World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article


Article Id: WHEBN0001409458
Reproduction Date:

Title: Consociationalism  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Ethnic conflict, Confessionalism (politics), Ethnicity in politics, Saybrook Platform, Sectarian democracy
Collection: Ethnicity in Politics, Forms of Government, Political Theories
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia


Consociationalism ( ) is often viewed as synonymous with power-sharing, although it is technically only one form of power-sharing.[1]

Consociationalism is often seen as having close affinities with corporatism; some consider it to be a form of corporatism while others claim that economic corporatism was designed to regulate class conflict, while consociationalism developed on the basis of reconciling societal fragmentation along ethnic and religious lines.[2]

The goals of consociationalism are governmental stability, the survival of the power-sharing arrangements, the survival of confessionalism, as is the case in Lebanon.


  • Definition 1
  • Concept origins 2
  • Characteristics 3
  • Favourable conditions 4
  • Advantages 5
  • Criticisms 6
    • Brian Barry 6.1
    • Rinus van Schendelen 6.2
    • Lustick on hegemonic control 6.3
    • Other criticisms 6.4
  • Examples 7
  • See also 8
  • References 9
  • Further reading 10


Political scientists define a consociational state as a state which has major internal divisions along ethnic, religious, or linguistic lines, with none of the divisions large enough to form a majority group, yet nonetheless manages to remain stable, due to consultation among the elites of each of its major social groups. Consociational states are often contrasted with states with majoritarian electoral systems.

Concept origins

Consociationalism was discussed in academic terms by the political scientist Arend Lijphart. However, Lijphart has stated that he had "merely discovered what political practitioners had repeatedly – and independently of both academic experts and one another – invented years earlier".[3] John McGarry and Brendan O'Leary trace consociationalism back to 1917, when it was first employed in the Netherlands.[4]

Indeed, Lijphart draws heavily on the experience of the Netherlands in developing his argument in favour of the consociational approach to ethnic conflict regulation. The Netherlands, as a consociational state, was between 1857 and 1967 divided into four non-territorial pillars: Calvinist, Catholic, socialist, and general, although until 1917 there was a plurality ('first past the post') electoral system rather than a consociational one. In their heyday, each comprised tightly-organised groups, schools, universities, hospitals and newspapers, all divided along a pillarised social structure. The theory, according to Lijphart, focuses on the role of social elites, their agreement and co-operation, as the key to a stable democracy.


Lijphart identifies four key characteristics of consociational democracies:[5]

Name Explanation
Grand coalition Elites of each pillar come together to rule in the interests of society because they recognize the dangers of non-cooperation.
Mutual veto Consensus among the groups is required to confirm the majority rule. Mutuality means that the minority is unlikely to successfully block the majority. If one group blocks another on some matter, the latter are likely to block the former in return.
Proportionality Representation is based on population. If one pillar accounts for 30% of the overall society, then they occupy 30% of the positions on the police force, in civil service, and in other national and civic segments of society.
Segmental autonomy Creates a sense of individuality and allows for different culturally-based community laws.

Consociational polities often have these characteristics:[6]

Favourable conditions

Lijphart also identifies a number of 'favourable conditions' under which consociationalism is likely to be successful. He has changed the specification of these conditions somewhat over time.[7] Michael Kerr summarises Lijphart's most prominent favourable factors as:[8]

  • Segmental isolation of ethnic communities
  • A multiple balance of power
  • The presence of external threats common to all communities
  • Overarching loyalties to the state
  • A tradition of elite accommodation
  • Socioeconomic equality
  • A small population size, reducing the policy load
  • A moderate multi-party system with segmental parties

Lijphart stresses that these conditions are neither indispensable nor sufficient to account for the success of consociationalism.[5] This has led Rinus van Schendelen to conclude that "the conditions may be present and absent, necessary and unnecessary, in short conditions or no conditions at all".[9]

John McGarry and Brendan O'Leary argue that three conditions are key to the establishment of democratic consociational power-sharing: elites have to be motivated to engage in conflict regulation; elites must lead deferential segments; and there must be a multiple balance of power, but more importantly the subcultures must be stable.[10] Michael Kerr, in his study of the role of external actors in power-sharing arrangements in Northern Ireland and Lebanon, adds to McGarry and O'Leary's list the condition that "the existence of positive external regulating pressures, from state to non-state actors, which provide the internal elites with sufficient incentives and motives for their acceptance of, and support for, consociation".[8]


In a consociational state, all groups, including minorities, are represented on the political and economic stage. Supporters of consociationalism argue that it is a more realistic option in deeply divided societies than integrationist approaches to conflict management.[11] It has been credited with supporting successful and non-violent transitions to democracy in countries such as South Africa.


Brian Barry

Brian Barry has questioned the nature of the divisions that exist in the countries that Lijphart considers to be 'classic cases' of consociational democracies. For example, he makes the case that in the Swiss example, "political parties cross-cut cleavages in the society and provide a picture of remarkable consensus rather than highly structured conflict of goals".[12] In the case of the Netherlands, he argues that "the whole cause of the disagreement was the feeling of some Dutchman...that it mattered what all the inhabitants of the country believed. Demands for policies aimed at producing religious or secular uniformity presuppose a concern...for the state of grace of one's fellow citizens". He contrasts this to the case of a society marked by conflict, in this case Northern Ireland, where he argues that "the inhabitants…have never shown much worry about the prospects of the adherents of the other religion going to hell".[13] Barry concludes that in the Dutch case, consociationalism is tautological and argues that "the relevance of the 'consociational' model for other divided societies is much more doubtful than is commonly supposed".[12]

Rinus van Schendelen


Lustick on hegemonic control

Ian Lustick has argued that academics lack an alternative 'control' approach for explaining stability in deeply divided societies and that this has resulted in the empirical overextension of consociational models.[14] Lustick argues that Lijphart has "an impressionistic methodological posture, flexible rules for coding data, and an indefatigable, rhetorically seductive commitment to promoting consociationalism as a widely applicable principle of political engineering",[15] that results in him applying consociational theory to case studies that it does not fit. Furthermore, Lustick states that "Lijphart's definition of 'accommodation'...includes the elaborately specified claim that issues dividing polarized blocs are settled by leaders convinced of the need for settlement".[15]

Other criticisms

Critics point out that consociationalism is dangerous in a system of differing antagonistic ideologies, generally conservatism and communism. They state that specific conditions must exist for three or more groups to develop a multi-party system with strong leaders. This philosophy is dominated by elites, with those masses that are sidelined with the elites having less to lose if war breaks out. Consociationalism cannot be imperially applied. For example, it does not effectively apply to Austria. Critics also point to the failure of this line of reasoning in Lebanon, a country that reverted to civil war. It only truly applies in Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands, and not in more deeply divided societies. If one of three groups gets half plus one of the vote, then the other groups are in perpetual opposition, which is largely incompatible with consociationalism.

Consociationalism focuses on diverging identities such as ethnicity instead of integrating identities such as class, institutionalizing and entrenching the former. Furthermore, it relies on rival co-operation, which is inherently unstable. It focuses on intrastate relations and neglects relations with other states. Donald L. Horowitz argues that consociationalism can lead to the reification of ethnic divisions, since "grand coalitions are unlikely, because of the dynamics of intraethnic competition. The very act of forming a multiethnic coalition generates intraethnic competition – flanking – if it does not already exist".[16]

Consociationalism assumes that each group is cohesive and has strong leadership. Although the minority can block decisions, this requires 100 per cent agreement. Rights are given to communities rather than individuals, leading to over-representation of some individuals in society and under-representation of others. Grand coalitions are unlikely to happen due to the dynamics of ethnic competition. Each group seeks more power for itself. Consociationalists are criticized for focusing too much on the set up of institutions and not enough on transitional issues which go beyond such institutions. Finally, it is claimed that consociational institutions promote sectarianism and entrench existing identities.


The political systems of a number of countries operate on a consociational basis, including Belgium, Cyprus (effective 1960–1963),[17][18][19] Lebanon, the Netherlands (1917–1967), Switzerland, and South Africa. Some academics have also argued that the European Union resembles a consociational democracy.[20][21]

Additionally, a number of peace agreements are consociational, including:

Post-Taliban Afghanistan's political system has also been described as consociational,[26] although it lacks ethnic quotas.[27]

In addition to the two-state solution, some have argued for a one-state solution under a consociational democracy in the state of Israel to solve the Arab-Israeli Conflict, but this solution is not very popular, nor has it been discussed seriously at peace negotiations.[28]

During the 1980s the South African government attempted to reform apartheid into a consociational democracy. The South African Constitution of 1983 applied Lijpart's powersharing ideas by establishing a Tricameral Parliament. During the 1990s negotiations to end apartheid the National Party (NP) and Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) proposed a settlement based upon consociationalism. The African National Congress (ANC) opposed consociationalism and proposed instead a settlement based upon majoritarian democracy. The NP abandoned consociationalism when the US State Department came out in favour of the majoritarian democracy model in 1992.[29]

See also


  1. ^ O'Leary, Brendan (2005). "Debating consociational politics: Normative and explanatory arguments". In Noel, Sid JR. From Power Sharing to Democracy: Post-Conflict Institutions in Ethnically Divided Societies. Montreal: McGill-Queen's Press. pp. 3–43.  
  2. ^ .Anke Hassel. Wage setting, Social Pacts and the Euro: A New Role for the State. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press, 2006. p 281.
  3. ^ Lijphart, Arend (2004). "Constitutional design for divided societies" (PDF).  
  4. ^ McGarry, John; O'Leary, Brendan (1993). "Introduction: The macro-political regulation of ethnic conflict". In McGarry, John and O'Leary, Brendan. The Politics of Ethnic Conflict Regulation: Case Studies of Protracted Ethnic Conflicts. London: Routledge. pp. 1–40.  
  5. ^ a b Lijphart, Arend (1977). Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.  
  6. ^ Lijphart, Arend; Crepaz, Markus M. L. : Corporatism and Consensus Democracy in Eighteen Countries: Conceptual and Empirical Linkages; British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Apr., 1991), pp. 235-246
  7. ^ Bogaards, Matthijs (1998). "The favourable factors for consociational democracy: A review". European Journal of Political Research 33 (4): 475–496.  
  8. ^ a b Kerr, Michael (2006). Imposing Power-Sharing: Conflict and Coexistence in Northern Ireland and Lebanon. Dublin: Irish Academic Press. pp. 27–28.  
  9. ^ a b van Schendelen, M.C.P.M. (1984). "The views of Arend Lijphart and collected criticisms".  
  10. ^ McGarry, John; O'Leary, Brendan (1995). Explaining Northern Ireland: Broken Images. Oxford: Blackwell. p. 339.  
  11. ^ McGarry, John; O'Leary, Brendan (2006). "Consociational theory, Northern Ireland's conflict, and its agreement 2: What critics of consociation can learn from Northern Ireland". Government and Opposition 41 (2): 249–277.  
  12. ^ a b Barry, Brian (1975). "Political accommodation and consociational democracy". British Journal of Political Science 5 (4): 477–505.  
  13. ^ Barry, Brian (1975). "The consociational model and its dangers". European Journal of Political Research 3 (4): 393–412.  
  14. ^ Lustick, Ian (1979). "Stability in deeply divided societies: Consociationalism versus control". World Politics 31 (3): 325–344.  
  15. ^ a b Lustick, Ian (1997). "Lijphart, Lakatos, and consociationalism". World Politics 50 (1): 88–117.  
  16. ^ Horowitz, Donald (1985). Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. p. 575.  
  17. ^ Wolff, Stefan (2004). Disputed Territories: The Transnational Dynamics of Ethnic Conflict Settlement. Berghahn Books. pp. 30–31. 
  18. ^ Wippman, David (1998). "Practical and Legal Constraints on Internal Power Sharing". In Wippman, David. International Law and Ethnic Conflict. Cornell University Press. p. 220. 
  19. ^ Bahcheli, Tozun; Noel, Sid (2005). "Power Sharing for Cyprus (Again)? European Union Accession and the Prospects for Reunification". In Noel, Sid. Relations of Ruling: Class and Gender in Postindustrial Societies. McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 215. 
  20. ^ Gabel, Matthew J. (1998). "The endurance of supranational governance: A consociational interpretation of the European Union". Comparative Politics 30 (4): 463–475.  
  21. ^ Bogaards, Matthijs; Crepaz, Markus M.L. (2002). "Consociational interpretations of the European Union".  
  22. ^ Bose, Sumantra (2002). Bosnia After Dayton: Nationalist Partition and International Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 216.  
  23. ^ Belloni, Roberto (2004). "Peacebuilding and consociational electoral engineering in Bosnia and Herzegovina". International Peacekeeping 11 (2): 334–353 [336].  
  24. ^ O'Leary, Brendan (2001). "The character of the 1998 Agreement: Results and prospects". In Wilford, Rick. Aspects of the Belfast Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 49–83.  
  25. ^ O'Leary, Brendan (1999). "The 1998 British-Irish Agreement: Power-sharing plus". Scottish Affairs 26: 14–35. 
  26. ^ Lijphart, Arend (2008). Thinking about Democracy: Power Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge. p. 5.  
  27. ^ Adeney, Katharine (2008). "Constitutional design and the political salience of 'community' identity in Afghanistan: Prospects for the emergence of ethnic conflicts in the post-Taliban era". Asian Survey 48 (4): 535–557.  
  28. ^ Retrieved 2011-1-30
  29. ^ Hamill, James (2003). "A disguised surrender? South Africa's negotiated settlement and the politics of conflict resolution". Diplomacy & Statecraft 14:3: 17–18. 

Further reading

  • S Issacharoff, ‘Constitutionalizing Democracy in Fractured Societies’ (2003–2004) 82 Texas Law Review 1861
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Hawaii eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.