AHC: Have another western democracy become a dominant party state like Japan
- Thread starter odieluck
- Start date
"Legitimate" democracy is a highly subjective way of describing any state, but, I get what you're going for.
Multiparty liberal democracies, with one overwhelmingly dominant party. Arguably Mexico fit this definition for lost of the 20th century, with the PRI party being in power for a whopping 71 years, from 1929 to 2000. Hungary's Fidesz is utterly dominant, and while it hasn't been in power for anywhere near 70 years, it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. That said, the ""legitimacy"" of this regime isn't as universally accepted by Western observers as that of other EU States. There are several other multiparty systems with a single unquestionably dominant party, such as Russia, or Belarus, but I'd hardly call these liberal democracies in the same way as Japan is.
Sweden? The Social Democrats were in power continuously between 1936 and 1976.
Canada certainly had its period where the Liberals were the dominant party- "Canada's Natural Governing Party", as they were sometimes referred to (usually with a mocking tinge accusing them of arrogance, but I digress). Certainly, two decade-long stints in government is very impressive (1935-1953 and 1963-1974) but overall the Conservatives have always been very competitive. I do wonder if the CCF/NDP failing to get off the ground could have baked in even more dominance for a Liberal Party with less of a cohesive alternative on its left flank.
I'd probably mention Paraguay too, where the Colorados have dominated since redemocratization - only two of the Presidents they had since then weren't from that party.
Swedish SDP has been PM party since end of 1930's expect some small periods in 1970's, 1990's and in years 2008 - 2015 and since 2022.
And CDU in Germany has controlled German politics almost whole post-WW2 era.
Perhaps there is way how to get either PSI or Italian Christian Democrats controlling Italian politics whole/most of post-WW2 era.
And CDU in Germany has controlled German politics almost whole post-WW2 era.
Perhaps there is way how to get either PSI or Italian Christian Democrats controlling Italian politics whole/most of post-WW2 era.
As long as we fully acknowledge that African-American persons were treated as 2nd class citizens . . .
At least potentially, pretty much any U.S. southern state from Post-Reconstruction to about 1970. And some were genuinely little-d democratic. For example, I’ve read that Virginia in the 1950s and 60s had the “Byrd machine” centered in one region of the state with some competition within the state from other faction(s) within the Democratic Party. And Harry Byrd himself was relatively non-corrupt [and hopefully, kept his lieutenants in line], but that might be more a matter of luck than democracy.
* and weirdly, Harry Byrd of Virginia was apparently unrelated to Robert Byrd of West Virginia
At least potentially, pretty much any U.S. southern state from Post-Reconstruction to about 1970. And some were genuinely little-d democratic. For example, I’ve read that Virginia in the 1950s and 60s had the “Byrd machine” centered in one region of the state with some competition within the state from other faction(s) within the Democratic Party. And Harry Byrd himself was relatively non-corrupt [and hopefully, kept his lieutenants in line], but that might be more a matter of luck than democracy.
* and weirdly, Harry Byrd of Virginia was apparently unrelated to Robert Byrd of West Virginia
Last edited:
This is a very questionable example:
The SPD governed as the leading force from 1969-1982, 1998-2005 and again since 2021.
The CDU has provided the chancellor for the rest of the time, but from 1966-1969, 2005-2009 and 2013-2021 in a grand coalition with the SPD. The SPD has thus been in the federal government for a total of 35 (!) years. I hardly think you can call that a CDU-dominant system.
Wallace's AIP splinter splits off permanently, instead of going GOP. The US's conservative/right of center part of the electorate is divided between a rockefeller/northern republican/western libertarian GOP and the prolifers/racial & social conservatives of the AIP/conservative party/national party.
You get a long string of democrats from 1968-on. Obviously more moderate Ds to some extent due to remaining more the party of FDR/JFK/LBJ/HHH without it's 70s to 90s move to reinvent itself as a libertarian/interest group/business party.
You get a long string of democrats from 1968-on. Obviously more moderate Ds to some extent due to remaining more the party of FDR/JFK/LBJ/HHH without it's 70s to 90s move to reinvent itself as a libertarian/interest group/business party.
Italy was dominated by the Christian Democratic Party from the end of World War Two all the way up to 1994 where they were defeated by Silvio Berlusconi and his Forza Italia Party. I don’t know enough about Italian politics to say how but I don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible for them to become a permanent dominant party like in Japan.
