Ismail
16th September 2017, 20:17
This is something I wrote a little while back. I figure I'd post it here since it's in part history-related.
-----
Once in a while I get asked a question along the lines of "why does China/the DPRK have other parties?" Those more historically-inclined ask me the same question about the GDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria, which also had multiple parties (as did Vietnam until 1988.)
Shortly after the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks had entered into a coalition with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, a peasant-based party that declared its support for soviet power. However, this coalition quickly broke down as the Left SRs resorted to terrorism against the government (see: http://unz.org/Pub/MarxismToday-1969apr-00106) while other parties opposed all power to the soviets to begin with. Numerous Mensheviks and Left SRs ended up abandoning their parties to join the Bolsheviks. No law was passed formally establishing a one-party system, it just came about naturally as the other parties discredited themselves.
In Eastern and Central Europe during World War II anti-fascist fronts were formed by the Communists with other parties. After the war these fronts continued to exist to unite as much of the population as possible around the tasks of economic rehabilitation and socialist construction. A similar process occurred in China, the DPRK and Vietnam.
Mao said in 1956 that, "We have purposely let the democratic parties remain, giving them opportunities to express their views and adopting a policy of both unity and struggle towards them. We unite with all those democratic personages who offer us well-intentioned criticisms." He argued that through a policy of education and persuasion (as well as a struggle against rightists within them), these parties would help contribute to the construction of socialism under the leadership of the Communist Party and their members would eventually come to recognize the correctness of Marxism-Leninism. These arguments were used in the other multi-party socialist countries as well.
Where Social-Democratic parties existed, the Communists argued that it was necessary to unite the workers under a single party, and thus both would merge on the basis of Marxism-Leninism. Otherwise, parties representing the interests of other classes and strata of society were allowed to remain so long as they accepted the vanguard role of the Communist Party in the state and society and assisted in building and improving socialism. In countries where that didn't pan out (Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Albania) there was simply a single-party system.
As you can probably guess, these were/are not opposition parties, as there is no place for these under socialism. These other parties represent specific sections of the population, accept the existence of the socialist system, and give suggestions and criticisms on behalf of those they represent. In elections they work with the Communists to agree on candidates to put forward at election meetings for approval or disapproval by citizens. Having multiple parties is not inherently "more democratic" than having a single party, it's simply a question of objective conditions that determine whether other parties exist or not.
Here are two examples of the sort of influence exerted by the Christian Democratic Union in the GDR, from an interview of its leader (Gerald Götting) by an American journalist:
As you perhaps know, the GDR is the only socialist state with a provision to defer conscientious objectors from military service. This is a direct result of our efforts. Our pastors and bishops became concerned when conscription was reinstituted several years ago. We decided to approach the government through the vehicle of our party to secure a provision covering conscientious objectors. I personally raised the matter with my colleagues in the Council of State. Mr. Ulbricht and the leadership of the SED, as well as the other parties, admitted they had a good case, and so the statute was rewritten. The change was the result of compromise and conciliation within the governmental structure, not from parliamentary opposition in the liberal-bourgeois sense. . . .
When the question of [switching to] the five-day [work] week arose, there was a question of religious holidays. Some in the government wanted to abolish all of them; the bishops wanted to retain them all. I helped engineer a compromise whereby we will continue to observe Pentecost, Good Friday, Holy Eve, Christmas and the day after. Easter comes on Sunday regardless. We gave up Easter Monday, Busstag, Ascension and Reformation Day. Neither the bishops nor the SED is completely happy, but I think it will be a viable solution. After all, we could not oppose a five-day week.
(Source: Smith, Jean Edward. Germany Beyond the Wall. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 1969. p. 18.)
If there's any questions about this system or its application in specific countries, feel free to ask.
-----
Once in a while I get asked a question along the lines of "why does China/the DPRK have other parties?" Those more historically-inclined ask me the same question about the GDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria, which also had multiple parties (as did Vietnam until 1988.)
Shortly after the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks had entered into a coalition with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, a peasant-based party that declared its support for soviet power. However, this coalition quickly broke down as the Left SRs resorted to terrorism against the government (see: http://unz.org/Pub/MarxismToday-1969apr-00106) while other parties opposed all power to the soviets to begin with. Numerous Mensheviks and Left SRs ended up abandoning their parties to join the Bolsheviks. No law was passed formally establishing a one-party system, it just came about naturally as the other parties discredited themselves.
In Eastern and Central Europe during World War II anti-fascist fronts were formed by the Communists with other parties. After the war these fronts continued to exist to unite as much of the population as possible around the tasks of economic rehabilitation and socialist construction. A similar process occurred in China, the DPRK and Vietnam.
Mao said in 1956 that, "We have purposely let the democratic parties remain, giving them opportunities to express their views and adopting a policy of both unity and struggle towards them. We unite with all those democratic personages who offer us well-intentioned criticisms." He argued that through a policy of education and persuasion (as well as a struggle against rightists within them), these parties would help contribute to the construction of socialism under the leadership of the Communist Party and their members would eventually come to recognize the correctness of Marxism-Leninism. These arguments were used in the other multi-party socialist countries as well.
Where Social-Democratic parties existed, the Communists argued that it was necessary to unite the workers under a single party, and thus both would merge on the basis of Marxism-Leninism. Otherwise, parties representing the interests of other classes and strata of society were allowed to remain so long as they accepted the vanguard role of the Communist Party in the state and society and assisted in building and improving socialism. In countries where that didn't pan out (Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Albania) there was simply a single-party system.
As you can probably guess, these were/are not opposition parties, as there is no place for these under socialism. These other parties represent specific sections of the population, accept the existence of the socialist system, and give suggestions and criticisms on behalf of those they represent. In elections they work with the Communists to agree on candidates to put forward at election meetings for approval or disapproval by citizens. Having multiple parties is not inherently "more democratic" than having a single party, it's simply a question of objective conditions that determine whether other parties exist or not.
Here are two examples of the sort of influence exerted by the Christian Democratic Union in the GDR, from an interview of its leader (Gerald Götting) by an American journalist:
As you perhaps know, the GDR is the only socialist state with a provision to defer conscientious objectors from military service. This is a direct result of our efforts. Our pastors and bishops became concerned when conscription was reinstituted several years ago. We decided to approach the government through the vehicle of our party to secure a provision covering conscientious objectors. I personally raised the matter with my colleagues in the Council of State. Mr. Ulbricht and the leadership of the SED, as well as the other parties, admitted they had a good case, and so the statute was rewritten. The change was the result of compromise and conciliation within the governmental structure, not from parliamentary opposition in the liberal-bourgeois sense. . . .
When the question of [switching to] the five-day [work] week arose, there was a question of religious holidays. Some in the government wanted to abolish all of them; the bishops wanted to retain them all. I helped engineer a compromise whereby we will continue to observe Pentecost, Good Friday, Holy Eve, Christmas and the day after. Easter comes on Sunday regardless. We gave up Easter Monday, Busstag, Ascension and Reformation Day. Neither the bishops nor the SED is completely happy, but I think it will be a viable solution. After all, we could not oppose a five-day week.
(Source: Smith, Jean Edward. Germany Beyond the Wall. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 1969. p. 18.)
If there's any questions about this system or its application in specific countries, feel free to ask.