In this specific case, there is a long history of suggested alternatives getting buried in the middles/ends of journal articles on "problems" and having to be exegeted like Plato's "true" views on justice.
Separate from the need/non-need, the developments Lee wrote about created a chill in the academy and caused any offer of alternatives to be seen as “advocacy.”
The analogous situation in medicine might be punishing a physician for writing an op-ed saying people should consider quitting cigs.
What if, and stick with me, I told you our entire public participation model at the local level has been broken since forever, and this is just another manifestation of it?
I also want to very clearly separate myself from the cause of "pushing" for a multiparty system. I think too many people see "more parties" and assume I'm making (made) the same normative argument as Lee. I'm not (didn't).
I think there is a rational and dispassionate explanation of the academic/practitioner gap on this issue, but that is for another day.