Consociational%20democracy

1
Consociational democracy

• Operation and pre-conditions

2
Recap

• Consociational democracy
• A form of consensus democracy
• Parties and elites cooperate
• Typically characterized by
• Power-sharing at the top
• larger than normal coalitions
• Elite accommodation
• Subcultural autonomy
• Key groups have power to regulate their own
  affairs (or at least some of them)

3
Typical characteristics

• Grand or (nearly grand) rather than
  minimum-winning coalitions
• Proportional allocation/sharing out of positions
  policies
• Mutual veto
• Some degree of subcultural autonomy
• sovereignty in their own sphere

4
Cases

• Netherlands
• Belgium
• Austria
• Switzerland
• Lebanon before 1982

5
Netherlands

• Religious and class cleavages
• schools
• suffrage
• social question
• Mobilization of Calvinists, Catholics
  Socialists
• Formation of a segmented or pillarized society
  (19th early 20th c)

6
Pacification Settlement

• All-party settlement, negotiated 1913-1917
• Entrench state support for denominational schools
  in Dutch Constitution
• Universal manhood suffrage from 1918
• Universal suffrage from 1922
• Proportional representation
• Plus requirement to vote
• Entrench proportional allocation

7
From 1918-1960s

• Larger than minimum-winning coalitions
• Divisive issues settled by proportional
  allocation
• Broadcasting as template
• Catholic, Calvinist, Social Democratic and
  Liberal broadcasting organizations share time on
  two radio frequenciez
• Proportional allocation of funds to Catholic,
  Calvinist state (secular) schools
• Proportional allocation to other groups,
  entities e.g. housing corporations,
  organizations providing social welfare

8
Late 1960s beyond

• Challenges to party elites
• De-pillarization
• Regrouping of parties
• Merger of some former subcultural organizations
• Trade Union federations
• Employers associations
• Result Vestiges remain
• A large of parties
• Separate schools
• Delegations of authority to former religious or
  ideologically based organizations
• Netherlands remains a consensus democracy but no
  longer consociational

9
Lijpharts argument

• Netherlands lacked cross-cutting cleavages
• Should have flown apart as a result
• Didnt because
• Elites saw the dangers of conflict
• Compromised instead
• In addition
• Fact of segmentation results in a self-denying
  hypothesis pillars or segments dont clash
  because they dont interact

10
Pre-conditions

• Consociation more likely if
• authoritative elites
• well-defined segments or subcultures
• Mutual balance of power (no one group is
  dominant)
• International pressures encourage cooperation

11
Problems

• Was the Netherlands as divided conflict ridden
  as Lijphart argues?
• Role of ordinary citizens?
• What happens if elites are not authoritative?
• How do elites sell compromises?
• How democratic is consociational democracy?

12
Is consociation a viable solution for deeply
divided societies?

• Application to
• Sri Lanka?
• Cypress?
• Balkans?
• Canada
• The former Czechoslovakia?
• Other solutions?
• How different is consociational democracy?