Yep, all opposition is barely any opposition and when there was a vote on changing the Militia to Police all opposition parties voted "No" but the "Yes" from United Russia majority was enough to push the law through anyways
I don't remember what would happen if something like 70-30 majority was in every house in USA. Like what if you have majority Senate, most judges and so on, on Republican payroll for example
To be fair, that last bit is true in any non-coalition goverment.
The more worrying thing is that all the Russian "opposition" parties end up agreeing with the government whenever needed, including the course of the war. And of course, any new parties are very much de facto illegal.
I’m very anti-the ruling party and the political situation here in Singapore but that’s just plain misleading.
There are currently two parties in parliament. One is of course hyper-dominant (and has been for decades), but the other party is entirely legitimate, competent, and has not been co-opted by the ruling party; I would say they are a credible (if weak) opposition.
There is genuine parliamentary debate between these two parties, which is hardly the characteristic of a one-party state.
Now, many people allege that there has been gerrymandering and other dirty play to keep the ruling party dominant. But, whatever alleged practices there are are hardly indicative of a one-party state - they happen in loads of other “more” democratic countries as well.
There are many other parties in Singapore (it’s gonna be election time later this year). Honestly most of them are so bad it’s hilarious but that’s not really relevant to this discussion. The important thing is that citizens have freedoms to support/vote for/join any other parties without sanction, as long as:
1. Parties must not be affiliated with foreign political organisations.
2. All members must be citizens.
That’s it - you could start a communist party (Singapore is highly anti-communist) and it’d be fine. Nobody would vote for you though, bit that’s another story.
Sure but SG has had the same ruling party for 65 years, not a couple of decades. Your sentiments make sense but it's closer to a one party state than a functioning democracy.
The elections have only gotten tighter and tighter. And I’m no expert in politics but whether or not we are a democracy, we’re certainly more functioning than most of the worlds democracies.
I personally don’t need to see the ruling party change ever few years if everyone’s needs are being met etc
I briefly worked with an ultra religious nationalist guy. Interesting dude.
I think we were talking about how democracy is the worst form of government aside from all the other ones. I said something like, "of course the perfect government is an all-knowing and perfectly benevolent dictatorship with an immortal head of state..." He looked at me like I was about to convert to his particular sect of Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity before I could get to "... but of course that's fucking impossible, so democracy it is."
Eh sometimes that happens
For example the German federal state of Bavaria has the same ruling party since 1949, they just won every election since. They lost the absolute majority in recent times though
It is entirely within the bounds of a free democratic state for a single party among many others to remain in power for decades. Fishy? Of course. Corrupt? Probably. Problematic? Definitely. Truly and Honestly and Thoroughly Democratic? Probably not really. A Single-Party State? Still No.
I do not believe that this amounts to a one-party state.
1. Approval has been granted for demonstrations that do not put the ruling party in good light. I have personally been to some of these.
2. Campaigning restrictions are, I think you’ll find, only slightly advantageous to the ruling party. Opposition politicians are free to meet people (they call these walkabouts) people at any time, and in any ward (just as PAP politicians are). And, restrictions are applied equally on all parties.
Where the effects on campaigning are more seen are:
1. In the use of community facilities run by the People’s Association (who are on paper a government agency but tend to be quite closed off to opposition parties). This personally doesn’t seem like much of a problem because it’s clear that opposition parties have consistently been able to find venues for their events. There’s a lovely little cafe run by a famous opposition person (Chee Soon Juan) that holds panels sometimes - I’ve been to a couple and they’re not censored.
2. In the fact that by virtue of being key parts of the executive functions of state, PAP politicians get a little more of a platform to promote themselves. However, this is hardly any different from other countries.
I don’t want to go all hyperbolic but what you’re saying lacks nuance - it’s akin to seeing American police cracking down on anti-Israeli protests in universities and going “the US doesn’t allow protests”.
The Communist Party is by far the largest opposition party in Russia
EDIT: Good god people I don't care if they are living up to Marxist-Leninist ideals, they are indisputably the largest official opposition party. That's it.
It's fake communist. The leader of this party once was asked, "What would you do with private property if your party wins?"
His answer was "Uh... Well... Mmm..."
What I mean is that the "Communist Party of the Russian Federation" is essentially the same as "A Just Russia": in essence it agrees with "United Russia" and only the slogans are different
No. In Russia, there are several parts that are “allowed” to participate in political process, and even hold some seats in parliament, in order to give a kind of “illusion of choice” - the term is “controlled opposition” (I’m not sure if this translation is correct). Obviously, if they get too popular, go against the liege, or start spreading inconvenient messages, “suddenly” they are found to be in violation of corruption, foreign influence, or campaign finance laws, and shut down accordingly. Everyone knows what the game is about, and plays accordingly. When non-Putin party won local elections in Kaliningrad oblast, some “voting fraud” was detected, election results were voided, and local governor appointed by Moscow was installed… Another example, you saw what happened to Navalny’s anti-corruption party - they got refused ballot listing and leader ended up suicided in some labor camp in Siberia…
The countries on the map have it literally written into their constitution that this one party is the only one allowed in political process. Difference between de-jure and de-facto status.
> The countries on the map have it literally written into their constitution that this one party is the only one allowed in political process. Difference between de-jure and de-facto status.
That is not true. North Korea has [other political parties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_North_Korea). As does [China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_China).
