cultural logic of a capitalist single-party state, Singapore" does not call Singapore a "single party state" is absolutely ridiculous. I am not "upset" by the use of perjoratives. I just object to the illogical and biased taxonomy being used here.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I presented numerous academic sources which examine the subject of this article in detail. This isn't an article on every place which has ever been referred to informally as a "single-party state", as you seem to believe, it is about states "in which a single political party has the right to form the government". These states are commonly referred to as "single-party states" in academic literature. That the phrase is occasionally used for other purposes is irrelevant. There is nothing "illogical" or "biased" about that. That this descriptive terminology might be uncomfortable to those who support such states is not a valid reason to pretend that such states don't exist.
The sum total of the "sources" you have presented purporting to discredit the academic consensus are a letter to the editor by a quality manager, a comment made by a humorist in a book entitled "Matters of Fact and of Fiction", and the title of an article, which if you actually read beyond the title refutes the entire premise of your argument by stating that Singapore is a dominant party state. Those are facts, not "distortion". Next you will be citing facebook posts made by your friends, or a passage in Lord of the Rings referring to Gondor as a single party state. None of this is compelling evidence that Singapore meets the academic definition of a single party state, nor does it discredit the fact that there is an academic consensus on the definition of the concept. NPOV does not permit us to give weight to WP:FRINGE theories such as these which cannot be substantiated by reliable sources. I have no "predetermined position". My position is simply that we should follow academic sources such as this, rather than unsubstantiated personal theories. If you can provide a source which states that Singapore meets the academic definition of a single party state, I would happily add it.
What exactly is it that you think should be done with this article? Deletion? TDL (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
More distortion and ad hominem attacks. This merely indicates how weak your argument is. But let's put that aside. What is the basis for this "academic definition"? The introduction and the "Concept" section of this article cite no secondary sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
"Ad hominem attacks"? Please do point out where I have "attacked" you in my last comment and I will certainly strike it. Of course, since you won't be able to do that as no such "attacks" were ever made I would ask that you strike this personal attack against me and focus on supporting your theory with something other than Lee Kek Chin the quality manager's letter to the editor.
The basis of the academic definition is the secondary sources I linked to above. Have you still not read them yet? Start with that, and if you still have questions I will be glad to respond. TDL (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The passage in Principles of Comparative Politics (pp 611-612) which you rely on is muddled and superficial. It acknowledges that "minor parties are sometimes [!] allowed to exist" in "single-party systems," but only refers to Communist Poland. It states baldly that "All single-party systems occur in dictatorships" which is clearly false as the USSR after Stalin was not a dictatorship, but rather had a collective leadership. It then says that in "single-party dominant systems", "multiple parties are legally allowed to exist", which it has just said was true of "single-party systems"!!! It then refers to "single-party dominant systems" having "other active parties", which again is true in many countries it describes as "single-party systems"!!! Hardly an authoritative text from a scholarly point of view. In any case, one academic textbook does not represent an academic consensus.
And what about the article itself? While you accuse me of original research (for comments made on a Talk page!!!), the article itself has no citation for its core thesis. The entire article appears to be original research on this basis. So, yes, by the strict application of Wikipedia rules, it could be deleted.
With regard to Singapore, The Straits Times is Singapore's leading newspaper, and one which supports the regime. The presentation of this letter to the editor - in a way that more resembles a featured column - indicates some level of support to the assertion that it is good that Singapore is a "single party state". And you launch an ad hominem attack on the author. And with the academic article, "The cultural logic of a capitalist single-party state, Singapore", surely the title speaks for itself. Once again, you claim that there is something in the article that somehow supports your argument, but don't cite it. It is widely acknowledged that Lee Kuan Yew and his successors in government have used the law to suppress political opposition, first on the grounds of Communist subversion, starting with Operation Cold Store, and then suing opposition leaders for defamation. According to your definition (apparently from that one book), a single party state is a state where "only one political party is legally allowed to hold power". The operation of the law in Singapore clearly does not allow parties other than the People's Action Party to hold power, or even function in opposition.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

List

What is the source for this elaborate list?--Antemister (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 16:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Single-party state → One-party state – Per WP:COMMONNAME (compare 136,000 Google Books hits to 20,400 for the current title) and WP:ASTONISH (I was surprised to find the article at this title, which I'd never heard used). Number 57 17:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Grammar?

"The Marxist theory states that political parties represent the interests, most of which, in a liberal system, respond to the economic power and are part of the system (the superstructure) where whoever wins there will be no substantial changes, once abolished class distinctions no place for the struggle for multiparty own economic interests"

Am I crazy or is this sentence ungrammatical? I would re-write it, but I'm not 100% sure of the original intention of the sentence.

I've replaced the sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The table suggests that Popular Fronts ruled. In reality the Fronts staged elections, but didn't control anything, the Communist parties did. The Communist parties controlled small parties.Xx236 (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on One-party state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Categories of former one-party states

The current version of the article splits the former one-party states into "left-wing", "right-wing", "Marxist-Leninist", "fascist or nationalist", and "big tent". It gets a bit hairy to categorise the states like this. It's original research and invites debate on which of these categories a regime falls into. I think it would be better to revert to the old categorisation by continent. --Inops (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Citations?

Citation 1 links to [9] which doesn't actually define "single party state" and also refers to Wikipedia, so could be circular sourcing. Citation 2 links to an earlier version of this article[10]. Therefore I have deleted them. The article now has only one citation...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Cambodia: an one-party state or a dominant-party state

The Economist Intelligence Unit has rated Cambodia as an "authoritarian". However, there are still mulita-parties structure in the parliament (CPP holds different political view to the FUNCINPEC), though CPP use unfair method before and within election to weaken and even dissolve Cambodia National Rescue Party. --Wkbreaker (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The terminology is too inconsistent and illogical to give a meaningful response.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
In November 2017, the Cambodian Supreme Court ordered the dissolution of the main opposition party. It did not outlaw all opposition parties, and four parties participated in the Senate elections in February 2018. Cambodia is not "legally constituted as a one-party state" (see the sentence above this table) and should be removed. Obiara (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I've removed Cambodia. After the dissolution of the CNRP there are still four different parties represented in the National Assembly (how effective they are is a separate question!): https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national-politics/cnrp-gone-minor-parties-take-their-national-assembly-seats Obiara (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Reality and theory

In reality there existe a lot of different form of one-party stystems. There are more elitarian one-parties and also more common and democratic ones, a party that is for every body open, not just for riche ones or for religious ones or for economical ones, or what kind of selection ever.

There exist also mixed formes of one- or two-party systems. Some people of the party cooperate silently with other people of other party. Or they cooperate official. --178.197.228.148 (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

All these countries are listed by their ideology, sometimes with strange classifications (e.g. Ivorian PDCI as a nationalist party). I would rather list them by continent, date of establishment of the one-party state, using a sortable wikitable. Is there any objections?--Le Petit Chat (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Le Petit Chat: Sounds like a great idea. I’d fully support that. — MarkH21talk 11:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I moved it.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree, there is no need for further classification of countries "ideology"- they are either a one party state as defined in the article or they aren't and going further makes this article a edit war magnet --Willthewanderer (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Examples map broken

Could someone please repair the "emamples map"- the key to the colour guide is incomplete and only mentions China. I am unsure if this is vandalism, unfortunately I have little practice with the wikitext involved here --Willthewanderer (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Willthewanderer: I’m not sure what you mean. I see all of the states in the table as brown in the map. — MarkH21talk 16:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
maybe broken was the wrong way to put it, the issue is primarily that the map contains a whole range of colour coding that isn't listed in the key and doesn't relate directly to the article- it's very confusing to look at. --Willthewanderer (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
You could use the full legend at File:Forms_of_government.svg. Otherwise we'd need to create a new map that only colors in the one-party states. — MarkH21talk 21:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

India as a former One-Party state

Putting India in the list of former One-party states because of the Azad Hind government that was set up in Singapore during WW2 is very confusing, and may also be considered to be wrong. This is particularly because the Azad Hind government did not have any political power in Mainland India, or any recognition and support, apart from the Empire of Japan. Putting India in the list makes it seem like an actual one-party system run by the Communist Party of India existed in the country over the time frame mentioned, which it did not. Surjodoy9 (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Surjodoy9

Yeah, I have no idea why it's there. Not only is Bose's government-in-exile not fit for this page for the reasons you gave, but in that same 1943-45 timeframe the Communist Party regarded Bose as a traitor to India and a fascist stooge. So I've removed it from the list. --Ismail (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Cambodia

Cambodia is not a one-party state right now. It is a dominant party state and should be removed from the current one-party states. LoneWolf1992 (user talk) 18:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Venezuela

