| Revision as of 09:50, 8 December 2006 editRegebro (talk | contribs)1,009 edits →RFM← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:51, 12 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:One-party state/Archive 2) (bot | ||
| (271 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talkheader}} | |||
| 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? ] 21:41 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC) | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| | |||
| {{WikiProject Politics|political-parties=yes|political-parties-importance=mid|importance=mid}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| | algo = old(365d) | |||
| | archive = Talk:One-party state/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | counter = 2 | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 1 | |||
| }} | |||
| == De-facto one party states == | |||
| :I think you can safely go ahead and merge them. --] 21:46 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC) | |||
| De-facto one party states are mentioned once in the article, then not brought up again. Many people (perhaps more so outside of academia) understand the concept of one-party states to encompass de-facto one party states. De-facto one party states should be expanded on in their own section with some examples. | |||
| ---- | |||
| I can see that ] already exists, but that article appears to be addressing a much more loosely defined concept - the phenomenon of any time a political party remains in power for more than one consecutive term. Moreover, it doesn't properly explain the concept of de-facto one party states and their characteristics. Barring a rewrite of that article, the concept of de-facto one party states should be expanded on more in this article. ] (]) 10:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Anyone want to go ahead and complete ], ], and a proper ] (scandalous gaping holes in Misplaced Pages)? --] 21:53 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this is a deep flaw in the article.--] (]) 05:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| : Two out of three now. Anyone taking ]? --] 17:50, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC) | |||
| :Personally I think the entire section should just be removed. The examples given are just too open to interpretation. At least everyone can agree that de jure places like the DPRK and Cuba are one-party-states, as soon as you start throwing in "authoritarian ersatz democracy" stuff you basically just turn this into a never-ending battleground and opinion piece for "Oh I think Russia's a one-party state!" "I think they're not!" sorta back and forth uselessness. | |||
| :Dominant-party already has a page. I think it more than encompasses the situation given that logically, all dominant-party states are 'de facto one-party states' by default. It's just superfluous. ] (]) 10:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I partially agree. If there's no standard for what constitutes a de facto one-party state, it open the page up to whatever bias ethnic opportunists want to push. Japan and Paraguay are among the more absurd entries in the section, where Russia is one of the more absurd omissions. ] (]) 19:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Pressure group ] (]) 06:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| 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. ] | |||
| ----- | |||
| ==Communism multi-party== | |||
| ] and ] were not single-party. | |||
| There were some ] and so. | |||
| Not that they were very effective. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 15:39, March 25, 2004 (UTC).</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!-- --> | |||
| ----- | |||
| == Further Representation in "De Facto" One Party States == | |||
| 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. | |||
| I've undone a major deletion of two cited countries in this article's table. This is a page to discuss what should be added, how it should be presented, to prevent major edits of this new section without previous consensus and discussion. Before deleting any country, discuss it here. I want this to be a more general thread, so unless it is heavily agreed upon, talk here before adding or deleting entire countries. Some topics I would like to discuss are specifying who claims what; establishing how strict and formal this definition should be; and discussing the more controversial countries, like populist parties (such as Russia, Hungary, India, etc), increasingly multipartidary countries (like Mexico and Japan). And on the more extreme end, adding countries which have party bans (I don't really agree with most of these, but are valid arguments, and should be discussed). ] (]) 13:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 06:01, June 30, 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --><!-- --> | |||
| :Bluntly, I still think that the entire section should just be deleted and just mention that "dominant-party states are often considered de-facto one-party states" and leave it there. Otherwise, it's just going to be a slinging contest of people adding and removing countries. ] (]) 06:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ::agreed - it makes more sense if the ] article is the home for those discussions/tables ] (]) 06:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Is Western Sahara single-party (supposing it is a state, that is)? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 15:39, March 25, 2004 (UTC).</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!-- --> | |||
| == Move Mexico to Former One-Party States == | |||
| :Morocco controls it and allows it to elect parliamentarians, so it is essentially subject to the Moroccan political system. —] 20:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Shouldn't Mexico be in the former one-party states list? It literally says in the information section "The PRI held uninterrupted power for 71 years, from 1929 to 2000, but its power has since dwindled and '''''the de facto one-party system in Mexico disappeared''''' " ] (]) 14:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) November 11, 2005 (UTC) .</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!-- --> | |||
| :@] I agree, but i believe it's still up to discussion wheter it should be added to a separate list for former ''de facto'' one party state, or if it would simply oversaturate the page with tables. I have a talk page just for this type of discussion. ] (]) 04:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| You obviously don't know about world history. Here are only 26 examples; there are MANY more: | |||
| :I think it is correct, in fact before you had to have permission from the government to form political parties (leaving it in the middle of a ''de facto'' and ''de iure'' legal one-party system). ] (]) 22:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Venezuela ("Anti-fascist law") == | |||
| * 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) | |||
| In short, it is a law that allows the government (the ]) to outlaw any political party or organization considered "extremist" as well as prohibit demonstrations against it, effectively prohibiting any legal opposition to the PSUV, and only allowing those parties to participate if they submit to the new laws (same case as in China with the ]). | |||
| —]] 00:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-02/-anti-fascism-law-to-tighten-crackdown-on-venezuelan-opposition | |||
| 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 20:29, June 30, 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!-- --> | |||
| -https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article287431415.html | |||
| ==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. ] 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. ] 07:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::One-party states aren't ''liberal'' democracies, but that doesn't make them inherently non-democratic. —] 07:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| At the moment Venezuela does not have a constitution, but with this at least it should be put in the place of "''de facto'' one-party states". ] (]) 23:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==(no section title)== | |||
| 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 23:23, May 2, 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!-- --> | |||
| ==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 ]. ] 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?--] 15:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The article clearly differs between states that are ] single-party states and ] single party state. Singapore is a ] single-party state, and should be included. --] 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!--] 16:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Yeah, right, all sources that doesn't agree with your opinion is automatically uncredible. That's serious. --] 20:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Any why would I not be surprised we will come to this? See below for my response. Thankfully, it cuts both ways.--] 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Additionally, a "Committee Against Fascism" will be formed separately from the National Assembly to review each case. In effect, this is a ]. ] (]) 23:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''The indentation below is getting silly, so I'll summarize the dispute:''' | |||
| == Original research from the article == | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Concept == | |||
| 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. | |||
| {{Original research section}} | |||
| One-party states justify themselves through various methods. Most often, proponents of a one-party state argue that the existence of separate parties runs counter to national unity.{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}} Others argue that the one party is the ]<nowiki/>of the people, being its most politically aware members, and therefore the party's right to rule cannot be legitimately questioned.{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}} The ] argued that the existence of multiple political parties would perpetuate ], so only a single party could lead a classless proletariat; it therefore made the ] the only authorised political party.{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}} | |||
| 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. --] 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?--] 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. --] 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 . Need I say further? ;)--] 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. --] 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.--] 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?--] 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. --] 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.--] 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. --] 17:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Conversely, Russian historian ] attributed the establishment of the one-party system to the conditions which were "imposed on Bolshevism by hostile political forces". Rogovin highlighted the fact that the Bolsheviks made strenuous efforts to preserve the ] such as the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and other left parties within the bounds of Soviet legality and their participation in the Soviets on the condition of abandoning armed struggle against the Bolsheviks.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Rogovin |first1=Vadim Zakharovich |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1MakzgEACAAJ |title=Was There an Alternative? Trotskyism: a Look Back Through the Years |date=2021 |publisher=Mehring Books |isbn=978-1-893638-97-6 |pages=13–14 |language=en}}</ref> ] argued that he and Lenin had intended to lift the ban on the ]<nowiki/>such as the ] and ] as soon as the economic and social conditions of ] had improved.<ref name="books.google.com">{{cite book |last1=Deutscher |first1=Isaac |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YGznDwAAQBAJ&q=isaac+deutscher+trotsky+the+prophet |title=The Prophet: The Life of Leon Trotsky |date=5 January 2015 |publisher=Verso Books |isbn=978-1-78168-721-5 |pages=528 |language=en}}</ref> | |||
| ==Is Singapore a single-party state?== | |||
| <cite id=User:Huaiwei.27s_edits> </cite> - User:Huaiwei has insisted that Singapore is not a single-party state, despite it's decribed as such elsewhere from Misplaced Pages , even by an academic from the National University of Singapore (). He argued Singapore has a dorminant-party system but not a single-party system, since in single-party states no parties other than the governing ones exist . He also challenged to accept the fact that non-governing parties in the People's Republic of China, North Korea and Syria are legal . </p><p>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 . — ]] 19:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Huaiwei is right, Singapore is ''not'' a single-party state. --] 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?--] 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?--] 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. — ]] 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.--] 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. --] 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.--] 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. --] 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? --]]]] <sub>(] | ])</sub> 01:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Singapore is not a single-party state, but a ]. 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 ] 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." | |||
| :::::::::--] 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. --] 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. --] 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 Misplaced Pages is here to tell the truth and the facts, not to present a polished version. --] 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 ]? Or for that matter, any part of Singapore's law books ? 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.--] 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 ] 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. --] 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 Misplaced Pages is ], 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 ] policy. Misplaced Pages is about "truth and facts"? Not exactly. Misplaced Pages 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.--] 00:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::: Exactly. Misplaced Pages 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. --] 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?--] 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 ]. 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. --] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ;)--] 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. --] 01:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Denouncing Freedoumhouse, Amnesty international and reporters without borders as not being reliable does not exactly help your credibility. --] 01:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Please stop playing tricks, you haven't provide any source to support your statement. --] 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. --] 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?--] 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. --] 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'''.--] 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. --] 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 Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy, failing which you have '''zero grounds to insist your sources as factually correct'''.--] 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::::Please read up: ], ], ], ], ]. It is '''you''' who has to prove that that these organisations are partial. Especially Amnesty gets universal respect from all humanists. --] 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". --] 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. --] 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!--] 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. --] 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?--] 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. --] 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? --] 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 ] 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: | |||
| Some one-party states only outlaw ], while allowing allied parties to exist as part of a permanent ] (such as a ]).{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}} However, these allied parties are largely or completely subservient to the ruling party and must accept the ]'s monopoly of power as a condition of their existence.{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}}Examples of this are the ] in former ] and the ]<nowiki/>in ]. Other states outlaw all other parties yet allow non-party members to run for legislative seats as ], as was the case with ]'s ] in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as the ] in the former ]. Still others have only a single legal party, membership of which is a prerequisite for holding public office, such as in ] under the rule of ] or ] under ].{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}} | |||
| ] | |||
| Within their own countries, dominant parties ruling over one-party states are often referred to simply as ''the Party''. For example, in reference to the ], ''the Party'' meant the ]; in reference to the pre-1991 ], it referred to the ].{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}} | |||
| ] ]. Photo courtesy of www.yawningbread.org]] | |||
| Most one-party states have been ruled by one of the following:{{Citation needed|date=April 2024}} | |||
| :Could you?--] 15:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # A party which supports the ideology of ] and ] (sometimes described as "]", such as the Soviet Union) | |||
| ::''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. | |||
| # A party which supports a ] or ] ideology (such as the ] under the ] or ] under the ]) | |||
| :: 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? --] 16:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # A party that came to power in the wake of independence from ]. One-party systems often arise from decolonization because a single party gains an overwhelmingly dominant role in liberation or in independence struggles. | |||
| :::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.--] 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. --] 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?--] 22:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 03:10, 30 April 2024 (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? — ]] 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?--] 13:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The significant difference here is whether they use democractic methods to do so or not. --] 13:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Elaboration please. Of course some reference to '''real''' examples would be most helpful.--] 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. --] 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. --] 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. --] 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 ]? 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. --] 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?--] 16:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Yes. --] 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. — ]] 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?--] 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? — ]] 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!--] 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Please go read the very beginning of this thread of discussion. — ]] 22:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::But why should I do that when you are the one asking the question? ;)--] 15:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Here you go . No more pretending please. — ]] 18:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Reftalk}} | |||
| :::::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.--] 13:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You have gotten answers to any reasonable question you have asked. I repeat, ''the opposition cheekily ask 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. --] 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?--] 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''I came in here via ] 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 ], need to take a deep breath and relax. I do agree that, on the evidence in those external links that ] 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. | |||
| == North Korea, China and others... == | |||
| I agree with ] 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, on Russia is quite damning, and justifies its inclusion in that list, yet it is currently not included. | |||
| A one-party state is not defined by the existence of a ''single'' legal political formation (rather, this has been the exception rather than the norm), instead it is better defined as a state where either by the constitution or By a legal rule or decree, a political party holds the monopoly of political power, and other legal parties may in fact exist (as in ]). Of course, these formations must be subordinated to the laws and therefore adopt a minor or irrelevant role. ] (]) 03:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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 ] comes into mind; it's not applicable here, but a similar rationale applies. | |||
| :That sounds more like a ].--] (]) 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::No it doesn't. A "dominant-party system" implies that there are still opposition parties and they run against the ruling party. That isn't the case in China, the DPRK, or in certain countries in the past (like the GDR) where the other parties run on the same electoral lists as the ruling party and recognize the latter's leading role in the state and society. --] (]) 18:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :What you suggest violates ] 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. --] 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. --] 19:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Cambodia is a de facto one party state == | |||
| 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. —]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 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. — ]] 06:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.hrw.org/asia/cambodia https://www.voanews.com/a/cambodia-set-to-become-one-party-state/4505567.html https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/17/cambodia-becomes-the-worlds-newest-one-party-state-china-democracy-dictators/ ] (]) 22:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Clarification of concepts? == | |||
| == Hungary and Russia == | |||
| Today we have three articles about the political systems according to the number of parties. They are: | |||
| # Multi-party system | |||
| # Two-party system | |||
| # Single-party system | |||
| # Dominant-party system | |||
| As of August 2024, Hungary and Russia are certainly ''De facto'' one-party states. ] (]) 13:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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: | |||
| == Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic == | |||
| # 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. | |||
| # 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. | |||
| # 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. | |||
| # Countries where there are several parties but where the ruling party uses undemocratoc methods to keep the other parties from power. | |||
| # Countries where only one party exists because other parties are outlawed. | |||
| I have readded the ] to the ]. While not the most reliable source, Freedom House, which is used multiple times in the article, to a "ban on other political parties" in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. refers to the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic as a one-party state, and a one-party system is implied both by and the ]. However, I am unsure of which source to cite. –<span style="box-shadow: 0px 0px 12px #000;border-radius:9em;padding:0 2px;background:#000">]<sup>''' ] ]'''</sup></span> 16:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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? --] 01:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As per ], there is no need to redefine what is "Single-party system" as it is already clearly described in the article. The characteristics include: | |||
| :# No other parties are permitted to run candidates for election | |||
| :# Constitutionally-defined single party states | |||
| :# 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. --] 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. --] 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.--] 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?--] 13:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes I am. --] 13:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We shall see.--] 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. ] 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? --] 09:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since you are in the mood to "clarify concepts", mind telling us just what is an "undemocratic" state?--] 15:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure thing: An undemocratic state, is a state that is not a ]--] 17:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So what is a Democratic state?--] 17:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Can you please read the references I give you? --] 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. — ]] 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? :) --] 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: | |||
| # 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: | |||
| # 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: | |||
| # 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? --] 14:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Evidently not. I'll shake things up a bit by proposing a merge. ;) --] 11:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Original Research== | |||
| This below two sections were removed by me as original research. They were reinstate by ] without comment. | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| =====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-], as many developing nations sought to emulate the ], which had transformed itself from a backward, ] nation into a ]. | |||
| 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 ] and the countries of the ] collapsed. Finally, one-party states have often been criticized for their disrespect towards ], however, this is more a reflection on the ideology of the party in power, rather than on the system itself. | |||
| ====Democracy, dictatorship and the single-party system==== | |||
| Some do not consider a single party system to be truly ]. 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 ] ] numerous candidates ran for election in each ], albeit under the Fascist Party. | |||
| Furthermore, the single-party system is heavily associated with ]. As there is only one party, ] tends to be concentrated solely within the ruling party. As a result it is usually easy for the party in power to disregard previous ]s or the ] 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 ] 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 ]s wherein the political power resides with the ], who exercise their authority without regard to political parties or elections.</blockquote> | |||
| Below are the guidelines of ]. | |||
| <table width=80% border=1 bgcolor="lightyellow" align=center cellpadding=10><tr><td> | |||
| 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; | |||
| </td></tr></table> | |||
| Would ] or any other user like to justify how the removed section corresponds with the core policy quoted?--] 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. --] 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.--] 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. --] 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. — ]] 06:14, 3 December 2006 (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. ]]Zach| ] 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't mind moving it to medcom. --] 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. ]]Zach| ] 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? — ]] 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. ]]Zach| ] 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. — ]] 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 ]? — ]] 06:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ;Support | |||
