The dominant party as a force transforming the political space

Mikheeva Vitalina Vladimirovna ORCID: 0000-0003-0876-338X PhD in History Associate Professor, Department of Fundamental Legal and Socio-Humanitarian Disciplines, Moscow Financial and Industrial University "Synergy" 111123, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, ul. Enthusiasts, 742 vitalinm7@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction. In recent years, the phenomenon of the dominant party has attracted more and more attention from researchers. In many regions of the world, parties have emerged that have been winning elections in competitive conditions for decades. Party dominance is becoming the most stable form of political domination, ensuring a consolidated state policy with the formal presence of opposition political forces.

The purpose of the work is:

Clarification of the relationship between the type of state system and the types of party systems, as well as differentiation on this basis of the concepts of "dominant party" (may be present in both authoritarian and democratic regimes) and "party of power" (characteristic exclusively of bureaucratic autocracies).

Analysis of the degree of dependence of these types of parties on the institutions of state power and political leaders.

Identification and description of the main internal party trends within the framework of the two types of political parties under study.

In the course of this study, we consider the dominant party to be one that holds a leading position in the party system for a significant period of time while maintaining signs of political competition. Political scientist J. Sartori defines the dominant party as "the party that is significantly stronger than all others" ^{[1, p. 64]}. This party usually promotes political programs unrelated to a specific ideology and calls for national unity and economic growth. The dominant party forms a parliamentary majority independently or in alliance with a satellite party, which can enter this majority either permanently or as needed.

Theoretical and methodological basis of the research. The question of the dominance of one party in a multiparty system has been the subject of research since the middle of the 19th century. Scientists such as M. Duverger ^[2], J. Sartori ^[1], S. Berglund ^[3], H. Oversloot ^[4], J. Ekman ^[5] have devoted a significant amount of work to the study of party systems with dominant parties and parties in power.

In Russia, such authors as G. Golos ^[6], F. Dolgikh ^[7], S. Zaslavsky ^[8], Y. Korgunyuk ^[9-11], A. Lichtinstein ^[12], E. Meleshkina ^[13], B. Makarenko ^[14], I. Nazarov ^[15], A. Ostroverkhov ^[16-17], O. Kharitonova ^[18], N. Yargomskaya ^[19] and others. Their work focuses on the problems of the formation of a multiparty system in Russia, the specifics of the formation of political parties and their typologies, the specifics and prospects for the development of the country's party system, taking into account the influence of the political regime, organizational foundations and legal norms of party activity.

Special attention should be paid to the authors who devoted their research to the phenomenon of the party of power in Russia and the world: D. Badovsky ^[20], G. Golosov ^[21], I. Glebova ^[22], O. Gaman-Golutvina ^[23], R. Mukhametov ^[24], S. Henkin ^[25] and others. Their works are devoted to the definition of the concept of "party of power", the specifics of its formation and functioning, the identification of trends in the development of the party of power in modern Russia, as well as the party systems of the states of the East and West, and a comparative analysis of party systems with dominant parties.

The following methods were used in the study:

Critical conceptual analysis: allowed to identify and analyze key concepts related to the concept of "dominant party" and its influence on the political system.

Content analysis: applied to the systematic study of texts in order to identify the main ideas, positions and strategies of the dominant party.

Institutional analysis: helped to understand the structure of the political system, the role of various institutions and their interaction with the dominant party.

Historical analysis: allowed us to trace the evolution of the role of the dominant party over time, to identify the factors that contributed to its formation and influence.

System method: allows us to consider the dominant party as an element of a complex system of interaction between political actors, taking into account the interrelationships and feedback in this system.

Using an integrated approach combining these methods allowed us to gain a comprehensive understanding of the role and influence of the dominant party on the political space.

The main approaches to the interpretation of political parties. During periods of economic and political crises, when society is experiencing division and instability, dominant parties come to the fore. Their activities are usually aimed at consolidating society, carrying out reforms and developing a unified vision for the development of the state, both domestic and foreign policy.

The emergence of such parties is closely linked to the desire of the political elite to strengthen their position in the legislature. This phenomenon is most often observed in countries undergoing "catch-up modernization", where the party system, due to the peculiarities of historical development, is at an early stage of development, and the institutions of civil society are weak. Such parties take the initiative to consolidate the party system, develop civil society and improve the socio-economic situation.

However, the dominance of one party also poses a definite threat. By controlling the political space, such a party can limit the possibilities of other political actors, using its influence as a "veto" tool.

It should be emphasized that the dominance of one party is not equivalent to an authoritarian regime. The dominant party wins elections in competition with other political forces, although it has a certain resource advantage. This factor allows it to attract both political entrepreneurs and the masses.

Consolidation around the dominant party is formed through a patronage system based on personal connections between the "patron" and the "client", which allows participants in the political process to receive political benefits. Under the rule of one party, opposition groups are characterized by a pronounced ideology, populist statements and limited resources, which prevents them from moving from declarations to a real struggle for power. This situation puts the opposition parties in an unfavorable and unpromising position for both potential investors and voters. Cooperation with them becomes not only unprofitable, but also dangerous, since state institutions, acting by force, block the support of these parties.

Russian researcher G. Kichigin conditionally classifies all resources available to political parties into four categories: image, organizational, property and state ^[27]. Let's look at the first three types of resources inherent in each political party. Image resources include the brand of the party and the attitude of voters towards it. This is a complex, but at the same time effective resource that can both raise and lower the status of a party member. The "value" and "quality" of a party's brand influence the motivation of politicians to join a particular party by comparing their own image with that of the party.

The party has an organizational resource when it is able to consolidate people around its program and ensure their interaction within the framework of uniform rules and procedures (New Encyclopedic Dictionary (edited by A.I. Gorkin). Moscow: Great Russian Encyclopedia: RIPOL Classic, 2004. 1456 p.). Such consolidation is achieved due to the presence of a clear ideology of the party, a value system, effective leadership, and well-established internal communication. Communication between the central office and regional offices is of particular importance, since the timeliness and clarity of information transmission to all levels of the party structure depends on the coherence of this communication.

The party's property resource consists of ownership of property that can be used in political activities. It is important to note that the party is not a commercial organization and does not aim to make a profit. Therefore, the receipt of financial resources is carried out mainly in the form of donations or at the expense of government funding ^{[27, p. 94]}.

The state resource is available exclusively to the dominant party and represents an opportunity to use state (regional) resources for their own political activities. The use of this resource can have both positive and negative consequences. The positive aspects include the use of public funds in the form of subsidies and grants to support infrastructure projects, public initiatives, etc., which benefits society and strengthens the image of the party. The negative aspect of the state resource is manifested in the creation of uncompetitive conditions for opposition parties through the use of forceful instruments of state power. Thus, the state resource turns into the reserve of the dominant party, which gives it the opportunity to speak on behalf of the state and use the potential of the state on its behalf.

Most modern scholars agree with this definition of the dominant party. However, difficulties arise when trying to classify them. The fact is that a party system with a dominant party can occur both in developing countries and in highly developed Western countries.

The main difference between such systems lies in the naturalness or artificiality of their occurrence, which largely depends on the level of political competition in the country. Based on this, Y. Korgunyuk suggests classifying cases of dominance of political parties depending on the level of political competition.:

1) high (corresponding to the standards of Western democracies);

2) Limited;

3) minimal ^{[11, p. 171]}.

The phenomenon of dominant parties in democratic political regimes. The group with a high level of political competition includes party dominance in Sweden (1932-1976), Norway (1945-1963) and Japan (1955-2009 with minor interruptions). In European countries, the parties of the "left" ideological persuasion dominated, competing with the "bourgeois" parties. Their advantage was not absolute, the party majority was usually minimal, and sometimes it was not at all. The victory of these parties was achieved thanks to the votes of the "mass" electorate, that is, the working class. Thus, in 1957, 79% of representatives of the working class voted for the Norwegian Workers' Party, while in Sweden about 75% of voters voted for the Social Democratic Workers' Party along with the Communists ^{[28, p. 119]}. In rural areas, where representatives of the most disadvantaged segments of the population are concentrated, workers' parties found significant support. It was at the beginning of the 20th century that a clear confrontation between labor and capital emerged in these regions. Small groups of wealthy individuals accumulated significant capital, while peasants and wage-earners found themselves in significantly more unfavorable social conditions. Given the acute class contradictions, the masses of voters were increasingly inclined towards the social democratic ideology. At the same time, it should be noted that in these countries there was also a split between the city and the countryside, but it did not weaken, but, on the contrary, strengthened the influence of workers' parties. This is due to the lack of a strong conservative party that would defend the traditional values of society. As a result, the Socialists, in alliance with the agrarians, were able to win over rural voters.

In Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party dominated as a conservative force of the "right", expressing the traditional values and practices of Japanese society, concentrated in the rural community ^{[29, pp. 28-29]}. Japanese legislation was based on the models of Western democracies, which led to significant competition between the ruling party and the opposition. Japan's political system has always allowed for a change of power, not only theoretically, but also practically. The key to the long-term dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party was its ability to offer society an integrated state strategy and an understandable program of action for the majority of citizens.

The phenomenon of dominant parties in democratic States is a complex issue that requires detailed analysis. The dominant party, which retains a long-term influence on the political system, has a significant impact on its structure and functioning. Studying the role of such parties in countries with different levels of democratic development makes it possible to identify the diverse forms of their influence.

In countries with developed democracies, such as Canada or the United Kingdom, the dominant parties, without absolute power, play a key role in shaping the political agenda. Their leaders often occupy senior government positions, and their programs have a significant impact on the adoption of laws and the implementation of public policies.

In countries with unstable democracies, such as India or South Africa, dominant parties play an even more important role. They often form one-party governments and have significant control over State institutions. In such contexts, the dominance of one party can lead to limited political competition and a weakening of democratic norms.

It is important to note that the dominance of one party does not always equate to authoritarianism. Singapore, where the People's Action Party has dominated parliament since independence in 1965, has demonstrated stable economic growth and a high standard of living.

Thus, the key factor determining the influence of the dominant party on the political space is its attitude to democratic principles. If a party respects freedom of speech, pluralism of opinion, and institutions of checks and balances, then its dominance can contribute to stability and effective governance.

The specifics of dominant parties and "parties of power" in undemocratic political regimes. Countries with a limited level of political competition include Latin American countries, post-Soviet countries (for example, the Republic of Moldova), as well as post-war India. The political life of these countries is characterized by administrative and forceful pressure on the opposition, and the lack of de facto equal opportunities for political competition. However, it is important that in each case we are dealing with different actors that create an imbalance in the political system. Latin American countries are characterized by permanent military interference in the political process. This intervention usually occurs in times of crisis, when politicians are unable to solve public problems. After coming to power, the military abandons the formal signs of democracy (the presence of parties, elections), but the real power passes to the executive branch of government, which is not subject to re-election ^{[30, p. 14]}.

Unlike Latin American countries, in the post-Soviet space, the central actor of the political process is the civil bureaucracy. In this case, the authorities, unlike the military bureaucracy, are more dependent on public opinion and election results. On the other hand, having solid experience in communicating with society, representatives of the civil bureaucracy have created elegant mechanisms for manipulating and distorting the political process. Y. Korgunyuk, explaining the reason for the dominance of the civil bureaucracy in the post—Soviet space, notes that the problem lies in the significant number of budget recipients among the electorate, and as a result, the dependence of a significant number of citizens on the state ^{[10, p. 185]}. Thus, the rigid vertical of power and the predominance of patronage relations become a natural consequence of the corresponding economic structure of society in the post-Soviet space.

The countries of Africa, Central Asia, and postcolonial India are characterized by an extremely low level of political competition. Instead of a multiparty system, these States are dominated by associations based on clan or tribal ties. The entire political system is built on personalistic principles, fully dependent on the will of the head of state and aimed at his support ^[31]. In Turkmenistan, the most pronounced personalization of power is observed. Despite the formal existence of the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan, the country actually functions as a one-party system. The concentration of all levers of influence in the hands of the head of state, as well as the use of the party system and elections as a tool for creating a democratic facade, attest to the totalitarian nature of the regime.

The dominance of one political party is also characteristic of Kazakhstan. Since 2007, the Nur Otan party has become such ^{[32, p. 98]} (in 2022 it was renamed the Amanat party).

In post-war India, the Brahmin caste played a dominant role. The centuries-old monopoly on education, intellectual activity and management has provided representatives of this caste with significant advantages in the political life of the country. During the political struggle, the Indian National Congress Party used both administrative pressure and repressive measures against the opposition. As an example, the introduction of a state of emergency by the government of I. Gandhi in 1974 in order to prevent a possible defeat in the parliamentary elections, which led to the cancellation of the elections ^{[33, p. 497]}.

In authoritarian States, such as China and Vietnam, the dominant political party occupies a key position in the system of government. It exercises control over all spheres of government activity, including the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Such party dominance is often accompanied by restrictions on civil liberties and the suppression of political opposition.

In conditions of undemocratic regimes, there is a risk of the transformation of the ruling party into a "party-state", which entails the concentration of power in the hands of a narrow group of individuals and negatively affects the democratic development of the country.

It should be emphasized that the influence of the dominant party on the political landscape is not always exclusively negative. In some cases, the stability and efficiency that it provides can contribute to the development of the State. However, the risk of abuse of power and violation of democratic rights of citizens remains high.

Assessment of the dominant party's influence on the economy and social sphere. For an objective analysis of the role of the dominant party, it is necessary to rely on empirical data reflecting economic and social indicators in countries with a similar political system.

The economic aspect:

The analysis of GDP growth rates shows a multifaceted picture. The countries with dominant parties show both steady growth (India – 6.2%) and low growth rates (Sweden – 0.8%; Japan - 0.7%) ^[34]. This may be due to various factors, such as the investment climate and the level of competition. However, overall, there is a positive trend in this macroeconomic indicator.

The social aspect:

The unemployment rate, as an indicator of the effectiveness of economic policy, also varies in countries with dominant parties. Some countries show the lowest possible unemployment rate (Singapore, Russia, Japan), while others show an increase in this indicator. For example, in Sweden, it rose to 10.4% in January 2025, compared with 8.5% in the same month of the previous year ^[35]. In India, this indicator has been relatively stable over the past 5 years, averaging 8.18%.^[35] In Singapore, this indicator has been kept within 2% for several years ^[35].

Freedoms and mobility:

The analysis of such socio-political indicators as the level of social mobility, the degree of freedom of speech and assembly reveals a certain correlation. Democratic States with a multiparty system with several major political forces represented in it show the best results in these parameters.

According to the social mobility index, Denmark (85.2), Norway (83.6), Finland (83.6) and Sweden (83.5) are at the forefront. In comparison, China scored 61.5 points.

Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden are the leaders in the rating of freedom of speech ^[37]. A similar pattern is observed in the press freedom rating: Norway (91.89), Denmark (89.60) and Sweden (88.32) occupy the leading positions ^[38].

Thus, empirical evidence suggests that the influence of the dominant party on the social, political, and economic development of a country is a complex and multifactorial phenomenon. But overall, the dynamics are positive. For a deeper understanding of this issue, further research is needed, taking into account the specifics of each particular country and its political system.

There are significant differences between the dominant party and the party in power. The dominant party is often compared to, or even identified with, the "party of power." This comparison is incorrect, so there is a need for a theoretical distinction between these concepts.

Western political scientists, analyzing the features of political processes in the former Soviet Union, often refer to the concept of the "party of power." However, the problem lies in the lack of a clear definition of this concept. Moreover, in foreign literature, the phenomenon of the "party of power" is considered mainly on the example of the United Russia party, without analyzing its manifestation in other post-Soviet states. At the same time, Russian researchers more often consider the "party of power" not as an exclusively Russian phenomenon, but as a phenomenon characteristic of the countries of the former socialist camp.

The definition of the "party of power" is still the subject of debate among scientists. The starting point in her research is the thesis that her main goal is to preserve the power of the ruling elite, and all other actions of the party are subordinated to this task.

In our opinion, four criteria can be identified that are characteristic of the "party of power":

1) de-ideologized, pragmatic and centrist character;

2) creation and functioning in the interests of the executive branch of government;

3) the use of state and other "administrative resources" available to representatives of the executive branch to achieve their goals, including participation in elections;

4) reliance on a well-defined personal and charismatic factor in the election campaign.

A key characteristic of the "parties of power" in the post-Soviet space is their close connection with the political elite, which often plays a crucial role in their creation. Unlike Western democracies, where parties are formed independently of the executive branch, in post-Soviet countries, the executive branch actively participates in the creation of parliamentary parties, which serves as a tool for implementing its political program.

Thus, in the Russian Federation, Prime Minister V. Chernomyrdin founded the Our Home - Russia party, representatives of the regional executive branch founded the Fatherland – All Russia party, and the concept of United Russia received the open support of President V. Putin and a number of ministers ^[12]. Another distinctive feature of the "parties of power" is that election campaigns are based on the cult of the personality of the leaders. Due to the lack of a clear ideological platform, the ranks of such a party include mostly pragmatically oriented officials. They participate in elections under her banner, relying on their personal authority and past achievements. Thus, the election campaign focuses not on the promotion of ideas, values or programs, but on the popularization of specific individuals with successful professional experience, which contributes to the growth of the party's rating. ^[21]. In most cases, a party at the helm of power is led by a charismatic leader who seeks to attract as many representatives of the state and business elite at various levels as possible to its ranks. The aim of this strategy is to ensure maximum support from individuals with significant material, organizational and human resources on the eve of the elections. As Fr. points out. Ivanova, the key feature of the party of power is that "it is not the power won in the elections that belongs to this party, but it belongs to the government itself" (Ivanova O.V. The party of power in the system of power in modern Russia: abstract of the dissertation of the Candidate of Political Sciences. Saratov, 2006. p. 9). It is here that the cardinal difference between the party of power and the dominant party is outlined.

The dominant political party functions as an independent subject of the political process, dictating the agenda and nominating its representatives to senior positions in the executive branch, including the positions of Prime Minister and President. In contrast, the "party of power" does not have complete political independence, being a product and instrument of the executive branch.

The type of party is closely related to the type of political regime: the "party of power" is characteristic of bureaucratic authoritarianism, while the dominant party functions in conditions of democracy or transition to it. The dominant party arises in a democratic environment with the preservation of political competition and is able to hold leading positions for a long time, controlling the legislative and executive authorities.

Among the advantages of such a system is ensuring the stable functioning of the government, which allows for long-term planning and implementation of government goals. Dominant parties often achieve economic success and stabilize the social order. Their predictability and success in various spheres of public life contribute to the growth of support from voters. In the relations between the government and Parliament, the dominant party strengthens the positions of the former, weakening the latter. The formation of the government is carried out either by the dominant party itself, or with the involvement of allies. The second option allows you to share responsibility, which contributes to the functioning of the dominant party in a coalition regime. This approach expands the electoral base and strengthens the government, giving it a stable and transparent character.

An essential characteristic of the dominant party is that the real opposition to it arises not so much from other parties as from within that party itself. It includes oligarchic groups whose interests may conflict at some point. The result is the periodic occurrence of internal party struggles, leading to factionalization. Factionalism is a characteristic feature of any dominant party and places high demands on its leadership in terms of caution, flexibility and patience. This circumstance serves as a deterrent to the development of authoritarian tendencies in the political system, since the factions within the party exercise mutual control and do not allow excessive strengthening of one of them. As for the reasons for the accession of representatives of financial and industrial groups to the dominant party, T. Remington notes that "the regime of the dominant party is financed by representatives of the interest group with the subsequent search for benefits from the state" ^{[39, p. 959]}. Thus, the desire of influential people to pursue a political career within the dominant party is driven by pragmatic considerations related to the possibility of using political levers to obtain economic benefits.

Analyzing various concepts of the dominant party, A. Anastasov identified several of its historically established types: the first type is formed within the framework of a parliamentary system with a proportional or mixed electoral system; the second - in a parliamentary system with majority voting; the third type, called "congressional", is characterized by the presence of a ruling political dynasty; the fourth type is characteristic of presidential republics ^[40].

In the context of political systems, the dominance of one party can manifest itself in various forms. First, in a multiparty system where democratic elections are held regularly, one party can consistently defeat its competitors by forming a one-party or coalition government. In this case, she occupies a dominant position, dictating the agenda of the executive branch. Secondly, a majority electoral law can lead to the monopolization of the political field by the dominant party, which makes it difficult for other parties to gain access to the electorate. An example of this type of system is post-war Japan, where the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) consolidated its dominance by using anti-communist rhetoric to suppress the opposition. Thirdly, the "congressional" type is characterized by the presence of a ruling political dynasty that has maintained control of power within its clan for many years.

