2019
DOI: 10.1111/spsr.12385
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Consociation in the Present

Abstract: Consociation, one type of power‐sharing, is perhaps the least appreciated. This article reviews and replies to a collection celebrating Arend Lijphart’s pioneering article on consociational democracy published in 1969. The consociational perspective retains its interpretive power, including in the examination of major polities, such as the European Union, the Indian Union, and the USA. In the classical cases, consociational persistence in Belgium and Switzerland contrasts with decay or dissolution in Austria a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Consociationalists reject these critics, by answering that consociation seeks “to incentivize the more moderate among the hardliners, in order to negotiate and maintain power‐sharing” (O'Leary, 2019: 558). Regarding the critics on the consociational demo(i)cracy, one is reminded of Lijphart's (1977) vague concept of the “segments” which could forge a “common demos” (a term that Lijphart had not used), or of the liberal version of consociation that “could solve the antinomy between consociation and democracy” (Stojanović, 2020: 39).…”
Section: Consociationalism and Centripetalism: “Amici Ma Non Troppo”?mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Consociationalists reject these critics, by answering that consociation seeks “to incentivize the more moderate among the hardliners, in order to negotiate and maintain power‐sharing” (O'Leary, 2019: 558). Regarding the critics on the consociational demo(i)cracy, one is reminded of Lijphart's (1977) vague concept of the “segments” which could forge a “common demos” (a term that Lijphart had not used), or of the liberal version of consociation that “could solve the antinomy between consociation and democracy” (Stojanović, 2020: 39).…”
Section: Consociationalism and Centripetalism: “Amici Ma Non Troppo”?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two main theoretical power‐sharing approaches, consociationalism and centripetalism, try to offer innovative solutions to heal resentments based upon ethnic, religious, linguistic and other cleavages in deeply divided societies, with the aim to stabilize democracies and accommodate the groups formed on those divisions. For decades, the two approaches have been seen as two distinct schools of thought that do not need to “intellectually accommodate one another” (O'Leary, 2019: 559) and that promote political stability in states composed of rival communities. Scholars question how the various electoral mechanisms of each of the two approaches could contribute to making deeply divided societies functional and eliminating grievances that exist when certain groups do not feel adequately represented in joint institutions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If the dominant cultural majority is large enough, it will not have to take into account the preferences of the minority (e.g. O’Leary 2019 , 558).…”
Section: Power-sharing and Consensus Democracymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…None of its elements—with the exception of one or two partisan seats on the Federal Council—have ever been seriously put into question (cf. also Vatter 2016 , 72; O’Leary 2019 , 570).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%