One-Party, Two-Party and Multi-Party Democracies - Report Example

Task: One-party, two-party and multi-party democracies Generally, a party may be defined as organized groups which seek to manage the personnel and guiding principles of government. A party system, therefore, refers to a notion often used in political science to the system of government in a democratic state. Political parties normally raise money for their operations, create platforms for operations in government and recruit members, nominate and support members during an election and work jointly in government to get their policies implemented. The perception is that political parties have fundamental similarities, control the government with an established foundation of mass popular support. Political parties also have an established mechanism for controlling funding, information, and party nominations among its members and for the state. There are various renowned party systems, which include one party system, two party system, and multiparty system. One party system is one that is practiced in a single party state where there are no other parties to compete with the dominant party. In such states, the single political party has the right to create government, more often than not based on the existing constitution. In some cases, such states are referred to as de facto states due to their dominant single party system that prevents democratic multiparty elections. Notably, the instruments of power in such party systems solely rest with the ruling single party. Therefore, they suppress any emerging forces effectively preventing them from participating in the country’s elections. On the other hand, a two party systems is whereby two main political parties dictate politics within a government. The legislature in this system is composed of majorly the two parties with one holding the majority seats and the other remaining as a minority party. In the United States of America, the system is viewed as one in which an agreement reached dictates a legislature wherein nearly all of the elected officials only belong to either of the two major parties. Moreover, third parties hardly ever win any seats in the legislature. It is only the two major parties that exert a strong influence, on the other hand, smaller ones and the pattern of voting in the whole country. In the USA these two major parties are; the Republicans and the Democrats. They constitute the majority of the legislature; the ruling party controls the government operations while the other keeps the government in check. These two parties influence various voting blocks that predominantly subscribe to their manifestos and always tend to vote towards such parties during election time. Further, a multi-party system refers to one in which numerous political parties have the ability to gain control of government offices, individually in a coalition. A majority of multiparty systems are characteristic of many competing parties in which the majority party may not necessarily control the legislature and thus leading to the creation of an alliance. It is worth noting that multi-party systems are more common in parliamentary systems than in presidential systems. In countries that practice multi-party system, no one party possess a parliamentary majority singly. This means that many political parties form coalitions with a view of developing power blocks for governing. In most cases, only two or three parties have considerable chance of creating a government with or without going into a coalition. Therefore, it is a system whereby only two parties have the utmost possibility of winning an election outright. Two party systems can be said to be more democratic than one party system. The United States has a two-party system with two parties dominating the government and its operations. Even though some other parties do exist in the United States, only Democratic and Republican parties control the government. This system is very favorable for promoting the public good since the other party is able to track the activities of the ruling party to ensure that they conform to the desires of the public. The system promotes public good through the following ways: 1. They present readily understandable political information to voters in a suitable manner thus providing order to the political world by representing the wider political viewpoint of a party. This makes the two party systems a more democratic than one party system since it helps voters appreciate the party’s views on certain issues. A good example that exhibits democracy is with the 2012 presidential election involving Democratic nominee, President Barrack Obama and Republican nominee, Mitt Romney. During their campaigns, each of them represented key political issues of their individual party to the national public, which involved going round the country campaigning to the public to support their manifesto. 2. These systems provide a stable balance by accepting varied interests and opinions as opposed to one party system which I more of dictatorial. It is important to consider a wide range of interests since individual parties consist of organized groups and specific voters. The parties therefore at all time aim to work in consideration of the voters’ interests in order for them to continue receiving their support. This makes two party system more accommodative and democratic as opposed to in one party system where citizens have to work with what has been laid down by the single party irrespective of whether they like it or not. 3. This system ensures that elected officials focus more on long-term public policies since it discourages unexpected shifts in the political trends that sometimes threaten the government stability. This draws a close contrast with the multi-party system, which is argued to be encouraging government instability due to the many parties that share power, ease of dissolution or coalition changing and the fact that there are various interests from the different parties. 4. Two-party system encourages political contribution. Since the United States is a democratic and diverse nation, she allows her citizens to express divergent opinions and participate in their own governing by means of the political system. Therefore, unlike one party system whereby only the single party is permitted to take part in government operations, the United States allows citizens to contribute to government by casting their votes at the polls. Fundamentally, the above advantages of a two party system prove that it is actually more democratic than a single party system. However, a section of members of the United States is not so well convinced that it meets the need of all citizens. They argue that the two party systems in the country only represent the certain special interests, is comprised of self-serving candidates, full of politicking and focus on the weaknesses of the two main parties. Despite this viewpoint, it is worth noting the progress that the two parties in the country have played towards maintaining democracy, a situation which would not exist if it were a single party state. Organization of parties in the United States is very central to the success of each of the two parties. Anyone can join a party no matter what they believe in making them capable of running for an election under one party label. Often, candidates raise their own cash thus making it difficult for the party leadership to manage them. United States only has only two dominant parties mainly due to the historical circumstances, the two parties are the most stable in the country, existence of laws that preserve a two party monopoly and the support from informal institutions. The third parties that exist are driven by either a single issue, individual drive and on ideological issues. They never really look forward to winning because they posses very little influence upon