independence. Consequently, considerable effort has been made to uncover
convincing explanations for what was often regarded as deviations from the
normal developmental path.
First, it has been argued that an ‘aura of nationalist legitimacy’ achieved
by a single nationalist organization at the moment of independence as a
result of being seen as the victor over imperialism led to overwhelming
electoral support (Kilson, 1963, p. 266). Such an achievement was taken
as evidence that the organization could continue to reflect the common
interests of all sections of society. Popular support then enabled the domi-
nant party to make it unlawful for other parties to exist so that a single-party
state is established de jureas well as de facto. Not all single-party regimes
outlaw other parties, but when they do not it has been very common for
them to put obstacles other than the law in the way of effectively organized
opposition. Gaining control of the mass media has proved one of the most
effective ways of making it difficult for opposition parties to function.
Secondly, the single party tendency was said to reflect the autocratic
form of government which was the new state’s inheritance both from colo-
nialism and traditional government. Pluralism and multi-party democracy
are not inherited from the past. Rather, autocracy is the dominant aspect of
political history. Coleman and Rosberg (1964) argued that the situation that
party leaders confronted at independence had been formed by the autocratic
power of the departing colonialists, a culture supported by, in the case of
African societies at least, elements that were predisposed towards more
authoritarian forms of government. Multi-party democracy was too alien
an importation for it to survive in the local political culture, traditions and
history. Perceptions of tradition and what was appropriate for society
combined with the colonial legacy such as a centralized administrative
apparatus, paternalism and electoral systems, giving unfettered control to a
party that has not necessarily gained a plurality of the votes. Where the
legacy was different a plurality of parties stood a better chance of survival
(Randall, 1988).
Thirdly, the political culture of the new indigenous leadership was élitist–
government was believed to possess a monopoly of wisdom and legitimacy.
Since there were few if any other social or political organizations that could
compete with the concentration of professional knowledge that existed
within government it was difficult to dispute this claim.
Fourthly, the leadership culture was also statist. The state was regarded as
the modernizer and agent of development. Multi-party democracy was often
perceived as a luxury that could not be afforded. The immense problems
confronting the governments of new states meant that discontinuities in the
Political Parties and Party Systems 143