Power-Sharing (Consociationalism) Flashcards
What is consociationalism?
A grounded normative theory that – through power sharing – promises to provide a solution to societies which possess deeply ethnical division and political instability.
What is the argument of consociationalism?
Political stability is linked to positive force of normative integration and cross-cutting social cleavages which encourage moderate attitudes and actions.
“Majority rule is not only undemocratic but also dangerous”
Two main aspects of consociationalism
(1) a plural society with segmental cleavages
(2) the segmental elites cooperate through consociational structures.
What are the 9 areas of constitutional choice
Somewhat ‘guidelines’ Lijphart sets out that DDS’s should follow where applicable to their case = counters Horowitz’s claim that Lijphart’s model is ‘one size fits all’
Four main characteristics of Consociationalism:
Grand Coalition =
- Elites from each community come together to rule in favour of the interests of the society
Mutual Veto =
- Any one group can essentially veto a policy. Serves as a safeguard for minorities, giving them the power to stay relevant in parliamentary affairs
Proportionality =
- The idea that decision making is done at the highest level for the proportional public.
- Only at this level do elites realise what must be done to help their cleavages.
- Decision making is done behind closed doors to avoid politicians views causing conflict below
Segmental Autonomy =
- Creates a sense of individuality for groups as minorities rule themselves in a federal-like way if applicable
- Lijphart does not mention it, but this would be crucial to stop the mutual veto ending in deadlock
What is the overview of Northern Ireland?
- Conflict began 1968 and was nicknamed ‘the troubles’
- Between Protestant majority and catholic minority
- Stretched for around 30 years
- Majority Protestant wishing to remain part of UK, whilst minority Catholic hoped to join the Republic of Ireland
- Mobilisation of terrorist organisation’s such as the IRA led to UK military intervention
- A once hopeless case now stands to be one of the most successful cases for DDS and the consociationalist model two sides became unified
What are the Pro’s of the Northern Ireland case?
- Grand Coalition: Allowed voicing for extremist groups which led to narrowing of policy differences
- Elites had a greater power to influence those fighting unlike the ‘moderates’ would have had in a centripetalism model
- Integrationalists argue consociationalism is unfair as group identities are privileged over other groups = HOWEVER, d’Hondt was ‘difference binding’: meaning it operated according to representation strength won by parties in Assembly – not their national identity
- Any party entitled to seats in the Executive if met d’Hondt quota (meaning different sides could take control of different social areas e.g. David Ford = department of justice and Stephen Farry department for employment and education)
What are the cons to the Northern Ireland case?
- Although all ‘extremist’ parties have to come to an agreement, any other new party with enough seats could come into the negotiations (mutual veto plays a problem here)
- Ministerial positions not guaranteed and so anti-settlement parties may form part of the government which results in a larger executive coalition than legislative coalition (WHAT?!)
- Senior coalition partner can cause government to become immediately unviable if withdrawing their support
- Slower government action on controversial topics and deadlocks with veto power of all parties
- Lines may become blurred as to what the public wants and what two major parties may want
What is the overview of the Rwanda case study?
- Conflict between Hutu and Tutsi which dates back to Belgium colonisation times whereby Tutsi were privileged due to skin tone
- The two were actually very similar, speaking the same language and living among one another
- Before introduction of multipartyism, once independent, was single-party, militant, authoritarian rule under Hutu control with President Habyarimana
- Root problem of deeply rooted horizontal inequalities
- Habyarimana refused return of many Tutsi refugees
- Return force of RPF took over Rwanda and Hutu fled
- Genocide occurred
- If Northern Ireland represents the best case, Rwanda is the worst
Why did consociationalism fail in Rwanda?
- Consociationalism led to zero-sum game scenario: winner takes all scenario, with state being the prize-outlook which can be deadly for power-sharing.
¬ why accommodate an enemy when you can have it all?
¬ RPF got almost all of their conditions seen to - Credible Commitment Problem: RPF was aware of its larger military capabilities than the Hutu Governments and were prepared to return to the battlefield if adequate settlement was not reached – so how are the other parties meant to feel secure?
- Habyarimana was unbelievably indecisive and teetered between hardliners and moderates and could not unify the government
- No core moderates to withstand the pressure of extremist outbidders
- Lack of Will to Accommodate – RPF only showed this, offering a post-Habyarimana regime based on rule of law and society free from ethnicity
- CDR (Committee for the Defence of the Revolution) became a “spoiler”: used the negotiations as a façade to build support
- Habyarimana referred to the Arusha Accords as a ‘piece of paper’- lack of credible commitment obvious and had to be dragged to the negotiation table
- Arusha Accords had the unintended consequence of pushing power-sharing to a winner-takes-all game, which is potentially violent
- Violence was never mitigated during negotiation talks
What are some alternatives to consociationalism
Integrationalism
- Government by the moderates (excludes extremists and is easily shacken)
- Weighted majority vote rather than mutual veto and federalism (excludes the minority)
- Equality of opportunity rather than quota’s and positive discrimination
Partition (Lijphart argues could be used instead)
- The action of being divided
- May be the only way to prevent bloodshed
- Problem is people don’t usually neatly divide into two distinct regions, making partition difficult
Critiques of consociationalism
- Lijphart’s solution cannot bring stability, only deadlock and immobilism. = Lijphart counters this by saying policies may take longer to pass, but that policies are also less likely to be repealed in four years.
- Some theorists, such as Horowitz, argue that the theory of consociationalism institutionalises and exacerbates the ethnic tensions in divided societies, causing a deeper strain on the ethnic divide itself
- “Quality of democracy” challenged as there is an absence of opposition and mutual veto gives too much power