| # It matches the current definition of de-facto single-party state, and then it should be there. --] 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ;Reject | |||
| # ] 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # Although opposition parties face discrimination and lawsuits, they still managed to garner 2 seats and 33% of the votes. Therefore, Singapore is a ] and not a single-party state. I hope Instantnood's POV-pushing attempts are foiled before this escalates into a fourth arbitration case. --] 13:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # I'd have to agree that it is a dominant-party system after carefully reviewing the case, aye. —]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 14:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:'''Comment''': I am afraid that's not what dorminant-party system is meant to be. — ]] 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. --] 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #] 01:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #]]]] 11:05, 30 November 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. --] 14:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*No, it doesn't match these criteria: | |||
| :# No other parties are permitted to run candidates for election | |||
| :# Constitutionally-defined single party states | |||
| :# Having legal or military measures make these effectively (de facto) single-party states (e.g. Myanmar) | |||
| :--] 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. --] 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.--] 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. --] 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". --] 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. --] 17:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*:What are the legal measures? (The military is obviously not pointing at the opposition. :-) ) — ]] 06:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*:: | |||
| ::::::*::: | |||
| A note to all parties involved, I will sumbit the case within the next few hours. ]]Zach| ] 17:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, this weekend. ]]Zach| ] 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 Misplaced Pages fellows from Singapore react to Singapore being classified a single-party system. — ]] 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?--] 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. — ]] 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.--] 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 Misplaced Pages. But that shouldn't be allowed to distract from the facts of the question. --] 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 ] ruling by hitting out not just at an individual, but at a "whole bunch of Singaporeans".--] 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. --] 08:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Reading through the article as well as the one on ], 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 ] 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 ] 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 ]! This applies especially to ]; I understand your feelings on this issue, but there's no need for insults - let's all ] and resolve this issue peacefully. -]] 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)--] 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. — ]] 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.--] 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. --] 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.--] 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? --] 09:08, 4 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. --] 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Syria == | |||
| Is not a single party-state. Communists in Syria are legal and posess a notable following. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:02:55, November 30, 2006 (UTC) <!-- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Single-party_state&diff=91068378&oldid=91062426 -->| 02:55, November 30, 2006 (UTC) <!-- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Single-party_state&diff=91068378&oldid=91062426 -->|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :"The only legal political parties are the Baath Party and its six small coalition partners in the ruling ] (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." 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. --] 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:21:00, December 3, 2006 (UTC)| 21:00, December 3, 2006 (UTC)|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!----> | |||
| ::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. --] 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Parties in a Mediation com. Case == | |||
| Please sign your name using the <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> symbol if you are someone who has either contributed to this article or/and participated in the debate over the ''Singapore Question''. ]]Zach| ] 21:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Here? OK: | |||
| ] 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? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:09:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)| 09:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)|}}.</small> --] 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. — ]] 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. --] 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. — ]] 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." --] 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We'd better look into the definitions in authoritative academic literature first. — ]] 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. --] 09:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Shall we request for assistance from the folks at ]? — ]] 21:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Great idea! --] 22:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == RFM == | |||
| Please note that a ] has been filed with the ]. If you are a party please visit ], 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. ]]Zach| ] 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. --] 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please don't abuse the RfM by using it as an excuse for inserting your POV. --] 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. --] 23:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::, 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. | |||
| :::--] 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, simply not true. The addition was done in May, buy Koavf very soon after the addition of effective single states list , and has been there for most of the time until Huwaei removed Singapore from the list: | |||
| ::::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. --] 09:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:51, 12 September 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One-party state article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
De-facto one party states
De-facto one party states are mentioned once in the article, then not brought up again. Many people (perhaps more so outside of academia) understand the concept of one-party states to encompass de-facto one party states. De-facto one party states should be expanded on in their own section with some examples.