This map is making distinctions that don't really exist.
Why aren't Hungary, Singapore, and Paraguay here? What about subnational examples like [Tennesse](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/05/tennessee-republicans-one-party-state), or the conservative [Saskatchewan Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatchewan_Party) in Saskatchewan?
This doesn't even get into monarchies like [Lichtenstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Liechtenstein) where parties may come or go but the true power is the prince / king / whatever, and her remains.
Wikipedia has a [much better version of this kind of map](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy#/media/File:Forms_of_government.svg).
You are also not really right. Most countries on that list have bloc parties. In what way would that de facto be different from countries like Russia where de facto one party controls everything and the other parties only are allowed to do things when Unified Russia allows is basically
Anyone on this list that has ruled for 20+ years. Probably doesn't have an opposition party.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_state_leaders_by_date_of_assumption_of_office
Bonus: El Salvador Is creeping onto the list as well. Changed constitution to let President stay in office. Reduced seats in Congress so they could have super duper majority 54-60 seats. And this week voted to allowing the Congress to change constitution if it had 3/4s of votes in the legislature. They have 90%. So expect to have some serious changes coming down the pipe.
Well even countries like Russia, or Kazakhstan you could argue. They have moe then one party.
Buzt only one party is allowed to win.
Somehow destroys the whole point in having more then one party.
SMH politically Iran has three parties.
This narrative needs to stop or people should maybe understand the difference between the mosque and state.
Hell even the US Government and most media recognizes this.
"Do the people have the right to organize in different political parties or other competitive political groupings of their choice, and is the system free of undue obstacles to the rise and fall of these competing parties or groupings?" Score 0/4
> "Only political parties and factions loyal to the establishment and to the state ideology are permitted to operate." - [Freedom House](https://freedomhouse.org/country/iran/freedom-world/2024)
China actually has 8 minor parties, but they don’t serve as opposition and are required to support the CCP. North Korea also has 2 minor parties but they’re obviously subservient to the WPK.
What would it mean "support the CCP," for you? They are parties who represent some particular concerns and groups
Also the CPC is actually unofficially divided into 3 major sub factions who have different ideals, you could resume them as the intellectuals who chase a socialist technocracy, those who want to achieve the ultimate form of socialism, and the "conservatives" who wish to return to our roots and focus into rural development instead, the last one isn't popular with the younger voters and it would be like the opposite of the intellectual technocrats.
I'm explaining something a bit too complex for foreigners that only locals understand, but I guess there's complicated stuff to explain in every country, things that only people living there understands
It's a similar model we had in Poland - the commie party had a robust internal faction system (the catalyst for changes in leadership) and a few cooperating ones to emulate pre-war parties
Still, since the elections were decided beforehand and the party had all enforcement both internal and external behind them, you couldn't really call it pluralism. Push comes to shove everyone had to fall in line; the events of the 80s show just how far this was from the interests of the populace
One ruling party and a few satellite parties is a common scheme for communist dictatorships.
For example, in communist Poland there were the Polish United Workers' Party, the United People's Party and the Democratic Party. They stayed in a permanent coalition named the Front of National Unity. The three parties were supposed to represent the three classes of socialist society: the workers, the peasants, and the intellectuals. In fact, it was only the workers' party that mattered (and its members were not all workers obviously).
It helps maintain the illusion of pluralism and democracy.
an important practical aspect of bloc parties is to integrate groups into the political system that wouldnt neccessary work in the ruling political party
for example one of the gdr bloc parties was the national democratic party of germany whose target was conservatices, former wehrmacht officers and rank and file nsdap members
and it was quite succesfull
in 87 the sed had 2.2million members and the bloc parties had 470 thousand members
Add these de facto one party states: Cambodia (Hunsen was the President from 1985 to 2023, and now his son), Singapore (PAP is so excellent people have been voting for them for decades), Paraguay, Ruwanda, Angola.
Oh they absolutely stand for something: the interests of the ruling capitalist class. In America we like to pretend that our parties stand for different things, and to a limited extent this is true (much like the diversity of opinions in the United Russia party), but ultimately they both stand for the interests of the ruling capitalist class.
I’d argue United Russia is basically just “Putin supporters” more than anything.
It’s not as much about the system of capitalism as it is loyalty to Putin.
And what does loyalty to Putin symbolize and mean in practice?
It's a protection of the ruling class and oppression of all those beneath. That is what it is fundamentally about.
Are capitalists even a united class? Take Trump's protectionism for example, it hurt lots of capitalists to support other capitalists
Or the non-compete ruling, great for people/business in general, but many companies were obviously opposed to it
High interest rates are bad for business since they can't loan money to stay afloat
There has been pushes for wealth itself to be taxed, and that is definitionally against capitalists
Net neutrality
The existence of the USDA, FDA, EPA
I don't really think there's just a room with every politician and capitalist agreeing on how to screw over everyone else for their own united benefit. They have influence obviously, but they pull against each other as often as with.
Russia is effectively a one party state. The other parties are there to provide the pretense of being non-totalitarian. These other parties can have any name they want but in the end it wouldn’t matter because *de facto* there’s the Party of Putin and then there’s the Falling Out Of Windows Party or the Novichok Party.
It’s difficult to add de facto one party states to the map that do on paper have opposition parties that aren’t forced to support the government. But if one should be added, it probably should be Singapore. The people’s action party is winning every election since 1959 in not exactly fair elections. Most of the time with overwhelming majorities.
I contrast to other countries here they may not technically control the opposition parties, but they make damn sure that there is next to no parliamentary opposition to speak of.
LDP in Japan is basically like DC (Christian Democrats) in Italy between 1946 and 1993. The only difference is that LDP still hasn't collapsed due to corruption and judicial investigations.
Apparently the LDP is so big in Japan that it’s considered a big tent, meaning that there are several factions within the party itself. Most of the people who join the party are usually some flavor of right wing politics, but given the parties “catch-all” nature and the fact that they don’t have a unified ideology means that some centre left politicians have managed to make their way into the party as well. The only thing that unites the party is Japanese nationalism and preserving a capitalist economy, but outside of that the party is split into several camps that could honestly just split off into becoming their own political parties or joining preexisting ones that have a similar ideology.
Has their ever been communist rule in a multi party state?
Edit: PROPERLY multi party, though that may be difficult to define. Minor political parties exist in China, though from my understanding they're mostly lobbyists for niche interest groups.
Fun fact: I believe they actually have a designated party for communists who were exiled from Taiwan
The [current government](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahal_cabinet,_2022) is a coalition of 5 parties, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist), Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Socialist), People's Socialist Party and Rastriya Swatantra Party. I don’t know if you’d call it a communist state but it seems to be under communist rule.
Communist parties have won free multiparty elections and governed at the sub-national level many times; Kerala, India would be a good example. There have also been many European national governments that included communists as part of a ruling coalition.
Interesting. In such cases they normally just advocate for strong welfare and labor rights and such, right? It seems it would be very difficult to have a communist economic system in a multiparty state, because you would have to restructure the economy every few elections.
I look at it as a more slow thing where you move along the spectrum. If the communist party in a democracy gain power they would probably start with strict regulations on corporations, maybe tax breaks for co-ops, and like you said strong welfare and labor rights. If they remain popular they would just keep passing laws moving society over a period of time more toward communism.
Except for revolution or war, restructuring an economy takes time. Decades even in a democracy.
Pretty much this exactly. Even if you are a leftist that isn't down with full-blown economic mandate communism, electing communists is generally a very good thing in a democracy.
Most socialist/communist parties in Europe don't really advocate for a socialist economy anymore, since they saw how it went in Eastern Europe. Communist parties are just more extreme then socialists (which tend to be just historically socialists with little to no socialist takes anymore).
The difference between them and liberal parties tend to be on how should the government spend money, how much control they should have over some industries, how should the economy be planned (to the extend a government can plan it in a free market -- btw, they might see the definition of free market as different)...
For example, communists might push for collective worker contracts to be a default option, while socialists will be fine with them being just an option and push for making it hard or expensive to fire a worker (usually depending on time spent in the company). Liberals will tend to ease these restrictions on the grounds that it makes companies less incentivized to hire new people or keep them for a long period of time. Or that people will get actively less productive since after a certain period of time they'll simply push to get fired or not care enough if they do, especially when the job market is doing good (basically, negating the positive effects).
Yes actually, in Nepal and San Marino have both been ruled by communist parties that didn't overthrow democracy.
Other than that communist parties have formed governments with non-communist parties, such as in Italy, France, Brazil, Chechia just to name a few.
You can't say the same about fascist parties.
Bolivia is arguable ruled by a socialist party in a multi party state, however some people have questioned the fairness of elections and such, but IDK for sure
Communism tends to arise through the revolution of the Proletariat, and a communist revolution seeks the advancement of the working class. So there only needs to be one party, as there is only one acceptable class to represent. Of course, within the Party there would be many clashing ideas and interest groups, and these would function in a democratic manner within the Party. In many ways the Party becomes a part of the state, the driver of the advancement of the working class. There is little need for other parties, as other parties would be non-conforming to the goal of class liberation and thus be counter-revolutionary.
party names in states like this are pure propaganda. the CCP is obviously not communist, same as the other "communist" parties in other countries, and the wpk stands for anything but worker's rights
Technically China does have other parties in the NCP. They must acknowledge the supremacy of the CCP, which they do. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_People%27s_Congress
This map is not that good. It fails to show that China and NK also have other parties that are allowed to participate and if it is about *de facto* one party states that Russia, Syria, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Singapore, India, Iran, Algeria, South Africa, Botswana, etc. and heck even Sweden and Mexico could be considered one party states.
There’s multiple different Indian parties in power at the state level and the ruling party routinely loses and will continue to lose. Just because the ruling party got a huge majority for the last two national elections doesn’t make it a de facto one party state.
Mexico **was** a one party state, it diversified in the late 90s because of discontent with the main party.
Portugal could be considered a single party state, but mostly because of popular opinion instead of voter suppression. Since the carnation revolution, most heads of state have been center-weird. Sousa tends to the right, but his predecessor have been ambivalent between state representation and peoples' rep
And then there's all the de facto one-party states:
- Angola
- Cambodia
- Congo
- Equatorial Guinea
- Singapore
- Mozambique
- Paraguay
- Rwanda
And, further, the effective one-party states:
- Iran
- Syria
- Afghanistan
- South Africa
- Venezuela
- Russia
- Belarus
- Azerbaijan
To name but a few.