With mani pulite or at least just a toned down version I can see Democrazia Cristiana remainind dominant, so something like the 90s in Japan where reformists defectors form an alternative, but with DC still the premier party.
Maybe the Liberal Party in Canada, too?
You would probably need to fracture the right wing in Canada long term to make this happen. Kind of like what happened in 1993. I don’t know how possible this is early on but maybe if a much more extreme far right party does quite well maybe growing out of the Social Credit Party you could have a permanent far right that takes away votes form the more main stream conservatives kind of like the NDP but to a more crippling extent.
One reason the LDP had such dominance was their appeal to rural voters and that their main opposition for a time was.... a communist party. You can just mix them together in a different country. There was also an implicit threat of reoccupation of Japan if the "wrong" party won since you know cold war. Another opposition was the socialists, which is not popular among many capitalistic nations. I'm not entirely sure why the Democratic Party of Japan failed to provide much of an opposition after losing power. Sure they lost power, but why couldn't they be like the USA's Democrats who lost power in 2000 and then come roaring back? They couldn't even stay as one party but had defections and splinter groups. So the dominant party had rural appeal and faced two different very unpopular opposition parties during the cold war and once the cold war was over the only party that did give them a run for their money somehow just collapsed after losing an election. I think this leads to a dominant party system, but I have not seen such conditions replicated elsewhere even if you exclude the criteria of "occupied by USA"
Wasn't Mitterand the first left-of-centre French President since 1954? Maybe if the Gaullists found a way to co-opt some of the moderate swing voters, or if the Socialists and Communists were avowed bitter enemies instead of occasionally working together, they could have stayed in power to the present day without the Mitterand or Hollande presidencies, and perhaps Macron's party doesn't emerge or takes some other less successful form.
(And maybe the Gaullists could also stop changing their name every ten minutes.)
I suppose you could also argue that Australia came close to being this in the Cold War era up until the Hawke/Keating era from 1983-96 - prior to that, Labor had been out of power since 1949 with the exception of a three-year stint that ended in chaos and controversy. (Look up The Dismissal if you're not familiar with it.)
Present-day, I think South Africa under the ANC probably qualifies.
(And maybe the Gaullists could also stop changing their name every ten minutes.)
I suppose you could also argue that Australia came close to being this in the Cold War era up until the Hawke/Keating era from 1983-96 - prior to that, Labor had been out of power since 1949 with the exception of a three-year stint that ended in chaos and controversy. (Look up The Dismissal if you're not familiar with it.)
Present-day, I think South Africa under the ANC probably qualifies.
Ireland under Fianna Fail who won the largest vote of any party from 1932 to 2011.
Make them or Labour more cuddly and they could govern in the periods when they lost majority.
Make them or Labour more cuddly and they could govern in the periods when they lost majority.
The DPJ had a lot of issues that plagued its brief 2009-2012 term and pretty much discredited and later broke the party. To sum up
The introductory chapter of Kushida & Lipsy's Japan under the DPJ is a good resource.
U.S Democrats manage to keep the New Deal coalition holding for much longer with Democratic leadership allowing members to "vote their conscience" on race issue but the party slowly consolidates into one that generally shares its economic principles and doesnt let social issues divide it.
Republicans splinter into moderate, "liberal", libertarian, and religious wings.
Democrats already controlled the House for nearly 40 years. A further conservative split can see them gain a permanent senate majority or supermajority. Only thing left with a chance of flipping is the Presidency then
Republicans splinter into moderate, "liberal", libertarian, and religious wings.
Democrats already controlled the House for nearly 40 years. A further conservative split can see them gain a permanent senate majority or supermajority. Only thing left with a chance of flipping is the Presidency then
The Ulster Unionists held power unchallenged in Northern Ireland from 1920 to the collapse of the old Stormont Parliament in 1972. While a lot of gerrymandering took place in local government, their decades-long rule in the country as a whole was completely democratic (although a blatant example of majority rule with widespread discrimination against the "minority").
I can see how these issues caused the DPJ to lose power to the LDP in elections and being discredited in the eyes of the voters, but this does not explain the breakup.
I mean does it really count since Northern Ireland is part of a country rather than the whole country? Many places have parties of local strongholds where the other parties might as well not compete and in some cases opposition parties only field paper candidates. The opposition in such regions spend $0, (in the literal sense not the figurative sense) on trying to win since why throw money at a lost cause?