IN THE CONTEXT OF A DOMINANT PARTY, DOES THE MULTI PARTY PARLIAMENT MATTER? (one of my essays)

Political party systems are a result of social conflicts and interests. They are a formation of various groups of political parties in a certain country. The aim of this essay is to validate and evaluate the importance of a multi-party parliament in context of a dominant party system. This essay has been divided into four parts. The first part will briefly describe what party systems are with focus put to the multi-party system and the dominant party system. The second party will briefly explain the formation and function of the multi-party parliament.  The third part will be a discussion on the various challenges faced by the multi-party parliament when there is a dominant party in context with South Africa. Finally there will be a well-reasoned conclusion based on the preceding discussion.

Party systems can be described in various ways. Often they are described by the number of political parties that are fighting for the control of government. This differentiates between one, two and multi-party system. A one party system is one where a single party dominates with little to no competition. It is an oppression of political competition and democratic freedom (Hofmeister & Grabow, 2011). A two party system is one where two parties dominate the electoral system with the others having minimal effect on the system. In a multi-party system more than two parties play a significant role in the electoral system.

The multi-party system is a structure whereby several political parties have the ability to gain control of government independently or in union. The effective number of parties is usually more than two but less than ten. Multi-party system is a doctrine that has been seen as most reliable when it comes to maintaining, developing and institutionalising democracy. What is most appealing about the multi-party system is that in a present day industrialist social order, it allows the concurrence of contrastive perspectives of how social life ought to be without suffocating moderately substandard voting demographics of which Professor KK Prah refers to as the structure of political pluralism in a modern bourgeois society. The multi-party system evidently has a few weaknesses; however it is the only system that is in use that has more to offer a modern day society.  

 The dominant party system is a system where one political party or association has effectively won election triumphs and whose future annihilation cannot be visualised or is improbable for years to come. A party is dominant when it is identified with a particular period in history (Duverger, 1951). Political parties such as the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa which has ruled for 20 years and counting and also the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) which has ruled Zimbabwe since the gain of independence are a prime example of the dominant party system. This system is associated with developing countries where independent movements have gained dominance. Like the one party system the various political parties compete in the political arena yet fail to win majority (Greene, 2006). The dominant party system has been criticised for appointing officials to senior positions with little to no qualification or qualities.

Multi-party parliament consists of political parties that have received seats to parliament through the electoral system. This than leads to the formation of the legislature which is referred to as parliament. Parliament is made up of the National Assembly and the National Council Of Provinces. The National Assembly as the first house of parliament has the centre stage in parliament. The legislature has various functions one of them is electing the president of the state. Due to a dominant party the president of the state will undoubtedly be from the ruling party. The question of whether a multi-party parliament matters where there is a dominant party arises here where decisions taken by the ruling party are then reflected as the decisions of the state merely by means of default.

Political party dominance has always been associated with at particular event in time. For example South Africa, as a country that has recently claimed independence South African politics is still dominated by liberation movements that are hailed with the existence of democracy. This leads to the question whether other old and newly formed parties can contest elections baring political parties of this nature (Shiqiponja,2013). The Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front is a prime example of the minimal possibility of this occurrence as the party has ruled since independence in 1980. The instance where one party has majority of the seats in any house of government undermines the presence of other national parties as everything that happens in that house of government revolves around the dominant party, this includes electing the president, who then further elects the executive which is than accountable to parliament or the national assembly. What happens here is that at end of the day the accountability of the executive is to its national party than to the citizens Brooks, 2004). However, due to constitutional supremacy the possibility of complete dictatorship by a single party is then prevented by the principle of checks and balances which ensures that the three arms of government have power separation that diminutions any occurrence where one party has complete control over the government.

In conclusion, where there is constitutional supremacy the multi-party parliament is undermined to a minimal extent as there are certain regulations which oversees that complete power does not occur. Looking forward to your views and comments.