I can see that Dominant-party system already exists, but that article appears to be addressing a much more loosely defined concept - the phenomenon of any time a political party remains in power for more than one consecutive term. Moreover, it doesn't properly explain the concept of de-facto one party states and their characteristics. Barring a rewrite of that article, the concept of de-facto one party states should be expanded on more in this article. 180.150.37.114 (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is a deep flaw in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I think the entire section should just be removed. The examples given are just too open to interpretation. At least everyone can agree that de jure places like the DPRK and Cuba are one-party-states, as soon as you start throwing in "authoritarian ersatz democracy" stuff you basically just turn this into a never-ending battleground and opinion piece for "Oh I think Russia's a one-party state!" "I think they're not!" sorta back and forth uselessness.
- Dominant-party already has a page. I think it more than encompasses the situation given that logically, all dominant-party states are 'de facto one-party states' by default. It's just superfluous. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I partially agree. If there's no standard for what constitutes a de facto one-party state, it open the page up to whatever bias ethnic opportunists want to push. Japan and Paraguay are among the more absurd entries in the section, where Russia is one of the more absurd omissions. 2600:1003:B05F:487A:2C80:C8B2:8543:D288 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Pressure group 102.88.36.46 (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Further Representation in "De Facto" One Party States
I've undone a major deletion of two cited countries in this article's table. This is a page to discuss what should be added, how it should be presented, to prevent major edits of this new section without previous consensus and discussion. Before deleting any country, discuss it here. I want this to be a more general thread, so unless it is heavily agreed upon, talk here before adding or deleting entire countries. Some topics I would like to discuss are specifying who claims what; establishing how strict and formal this definition should be; and discussing the more controversial countries, like populist parties (such as Russia, Hungary, India, etc), increasingly multipartidary countries (like Mexico and Japan). And on the more extreme end, adding countries which have party bans (I don't really agree with most of these, but are valid arguments, and should be discussed). Nknka (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Bluntly, I still think that the entire section should just be deleted and just mention that "dominant-party states are often considered de-facto one-party states" and leave it there. Otherwise, it's just going to be a slinging contest of people adding and removing countries. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- agreed - it makes more sense if the dominant-party system article is the home for those discussions/tables Superb Owl (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Move Mexico to Former One-Party States
Shouldn't Mexico be in the former one-party states list? It literally says in the information section "The PRI held uninterrupted power for 71 years, from 1929 to 2000, but its power has since dwindled and the de facto one-party system in Mexico disappeared " MaxGame5o (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- @MaxGame5o I agree, but i believe it's still up to discussion wheter it should be added to a separate list for former de facto one party state, or if it would simply oversaturate the page with tables. I have a talk page just for this type of discussion. Nknka (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is correct, in fact before you had to have permission from the government to form political parties (leaving it in the middle of a de facto and de iure legal one-party system). ComradeHektor (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Venezuela ("Anti-fascist law")
In short, it is a law that allows the government (the PSUV) to outlaw any political party or organization considered "extremist" as well as prohibit demonstrations against it, effectively prohibiting any legal opposition to the PSUV, and only allowing those parties to participate if they submit to the new laws (same case as in China with the United Front).
