 |
Debating Consociational Politics: Normative and Explanatory Arguments
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
2
Consociational thinking has a long pedigree. Its lineages may be traced to the sixteenth century Protestant philosopher Johannes Althusius (1557-1638), the early twentieth century Austro-Marxists, Karl Renner and Otto Bauer, and, more recently, the Nobel laureate, Sir Arthur Lewis. It is, however, inescapably associated in our times with Arend Lijphart, its contemporary creator and sculptor, the doyen of comparative politics, and a distinguished past president of the American Political Science Association.
2
Over the past thirty years,
consociational theory has become one of the most influential theories of comparative politics, resulting in a vast and broadly applied literature. Consociational thinking, moreover, has not been restricted to the academy. Politicians have refined, innovated and reinvented consociational institutions and practices in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Northern Ireland, Lebanon, and Macedonia. On occasions, in the guise of “power sharing,”
3
consociation has become the prescribed method of conflict regulation of the “international community” (i.e., the U.S. when it has the support of the European Union and the United Nations). This has been evident in the internationally supported, implemented, and maintained power-sharing agreements in Afghanistan, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Northern Ireland, as well as in prospective power-sharing agreements in Cyprus and Sri Lanka. It may become evident in occupied Iraq. There is, however, no consensus over consociational theory, to put it mildly. Here two axes of disagreement are considered: consociationalists and their critics differ, sometimes radically, over the normative merits of consociation; and consociationalists disagree with their critics, and often with each other, over how consociations are established, maintained, or break down. This article reviews and evaluates these arguments.
4
2
Arend Lijphart, The Politics of Accommodation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968); Arend Lijphart,
“Consociational Democracy,” World Politics 21, no. 2 (1969): 207-25; Arend Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies: A
Comparative Exploration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977); Arend Lijphart, Power-Sharing in South Africa
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).
3
“Power sharing” is not a synonym for consociation because there are other than consociational ways to share power: e.g.,
through federation, intermittent and temporary coalitions, alternating governments, the separation of powers, and through
generally “collegial” institutions (see Randall Collins ‘Democratization From the Outside In: A Geopolitical Theory of
Collegial Power’, in Macro History: Essays in Sociology of the Long Run (Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 1999,
pp. 110-151). Each of the types of power sharing listed above can be deployed in consociational formats. What makes
consociational power sharing distinctive is that it mandates power sharing across communities through formulae of
proportionality and autonomy.
4
For further discussion, see Brendan O’Leary, Consociation (forthcoming); John McGarry and Brendan O’Leary, Essays on
the Northern Ireland Conflict: Consociational Engagements (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, in press).
|
| | Authors: O'Leary, Brendan. |
|
| |
|
|
2
Consociational thinking has a long pedigree. Its lineages may be traced to the sixteenth
century Protestant philosopher Johannes Althusius (1557-1638), the early twentieth century
Austro-Marxists, Karl Renner and Otto Bauer, and, more recently, the Nobel laureate, Sir
Arthur Lewis. It is, however, inescapably associated in our times with Arend Lijphart, its
contemporary creator and sculptor, the doyen of comparative politics, and a distinguished
past president of the American Political Science Association.
2
Over the past thirty years,
consociational theory has become one of the most influential theories of comparative politics,
resulting in a vast and broadly applied literature. Consociational thinking, moreover, has not
been restricted to the academy. Politicians have refined, innovated and reinvented
consociational institutions and practices in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland,
Northern Ireland, Lebanon, and Macedonia. On occasions, in the guise of “power sharing,”
3
consociation has become the prescribed method of conflict regulation of the “international
community” (i.e., the U.S. when it has the support of the European Union and the United
Nations). This has been evident in the internationally supported, implemented, and
maintained power-sharing agreements in Afghanistan, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and
Northern Ireland, as well as in prospective power-sharing agreements in Cyprus and Sri
Lanka. It may become evident in occupied Iraq. There is, however, no consensus over
consociational theory, to put it mildly. Here two axes of disagreement are considered:
consociationalists and their critics differ, sometimes radically, over the normative merits of
consociation; and consociationalists disagree with their critics, and often with each other,
over how consociations are established, maintained, or break down. This article reviews and
evaluates these arguments.
4
2
Arend Lijphart, The Politics of Accommodation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968); Arend Lijphart,
“Consociational Democracy,” World Politics 21, no. 2 (1969): 207-25; Arend Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies: A
Comparative Exploration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977); Arend Lijphart, Power-Sharing in South Africa
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).
3
“Power sharing” is not a synonym for consociation because there are other than consociational ways to share power: e.g.,
through federation, intermittent and temporary coalitions, alternating governments, the separation of powers, and through
generally “collegial” institutions (see Randall Collins ‘Democratization From the Outside In: A Geopolitical Theory of
Collegial Power’, in Macro History: Essays in Sociology of the Long Run (Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 1999,
pp. 110-151). Each of the types of power sharing listed above can be deployed in consociational formats. What makes
consociational power sharing distinctive is that it mandates power sharing across communities through formulae of
proportionality and autonomy.
4
For further discussion, see Brendan O’Leary, Consociation (forthcoming); John McGarry and Brendan O’Leary, Essays on
the Northern Ireland Conflict: Consociational Engagements (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, in press).
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
