Page 19 - Constitutional Model for a Democratic South Africa By Prof Vuyisle Dlova

One-party or multi-party democracy

Finally we come to the question as to whether the constitution of Azania/South Africa should
authorize the existence of only one-political party or whether it should guarantee freedom of
association in the wider sense, that is, to include the right to form political parties.

Again here our pre-occupation is not to establish the moral issue as to whether one-party
democracy is a bad or a good thing. It is also not to answer the more philosophical question
as to whether it does measure to the democratic ideal. The question or pre-occupation here
is a simple one, namely, given the political, social and other factors existing in South Africa, is
the one-party state the path that could lead to development in conditions of peace, freedom
and stability.

The reasons that have been given for embarking on the path of one-party state include the
argument that the task of development necessitates undivided loyalty, unity, and obedience,
23
and discipline so as to get on with the manifold task of nation building. In the case of
Tanzania, it seems, there was an additional reason, that of increasing participation, which in
the view of the leaders of the country, would be stifled by multi-party structures in a country
which for all intents had become a one-party state.

The dilemma of one-party democracy entails at least two important questions for the “chosen
party of people” . The first is whether the party should be a mass party, virtually open to
everybody who accepts to adhere to its ideas, or whether it should belong to the “advanced
guard” of the class or classess whose interests it purports to represent – i.e. an elite party
open to the initiated only.

The second dilemma, arising only if the mass party option is adopted, is whether the party
should be open to virtually everybody even if he/she does not adhere to its objectives. As the
Tanzanian Commission on one-party State found, correctly, if the answer to the second
question would be in the affirmative then the party would be synonymous with the nation. The
Commission in the case of Tanzania opted to exclude from the party those who did not
24
adhere to its principles. As it can be readily seen, the elite party excludes even those who
wish to be members who however do not meet the grade according to the party criteria; the
mass party excludes only those who do not adhere to its principles. However both types of
parties are based on intolerance of beliefs other than those of the chosen party.

Almost all societies have however gone through stages of intolerance of other views or
viewpoints. Perhaps it can be argued with some force that the African society is going
through this undesirable but none-the-less necessary stage, if one-party state had in practice
demonstrated that it does bring unity and not just reluctant acquiescence, or that it ensured
structures that make the sole party accountable to its membership and the nation, or that
there is indeed a connection between one-party structures and development. Sadly such
25
evidence is difficult to come by. But even if the evidence of success of one-party structures
abound elsewhere we would still have to answer the question posed in this section, namely,
whether it would suit the realities of South Africa today.