-https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article287431415.html
At the moment Venezuela does not have a constitution, but with this at least it should be put in the place of "de facto one-party states". ComradeHektor (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, a "Committee Against Fascism" will be formed separately from the National Assembly to review each case. In effect, this is a state ideology. ComradeHektor (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Original research from the article
Concept
 | This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
One-party states justify themselves through various methods. Most often, proponents of a one-party state argue that the existence of separate parties runs counter to national unity. Others argue that the one party is the vanguardof the people, being its most politically aware members, and therefore the party's right to rule cannot be legitimately questioned. The Soviet government argued that the existence of multiple political parties would perpetuate class struggle, so only a single party could lead a classless proletariat; it therefore made the Communist Party of the Soviet Union the only authorised political party.
Conversely, Russian historian Vadim Rogovin attributed the establishment of the one-party system to the conditions which were "imposed on Bolshevism by hostile political forces". Rogovin highlighted the fact that the Bolsheviks made strenuous efforts to preserve the Soviet parties such as the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and other left parties within the bounds of Soviet legality and their participation in the Soviets on the condition of abandoning armed struggle against the Bolsheviks. Leon Trotsky argued that he and Lenin had intended to lift the ban on the opposition partiessuch as the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries as soon as the economic and social conditions of Soviet Russia had improved.
Some one-party states only outlaw opposition parties, while allowing allied parties to exist as part of a permanent coalition (such as a popular front). However, these allied parties are largely or completely subservient to the ruling party and must accept the ruling party's monopoly of power as a condition of their existence.Examples of this are the National Front in former East Germany and the Democratic Front for the Reunification of Koreain North Korea. Other states outlaw all other parties yet allow non-party members to run for legislative seats as independents, as was the case with Taiwan's Tangwai movement in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as the elections in the former Soviet Union. Still others have only a single legal party, membership of which is a prerequisite for holding public office, such as in Turkmenistan under the rule of Saparmurat Niyazov or Zaire under Mobutu Sese Seko.
Within their own countries, dominant parties ruling over one-party states are often referred to simply as the Party. For example, in reference to the Soviet Union, the Party meant the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; in reference to the pre-1991 Republic of Zambia, it referred to the United National Independence Party.
Most one-party states have been ruled by one of the following:
- A party which supports the ideology of Marxism–Leninism and vanguardism (sometimes described as "communist states", such as the Soviet Union)
- A party which supports a nationalist or fascist ideology (such as the Kingdom of Italy under the National Fascist Party or Germany under the Nazi Party)
- A party that came to power in the wake of independence from colonial rule. One-party systems often arise from decolonization because a single party gains an overwhelmingly dominant role in liberation or in independence struggles.
Superb Owl (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- Rogovin, Vadim Zakharovich (2021). Was There an Alternative? Trotskyism: a Look Back Through the Years. Mehring Books. pp. 13–14. ISBN 978-1-893638-97-6.
- Deutscher, Isaac (5 January 2015). The Prophet: The Life of Leon Trotsky. Verso Books. p. 528. ISBN 978-1-78168-721-5.
North Korea, China and others...
A one-party state is not defined by the existence of a single legal political formation (rather, this has been the exception rather than the norm), instead it is better defined as a state where either by the constitution or By a legal rule or decree, a political party holds the monopoly of political power, and other legal parties may in fact exist (as in people's republics). Of course, these formations must be subordinated to the laws and therefore adopt a minor or irrelevant role. ComradeHektor (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds more like a Dominant-party system.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. A "dominant-party system" implies that there are still opposition parties and they run against the ruling party. That isn't the case in China, the DPRK, or in certain countries in the past (like the GDR) where the other parties run on the same electoral lists as the ruling party and recognize the latter's leading role in the state and society. --Ismail (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Cambodia is a de facto one party state
https://www.hrw.org/asia/cambodia https://www.voanews.com/a/cambodia-set-to-become-one-party-state/4505567.html https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/17/cambodia-becomes-the-worlds-newest-one-party-state-china-democracy-dictators/ Monochromemelo1 (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Hungary and Russia
As of August 2024, Hungary and Russia are certainly De facto one-party states. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
I have readded the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic to the list of current one-party states. While not the most reliable source, Freedom House, which is used multiple times in the article, refers to a "ban on other political parties" in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. This list refers to the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic as a one-party state, and a one-party system is implied both by this article and the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. However, I am unsure of which source to cite. –Gluonz 16:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories: