How multi-party system prevents single party from setting policy

01Aug 2016
Muharram Macatta
The Guardian
How multi-party system prevents single party from setting policy

ONE party system is alleged to stifle public sector innovation. Since people have no alternative, they are forced to abide by the policy of that party. Any competing party, and their innovative and reformative ideas, is crushed.

As a result, areas that are under government control (the economy, for example), stagnate, as the government is unable to implement innovative policy that could potentially transform the sector.

Parties are immune to any change if the public doesn't want change, and thus can do what they please. Most one party system often has a single party that acts recklessly, since they are sure that the electorate will vote for them regardless of what they do. This facilitates corruption.

One party system is out of touch with the people. As stated above, one party system has a single party that holds a monopoly on the electorate. They kill any and all competition, either by public choice or by their own.

In more autorotation systems, this competition includes the people. The people are prevented from stating anything that is contradictory to what the government is implementing.

As a result, people are left out of the decision making process, and the government stays out of touch with their demands. This has dire consequences.

An irritable and rebellious public will often resort to drastic means to have their voice heard. A conservative public will often let the party do what they want.

The party will continue to implement its vision; its idea of what it believes is right for the people. This vision may be wrong, and can negatively affect the public.

Similarly; a monopoly on the vote, virtually every economist agrees that a company holding a monopoly is problematic for the economy. For one, it is able to suck up any corporation that threatens its existence.

Thus, people are not given an alternative— they must buy from that company or not buy anything at all. Because there is no alternative, companies can sell whatever they want and do whatever they want. Innovation is stifled.

Democracy: If the system is elected, and competition is nominally encouraged but simply not there, then the people may have considerable and often direct say on what the party is implementing.

In a democratic system, the party may fear losing power if they do not listen to the views of the public. As a result, the party is forced to listen to the public in order to retain power.

This allows the people to be more directly involved with government. Unlike in the US, where we watch two parties bicker over issues we don't care about, a one-party system has two options: either they listen to the public and continue winning officer, or they don't and face getting kicked out of power.

In other words, there is no politicisation of issues, and if there is, the party will get kicked out. This promotes efficiency and democracy, in a view similar to the Rousseau social contract.

A system in which a single party is constantly elected into power is a very efficient system, if used correctly. As with the CCM in Tanzania, the party has managed for the past 54 years and further more free to enact its vision as it sees fit. They do not have to go through a strident opposition whose views may halt progress. Policy is implemented more quickly and efficiently throughout its existence.

"Political correctness" is a generally used a pejorative term for common courtesy. The advantage of being polite and courteous should be self-evident. Those who despise 'political correctness’, seem to want to be admired for daring to behave badly and frequently claim victimhood when their boorish behaviour is challenged.

There have been reports - most of them exaggerated - that some educational institutions have gone to an extreme in placing courtesy over harsh truths. Here is a good summary of the most infamous examples of "Political correctness over reach."

The disadvantages of a single party system are: It has the right to form government as per the constitution. They will only rule and form government; if we talk about two political parties then there exist two major political parties while other existing parties are minority parties or in other words the contest is between two candidates of two major political parties.

Like in Tanzania Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) and Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (CHADEMA) are the high led political party groups in Tanzania. But Tanzania is a multi party political system. One of the two parties typically holds a majority in the legislature.

In CCM Dr John Pombe Joseph Magufuli came into rule with the help of well educated and qualified leaders, the three retired Presidents who took several steps in development from education to infrastructure of the country.

Currently they all support him with the entire membership of the CCM General Assembly of this august veteran ruling party. Of course, he is the choice of the people!

Both parties have their own policies and views on various issues, such as health care, foreign affairs, internal security, employment, outsourcing and the war on terror. But only peace must prevail.

MUHARRAM MACATTA is a retired civil servant, a graduate in liberal arts, majoring in economics and political science. He served as a director of internal and international trade, import and export section, with the then ministry of commerce and industries, which later became to be the ministry of commerce and cooperative; and served as principal marketing officer assigned to several marketing boards.

He established state motors corporation and also founder of the regional offices; and first director of the Saba Saba International trade Fairs.