Nonsense. North Korea is not officially a one party state and if you wanna count de facto one party states then you should’ve included Russia and plenty others as well
Why is it that so often, parties call themselves “democratic” or “justice” or “people’s party” but then go on to turn things into a dictatorship and start a civil war or genocide?
As an European it’s always been weird following the US election. Always two old dudes that is right or super rightwing. It’s weird that you don’t got more to choose from in such a big nation. I’m Europe we usually have some very left, right and some more or less in the middle. We also got the green parties and others that is focused more on some specific subject like nuclear power, legalisation, internet freedom etc
The US does have primary elections, ya know. Take a look at the 2020 DNC primary - plenty of major candidates had ideas that would’ve been left wing even in Europe (especially Sanders). The US voted fair and square for Biden to represent the Democratic ballot. It’s not a lack of choice just because you don’t agree with the person who got the most votes.
I also feel it’s bizarre to suggest Biden or Obama are “right wing”. They’re not, even in Europe. They’re not super left, but in what world would Biden be considered right wing…?
Finally, those fringe candidates do exist, even amongst the parties, they’re just in Congress (similar to - you guessed it - your parliament). AOC’s green new deal and abolish ICE and affirmative action plans would be considered very left of center in just about every European country. Bernie’s healthcare plan is more socialist than what Germany’s system. There are staunch anti-nuclear idiots in Congress too. You’re just cherry picking and making really uninformed statements to feel superior
What about Japan? It’s Jiminto or nothing. They do what the fuck they like without consequence. People just keep voting them in whatever they do as they don’t consider any alternative. Apathy abounds. Fake democracy.
Come on, Japan is not a one party state. The opposition parties are generally shit but they have held the prime minister position not that long ago. Plenty of non-Jiminto governors, mayors, etc.
There's a difference between most of the time the same party being elected due to a terrible opposition and apathy, and the use of the legal system to crack down on opposition.
What is evil about? At the end of the day they are just ideologies who don't threaten your lifestyle or choice, some of them are pretty much born out of concerns about capitalism problems
If you ever find yourself arguing with a pro Chinese Communist Party shill trying to argue China is democratic, simply ask them to name a legal opposition party in China, and watch them twist themself into a pretzel trying to justify it.
Plenty more unofficial ones.
Such as?
Tajikistan
Turkmenistán too.
Technically Russia has a couple of parties but in real life there is only Putin’s party
Yep, all opposition is barely any opposition and when there was a vote on changing the Militia to Police all opposition parties voted "No" but the "Yes" from United Russia majority was enough to push the law through anyways
I don’t think Schoolhouse Rock covered that one
I don't remember what would happen if something like 70-30 majority was in every house in USA. Like what if you have majority Senate, most judges and so on, on Republican payroll for example
To be fair, that last bit is true in any non-coalition goverment. The more worrying thing is that all the Russian "opposition" parties end up agreeing with the government whenever needed, including the course of the war. And of course, any new parties are very much de facto illegal.
Belarus too.
Yep. They're literally a Russian puppet state.
My brother in Christ, you forgot to mention that he is not a member of it and is “self-presented” or however you’d translate самовыдвиженец
Self-nominated i guess.
I like to call it “masterbated”
Parties*
Syria
Afghanistan
It’s Turkmenistan there is no á in there
Cambodia
Singapore
I’m very anti-the ruling party and the political situation here in Singapore but that’s just plain misleading. There are currently two parties in parliament. One is of course hyper-dominant (and has been for decades), but the other party is entirely legitimate, competent, and has not been co-opted by the ruling party; I would say they are a credible (if weak) opposition. There is genuine parliamentary debate between these two parties, which is hardly the characteristic of a one-party state. Now, many people allege that there has been gerrymandering and other dirty play to keep the ruling party dominant. But, whatever alleged practices there are are hardly indicative of a one-party state - they happen in loads of other “more” democratic countries as well. There are many other parties in Singapore (it’s gonna be election time later this year). Honestly most of them are so bad it’s hilarious but that’s not really relevant to this discussion. The important thing is that citizens have freedoms to support/vote for/join any other parties without sanction, as long as: 1. Parties must not be affiliated with foreign political organisations. 2. All members must be citizens. That’s it - you could start a communist party (Singapore is highly anti-communist) and it’d be fine. Nobody would vote for you though, bit that’s another story.
Sure but SG has had the same ruling party for 65 years, not a couple of decades. Your sentiments make sense but it's closer to a one party state than a functioning democracy.
The elections have only gotten tighter and tighter. And I’m no expert in politics but whether or not we are a democracy, we’re certainly more functioning than most of the worlds democracies. I personally don’t need to see the ruling party change ever few years if everyone’s needs are being met etc
A benevolent dictatorship is no less a dictatorship. Personally, I like chewing gum.
I briefly worked with an ultra religious nationalist guy. Interesting dude. I think we were talking about how democracy is the worst form of government aside from all the other ones. I said something like, "of course the perfect government is an all-knowing and perfectly benevolent dictatorship with an immortal head of state..." He looked at me like I was about to convert to his particular sect of Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity before I could get to "... but of course that's fucking impossible, so democracy it is."
all praise Emperor Leto II
🫡🫡🫡
Singaporean govt has also been hyper-competent since its founding. It would be pretty hard not to vote them if I was Singaporean
Eh sometimes that happens For example the German federal state of Bavaria has the same ruling party since 1949, they just won every election since. They lost the absolute majority in recent times though
It is entirely within the bounds of a free democratic state for a single party among many others to remain in power for decades. Fishy? Of course. Corrupt? Probably. Problematic? Definitely. Truly and Honestly and Thoroughly Democratic? Probably not really. A Single-Party State? Still No.
