Talk:One-party state

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

Politics: Political parties Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Original research from the article

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)[reply]

That sounds more like a Dominant-party system.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

But there's more than one party.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that a "dominant-party system" is still defined by the existence of opposition parties, they're simply unable (for one reason or another) to gain enough votes to oust the dominant party. There are no opposition parties in China or the DPRK; the Communist Party of China and the Workers' Party of Korea are guaranteed leadership roles in the constitutions of their respective countries, the other parties allied to the CPC or WPK recognize this leadership role and in no way contest it, instead helping the CPC or WPK carry out their vanguard functions. --Ismail (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^{talk contribs} 16:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]