Talk:One-party state

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Any historic de facto one-party states?

The article lists present de facto one-party states, but is it worth asking if any historic de facto one-party state has existed in the past?

Mexico under the Institutional Revolutionary Party may be an example. Is it, and are the any other former de facto one-party states? If former de facto one-party states have existed, could these be listed? Luokehao (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

We have discussed the IRP before. As you can see above, I am uneasy about these definitions. Previously, I think people said Mexico under the IRP was a dominant-party state. It is true the IRP was eventually defeated. But equally the CPSU in the USSR was defeated, and I believe that there are still communist parties in Russia, but they don't get anywhere much in the elections. Then again, Yeltsin and Putin's elections are known to be rigged, so what does that tell you? In the GDR, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany coexisted with other parties. Then it lost power with the fall of the Berlin Wall and became the Party of Democratic Socialism which then became Die Linke (the Left), a minor party which still exists in the Bundestag. So I would argue that the IRP and the Socialist Unity Party were similar. Both held sway over their respective countries for decades; both lost power but continued to contest elections. Therefore they should both come under the same rubric. Should it be dominant-party or one-party? I think that's in the eye of the beholder. But definitely IRP should be listed here somewhere. It's crazy that it keeps on being rejected.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)