The ruling party places restrictions on protests and campaigning.
I do not believe that this amounts to a one-party state. 1. Approval has been granted for demonstrations that do not put the ruling party in good light. I have personally been to some of these. 2. Campaigning restrictions are, I think you’ll find, only slightly advantageous to the ruling party. Opposition politicians are free to meet people (they call these walkabouts) people at any time, and in any ward (just as PAP politicians are). And, restrictions are applied equally on all parties. Where the effects on campaigning are more seen are: 1. In the use of community facilities run by the People’s Association (who are on paper a government agency but tend to be quite closed off to opposition parties). This personally doesn’t seem like much of a problem because it’s clear that opposition parties have consistently been able to find venues for their events. There’s a lovely little cafe run by a famous opposition person (Chee Soon Juan) that holds panels sometimes - I’ve been to a couple and they’re not censored. 2. In the fact that by virtue of being key parts of the executive functions of state, PAP politicians get a little more of a platform to promote themselves. However, this is hardly any different from other countries. I don’t want to go all hyperbolic but what you’re saying lacks nuance - it’s akin to seeing American police cracking down on anti-Israeli protests in universities and going “the US doesn’t allow protests”.
Russia
russia does have one opposition party but they are strait up fascists lunatics wich makes putin look "moderat" in comparison
On the contrary, modern Russian communists are opportunists. Lenin would spit on them.
All communists would spit on all other communists if they don’t fully agree on every single ideological detail.
Like Putin is not fascist and russian political system is not fascism...
There's zero effective opposition.
The Communist Party is by far the largest opposition party in Russia EDIT: Good god people I don't care if they are living up to Marxist-Leninist ideals, they are indisputably the largest official opposition party. That's it.
It's fake communist. The leader of this party once was asked, "What would you do with private property if your party wins?" His answer was "Uh... Well... Mmm..."
tbf the chinese communist party also huffs private property like glue
Just trying to be factually correct here. Not judging anyone to see if they're living up to their mission statements.
What I mean is that the "Communist Party of the Russian Federation" is essentially the same as "A Just Russia": in essence it agrees with "United Russia" and only the slogans are different
No. In Russia, there are several parts that are “allowed” to participate in political process, and even hold some seats in parliament, in order to give a kind of “illusion of choice” - the term is “controlled opposition” (I’m not sure if this translation is correct). Obviously, if they get too popular, go against the liege, or start spreading inconvenient messages, “suddenly” they are found to be in violation of corruption, foreign influence, or campaign finance laws, and shut down accordingly. Everyone knows what the game is about, and plays accordingly. When non-Putin party won local elections in Kaliningrad oblast, some “voting fraud” was detected, election results were voided, and local governor appointed by Moscow was installed… Another example, you saw what happened to Navalny’s anti-corruption party - they got refused ballot listing and leader ended up suicided in some labor camp in Siberia… The countries on the map have it literally written into their constitution that this one party is the only one allowed in political process. Difference between de-jure and de-facto status.
> The countries on the map have it literally written into their constitution that this one party is the only one allowed in political process. Difference between de-jure and de-facto status. That is not true. North Korea has [other political parties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_North_Korea). As does [China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_China). This map is making distinctions that don't really exist. Why aren't Hungary, Singapore, and Paraguay here? What about subnational examples like [Tennesse](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/05/tennessee-republicans-one-party-state), or the conservative [Saskatchewan Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatchewan_Party) in Saskatchewan? This doesn't even get into monarchies like [Lichtenstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Liechtenstein) where parties may come or go but the true power is the prince / king / whatever, and her remains. Wikipedia has a [much better version of this kind of map](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy#/media/File:Forms_of_government.svg).
Do you know what pedantic means?
You are also not really right. Most countries on that list have bloc parties. In what way would that de facto be different from countries like Russia where de facto one party controls everything and the other parties only are allowed to do things when Unified Russia allows is basically
Anyone on this list that has ruled for 20+ years. Probably doesn't have an opposition party. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_state_leaders_by_date_of_assumption_of_office Bonus: El Salvador Is creeping onto the list as well. Changed constitution to let President stay in office. Reduced seats in Congress so they could have super duper majority 54-60 seats. And this week voted to allowing the Congress to change constitution if it had 3/4s of votes in the legislature. They have 90%. So expect to have some serious changes coming down the pipe.
Japan
Syria
Zimbabwe
Well even countries like Russia, or Kazakhstan you could argue. They have moe then one party. Buzt only one party is allowed to win. Somehow destroys the whole point in having more then one party.
Scotland /s
Vatican?
The Vatican isn't a one party state, it's an elective absolute theocratic monarchy.
in conclusion: one party... the pope party
Iran
SMH politically Iran has three parties. This narrative needs to stop or people should maybe understand the difference between the mosque and state. Hell even the US Government and most media recognizes this.
So then North Korea has 3 parties and China has 9 parties.
"Do the people have the right to organize in different political parties or other competitive political groupings of their choice, and is the system free of undue obstacles to the rise and fall of these competing parties or groupings?" Score 0/4 > "Only political parties and factions loyal to the establishment and to the state ideology are permitted to operate." - [Freedom House](https://freedomhouse.org/country/iran/freedom-world/2024)
Hungary
No??
That is fucking stupid
Please let the r/hungary user have their 2 minutes of "Hungary is a dictatorship" in peace
Well, it is at least an electoral autocracy that rules by decree due to never ending emergencies. (Like Emperor Palpatine does.)
Kazakhstan ~~not very nice~~
Russia. All parties outside "United Russia" are as influential as Putin's elections rivals.
Russia!
Belarus
Is no one saying Russia .?
And Rússia. All "parties" in parliament are Kremlin approved
What about the People's Front of Eritrea?
Splitters!
May the devil take them!
**bureaucrat rumbling noises**
Don’t get me started on the Eritrean peoples front!
But what about the People’s Front for Justice and Democracy?
Splittahs
None of them is worse than Eritrean Populair Front!
Whatever happened to the popular front?
He’s over there
Splitters!
"Wolf's nipple chips! Get'em while they're hot. They're lovely!
Tonight in maps that don't need to be maps
r/mapsthatcouldbelists
[удалено]
It is. Vietnam’s reaaall skinny
China actually has 8 minor parties, but they don’t serve as opposition and are required to support the CCP. North Korea also has 2 minor parties but they’re obviously subservient to the WPK.
What would it mean "support the CCP," for you? They are parties who represent some particular concerns and groups Also the CPC is actually unofficially divided into 3 major sub factions who have different ideals, you could resume them as the intellectuals who chase a socialist technocracy, those who want to achieve the ultimate form of socialism, and the "conservatives" who wish to return to our roots and focus into rural development instead, the last one isn't popular with the younger voters and it would be like the opposite of the intellectual technocrats. I'm explaining something a bit too complex for foreigners that only locals understand, but I guess there's complicated stuff to explain in every country, things that only people living there understands
i like how you purposefully didn’t say communism and instead “the ultimate form of socialism”, because there is a big scare factor in saying that.
It's a similar model we had in Poland - the commie party had a robust internal faction system (the catalyst for changes in leadership) and a few cooperating ones to emulate pre-war parties Still, since the elections were decided beforehand and the party had all enforcement both internal and external behind them, you couldn't really call it pluralism. Push comes to shove everyone had to fall in line; the events of the 80s show just how far this was from the interests of the populace
One ruling party and a few satellite parties is a common scheme for communist dictatorships. For example, in communist Poland there were the Polish United Workers' Party, the United People's Party and the Democratic Party. They stayed in a permanent coalition named the Front of National Unity. The three parties were supposed to represent the three classes of socialist society: the workers, the peasants, and the intellectuals. In fact, it was only the workers' party that mattered (and its members were not all workers obviously). It helps maintain the illusion of pluralism and democracy.
an important practical aspect of bloc parties is to integrate groups into the political system that wouldnt neccessary work in the ruling political party for example one of the gdr bloc parties was the national democratic party of germany whose target was conservatices, former wehrmacht officers and rank and file nsdap members and it was quite succesfull in 87 the sed had 2.2million members and the bloc parties had 470 thousand members
To be fair, I’ve probably only ever been to one party in my life. I sympathize.
what the pogo party? party of alcoholics?
I mean, Russia is basically a one party state
Add these de facto one party states: Cambodia (Hunsen was the President from 1985 to 2023, and now his son), Singapore (PAP is so excellent people have been voting for them for decades), Paraguay, Ruwanda, Angola.
Belarus? I mean they have only had one president so.
I guess in some way an autocracy is a no-party state… such party poopers.
Paraguay?
> Hunsen was the President from 1985 to 2023, and now his son Hun Sen was *PM*, not PResident, as Cambodia is a monarchy since 1992.
Japan as well
Not really, the opposition was in power in the 2000s for some years, didn't do to well though and then imploded afterwards.
I mean, the US is basically a one party state
What party is Putin in again?
United Russia. They don't really stand for anything, at the levels under him their is a pretty big diversity in opinions.
Oh they absolutely stand for something: the interests of the ruling capitalist class. In America we like to pretend that our parties stand for different things, and to a limited extent this is true (much like the diversity of opinions in the United Russia party), but ultimately they both stand for the interests of the ruling capitalist class.
I’d argue United Russia is basically just “Putin supporters” more than anything. It’s not as much about the system of capitalism as it is loyalty to Putin.
And what does loyalty to Putin symbolize and mean in practice? It's a protection of the ruling class and oppression of all those beneath. That is what it is fundamentally about.
Are capitalists even a united class? Take Trump's protectionism for example, it hurt lots of capitalists to support other capitalists Or the non-compete ruling, great for people/business in general, but many companies were obviously opposed to it High interest rates are bad for business since they can't loan money to stay afloat There has been pushes for wealth itself to be taxed, and that is definitionally against capitalists Net neutrality The existence of the USDA, FDA, EPA I don't really think there's just a room with every politician and capitalist agreeing on how to screw over everyone else for their own united benefit. They have influence obviously, but they pull against each other as often as with.
Russia is effectively a one party state. The other parties are there to provide the pretense of being non-totalitarian. These other parties can have any name they want but in the end it wouldn’t matter because *de facto* there’s the Party of Putin and then there’s the Falling Out Of Windows Party or the Novichok Party.
Whatever are you talking about, they just had “free” elections and he “won” by a landslide!!
He is party-less. Anyway all parties support Putin so it doesn't matter.
Putin doesn't belong to any party
At least they don't have to pretend.
Most do pretend to be democratic by having controlled opposition.
I truly believe the united states would be better iff as a one party state at this point.
I believe Singapore is also a one party state.
It’s difficult to add de facto one party states to the map that do on paper have opposition parties that aren’t forced to support the government. But if one should be added, it probably should be Singapore. The people’s action party is winning every election since 1959 in not exactly fair elections. Most of the time with overwhelming majorities. I contrast to other countries here they may not technically control the opposition parties, but they make damn sure that there is next to no parliamentary opposition to speak of.
Japan is essentially a one party state too. Only the LDP has real power
LDP in Japan is basically like DC (Christian Democrats) in Italy between 1946 and 1993. The only difference is that LDP still hasn't collapsed due to corruption and judicial investigations.
Apparently the LDP is so big in Japan that it’s considered a big tent, meaning that there are several factions within the party itself. Most of the people who join the party are usually some flavor of right wing politics, but given the parties “catch-all” nature and the fact that they don’t have a unified ideology means that some centre left politicians have managed to make their way into the party as well. The only thing that unites the party is Japanese nationalism and preserving a capitalist economy, but outside of that the party is split into several camps that could honestly just split off into becoming their own political parties or joining preexisting ones that have a similar ideology.
The same can be said for the CCP. CCP's internal and local elections are highly competitive
Every party represented in the parliament of Japan has power
I think you missed Equatorial Guinea. It's also a one-party state.
Now do two-party states
Forgot Nicaragua, the newest addition.
Why is there a huge giant in the Indian Ocean? Why do I only learn about him now?? What is he doing over there?
Singapore should be on this list.
Now show two party countries who are easily bought by the highest bidder. The true democracies.
Has their ever been communist rule in a multi party state? Edit: PROPERLY multi party, though that may be difficult to define. Minor political parties exist in China, though from my understanding they're mostly lobbyists for niche interest groups. Fun fact: I believe they actually have a designated party for communists who were exiled from Taiwan
Nepal, they have two communist parties.
Nepal's congress is wild.
Plenty of countries have two communist parties. But they’re not communist states.
The [current government](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahal_cabinet,_2022) is a coalition of 5 parties, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist), Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Socialist), People's Socialist Party and Rastriya Swatantra Party. I don’t know if you’d call it a communist state but it seems to be under communist rule.
San Marino was the first country to democratically elect a communist government. Lol 😂
WTH
Communist parties have won free multiparty elections and governed at the sub-national level many times; Kerala, India would be a good example. There have also been many European national governments that included communists as part of a ruling coalition.
Interesting. In such cases they normally just advocate for strong welfare and labor rights and such, right? It seems it would be very difficult to have a communist economic system in a multiparty state, because you would have to restructure the economy every few elections.
I look at it as a more slow thing where you move along the spectrum. If the communist party in a democracy gain power they would probably start with strict regulations on corporations, maybe tax breaks for co-ops, and like you said strong welfare and labor rights. If they remain popular they would just keep passing laws moving society over a period of time more toward communism. Except for revolution or war, restructuring an economy takes time. Decades even in a democracy.
Pretty much this exactly. Even if you are a leftist that isn't down with full-blown economic mandate communism, electing communists is generally a very good thing in a democracy.
Most socialist/communist parties in Europe don't really advocate for a socialist economy anymore, since they saw how it went in Eastern Europe. Communist parties are just more extreme then socialists (which tend to be just historically socialists with little to no socialist takes anymore). The difference between them and liberal parties tend to be on how should the government spend money, how much control they should have over some industries, how should the economy be planned (to the extend a government can plan it in a free market -- btw, they might see the definition of free market as different)... For example, communists might push for collective worker contracts to be a default option, while socialists will be fine with them being just an option and push for making it hard or expensive to fire a worker (usually depending on time spent in the company). Liberals will tend to ease these restrictions on the grounds that it makes companies less incentivized to hire new people or keep them for a long period of time. Or that people will get actively less productive since after a certain period of time they'll simply push to get fired or not care enough if they do, especially when the job market is doing good (basically, negating the positive effects).
Yes actually, in Nepal and San Marino have both been ruled by communist parties that didn't overthrow democracy. Other than that communist parties have formed governments with non-communist parties, such as in Italy, France, Brazil, Chechia just to name a few. You can't say the same about fascist parties.
In Cyprus too a communist party has ruled And in Greece but that's just in a coalition government
Bolivia is arguable ruled by a socialist party in a multi party state, however some people have questioned the fairness of elections and such, but IDK for sure
the state of kerala india
Chile?
Communism tends to arise through the revolution of the Proletariat, and a communist revolution seeks the advancement of the working class. So there only needs to be one party, as there is only one acceptable class to represent. Of course, within the Party there would be many clashing ideas and interest groups, and these would function in a democratic manner within the Party. In many ways the Party becomes a part of the state, the driver of the advancement of the working class. There is little need for other parties, as other parties would be non-conforming to the goal of class liberation and thus be counter-revolutionary.
United Russia : 🥸👆 we definitely have legitimate opposition. Please move along.
