As a continuation of the views presented in this column on 12 April under the title ‘Criticism of Govt.’s intent to establish one-party rule,’ we shall examine today whether it is feasible to implement a one-party system in parliamentary democracies based on multiple parties.

In the world today, ‘single-party states’ – where only one political party holds the power to govern – can be identified as those led by communist parties or nationalist movements, such as in China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, and Eritrea.

As previously mentioned, in these countries, a single-party system is maintained to consolidate power through a specific ideology following revolutions or wars.

The current State in China, officially known as the People’s Republic of China, is not the same revolutionary Government established 77 years ago through the revolution led by workers and peasants under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Although the CCP continues to remain in power, China has transformed into the world’s second-largest capitalist economy today.

The ruling class of China continues to preserve and utilise the extensive network of the CCP only to maintain a tight grip on the power structure of that vast nation.

Following 156 years of British colonial rule, the United Kingdom handed over control of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997. In the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration made for that transfer of power, Beijing promised to implement a framework of ‘One Country, Two Systems,’ allowing Hong Kong to maintain its capitalist system for 50 years (until 2047).

The true meaning of that promise is not that Hong Kong will transition to a socialist system after 50 years, but rather that China itself will have fully transitioned into a developed capitalist system by then.

China maintains a firm commitment to a one-party system, arguing that it is essential for ensuring absolute political stability, accelerating economic development, and preventing challenges to the CCP’s authority.

China presents its one-party system – defined by the constitutional dominance of the CCP – as a robust alternative to Western democracy. The State argues that this system is necessary for long-term planning, integrated policy implementation, and the security of the regime. 

Viewing its leadership as indispensable for national unity and stability, the CCP keeps all apparatuses of the State machinery under its complete control, ensuring that no independent organisation can challenge its power.

One-party systems 

• Vietnam: As a single-party State, the Communist Party of Vietnam is the only legally recognised ruling party. The Constitution affirms that the Communist Party is the sole leading organisation of the Vietnamese State and society.
• Cuba: Since the 1959 revolution, Cuba has recognised only one legal political party. Opposition parties are not permitted. The highest political body guiding the State holds its congress every five years. During elections for the National Assembly and municipal administrations, the Communist Party of Cuba vets and fields the candidates.
• North Korea: The Workers’ Party of Korea is the sole ruling party.
• Eritrea: In this African one-party State, the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice holds power. Since gaining independence from Ethiopia in 1993, the country has been under the authoritarian leadership of President Isaias Afwerki, and national elections have never been held. There is no legal opposition. Although a constitution was ratified in 1997, it was never fully implemented. In 2014, the President declared the constitution “dead” and has since been ruling by decree.

Origins of the one-party state theory

As history shows that Marxist-Leninist states gradually evolved into one-party regimes, it is essential to understand the context of this governance model’s origins.

Mao Zedong’s perspective

Mao Zedong viewed the one-party regime as an inevitable tool of the class struggle, necessary for the working class to seize power, suppress reactionaries, and build socialism. Mao defined this rule as “democracy for the people and a dictatorship over the reactionaries”. 

While arguing that the Communist Party and the “dictatorship of the proletariat” belonged to a transitional period, Mao stated that when classes ceased to exist, all instruments of class struggle (parties and state machinery) would lose their function. 

In the 1960s, Mao launched the Great Cultural Revolution, encouraging the masses to attack party officials who opposed strict party discipline. Later, the excesses of the Cultural Revolution became a powerful weapon used by critics to condemn Mao.

Lenin’s vision

Before Mao, Vladimir Lenin in Russia viewed one-party dominance not as a pre-planned goal, but as a necessary consequence of the Russian Revolution and a tool required to protect the dictatorship of the proletariat from internal and external enemies. 

In justifying the one-party system, Lenin described the Bolshevik Party as the “vanguard of the working class” that provided the leadership necessary to overthrow capitalism. Lenin argued that no matter how many parties a capitalist democracy had, it remained a “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie,” and that a one-party state was “a thousand times more democratic” for the working class than capitalist democracy.

Karl Marx’s stance

Marxist scholars note that prior to Lenin, Karl Marx did not explicitly call for a one-party state, nor did he put forward a detailed institutional theory for establishing such a government.

While Lenin focused on the broad theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, arguing that the working class needed a distinct political party to represent its interests and overthrow capitalism, scholars suggest he did not necessarily envision the totalitarian structures that later emerged in many Marxist states.

