What explains the electoral dominance of a single party over a prolonged period of time in a democracy? Focusing on the case of India’s former dominant party, the Indian National Congress, this article argues that authoritarian-era politics can influence the likelihood of single-party dominance after democratization. More specifically, the axes of political contestation in the authoritarian era interact with the process of democratization to shape democratic-era party systems. When the authoritarian era’s primary socio-political division becomes irrelevant because the democratization process roundly discredits one side of the division, the resulting party system in the democratic period is likely to feature a single major party and a host of small, disorganized, and inexperienced parties. Such asymmetric party competition is particularly likely to produce a dominant party. This explanation not only accounts for the fragmented nature of the opposition in early post-independence India, which was central to sustaining single-party dominance, but it can also potentially shed light on single-party dominance (or its absence) elsewhere in the world.

是什么解释了民主政体长期以来一个政党的选举优势？本文着眼于印度前执政党印度国民议会的情况，认为独裁时代的政治可以影响民主化后单党统治的可能性。更具体地说，威权时代的政治竞争轴心与民主化的过程相互作用，从而形成了民主时代的政党体系。当专制时代的主要社会政治分裂由于民主化进程完全歧视分裂的一面而变得无关紧要时，在民主时期所形成的政党体系很可能以一个单一的主要政党和许多小型的，无组织的，缺乏经验的政党为特征。这种不对称的政党竞争特别有可能产生主导政党。这种解释不仅解释了印度独立后早期反对派的支离破碎性质，这对维持单党主导地位至关重要，而且还可能揭示世界其他地方的单党主导地位（或不存在）。 。