the community. Specifically, multiparty systems are characterized by a large number of ideological mixes and therefore often result in creation of coalitions. Both two-party and multi-party systems are democratic, but each of them presents a certain degree of compromise. In a two party system, the compromise comes up before the actual election exercise with the parties selecting reasonable candidates who are entrusted with winning a majority vote. Nonetheless, ideologically pure parties in multi-party system are obliged to a compromise after the election in order to constitute a majority coalition that will be able to pass laws in the legislature. The parties that agree to the coalition agreement will then remain committed to the policies and beliefs of the larger party and support each endeavor by the coalition to rule in the government. It is with no doubt that multi-party systems are more democratic that two party systems owing to the wider participation gap offered by many parties as compared to just two. As much as this gap continues to grow with the existence of multi-party it is worth recognizing that two party systems still continues to be stable than when there are many parties in a political set up. The American two party systems has for a long time demonstrated a symbol of stability with almost all the citizens subscribing to the ideologies of solely the two parties; Democratic Party and Republican Party. Therefore, the American political system has conceivably exhibited an extraordinary resilience in the light of strong destabilizing elements making it one of the most stable in the world. Thus, this existence of a working stability quality cannot be compared with relative vulnerability of some multiparty systems, which exhibit recurrent government changes, and to a worse situation prevalence of military coups. Even still, multiparty systems have proven to be more democratic than two party systems. They may demonstrate similar levels of stability or may be outdone by a two party system just by a small degree. Multiparty systems are themselves relatively stable due to the sufficiency of the circumstances for cabinet composition and durability since it allows the inclusion of members from various parties even though it is the bigger parties that benefit from the lions’ share. Notably, multiparty systems are more democratic than a two party system owing to the fact that they offer the voters more choices. Voters in a multiparty state are usually presented with an array of choices from which they are expected to decide their leaders in a democratically run polls. Since parties are many, the voters are well placed to choose a leader they have confidence in rather than being compelled to choose just between two contestants in a two party system. In this situation, the citizens are in a position to bring in a leader from a minority party if for the past regimes the major parties have not looked into their immediate grievances. In worse situations, multiparty elections across the world have produced a leader from a party that was less expected to win an election, this viewed as an embarrassment to the leading parties. The idea of having only two choices in an election may diminish voter turnout thus multiparty systems offer a variety and a great conviction for voters who do not necessarily subscribe to the ideologies of major parties. Multiparty systems also widen the boundaries of any legislative debate as compared to a two party system. A legislature in a multiparty system offers a broader debating mentality and representation since many parties are represented in the debating chambers, however, small some may be. It guarantees a more holistic way of representing all citizens’ views owing to the fact that in any natural system a factor of prejudice has to exist since not all communities are equal in numbers, and all deserve to be listened to. Even if such small parties are outvoted in the polls and consequently outnumbered in the legislature, there being represented alone provides a platform for them to raise issues that would otherwise have not been raised by dominant parties. The argument by dominant parties is that such small issues do not affect them anyway and are thus overlooked in say a two party systems or for worse a single party system (Magstadt 292). This still qualifies a multiparty system as the most democratic of them all. It incorporates the views, ideologies, demands and constitutional privileges that are supposed to be offered equally to all citizens without taking into account their party affiliations. Multi-party systems are less polarizing as compared to a two party system for the reason that in a multi-party system, all the constituent parties must work jointly to form coalitions that ensure members tore the party lines. Polarization is the phenomenon of deviation of political attitudes to ideological boundaries. When it happens in any democratic system of government, moderate voices from lesser influential parties lose power and ability to be accommodated. Consequently, multiparty democracies take note of this by compelling their parties during the coalition formation to reach across the party lines with a possibility of quitting the coalition only made available in the next cycle of elections. An ideal multi-party system like democracy remains a better option than a two party system because individuals have a variety of options for the person who best represents their interests and goals. The best advantage is that this system avoids the problems related to increased polarization in a two party system. Unlike in a two-party system whereby one party wins and takes all, and the other loses, multiparty system provides an avenue for inclusion of like-minded parties who come together to form a coalition. In some cases such systems have had no result at all, for instance, Belgium stayed for over a year without government since no set of parties could form a majority. It is worth mentioning that the United States generally has no purpose for minority parties because as the situation is they have no voice at all. In conclusion, there is an undisputed dominance in the United States by two political parties, which are actually a by-product of plurality voting. Thus, a two party system is more of a de facto by product because it is not even institutionalized or obligatory by the constitution that only two parties can rule and dominate (Magstadt 293). The national and state-level committees of both parties actually have no definite role in any legislative house. Their main role is to advance the candidacies of associated candidates and drive the securing of ballot right of entry in the various states and municipal electoral subdivisions. However, the US legislatures have basically had a clear governing majorities and minorities in any regime of leadership which has led to a better degree of electoral confidence and institutional constancy. The two principal parties usually absorb third party ideas as long as their ideas are gaining attraction from a considerable section of the populace. This makes the third parties generally irrelevant leaving them with the capacity of just highlighting sensitive ideas that require address at the national or municipal level. A well-designed multiparty system with appropriate intentions towards the public, therefore, is a better option than a two party system. A multiparty system advocates for a level playing field for all the participating parties, though not rendering the parties equal since in an ideal situation there still will be parties that are superior to the rest. Having a multiparty system thus grants more freedom and participatory options than in a two party system, hence more democratic. Work cited Magstadt, Thomas M. Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions, and Issues. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Read More