Should current Venezuela be considered a one-party state? Aside from the Venezuelan presidential crisis, the government of Maduro says that the opposition is no longer running congress, thus only Polo Patriotico members and independent supporters of Maduro government would be running the country according to him.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As of 2021, all (recognized by the) government officials belong to the same party coalition, isn't it a one party rule?--ReyHahn (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Isle of Man

Could the Isle of Man be worth a small mention? If you look at this article then you will notice that only 1 party won any seats, so you could describe the Isle of Man as a single-party state, all be it where the majority of those elected are independents. Ezza1995 (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The Isle of Man has had several political parties and has no single-party system as such. --Soman (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

At the last Manx general election, only 1 party stood candidates though. Ezza1995 (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This just illustrates the problem with this article, as discussed elsewhere. It's all POV, no hard facts. The Isle of Man could be included, so could Singapore. Equally, North Korea and China could be excluded.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The hell are you people talking about? You might want to read the article and educate yourself on what a one-party state is. The Isle of Man has no legal prohibitions on who can run under what party (aside from typical prohibitions in liberal democracies such as no under 18's etc.), and no legal enshrinement of the supremacy of any particular party. You could make a case for a "dominant party system" but it would be a stupid case because no party is dominant, independents dominate. 178.16.10.79 (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

True or Parrtial 1-party.

Are there any nations that possess what is called a "one party" government, but in reality the one party is so broadly defined as to be meaningless (and allow for debates and such)? i cant figure out a better wording for this. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

China is becoming like that.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Random-Mao: It's quite daft actually, the whole notion of a multi party state is something perculiar to certain liberal, represenative democracies, and this is simply based on democratic centralism, so if you dislike a decision you have to change it within the party, not split and form another party. To say it has less democracy because democracy is largely direct and not through representatives in this sense would be like saying US infrastructure and services are less efficient because different parties assume control over them at different times. In a '1 party state' the infrastructure, services, and governance are all wrapped up in a single authority. I'd propose to delete it or rename it but it seems like Wiki is controlled by liberals who wouldnt even understand this last point :-(

A lot of the ownership and prominant admins within wikipedia have ties and interests to certain think tanks and other influence groups within the US in particular. However even if everything in wiki was all above board, a lot of it works off of the kind of propaganda that has been fed to us through media for decades. People who believe it are also determining what constitutes a "reliable source" regardless of how much false shit it's spread and had to retract, only the perception of a handful of liberals matters. I doubt any of those in control have a good grasp on how most single party systems around the world truly function (and to be clear, I also don't have an in depth knowledge, but then I'm not deciding what goes into encyclopedia articles about those systems). 178.16.10.79 (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Table needs to be rearranged

Hallo, The big table of previous one-party states is at present in a very confusing order: several A-Z sequences. I found out that this edit combined what had previously been several different tables into one. That seems to have been a sensible move, but the whole table now ought to be in one clear order - either A-Z by country, or possibly by date, or continent-then-country.

I thought I had found how to do this by copying into .csv and then into Excel, but that technique lost all the links, flags, and refs.

So: could someone with more wiki-expertise on tables please sort the table?

This article will have had a sudden peak in pageviews in the last couple of days, as it was the target of the Redactle puzzle (which omitted both the tables) and many other puzzlers, like me, will have come to the article to read it after seeing the minimised version which shows up in the puzzle when solved. PamD 09:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks to @Certes: who picked this up after I raised it at WP:VPT (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_198#Re-ordering a large table, possibly off-wiki, the same message as above, looking for a wider audience). The table looks great now. I still don't understand how it was sorting previously ... but it looks good and sorts well now. Sorry I didn't thank you earlier. PamD 07:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. There were two issues. Firstly, the default sort order (the order of the table rows in the wikitext) reflected the fact that several tables had been concatenated rather than merged. Secondly, when the column header was clicked, it would sort on the text in the column, which usually didn't begin with the country name. Adding |data-sort-value= fixed the second problem. It was then a matter of sorting the wikitext by data-sort-value. We really ought to have a utility to do that and/or a way to specify in the table header that it should be shown sorted by the nth column by default. I suspect that it would improve many other articles. Certes (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Cuba?

why is cuba not included? Ltagames 03:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltagames (talk • contribs)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Haiti?

Was Haiti a one-party state under the Duvaliers? I've seen some sources state that political parties were banned altogether under the Duvaliers. Josh (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Brazil under military junta was not a one-party state

When Brazil was under a military junta from 1964 to 1985, it was a two-party system until 1979. The National Renewal Alliance was not a sole party, it was a dominant party. User:JTDG2005 (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.94.155 (talk)

Nicaragua

Nicaragua might now be considered a one-party stateThe Economist --ReyHahn (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't the USA considered a One Party State?

