Party Dominance ‘Theory’: Of What Value?

Abstract

This paper critiques the alleged value of the notion of ‘party dominance’ or the ‘dominant party system’, mainly propagated in South Africa by Roger Southall, Hermann Giliomee and Charles Simkins, and very much in vogue amongst scholars in the Netherlands, and to some extent in the USA and other places. Its overseas lineage is traced and its explanatory powers critiqued. It is argued that the approach is flawed democratically in being anti-popular and that it also lacks explanatory value. It is argued that it is neither a theory nor a system.

Acknowledgement

I am indebted to Peter Hudson, Thiven Reddy, Rupert Taylor and Caroline Kihato for reading this paper and suggesting improvements. They bear no responsibility for its present form. The article is part of a project on ‘dominant parties’ in southern Africa organised by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung in Mozambique.

Notes

1. I have in the past been in the leadership of the ANC, SACP and UDF and although not in structures at this time, maintain contact with various figures.

2. At the outset, notions of popular democracy, originally associated with the meaning of the concept are not entertained at all. In fact, one of the objects of the exercise is to erect defences against the masses threatening the type of democracy that is envisaged. On the changing notions of the people and their place in concepts of democracy over time, see Arblaster (2002).

3. Note the use of words connoting causality without any demonstration of a causal link.

4. Emphasis in original. It should be noted, however, that alternation in power may only be a theoretical possibility in cases where there is not an authoritarian dominant party. It may be, as was the case in the ANC until recently, where the potential of defeat seemed more or less impossible. It may still be the case in that current opposition parties may not pose a threat. But the present crisis of the organisation makes the possibility of a serious split not unthinkable and the consequences, while unlikely to dislodge the organisation's dominance, could make it conceivable (c.f. Suttner, 2007).

5. This notion fits squarely into one trend in a lineage stretching back to ancient times, contrasting the wisdom of a small, usually wealthy group, with the ignorant masses (Arblaster, 2002).

6. Thiven Reddy indicates in a historical comparison that the Indian National Congress, while being a dominant party/organisation, did not incur the criticism currently experienced by the ANC, and he argues for various mechanisms that are counterweights to 'dominance'. It is an empirical study rather than both an empirical and theoretical questioning of the notion of dominance per se as is done here (Reddy, 2005).

7. See Bottomore (1993, p. 41): 'Representative government, parties and elections are now seen increasingly as providing an essential framework but as inadequate by themselves to establish a democratic society in the more radical sense of government by the people'.

8. At a Friedrich Ebert Stiftung conference in Maputo in 2004.

9. This crisis is returned to in Suttner (2007).

10. Personal experience in listening to discussions among ANC members and leaders.