This article identifies a central problem in the theory and practice of democracy in divided societies: the systematic exclusion of Others. Defining the exclusion-amidinclusion (EAI) dilemma of consociational power-sharing, whereby in including the main groups to the conflict it works to exclude those beyond these groups, the article offers the first systematic conceptualization of this issue. The article outlines the type of individuals and groups affected by the EAI dilemma, the varying strategies they adopt to navigate power-sharing frameworks and the potential routes out of this normative and empirical puzzle. Finally, it lays out a challenge for scholars to build on this conceptualization and address the EAI dilemma in future research. In 2016, the European Court of Human Rights ruled for the third time against the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). At stake was whether BiH's constitutional framework-a particularly rigid and complicated form of corporate consociationalism-violated the rights of non-constituent peoples to free and democratic elections and to freedom from discrimination. The court took issue with the electoral rules for the state presidency and the House of Peoples, both of which restrict access to BiH's constituent peoples-Bosniaks, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosnian Croats. The court sided with Ilijaz Pilav, a Bosniak living in the Republika Srpska, who could not contest the presidential elections on the basis of his residence, as the current rules restrict candidacy to Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats who live in the Federation of Bosnia of Herzegovina and to Bosnian Serbs who live in the Republika Srpska. This decision reinforced two earlier rulings. In Finci and Sejdić vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina (2009), the court determined that the electoral rules discriminated against members of the Jewish and Roma populations, who, as non-constituent peoples, were prohibited from reaching these offices. In Zornić vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina (2014), the court sided with Azra Zornić, who, because she was unwilling to declare an ethnic affiliation, was prohibited from contesting the election. Despite these rulings, the electoral rules remain in place and politicians remain deadlocked on how to revise them. In addition to their legal ramifications, the ECHR rulings expose an acute problem that emerges in consociational settings, which we refer to as the exclusion-amid-inclusion (EAI) dilemma. That is, the institutional inclusion of some groups necessarily results in the exclusion of others. As Jakob Finci noted in response to the 2009 ECHR ruling, the
As the introduction to the special issue titled Democratisation in Divided Places: Designing Power-Sharing Institutions for Broad Inclusion, this article situates the themes, issues, and findings of the issue in a broad disciplinary perspective. Drawing from theories of constitutional design, peacebuilding, democratisation, and ethnonational accommodation, the article outlines the trade-offs that power-sharing faces in war-to-peace transitions and the implications for non-dominant groups. We articulate what we see as a central problem with contemporary power-sharing arrangements, a phenomenon we call the ‘exclusion amid inclusion’ dilemma. That is, for power-sharing to create stability and pacify the dominant groups, it must marginalise non-dominant groups. These are groups who were neglected in the original design of power-sharing institutions, who remain on the sidelines of postconflict politics, and who face major institutional constraints on their representation and participation in the power-sharing arrangement. Using ‘exclusion amid inclusion’ as an analytical lens, we explain how the articles included in the special issue highlight how different societies have grappled with the question of facilitating broad inclusion in the design of political power-sharing institutions.
Commentators and scholars alike recognize the important role political dissatisfaction plays in the process of regime change. A considerable body of literature has used dissatisfaction with a regime and distrust in political institutions to explain political dynamics during democratization's initial phase, yet these indicators are rarely used to assess disaffection with politics in established democratic regimes. Recent research on the post-communist region has established that citizens demonstrate high levels of political alienation, and that ethnic minority communities in particular are widely dissatisfied with democratic politics, institutions and regimes. This paper uses the 2004 data from the New Baltic Barometer to analyse individual-level disaffection with politics among the minorities in the Baltic States and explores the structural roots of such disaffection. The paper draws upon interviews with political representatives of minority communities in order to understand their perceptions of opportunities to participate in decision-making. Building on quantitative and qualitative analysis, the paper concludes that disaffection with politics among both the mass of ethnic minorities and their elite groups is best explained by the misrepresentation of minority interests in post-communist Baltic polities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.