It fits all the criteria, does it not? The modern day Democratic Party in the US traces its roots farther back to the original "ruling class" (established 1776) than any other developed country on this planet. That may be hyperbolic, but consider the following:

ONE party remains in control (or benefits from making outrageous political campaign contributions towards and suddenly falling into millions of dollars) of all the following:

  • the absolute highest branches of power
  • the entire educational system
  • the entire media alphabet soup
  • the entire military industrial complex
  • the entire financial system (even Trump admitted he made more money under Democrats)
  • the entire electoral college
  • national sports
  • music
  • television
  • talk radio
  • theater
  • entertainment

.. bla bla.. The entire [insert anything you can imagine here] is ran by a SINGLE PARTY ... Lets stop pretending and just admit that the US controls what their people pay taxes for, watch, vote, learn, read, buy, do, eat, listen to, post on social media, etc.. all directed by a SINGLE political machine that supports a SINGLE party's agenda (more votes = more money). Not by choice.

Even Trump was a major player in the NYC/NJ Democratic Party machine with the AC Casino era (the mob aspect can be discussed at another time). Despite his rhetoric, he posed very little challenge to the ruling class and completely failed to be more than an entertainer in chief. When he took over his father's business, his goal was to venture out to Manhattan and Atlantic City instead of the outskirts of Queens by the airport and/or mass influx of immigrants. Take a wild guess which political party he suddenly started mingling with then..

Look at the way major US city districts are *somehow* being magically changed (gerrymandered) to consistently favor votes for more and more (D)'s. Even the most ultra desirable neighborhoods (mostly former liberals -> conservatives who fled the city) in NYC outskirts such as South Brooklyn, Staten Island, and rural areas of Queens and north NJ are suddenly (D)'s now. So now they're just going to flood these gems further away to avoid paying outrageous amounts of taxes for being successful AF and these beautiful areas will rot. Just like Bed Stuy, North Bronx, South Brooklyn, Camden, AC, Trenton, Newark, etc.. Once gorgeous cities decimated by what eventually became controlled by who? A SINGLE party.

Every. single. major. city. is ran entirely by a SINGLE party. The outrageous pursuit to ensure the populous does not vote the "wrong way" (that is to say (R).. aka the opposition party) is blatantly obvious. The richest man in the country owns the main media outlet (WaPo) that decides what the capitol's insiders deem acceptable for public discourse and go from there. Relentlessly biased towards the goals of a SINGLE party. The suppression of opposing views as of 2018-2022 is now perfectly acceptable, if not encouraged. Other developed countries have a wide array of political parties and tolerance for eventually negotiating towards the middle - to pass bills and actually run their countries to represent their people (aka a Democracy). The US has only one "acceptable" party to support. The only mainstream "conservative" media outlets that remain are basically just coastal elite "Limousine Liberals" LARPING as conservatives for pay from Newscorp. Most are even registered Democrats. The rest have all been removed.

TLDR: I dare anyone to argue that the USA is anything but a single party state. Any major political shift in the country was made by a SINGLE PARTY.. outside Lincoln, which I point to as establishing the one and only resistance party the county ever saw - but has been completely decimated by upp.. a SINGLE PARTY. Can you dig it??

I welcome any input here or parallels to other nations as far a the true definition of a one/single party state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.107.82 (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@966.248.107.82 What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent, rant, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who has been on this talk page is now dumber for having seen it.
To those who think anything this person has said is true,
It fits all the criteria, does it not? The modern day Democratic Party in the US traces its roots farther back to the original "ruling class" (established 1776) than any other developed country on this planet. That may be hyperbolic, but consider the following:
A one party state has multiple political parties the USA has two large parties, (Democratic and Republican) party and several smaller ones (Green, Libertarian etc) so no, it doesn't qualify as a single party state. The Democratic party emerged in the 1820's
Anyway continuing -
ONE party remains in control (or benefits from making outrageous political campaign contributions towards and suddenly falling into millions of dollars) of all the following:
• the absolute highest branches of power
Wrong Republicans have a majority in the House of repesentatives and SCOTUS
• the entire educational system
You do know private education exists right? Furthermore education is mostly funded by state and local governments so the democrats would have to control 'every' state and school board to control the education system.
• the entire media alphabet soup
Fox news
• the entire military industrial complex
The military is controlled by the government and funded by congress of which the republicans have the house
• the entire financial system (even Trump admitted he made more money under Democrats)
Really? The Democrats control all the money do they? Every bank, every business, everyone who owns money is controlled by the evil Democrats? This is one of the dumbest things you say, and given the content of this rant that is quite an achievement
• the entire electoral college
If the democrats controlled the entire electoral college the maps would be all blue, they're not 2020 2016 2012 2008 2004 2000 1996 etc
• national sports
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/inside-the-political-donation-history-of-wealthy-sports-owners/
• music
Country music, Sweet Home Alabama
• television
Newsmax TV
• talk radio
Conservative Talk Radio
• theater
What are you talking about
• entertainment
https://www.insider.com/republican-celebrities-2018-11
.. bla bla.. The entire [insert anything you can imagine here] is ran by a SINGLE PARTY That would have to include the republican party too ... Lets [sic] stop pretending and just admit that the US controls what their people pay taxes for, Government spending is controlled by the Congress of the United States which is partially controlled by the republicans, watch You can pretty much watch anything in the United States, provided it does not break Obscenity laws or violate National security vote, 2016 United States Presidential Election learn, read, Who is burning the books buy, Including Republican donations? do, eat, Wut listen to, Ben Shapiro Show post on social media, Truth Social etc.. all directed by a SINGLE political machine that supports a SINGLE party's agenda (more votes = more money). Not by choice. As demonstrated, no, it's not
Even Trump was a major player in the NYC/NJ Democratic Party machine with the AC Casino era (the mob aspect can be discussed at another time). Despite his rhetoric, he posed very little challenge to the ruling class and completely failed to be more than an entertainer in chief. When he took over his father's business, his goal was to venture out to Manhattan and Atlantic City instead of the outskirts of Queens by the airport and/or mass influx of immigrants. Take a wild guess which political party he suddenly started mingling with then.. I don't even know what this is trying to achieve the only time Trump did anything significant politically was when he was affiliated with the republican party
Look at the way major US city districts are *somehow* being magically changed (gerrymandered) to consistently favor votes for more and more (D)'s. Even the most ultra desirable neighborhoods (mostly former liberals -> conservatives who fled the city) in NYC outskirts such as South Brooklyn, Staten Island, and rural areas of Queens and north NJ are suddenly (D)'s now. So now they're just going to flood these gems further away to avoid paying outrageous amounts of taxes for being successful AF and these beautiful areas will rot. Just like Bed Stuy, North Bronx, South Brooklyn, Camden, AC, Trenton, Newark, etc.. Once gorgeous cities decimated by what eventually became controlled by who? A SINGLE party. New York and New Jersey has been safe Democrat territory for a long time, you don't what you are talking about. Furthermore Gerrymandering in the United States, REDMAP.
Every. single. major. city. is ran entirely by a SINGLE party. The outrageous pursuit to ensure the populous does not vote the "wrong way" (that is to say (R).. aka the opposition party) is blatantly obvious. Citation needed The richest man in the country owns the main media outlet (WaPo) that decides what the capitol's insiders deem acceptable for public discourse and go from there. Relentlessly biased towards the goals of a SINGLE party. The richest man in the US and indeed the world was at the time of your comment Elon Musk and he supported republican's during the 2022 United States elections The suppression of opposing views as of 2018-2022 is now perfectly acceptable, if not encouraged. Citation Needed Other developed countries have a wide array of political parties and tolerance for eventually negotiating towards the middle - to pass bills and actually run their countries to represent their people (aka a Democracy). The US has only one "acceptable" party to support. No it doesn't The only mainstream "conservative" media outlets that remain are basically just coastal elite "Limousine Liberals" LARPING as conservatives for pay from Newscorp. Again Fox News Most are even registered Democrats. So Tucker Carlson is a democrat? I doubt it - Citation Needed The rest have all been removed. Citation Needed
TLDR: I dare anyone to argue that the USA is anything but a single party state. Any major political shift in the country was made by a SINGLE PARTY.. outside Lincoln, which I point to as establishing the one and only resistance party the county ever saw - but has been completely decimated by upp.. a SINGLE PARTY. Can you dig it??]] 'Lincoln wasn't resisting anything he was against slavery committed by democrat slaves in the south prior to and during th United States Civil War Many significant political shifts have been made by republicans see Trumpism
I welcome any input here or parallels to other nations as far a the true definition of a one/single party state. It's not Watch Atlas791 (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


@966.248.107.82 "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Shut up, tard. --Miiyooh (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:One-party_state/Archive_2&oldid=1245337596"