Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration

by Arend Lijphart

While it may be difficult to achieve and maintain stable democratic governments in countries with deep religious, ideological, linguistic, cultural, or ethnic cleavages, Lijphart argues that it is not at all impossible. 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.
“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 decade.” G. Bingham Powell, Jr., American Political Science Review
“A study which can speak to such a wide audience in political science deserves a warm welcome from the profession.” Government and Opposition
“A copybook example of the comparative method of political analysis, as well as indispensable reading for all who have an interest in the nature and prospects of representative democracy, whether in Europe or beyond.”― The Times Higher Education Supplement
“This well-written work, containing a wealth of information on politics of many diverse nations, is highly recommended.”― Library Journal

Genres: Politics, Political Science, Nonfiction, Academic

260 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1977

About the author

Arend d'Angremond Lijphart is a Dutch American political scientist specializing in comparative politics, elections and voting systems, democratic institutions, and ethnicity and politics. He is Research Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of California, San Diego. He is influential for his work on consociational democracy and his contribution to the new Institutionalism in political science.

Reviews

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 3 out of 5]

The American Political Science Review
March 1979

Lijphart's work has emphasized the critical role which can be played by the conscious efforts and accommodative mechanisms introduced by political elites in regulating conflict in systems with potentially explosive cleavages.

.......

These 'segmental cleavages' may involve cultural, racial, ethnic, religious, ideological, linguistic, or regional boundaries.

As is widely recognized, stable democracy is difficult to sustain in such societies.

[Merjem · Rating 5 out of 5]

Easy to read and understand. Great for being introduced to democracies in Western Europe

[Eitental · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a thorough, technical and theoretical exploration of what Lijphart terms “consociational democracy” as a form of democracy suited to plural societies. The basic purpose of the work is to explore the nature of consociational systems of government in stable Western democracies and to investigate whether these provide a good blueprint that can be exported to developing countries.

Lijphart starts by defining plural societies and outlining the difficulties involved in governing them and then goes on to define consociational democracy and contrast it with other forms of democratic government. His four main examples of Western consociational democracy are the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Austria, though he notes considerable consociational elements in Canada and Israel. He defines the key features of consociational democracy as, in descending order of importance: grand coalitions, a right of all segments to veto, proportionality (usually in the form of proportional representation) and segmental autonomy (in the form of federalism when the segments are geographically concentrated).

Next, in the main body of the book, Lijphart investigates the strengths and weaknesses of consociationalism and the effects of different variables upon whether it is likely to be successful. He does this by analysing the aforementioned examples as well as Northern Ireland, Lebanon, Malaysia, Cyprus, Nigeria, Rwanda, Burundi, the Congo, Indonesia, Surinam, the Netherlands Antilles and Uruguay. Of these, he describes consociationalism as (at least somewhat) “successful” in Lebanon, Malaysia, Surinam, the Netherlands Antilles and Uruguay. Finally, some intelligent, careful, considered, tentative conclusions and recommendations are made about if, how and when consociationalism could and should be implemented.

He seems to attach little importance to the fact that two of his main examples of “successful” consociationalism in developing countries – Malaysia and Lebanon – ended in civil war, and he puts surprisingly little effort into explaining why this is irrelevant. In Lebanon he attributes the eventual failure to excessive rigidity of the consociational system and in Malaysia he puts it down to the fact that Malays were allowed to dominate politically. These both seem like reasonable explanations, but I really felt this deserved more attention. Since the writing of the book, Lijphart’s two most glowing examples of successful consociationalism in the Third World have been similarly sullied: in 1980 Surinam descended into military dictatorship and in 1986 Aruba seceded from the Netherlands Antilles.

Although an extensive knowledge of political theory is not absolutely necessary in order to grasp Lijphart’s argumentation and ideas, this work is certainly difficult reading for people like me who lack any substantial background in political science (especially the first couple of chapters, where examples are few and theory is dense). Moreover, I imagine this is a much more meaningful read if you’re at least somewhat familiar with the political, governmental, social and historical background of all of the countries he mentions (especially of the four European states that he uses as primary examples), as he wastes little time explaining the nature of their plurality and divisions. For example, I really just had to take his word for it that the Catholic, socialist and liberal groups in post-War Austria constituted separate “segments” of society in a fundamentally different way to, say, socialists, Tories and liberals in the UK.

Despite these shortcomings, this book is definitely worthwhile reading for anyone with a strong interest in the governance of multi-ethnic or otherwise plural societies. Even if some of the finer points go over your head, there is plenty of food for thought here.

[Antoinette]

its quite educative