A legislature elected by a simple majority of the voters governs, and voters throw the ruling party out if it governs poorly. The first, majoritarian or westminster democracy, is what most people immediate think of when they think of democracy. The theory was extended as new consociational democracies were and less on the operationalizations provided by its most important theorist, arend lijphart. In patterns of democracy he repeats this familiar yet important theme. In this updated and expanded edition of his classic text, arend lijphart offers a broader and deeper analysis of worldwide democratic institutions than ever before. Lijpharts distinction between consensus and majoritarian democracy is the single most influential typology of modern democracies. Helds new book on models of democracy is itself a model of its kind. Arend lijpharts seminal consensus model of democracy does not only try to explain how democracy actually works. In recent decades, some attempts have been made to empirically assess different models of democracy in action by identifying and measuring various indicators. Ucds role has to be understood in the context of the transition to democracy, not in the context of political accommodation in an ethnoplural society. The consensus model is characterized by non concentration of power, which can take the two basic forms of sharing of power and division of power. Summary of lijphart s methodology, results, and core claims in patterns of democracy, lijphart classifies democracies on a scale ranging from pure majoritarian democracy using the uk and pre1997 new zealand as ideal examples. Explaining the nature of models held maintains, models of democracy involve necessarily a shifting balance between descriptive, explanatory and normative statements.
Pdf consociational democracy in theory and practice. Government forms and performance in thirtysix countries, by arend lijphart. Pdf abstract consociational democracy as the goal and a tool in mitigating consociational democracy, arend lijphart, grand coalition, mutual veto, pro. Lijphart revisited patterns of democracy is not an adhoc establishment of a new theory but the result of decades of research. Examining thirtysix democracies during the period from 1945 to 2010, lijphart arrives at importantand unexpectedconclusions about what type of democracy works best. Does westminster still represent the westminster model. The majoritarian principle emphasizes that democracy is majority rule and is based on a concentration of power. Assessment of lijpharts perationalisation of consensus democracy 40. Principles of government course overview this course focuses on the institutions, methods, and procedures of governance and the reconfiguration with the advent of globalizations. Lijphart university of leiden explores the functioning of democracy in countries with deep religious, ideological, linguistic, cultural, and ethnic cleavages and, contrary to conventional wisdom, commends consociational democracy as the suitable model to plural societies and to severely segmented societies of the third world. Westminster and consensus democracies differ along two dimensions, each of which has five elements. It also purports to be a kinder, gentler form of democracy with regard to e. Consociationalism is a form of democracy which seeks to regulate the sharing of power in a state that comprises diverse societies distinct ethnic, religious, political, national or linguistic groups, by allocating these groups collective rights. The prime characteristic of the majoritarian model of democracy, as i have emphasized in previous chapters, is concentration of power in the hands of the majority.
Skip to main content accessibility help we use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Two models of democracy project muse johns hopkins university. This course exposes students to broad subject areas such as democracy, the state, nations, and globalization. This first difference can also be seen as the most important and typical difference between the two models of democracy because it epitomizes the contrast between concentration of power on one hand and power. Majoritarian two models of democracy scott mainwaring. Lijphart tested the impact of his models of democracy on what appeared to be a crucial issue. Lijpharts seminal work, patterns of democracy, is one of the most comprehensive attempts to categorize models of democracy systematically. A comparison of his various attempts to create definitions since the 1960s up to the present day lijphart 1968, 1977, 1984, 1997, 1999, 2003, 2007 makes clear that he. On the theoretical level, there is an obvious linkage between those two types of direct democracy and lijpharts concept.
This view is challenged by the consensus model of democracy. Consociational democracy world politics cambridge core. Lijphart tested the impact of his models of democracy on what appeared to be a. Of lijphart s two models of democracy, i believe that the consensus model is the most effective and most democratic system to implement. Angloamerican political systems exemplified by britain and the united states, continental european political systems france, germany, and italy, and a third category consisting of. Arend lijphart offers a broader and deeper analysis of worldwide democratic institutions than ever before. About the models held has said that the models are complex networks about economic and social conditions of the democratic state. Here, once again, arend lijphart is directing our attention to matters which will surely engage much of the attention of students of comparative politics in the next. Explaining the nature of models held maintains, models of democracy involve necessarily. Lijpharts distinction between consensus and majoritarian democracy the single. While his power sharing model has been widely criticized, it is also being adopted in countries as diverse as the netherlands, india, austria, south africa, and malaysia.
The institutional dynamics of consensus and conflict vrije. Comparative politics and the comparative method volume 65 issue 3 arend lijphart. Arend lijphart operated with two contrasting models of democracy which rested on different institutional arrangements. Modern liberal democracies are based on two competing visions of the democratic ideal. A closely related difference is that the majori tarian model of democracy is exclusive, competitive, and adver sarial, whereas the consensus model is characterized by inclu siveness, bargaining, and compromise. Night of smooth jazz relaxing background chill out music piano jazz for studying, sleep, work duration.
Arend lijpharts 1999 effort in patterns of democracy may be overstretching, both empirically and theoretically. Arend lijpharts typology of democratic systems has been one of the major contributions to comparative. Consociational democracy volume 21 issue 2 arend lijphart. So far, this conjecture has not been brought to a systematic test which is the purpose of this article.
He has impartially portrayed the picture of democratic structure. This paper tries to apply lijpharts way of description with ten factors for the two models of democracy to the republic of turkey. Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twentyone countries lijphart, arend on. Consociational parties and political accommodation in. Lijphart argues that consensus democracy is better see below.
In the introduction to this book virtual democracy was defined as an attempt to. Consociational democracy is based on proportional representation and as a type of democracy it is contrasted with centripetal democracy, which is based upon majority rule. In the first edition of his patterns of democracy 1999, lijphart used the term westminster model interchangeably with majoritarian model. The easiest way to compare the two models is to contrast different countries that use them, for example by comparing switzerland, a consensus democracy, against britain, a majoritarian democracy. Parliamentary versus presidential government, oxford, oxford university press, 1992.
Corporate consociationalism predetermines power positions among ethnic and sectarian national groups, such as predetermining the presidency to a maronite in lebanon or to a kurd in iraq. Evaluation of lijpharts model of consensus democracy. Despite both the constitutional reforms introduced since the change of government in 1997 and the outcome and consequences of the 2010 general election, lijphart concluded in the second edition of his book 2012a that recent changes in. Arend lijphart page electoral laws and their political consequences with bernard grofman, new york, agathon press, 1986. Through the analysis of political systems in six continents, he demonstrates that what he calls consociational democracy can be successful in severely divided or plural societies. From this perspective, i reassess the relevance of arend lijpharts prescriptions about democratizing states to constitutional engineers, by investigating his claims within the. While the notion of consociationalism has been known since the 17th century, it was conceptualized in the 1960s, in particular by arend lijphart, and is used today as both an analytical and a normative category. Almonds famous typology of political systems, first expounded in 1956, he distinguishes three types of western democratic systems. Arend lijphart on sharing power in africa and the future. Turkey, with her important location, which is a country with a different political structure and social structure, can be added to lijphart example. While presenting the model held has not allowed his prejudices to dominate. Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twentyone countries. What adds confusion to the status of the favorable factors i s that various scholars emphasized dif. Request pdf two models of democracy journal of democracy 12.
Chapters 14 call our attention to two competing types of democracy. There is more than one way to run a successful democracy. For over three decades, lijphart has persuasively argued that democracy need not follow the majoritarian model. In all respects, consociationalism contrasts profoundly with majorityrule democracy majoritarianism. Lijpharts consensus versus majoritarian model of democracy. In essence, regarding the executiveparty dimension, after controlling for population and development and dropping the outliers, lijphart 1999 found no systematic effect on growth, debt, unemployment and strike activity. Lijphart divides these democracies into two basic models. In this updated and expanded edition of his classic text, arend lijphart offers a broader and. In lijpharts 1968 work, the types of democracy have not only a different electoral system, but also a different societal structure. The consensus model of democracy, instead of relying on pure and concentrated majority rule, tries to limit, divide, separate and share power in a variety of ways lijphart 1996, 147.
In section 3, the paper will go on to propose our main hypothesis concerning the relationship between lijpharts institutional variables and direct democracy. Arend lijphart is best known for his theory of consociational or power sharing democracy, which enables the peaceful governance of deeply divided societies. What is the most likely development of ict in relation to politics and democracy in the future. Lijphart undertook extensive changes, but the core idea remains the same. Democracy in plural societies yale university press. However, it has mainly focused on established democracies. Summary lijpharts models of democracy poli20911 studocu. Lijpharts patterns of democracy, similar to most of his work, elicited fierce scientific. The second type of democracy, consensus democracy, involves far greater compromise and significant minority rights. Of lijpharts two models of democracy, i believe that the consensus model is the most effective and most democratic system to implement.
1205 1325 58 816 919 1294 2 1057 1403 740 877 833 1144 1624 1400 1123 240 938 1063 992 1594 699 1470 147 846 635 622 1392 85 328 613 426 1312 660 1341 79 163 395 1356 268 1385 416 939