How opposition parties sustain single-party dominance

Abstract

When elections are free and fair, why do some political parties rule for prolonged periods of time? Most explanations for single-party dominance focus on the dominant party's origins, resources, or strategies. In this article, we show how opposition parties can undermine or sustain single-party dominance. Specifically, opposition parties should be central in explaining single-party dominance in countries with highly disproportional electoral systems and a dominant party whose vote share falls short of a popular majority. Employing a quantitative analysis of Indian legislative elections as well as a paired case study, we show that opposition coordination plays a crucial part in undermining single-party dominance.

Democratic decoupling

“…42 In terms of competition, India's long era of single-party "Congress hegemony" was finished by the early 1990s, as new regional parties mushroomed and opposition parties began coordinating more effectively to challenge and displace Congress domination. 43 As for participation, the so-called "silent revolution" of heightened mobilization by Dalits (untouchables) and other backward castes (OBCs) since the 1990s produced a more inclusive and less elitist brand of democratic politics, in what Jaffrelot summarizes as India's "plebeianization of politics." 44 Writing at the outset of the 2010s, Jaffrelot remarked that "the continuation of the democratization of Indian politics that had started in the 1990s … has probably been the most important achievement of the last 20 years."…”

Committed or Conditional Democrats? Opposition Dynamics in Electoral Autocracies

“…When formed, an electoral alliance can constitute a danger to the incumbent. Opposition alliances increase the likelihood of political liberalization as well as the probability of incumbent defeat (Arriola ; Bunce and Wolchik ; Donno ; Howard and Roessler ; Wahman ; Ziegfeld and Tudor ). In the 2002 election, Kenya's Arap Moi went down in defeat, ending nearly 40 years of KANU rule, because opposition parties were finally able to form an alliance that supported one challenger.…”

“…But getting to democracy via the ballot box often requires forming opposition electoral alliances (also known as pre‐electoral or electoral coalitions; Bunce and Wolchik ; Donno ; Howard and Roessler ; Wahman ; Ziegfeld and Tudor ). An opposition alliance is a group of parties that cooperate with each other to compete against a dominant autocratic incumbent in an election.…”

Conceptualizing and measuring subnational democracy across Indian states

“…Ziegfeld and Tudor demonstrate that Congress was able to govern for prolonged periods even in the absence of a popular majority. 39 Ultimately, in parliamentary systems where electoral alliances and coalition governments are common, the vote share of the largest party does not tell us enough about the strength of the opposition. Whether the opposition is able to present a viable alternative, however, is a crucial test for how meaningful electoral competition is.…”