From the November 2005 IBDP History Paper 2 exam
The assertion that a multiparty state represented the ideal form of government for the twentieth century is one that invites a thorough examination of the political landscape of the era. The twentieth century was a period of profound political change, marked by the rise and fall of various forms of government, from totalitarian regimes to liberal democracies. However, the claim that a multiparty system was the ideal form of government during this period is one that warrants a critical evaluation.
The first argument against the assertion lies in the inherent instability often associated with multiparty systems. The twentieth century witnessed numerous instances where multiparty states descended into political chaos, as the presence of multiple parties led to a fragmentation of the political landscape. Huntington's analysis of political order in changing societies provides a compelling argument against the idealisation of multiparty systems. He posits that political stability is not necessarily a product of the number of parties in a system, but rather the institutionalisation of these parties and the political system as a whole. In the context of the twentieth century, many newly independent nations adopted multiparty systems in an attempt to establish democratic governance. However, the lack of established political institutions often led to instability and conflict. For instance, the multiparty system in Nigeria after its independence in 1960 resulted in a series of military coups and a devastating civil war. Similarly, the multiparty democracy in Weimar Germany led to political fragmentation and paved the way for the rise of Hitler's totalitarian regime. These examples illustrate that the presence of multiple parties does not necessarily lead to political stability or democratic governance. Huntington's argument is further supported by the experiences of countries like Singapore and Malaysia, which, despite having a dominant party system, have achieved significant economic progress and political stability. In these cases, the stability of the political system and the effectiveness of governance were not undermined by the lack of a multiparty system. Instead, the dominant parties in these countries were able to maintain political order and drive economic development, challenging the notion that a multiparty system is the ideal form of government.
It is important to consider the role of multiparty systems in the context of the Cold War. The ideological battle between the United States and the Soviet Union during the second half of the twentieth century significantly influenced the political systems of many countries. The bipolar nature of the Cold War often forced countries to align with one of the two superpowers, leading to the establishment of either capitalist or socialist political systems. In this context, the assertion that a multiparty system was the ideal form of government becomes even more contentious. As Linz and Stepan argue, the bipolar nature of the Cold War often led to the establishment of single-party systems, particularly in countries within the Soviet sphere of influence. These single-party systems, while not democratic, were often stable and were able to maintain political order. Moreover, the Cold War also saw the emergence of non-aligned countries that sought to maintain their independence from both superpowers. Many of these countries, such as India and Yugoslavia, adopted multiparty systems. However, the political stability and economic development of these countries varied significantly, further challenging the notion that a multiparty system was the ideal form of government during the twentieth century. In addition, the end of the Cold War did not necessarily lead to the establishment of successful multiparty systems. As Fukuyama points out, the "end of history" did not result in the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as a form of government. Instead, many post-communist countries struggled to establish stable multiparty systems, and some even reverted to authoritarian rule. In conclusion, the assertion that a multiparty system was the ideal form of government for the twentieth century is not supported by the historical evidence. The experiences of various countries during this period demonstrate that political stability and effective governance are not necessarily the products of a multiparty system. Instead, these outcomes are more closely related to the institutionalisation of political systems and the specific historical and cultural contexts of individual countries.
The second argument against the assertion that a multiparty state was the ideal form of government for the twentieth century is the potential for policy paralysis. Sartori's work on the influence of party systems on government stability and efficiency provides a useful framework for this discussion. He argues that while a multiparty system can enhance representation, it can also lead to a fragmentation of the political landscape, making it difficult to form stable governments and implement policies effectively. The Italian political system in the latter half of the twentieth century serves as a case in point. Despite being a multiparty democracy, Italy experienced frequent changes in government, with an average government lifespan of less than a year between 1945 and 1992. This political instability often resulted in policy paralysis, as governments were unable to implement long-term policies due to their short lifespan and the need to maintain a broad coalition of parties. Sartori's argument is further supported by the experiences of countries like Belgium and Israel, where the multiparty system has often led to protracted negotiations to form coalition governments. In some cases, these negotiations have resulted in political deadlock and the inability to form a government, as was the case in Belgium in 2010-2011 and in Israel in 2019-2020. These examples illustrate that a multiparty system can lead to policy paralysis and political instability, challenging the assertion that it is the ideal form of government.
The multiparty system, while fostering a diversity of voices and promoting democratic values, can also lead to a diffusion of responsibility. This diffusion can hinder decisive action and effective governance. The case of India, the world's largest democracy, provides a pertinent example. Despite its vibrant multiparty system, India has often struggled with policy implementation due to the need for consensus among a diverse array of political parties. This has led to delays in economic reforms and infrastructure projects, impacting the country's development trajectory. Moreover, the multiparty system can also exacerbate social divisions. Lijphart's analysis of consociational democracy highlights how multiparty systems in divided societies can reinforce rather than mitigate social cleavages. In countries with deep ethnic, religious, or linguistic divisions, the existence of multiple parties can lead to the politicisation of these divisions, potentially leading to conflict. The experiences of countries like Lebanon and Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the multiparty system has often been a reflection of societal divisions rather than a means of managing them, support Lijphart's argument. In contrast, some countries with a dominant party system or a two-party system have been able to maintain political stability and implement policies effectively. The experiences of countries like China and Singapore, which have achieved significant economic progress despite the lack of a multiparty system, challenge the assertion that a multiparty system is the ideal form of government.
In the context of the twentieth century, the multiparty system, while fostering a diversity of voices and promoting democratic values, can also lead to a diffusion of responsibility. This diffusion can hinder decisive action and effective governance. The case of India, the world's largest democracy, provides a pertinent example. Despite its vibrant multiparty system, India has often struggled with policy implementation due to the need for consensus among a diverse array of political parties. This has led to delays in economic reforms and infrastructure projects, impacting the country's development trajectory. Moreover, the multiparty system can also exacerbate social divisions. Lijphart's analysis of consociational democracy highlights how multiparty systems in divided societies can reinforce rather than mitigate social cleavages. In countries with deep ethnic, religious, or linguistic divisions, the existence of multiple parties can lead to the politicisation of these divisions, potentially leading to conflict. The experiences of countries like Lebanon and Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the multiparty system has often been a reflection of societal divisions rather than a means of managing them, support Lijphart's argument. In contrast, some countries with a dominant party system or a two-party system have been able to maintain political stability and implement policies effectively. The experiences of countries like China and Singapore, which have achieved significant economic progress despite the lack of a multiparty system, challenge the assertion that a multiparty system is the ideal form of government. This section has reached its word limit.
the multiparty system can also lead to a lack of accountability. With multiple parties sharing power, it can be difficult for voters to attribute responsibility for policy outcomes. This can undermine the democratic principle of accountability, as voters may not be able to hold the government to account effectively. The case of Italy, with its frequent changes in government and complex coalitions, illustrates this issue. With so many parties involved in governing, it can be challenging for voters to determine which party is responsible for specific policy outcomes. This can lead to voter apathy and cynicism, undermining the democratic process. Moreover, the multiparty system can also lead to short-termism in policy making. Governments in multiparty systems, particularly those dependent on coalition partners, may prioritise short-term policy gains to maintain their position, at the expense of long-term strategic planning. This can hinder the effective governance and development of a country. In contrast, countries with a dominant party system or a two-party system, such as China or the United States, have been able to pursue long-term strategic policies. This ability to plan and implement long-term policies is a crucial aspect of effective governance, challenging the assertion that a multiparty system is the ideal form of government.
Moreover, the multiparty system can also lead to a focus on partisan interests over national interests. With multiple parties representing different constituencies and interest groups, policy making can become a process of negotiation and compromise among parties, rather than a focus on the national interest. This can lead to policy outcomes that favour specific interest groups, rather than the broader population. In contrast, countries with a dominant party system or a two-party system, such as China or the United States, have been able to pursue policies that, while not without criticism, have often been aimed at national development and progress. This ability to focus on the national interest is a crucial aspect of effective governance, challenging the assertion that a multiparty system is the ideal form of government. In light of these arguments, it becomes clear that the assertion that a multiparty system was the ideal form of government for the twentieth century is not supported by the historical evidence. The experiences of various countries during this period demonstrate that political stability, effective governance, and policy continuity are not necessarily the products of a multiparty system.
The assertion that the multiparty state was the ideal form of government for the twentieth century is not substantiated by the historical evidence. The inherent instability often associated with multiparty systems, the potential for policy paralysis, and the diffusion of responsibility that can hinder decisive action and effective governance all challenge this assertion. The experiences of various countries during the twentieth century, from Nigeria and Weimar Germany to Italy and India, illustrate the complexities and challenges associated with multiparty systems. Moreover, the multiparty system can exacerbate social divisions, lead to a lack of accountability, and result in short-termism in policy making. The experiences of countries like Lebanon, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Italy demonstrate these issues. In contrast, some countries with a dominant party system or a two-party system, such as China, Singapore, and the United States, have been able to maintain political stability, implement policies effectively, and pursue long-term strategic policies. In conclusion, while a multiparty system can enhance representation and promote democratic values, it is not necessarily the ideal form of government. The effectiveness of a political system depends on a variety of factors, including the institutionalisation of political systems, the specific historical and cultural contexts of individual countries, and the ability to maintain political stability and implement policies effectively. Therefore, the assertion that a multiparty state was the ideal form of government for the twentieth century is not supported by the historical evidence.