However, these scholars note that Marx’s works left the specific structural form of government ambiguous. They argue that his close associate, Friedrich Engels, did not call for a permanent one-party state. Engels believed that for a social revolution to succeed, the working class could not act without organising itself into a distinct political party, completely separate from and opposed to all old parties.

Although the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat is central to Marxist philosophy, the term does not appear in ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (1848), which Marx and Engels co-authored.

It was only after the failure of the Paris Commune (1871) that both wrote in other essays about the necessity of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat to maintain power once seized by the working class.

The Paris Commune 

The Paris Commune refers to the revolutionary Government that ruled Paris in 1871 following France’s defeat in the war with Prussia. This secular, socialist, and democratic municipal administration, established by an uprising of Parisian workers, lasted only 72 days (from 18 March to 28 May 1871).

On 21 May, the Army of the Third French Republic entered Paris. Within one week, it crushed this pioneering working-class revolutionary State, killing between 10,000 and 20,000 people. Only after this event did Marx and Engels conclude that the working class must establish a “dictatorship” to defend and sustain power after seizing it.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a core tenet of Marxism. It refers to a transitional state where the working class holds political power to abolish capitalism, suppress the resistance of the bourgeoisie, and create a classless society. It serves as a ‘worker’s state’ or ‘proletarian democracy’ to replace the ‘dictatorship of the bourgeoisie’. Marxism views all states as inherently the dictatorship of a particular class. 

Multi-party parliamentary democracy

Let’s examine whether it is possible to establish a one-party government in a country where a multi-party parliamentary democratic system has been in practice for a very long time.

As noted in the previous article, although the Sri Lankan State fundamentally possesses an ethno-hegemonic character, it also holds a deeply rooted multi-party democratic system. Therefore, establishing a one-party rule would be legally and practically challenging. 

Specifically, the political culture of southern Sri Lanka is defined by intense inter-party competition, making it unlikely to permit a single-party hegemony.

Further, despite two armed insurrections in the south and a three-decade-long civil war resulting from ethnic conflict, independent Sri Lanka has conducted regular elections. The transfer of power has consistently taken place in a peaceful manner – strictly according to the Constitution.

However, we must not forget that there are examples where parliamentary democracy was utilised to establish one-party rule or a dominant-party state. While parliamentary systems are built on multi-party representation, they can be manipulated – especially when the ruling party exerts total control over parliament – to eliminate competition between parties.

In the post-colonial era (from the 1960s to the 1980s), several African nations introduced single-party states using the parliamentary systems inherited from colonial powers. Notable examples include Tanzania under Julius Nyerere and Ghana under Kwame Nkrumah.

Although they argued that a single-party system was essential for national unity, efficiency, and development, it ultimately resulted in a single movement centralising all power.

A modern example is the Central European nation of Hungary. Since 2010, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán – Leader of the Christian nationalist, Far-Right Fidesz party – used his parliamentary majority to amend the Constitution and electoral laws. While not running a formal single-party state, he weakened the Opposition so severely that he established a dominant-party rule.

However, in the election held recently, he suffered a crushing defeat. US President Donald Trump is a firm supporter of Orbán, backing the long-serving Prime Minister’s continued hold on power. During the election period, US Vice President J.D. Vance even visited Hungary. Far-Right parties gaining influence across Europe view Orbán’s defeat as a significant setback for their movement.

Weakening the opposition

Governments with a strong parliamentary majority have always been intent on weakening the opposition. In Sri Lanka, we have seen this trend intensify significantly following the introduction of the executive presidency.

Ruling parties generally employ tactics to undermine the electoral prospects of the opposition. Former President J.R. Jayewardene once spoke of “folding up the electoral list”. During the Rajapaksa rule, buying over (horse trading) Opposition members became a normalised part of the political culture.

The National People’s Power (NPP) Government possesses a parliamentary majority unlike any held by previous governments. During the 2024 Parliamentary Election campaigns, Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) leaders explicitly stated that a majority sufficient to run the government smoothly would be enough; however, the people granted the NPP more than a two-thirds majority.

While the Government holds such a massive majority, the unprecedented weakness of the Opposition parties is a key reason for the fear that the Government might lean towards one-party rule. However, it is unlikely that the Government will engage in such an attempt. Nevertheless, if any such effort were to be pursued, Sri Lanka might require several more ‘aragalayas’.

(The writer is a senior journalist based in Colombo)

(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication)