South Africa and Democratic Development

If you study young democracies, one of the consistent patterns is a tendency for one-party rule to develop for a period of time. Sometimes it is said that it is easy to have one free election, but the subsequent election is rarer and harder. Even where subsequent elections take place, a period of one-party rule can take emerge. This does not always happen, of course, with primary exceptions being seen in former British settler colonies (Canada, Australia, NZ) where "independence" took place peacefully after much internal political development.

In the USA, we had such a period called the "era of good feelings" and resulted in almost uncontested control by what was then the Democratic-Republican party for about 20 years (roughly 1815-1835) including most notably Monroe's presidency where his vote in the electoral college was not unanimous only for the decision by one elector to ensure that honor was reserved to Washington alone. In fact, this understates it. After the Federalists won the first 3 presidential elections (1788-1796), the D-R party won in 1800 and did not lose again until 1841. The Democratic-Republican party ultimately was renamed the "Democratic Party" by Andrew Jackson, and it began to factionalize. Those factions within the party were the only real democratic processes at the federal level until the Whig party made some headway in the 1840s, then the Republican party was founded in 1856 to revive Whiggism and combat the extension of slavery into the western territories.

We can look at Austria and Japan as countries with similar models (both ruled by more or less the same party or coalition since Democracy was established after WWII). India was ruled by the Congress party for half a century. Israel was ruled by its Labor party from 1949-1977, only then did the problems emerge of tiny right-wing religious parties holding the balance of power in coalitions. RBR can probably name other examples. Many former East Bloc or former Soviet states are either dominated by one party or still have a pro-communist/anti-communist political divide.

In a broad sense, this pattern emerges for two reasons. First, a new democracy is often a result of a political struggle against a pre-existing order. The initial party setup is the "pro-democracy" and "anti-democracy" forces, and that pro-democracy coalition can be dominant for a while after its victory. Second, democracy can begin as a result of a stable coalition or consensus after a period of political unrest, then that coalition remains dominant for a while.

In the USA, as described above, the situation was somewhat different, but really you have to count that the date of "democracy" to understand. Universal (white) manhood suffrage was only haltingly established during the 1800-1830 period (before then, many states had property requirements for voting). Where it existed, universal (white male) suffrage favored the D-R party, and soon gave the D-R party a monopoly on power for 20-40 years.

(This is, by the way, part of why I am hopeful about Russia's current status. I know I am totally alone in this, and I don't want to start a "thing." We can at least agree that a period of dramatic one-party control in a new democracy is not, by itself, evidence of undemocratic tendencies. The argument really is that much more is going on in Russia. And, indeed, more is.)

So here's to South Africa: South Africa's ruling ANC may finally be splitting over ideological issues, and this may lead to real multiparty Democracy in South Africa for the first time. The ANC rule under Winnie Mandela and Thabo Mbeki (Mr. Aids is Caused by Poverty, not HIV) has not been a model of democratic participation. Real contested elections may be on their way there.