HOME WEB NEWS IMAGES CLASSIFIEDS YELLOW PAGESPOLLS - SURVEYS WIKI COUNTRIES PHOTOS US UK INDIA
Cities Stocks Weather Movies Coupons Travel Blogs Health Horoscope Maps ASIA EUROPE Classifieds Yellow Pages
 tobacco documents, Tobacco control, american lung, smoke free | ||
|
SCHOLARSHIP – scholarship, nursing scholarship - Shopping | ||
|
Publix supermarket - Shopping | ||
 1
|
Consociationalism is a form of government involving guaranteed group representation, and is often suggested for managing conflict in deeply divided societies.
Consociationalism was discussed in academic terms by the political scientist Arend Lijphart. However, Lijphart has stated that he had "merely discovered what political practitioners had repeatedly – and independently of both academic experts and one another – invented years earlier".Arend Lijphart (2004) \'Constitutional design for divided societies\', Journal of Democracy 15(2), pp. 96-109, p. 97 John McGarry and Brendan O\'Leary trace consociationalism back to 1917, when it was first employed in the Netherlands.John McGarry and Brendan O’Leary (1993) ‘Introduction: The macro-political regulation of ethnic conflict’, in John McGarry and Brendan O’Leary (eds.) The Politics of Ethnic Conflict Regulation: Case Studies of Protracted Ethnic Conflicts, London: Routledge, pp. 1-40 Indeed, Lijphart draws heavily on the experience of the Netherlands in developing his argument in favour of the consociational approach to ethnic conflict regulation. The Netherlands, as a consociational state, was between 1857 and 1967 divided into four non-territorial pillars: Calvinist, Catholic, socialist and liberal (although until 1917 there was a first past the post electoral system rather than a consociational one). In their heyday, each comprised tightly-organised groups, schools, universities, hospitals and newspapers, all divided along a pillarised social structure. The theory, according to Lijphart, focuses on the role of social elites, their agreement and co-operation, as the key to a stable democracy.
The goals of consociationalism are governmental stability, the survival of the power-sharing arrangements, the survival of democracy and the avoidance of violence. When consociationalism is organised along religious confessional lines, it is known as confessionalism, as is the case in Lebanon.
Contents |
Lijphart identifies four key characteristics of consociational democracies:Arend Lijphart (1977) Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
Lijphart also identifies a number of \'favourable conditions\' under which consociationalism is likely to be successful:
In a consociational state, all groups, including minorities, are represented on the political and economic stage. Supporters of consociationalism argue that it is a more realistic option in deeply divided societies than integrationist approaches to conflict resolution.John McGarry and Brendan O\'Leary (2006) \'Consociational theory, Northern Ireland\'s conflict, and its agreement 2: What critics of consociation can learn from Northern Ireland\', Government and Opposition 41(2), pp. 249-277 It has been credited with supporting successful and non-violent transitions to democracy in countries such as South Africa.[citation needed]
Brian Barry has questioned the nature of the divisions that exist in the countries that Lijphart considers to be \'classic cases\' of consociational democracies. For example, he makes the case that in the Swiss example, "political parties cross-cut cleavages in the society and provide a picture of remarkable consensus rather than highly structured conflict of goals".Brian Barry (1979a) \'Political accommodation and consociational democracy\', British Journal of Political Science 5(4), pp. 477-505, p. 501 In the case of the Netherlands, he argues that "the whole cause of the disagreement was the feeling of some Dutchman...that it mattered what all the inhabitants of the country believed. Demands for policies aimed at producing religious or secular uniformity presuppose a concern...for the state of grace of one’s fellow citizens". He contrasts this to the case of a society marked by conflict, in this case Northern Ireland, where he argues that "the inhabitants…have never shown much worry about the prospects of the adherents of the other religion going to hell".tautological and argues that "the relevance of the \'consociational\' model for other divided societies is much more doubtful than is commonly supposed".Brian Barry (1979a), p. 481
Van Schendelen has argued that Lijphart uses evidence selectively. Pillarisation was "seriously weakening," even in the 1950s, cross-denominational co-operation was increasing, and formerly coherent political sub-cultures were dissolving. He argued that elites in the Netherlands were not motivated by preferences derived from the general interest, but rather by self-interest. They formed coalitions not to forge consociational negotiation between segments but to improve their parties\' respective power. He argued that the Netherlands was "stable" in that it had few protests or riots, but that it was so before consociationalism, and that it was not stable from the standpoint of government turnover. He questioned the extent to which the Netherlands, or indeed any country labelled a consociational system, could be called a democracy, and whether calling a consociational country a democracy isn’t somehow ruled out by definition. He believed that Lijphart suffered severe problems of rigor when identifying whether particular divisions were cleavages, whether particular cleavages were segmental, and whether particular cleavages were cross-cutting.M.C.P.M. van Schendelen (1984) \'The Views of Arend Lijphart and Collected Criticisms\', Acta Politica 19(1), pp. 19-49
Ian Lustick has argued that academics lack an alternative \'control\' approach for explaining stability in deeply divided societies and that this has resulted in the empirical overextension of consociational models.Ian Lustick (1979) \'Stability in deeply divided societies: Consociationalism versus control\', World Politics 31(3), pp. 325-344 Lustick argues that Lijphart has "an impressionistic methodological posture, flexible rules for coding data, and an indefatigable, rhetorically seductive commitment to promoting consociationalism as a widely applicable principle of political engineering"Ian Lustick (1997) \'Lijphart, Lakatos, and consociationalism\', World Politics 50(1), pp. 88-117, p. 117, that results in him applying consociational theory to case studies that it does not fit. Furthermore, Lustick states that "Lijphart\'s definition of \'accommodation\'...includes the elaborately specified claim that issues dividing polarized blocs are settled by leaders convinced of the need for settlement".Ian Lustick (1997), p. 100
Critics point out that consociationalism is dangerous in a system of differing antagonistic ideologies, generally conservatism and communism. They state that specific conditions must exist for three or more groups to develop a multi-party system with strong leaders. This philosophy is dominated by elites, with those masses that are sidelined with the elites having less to lose if war breaks out. Consociationalism cannot be imperially applied. For example, it does not effectively apply to Austria. Critics also point to the failure of this line of reasoning in Lebanon, a country that reverted back to civil war. It only truly applies in Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands, and not in more deeply divided societies. If one of three groups gets half plus one of the vote, then the other groups are in perpetual opposition, which is largely incompatible with consociationalism.
Consociationalism focuses on diverging identities such as ethnicity instead of integrating identities such as class, institutionalizing and entrenching the former. Furthermore, it relies on rival co-operation, which is inherently unstable. It focuses on intra-state relations and neglects relations with other states. Donald Horowitz argues that consociationalism can lead to the reification of ethnic divisions, since "grand coalitions are unlikely, because of the dynamics of intraethnic competition. The very act of forming a multiethnic coalition generates intraethnic competition – flanking – if it does not already exist".Donald Horowitz (1985) Ethnic Groups in Conflict, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, p. 575
Consociationalism assumes that each group is cohesive and has strong leadership. Although the minority can block decisions, this requires 100 per cent agreement. Rights are given to communities rather than individuals, leading to over-representation of some individuals in society and under-representation of others. Grand coalitions are unlikely to happen due to the dynamics of ethnic competition. Each group seeks more power for itself. Consociationalists are criticized for focusing too much on the set up of institutions and not enough on transitional issues which go beyond such institutions. Finally, it is claimed that consociational institutions promote sectarianism and entrench existing identities.
The political systems of a number of countries operate on a consociational basis, including:
Additionally, a number of peace agreements are consociational, including:
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia