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.
AbediASchneiderS (2010) Big fish in small ponds: A comparison of dominant parties in Canadian provinces and German Länder. In: BogaardsMBoucekF (eds) Dominant Political Parties and Democracy: Concepts, Measures, Cases, and Comparisons. London: Routledge, pp. 77–97.
2.
ArriolaL (2012) Multiethnic Coalitions in Africa: Business Financing of Opposition Election Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
ArianABarnesSH (1974) The dominant party system: A neglected model of democratic stability. Journal of Politics36: 592–614.
4.
BarnettMR (1976) The Politics of Cultural Nationalism in South India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BaylyCA (1975) The Local Roots of Indian Politics: Allahabad, 1880–1920. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
6.
BoucekF (2012) Factional Politics: How Dominant Parties Implode or Stabilize. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
7.
ChandraK (2004) Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Headcounts in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
ChhibberPKollmanK (2004) The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
ChhibberPJenseniusFRSuryanarayanP (2014) Party organization and party proliferation in India. Party Politics20: 489–505.
10.
ChhibberPMuraliG (2006) Duvergerian dynamics in the Indian states: Federalism and the number of parties in the state assembly elections. Party Politics12: 5–34.
11.
ChubbJ (1982) Patronage, Power, and Poverty in Southern Italy: A Tale of Two Cities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CoxGW (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
da CostaEPW (1967) The Indian General Elections: The Structure of Indian Voting Intentions: January 1967. New Delhi: Indian Institute of Public Opinion.
14.
DasGuptaA (2015) Why Dominant Parties Decline: Evidence from India’s Green Revolution. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, USA.
15.
Diaz-CayerosAMagaloniB (2001) Party dominance and the logic of electoral design in Mexico’s transition to democracy. Journal of Theoretical Politics13: 271–293.
16.
DiwakarR (2007) Duverger’s Law and the size of the Indian party system. Party Politics13: 539–561.
17.
FerraraFHerronES (2005) Going it alone? Strategic entry under mixed electoral rules. American Journal of Political Science49: 16–31.
18.
FerreeKE (2010) Framing the Race in South Africa: The Political Origins of Racial-Census Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
GandhiJReuterOJ (2013) The incentives for pre-electoral coalitions in non-democratic elections. Democratization20: 137–159.
20.
GolderSN (2006) The Logic of Pre-Election Coalition Formation. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
21.
GreeneKF (2007) Why Dominant Parties Lose: Mexico’s Democratization in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
HasanZ (1998) Quest for Power: Oppositional Movements and Post-Congress Politics in Uttar Pradesh. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
23.
HeathAGlouharovaSHeathO (2005) India: Two-party contests within a multiparty system. In: GallagherMMitchellP (eds) The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 137–56.
24.
KohliA (1990a) From elite activism to democratic consolidation: The rise of reform communism in West Bengal. In: FrankelFRRaoMSA (eds) Dominance and State Power in Modern India: Decline of a Social Order. Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 367–415.
25.
KohliA (1990b) Democracy and Discontent: India’s Growing Crisis of Governability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
KothariR (1964) The congress “system” in India. Asian Survey4: 1161–1173.
27.
LeviteATarrowS (1983) The legitimation of excluded parties in dominant party systems: A comparison of Israel and Italy. Comparative Politics15: 295–327.
28.
MagaloniB (2006) Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
NikolenyiC (2008) Recognition rules, party labels and the number of parties in India. Party Politics14: 211–222.
30.
PempelTJ (1990) Introduction. In: PempelTJ (ed.) Uncommon Democracies: The One-Party Dominant Regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 1–32.
31.
PontussonJ (1990) Conditions of labor-party dominance: Sweden and Britain compared. In: PempelTJ (ed.) Uncommon Democracies: The One-Party Dominant Regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 58–82.
32.
RikerWH (1976) The number of political parties: A reexamination of Duverger’s Law. Comparative Politics9: 93–106.
33.
RudolphSHRudolphLI (2008) Congress learns to lose: From a one-party dominant to a multiparty system in India. In: FriedmanEWongJ (eds) Political Transitions in Dominant Party Systems: Learning to Lose. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 15–41.
34.
ScheinerE (2006) Democracy without Competition in Japan: Opposition Failure in a One-Party Dominant State. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
SissonR (1972) The Congress Party in Rajasthan: Political Integration and Institution Building in an Indian State. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
36.
SharmaBK (1989) Political Instability in India. New Delhi: Mittal Publications.
37.
SubramanianN (1999) Ethnicity and Populist Mobilization: Political Parties, Citizens, and Democracy in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
38.
SlaterD (2010) Ordering Power: Contentious Politics and Authoritarian Leviathans in Southeast Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39.
TudorM (2013) The Promise of Power: The Origins of Democracy in India and Autocracy in Pakistan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
WahmanM (2011) Offices and policies—Why do oppositional parties form pre-electoral coalitions in competitive authoritarian regimes?Electoral Studies30: 642–657.
41.
WeinerM (1967) Party Building in a New Nation: The Indian National Congress. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
42.
WyattA (2010) Party System Change in South India: Political Entrepreneurs, Patterns, and Processes. Abingdon: Routledge.
43.
ZiegfeldA (2012) Coalition government and party system change: Explaining the rise of regional parties in India. Comparative Politics45: 69–87.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