In India, after independence, the Indian National Congress (INC), being a participant in the national liberation struggle, enjoyed the confidence of voters and was considered the only legitimate party. Despite the existence of other political forces with different ideologies, only the INC was able to establish itself as the dominant force. Finally, in the presidential republics, a party may form that is strongly integrated into the power structures, controlling the president and the majority in parliament. In this case, the dominant party not only determines the political course of the state, but also ensures the rotation of the president. A classic example of such a system is Mexico, where the Institutional Revolutionary Party (IRP) has ensured a smooth transition of power between presidents for many years.

The political reality of the post-Soviet space does not fit into the framework of the classical models of the dominant party. It is important to emphasize that in those countries where the elites have formed a dominant party, it has been possible to achieve a certain political and economic stability by consolidating the majority of the population around it. At the same time, countries where such a party was not created (or its creation proved impossible) faced constant destabilization of political life, which led to "color revolutions" in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. However, the presence of a dominant party does not guarantee the automatic stabilization of the economic and political situation, as well as the minimization of social contradictions. Such a party is often prone to monopolizing the political space, suppressing competitors and communicating directly with voters without intermediaries. In the post-Soviet context, the negative consequences of the activities of the dominant party are exacerbated by a number of factors: the weak development of civil society, the insufficient level of democratic culture, the monopolistic structure of the economy, the predominance of neopatrimonial relations in politics and the widespread presence of patronage ties, etc.

A significant factor in the evolution of dominant political parties is their limited time cycle, despite the fact that historical examples demonstrate significant diversity in the duration of their existence. As an illustration, we can cite the practice of Italy and Germany, where the dominant parties gradually transformed into ordinary parliamentary forces. This process was gradual and was conditioned by the successful implementation of programs to modernize and strengthen democratic institutions. The termination of the dominance of the Christian Democratic parties was due to a number of factors. These include, first of all, the high-profile corruption scandals that have engulfed high-ranking members of the party, which has undermined voters' trust in it. It is also worth noting that the collapse of the communist system and the subsequent establishment of a multiparty democracy eliminated the need for a single party to dominate ^[14]. The Indian National Congress experienced periods of limited democracy in the mid-1970s and even lost power from 1977 to 1980. Despite this, in parallel with India's economic modernization, successes in nation-building and strengthening social structures, the party gradually lost popular support, transforming from a dominant force into a highly rated party.

Thus, the very fact of the loss of a dominant position after a long period of domination testifies both to the fulfillment by the party of its historical mission to society, and to the democraticity of the political system, which allows the circulation of elites of power.

Conclusion. The political system of the post-Soviet countries demonstrates unique characteristics that go beyond the classical models of the dominant party. The type of party is closely related to the type of political regime: the "party of power" is inherent in bureaucratic authoritarianism, while the dominant party functions in conditions of democracy or its formation.

The dominant political party acts as an autonomous subject of the political process, setting the agenda and nominating its representatives to senior positions in the executive branch, including the positions of Prime Minister and President. In contrast, the "party of power" does not have complete political independence, being a product and instrument of the executive branch.

A characteristic feature of the "parties of power" in the post-Soviet space is their close connection with the political elite, which often plays a crucial role in their creation. An important feature of the dominant party is that the real opposition to it arises not so much from other parties as from within the party itself. It includes oligarchic groups whose interests may conflict at some point. The result is the periodic occurrence of internal party struggles, leading to factionalization.

The dominant party, having significant political weight and resources, has a significant impact on the formation of the political space. Its actions set the agenda, set the rules of the game, and shape political institutions, thereby transforming the very nature of political competition. It is important to emphasize that such dominance is often positive. In stable democracies, a strong party can contribute to effective decision-making and the implementation of long-term projects. However, excessive concentration of power in the hands of one party can lead to a restriction of pluralism of opinions and a weakening of democratic institutions. Therefore, effective checks and balances, as well as the active participation of civil society, are needed to maintain balance and ensure healthy political competition.