The ability of cross-sectional political groups to aggregate issues into coherent, across-the-board ideological packages linked to the needs of major social categories has diminished. A vacuum has been created, and it’s been filled by single-issue politics fragments.
This is frequently expressed by a preoccupation with the specific problem to the neglect of all others, an intensity of feeling about the subject. Because single issue politics are so often based on moral convictions, compromise is frequently avoided.
Single-issue politics include abortion, the debate about hunting with dogs and animal rights issues in general, and the treatment of sufferers from particular illnesses. Single-issue pressure organizations are frequently concerned with issues like this. This form of politics has several negative consequences for the whole polity. Advocates of single issues are frequently able to obtain media attention for an apparently well‐argued argument for more resources or new rules.
In order to balance these demands against others that are equally well-founded, within the restrictions of limited resources and legislative time, decision-makers must make difficult choices. Single-issue politics can distort the whole policy process, which is based on evidence and arguments that are judged according to their contribution towards achieving defined goals or objectives.
Actually many people think that when an issue is a moral issue, it overrides all political concerns.
The Communist Model
In communist countries of the 20th century, the party was considered to be the spearhead of the urban working class and of other workers united with it (peasants, Intellectuals, etc.).
In Marxist theory, the power of the state is used to benefit the interests of controlling capitalists in countries with a capitalist economy based on private ownership of production. The power of the state is shattered during the first stage of the revolution.
As a result, the party assumes the state’s coercive powers during the dictatorship of the proletariat or, to be more precise, during the dictatorship of the party in name of the proletariat.
Leaders were thus regularly “listening in on the people,” and the people were always informed about party actions as long as the communication network was operative in both directions.
In the old-fashioned communist system, then, not the formal state hierarchy, has real power. The first secretary of the party is the regime’s most crucial figure, and, whether the leadership of the party is held by one person or a number of people, it remains the center of political power. This paradigm is witnessed in China.
Democratic ideas were emphasized in some countries, and constitutional modifications dissolved the party’s official control, allowing for a multiparty system.
However, truly competitive parties did not emerge until after the fall of communism in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe.
The Fascist Model
Fascist parties in a single-party state have never played as important a role as communist parties in an analogous situation.
In Italy, the Fascist Party was rarely the most important element in the government, and its impact was frequently secondary.
The National Socialist Party had a significant impact on the German state only in Germany. The fascist party in the single-party state has a policing or military function rather than an ideological one.
After coming to power, the fascist parties in both Germany and Italy gradually lost their role of maintaining contact between the people and the government, a function that is usually handled by the party in a one-party system. The party was often characterized as a closed system.
In less-developed nations, the communist parties that took power did not differ significantly from their counterparts in more developed countries.
However, there have always been nations in which the single ruling party could not be categorized as a European standard. This is true of the Arab Socialist Union in Egypt and the Democratic Constitutional Rally (formerly the Neo-Destour Party) throughout its reign as Tunisia’s dominant political party (1956–2011).
Communist parties, on the other hand, are more well-organized than single-party groups in less developed nations. In Turkey, the Republican People’s Party was more of a cadre organization rather than a mass-based one. In Egypt, it was necessary to establish a core of professional politicians within the framework of a mass movement’s pseudo party.
Single-party systems can create dictatorships that would otherwise go extinct with the death of a single ruler.
Future of Political Parties
It’s been claimed that political parties are in a state of decline in the West before.
This is actually a long-held view in some conservative circles, which stems largely from a latent animosity to parties, which are seen as a divisive force among the people, posing a risk to national unity, and enticing corruption, and demagoguery.
To be sure, the major contemporary European and American parties appear outdated and rigid in comparison with their state at the turn of the century or around World War I.
In the early 21st century, parties were found almost everywhere on earth. In Europe and North America, more people belonged to parties than previously in the late 1800s. Parties of today are bigger, stronger, and more organized than those of a century ago.
This is a problem that affects everyone who works for or belongs to a major organization, such as a political party, business company, corporation, or union.
However, political parties are essential to the functioning of a great industrialized country’s democracy. In today’s world, democracy and political parties are two sides of the same coin: the inside and outside of the same fabric.