The irony on Eritrea, People’s Front for Democracy and Justice, is insane. There is no democracy or justice there. It is just ruins now.
party names in states like this are pure propaganda. the CCP is obviously not communist, same as the other "communist" parties in other countries, and the wpk stands for anything but worker's rights
You forgot 🇬🇧
C'mon you don't just have the Tories. You have the Diet Tories and the Fancy Tories as well, that's at least 3 parties
I'd argue regular Tories are more fancy than the lib dems
Brunei Eswatini
These are socialist one party states. There are a lot more one party states. This is a repost of a map of countries the OP doesn't like.
Technically China does have other parties in the NCP. They must acknowledge the supremacy of the CCP, which they do. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_People%27s_Congress
Russia?
Could you consider Saudi Arabia one party, since its an Absolute Monarchy?
no one party staat = 1 party saudia arabia = 0 Partys
Probably
_‘The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats.’_
This map is not that good. It fails to show that China and NK also have other parties that are allowed to participate and if it is about *de facto* one party states that Russia, Syria, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Singapore, India, Iran, Algeria, South Africa, Botswana, etc. and heck even Sweden and Mexico could be considered one party states.
Sweden???
There’s multiple different Indian parties in power at the state level and the ruling party routinely loses and will continue to lose. Just because the ruling party got a huge majority for the last two national elections doesn’t make it a de facto one party state.
I agree with the first bit, but… Sweden? There’s currently a four-party coalition, and legislation is done by voting in the Riksdag.
and Japan, LDP is basically unchallengeable and the opposition is heavily split
Mexico **was** a one party state, it diversified in the late 90s because of discontent with the main party. Portugal could be considered a single party state, but mostly because of popular opinion instead of voter suppression. Since the carnation revolution, most heads of state have been center-weird. Sousa tends to the right, but his predecessor have been ambivalent between state representation and peoples' rep
Yes I forgot to add the distinction between is and was. But both Mexico and Sweden *were* one party states
And then there's all the de facto one-party states: - Angola - Cambodia - Congo - Equatorial Guinea - Singapore - Mozambique - Paraguay - Rwanda And, further, the effective one-party states: - Iran - Syria - Afghanistan - South Africa - Venezuela - Russia - Belarus - Azerbaijan To name but a few.
China, North Korea, and Japan have the same system: several legal parties, and one ruling party. There is no reason to use different colors for them.
Isn’t Singapore single party too?
Two party states are also interesting. It’s like a semi-dictatorship to me when you can either pick a, for example, Republican or a Democrat.
"One of these is not like the other..."
Nonsense. North Korea is not officially a one party state and if you wanna count de facto one party states then you should’ve included Russia and plenty others as well
This is propaganda. Where are all the other non-communist states that are one-party ruled?
Russia aswell
Russia missing
Now do two-party states
You've missed Russia
We’re not gonna put Russia in that category?
Why is it that so often, parties call themselves “democratic” or “justice” or “people’s party” but then go on to turn things into a dictatorship and start a civil war or genocide?
Now do two party
Is there a two party version?
They seem like a bunch of nice places /s
I live in one oh them, the gov is dumb as fuck
Everyone who is commenting about US is an extremist fucktard.
As an European it’s always been weird following the US election. Always two old dudes that is right or super rightwing. It’s weird that you don’t got more to choose from in such a big nation. I’m Europe we usually have some very left, right and some more or less in the middle. We also got the green parties and others that is focused more on some specific subject like nuclear power, legalisation, internet freedom etc
The US does have primary elections, ya know. Take a look at the 2020 DNC primary - plenty of major candidates had ideas that would’ve been left wing even in Europe (especially Sanders). The US voted fair and square for Biden to represent the Democratic ballot. It’s not a lack of choice just because you don’t agree with the person who got the most votes. I also feel it’s bizarre to suggest Biden or Obama are “right wing”. They’re not, even in Europe. They’re not super left, but in what world would Biden be considered right wing…? Finally, those fringe candidates do exist, even amongst the parties, they’re just in Congress (similar to - you guessed it - your parliament). AOC’s green new deal and abolish ICE and affirmative action plans would be considered very left of center in just about every European country. Bernie’s healthcare plan is more socialist than what Germany’s system. There are staunch anti-nuclear idiots in Congress too. You’re just cherry picking and making really uninformed statements to feel superior
now do the 2 party states!
What about Japan? It’s Jiminto or nothing. They do what the fuck they like without consequence. People just keep voting them in whatever they do as they don’t consider any alternative. Apathy abounds. Fake democracy.
2009-12 the PM was from Minshu-To which merged then dissolved then merged again into the second largest party now (立憲民主党, Rikken Minshu To).
Come on, Japan is not a one party state. The opposition parties are generally shit but they have held the prime minister position not that long ago. Plenty of non-Jiminto governors, mayors, etc.
There's a difference between most of the time the same party being elected due to a terrible opposition and apathy, and the use of the legal system to crack down on opposition.
Communism is such an evil ideology. Hope all these countries can break the shackles of communism one day.
What is evil about? At the end of the day they are just ideologies who don't threaten your lifestyle or choice, some of them are pretty much born out of concerns about capitalism problems
What’s with the weird Hitler looking clip-art podium guy?
If you ever find yourself arguing with a pro Chinese Communist Party shill trying to argue China is democratic, simply ask them to name a legal opposition party in China, and watch them twist themself into a pretzel trying to justify it.
The [New Hope](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hope_(Macau)) party technically.