Patterns of Democracy?

Abstract

In Patterns of Democracy, Arend Lijphart (1999) not only contends that democratic institutions cluster in two distinct forms, but also that consensus democracies-when contrasted with majoritarian arrangements-are "kinder, gentler" types of institutional settings (Lijphart 1999: 301-302). the present article reveals that Lijphart's two dimensional map of democracy, although applicable to established democracies, does not apply equally well to post-communist countries. Nevertheless, multivariate empirical verification reveals that some elements included in the consensus democracy framework should be introduced in new constitutions, but perhaps not as the monolithic cluster of basic laws of constitutions originally suggested by Lijphart. Hence the present study casts a shadow on the relevance of the majoritarian versus consensus classification of democratic regimes. Zusammenfassung:In seinem Buch "Patterns of Democracy" behauptet Arend Lijphart (1999) nicht nur, dass demokratische Institutionen in zwei unterschiedlichen Formen auftreten, sondern auch dass Konsensdemokratie -verglichen mit Mehrheitsdemokratie -einen besseren Typus eines institutionellen Rahmens darstellt. Der vorliegende Beitrag zeigt, dass Lijpharts zweidimensionale Darstellung von Demokratie nicht auf post-kommunistische Länder übertragen werden kann, obwohl das Konzept auf etablierte Demokratien anwendbar ist. Dennoch verdeutlicht die empirische Überprüfung seines Ansatzes, dass nicht alle, aber durchaus einige Elemente des Konsensdemokratiemodells bei der Gestaltung und Weiterentwicklung neuer Verfassungen berücksichtigt werden sollten. Aus diesem Grund zweifeln die hier vorgestellten Ergebnisse die Relevanz der von Lijphart vorgenommenen Klassifikation für demokratische Regime in postkommunistischen Ländern an.

Institutional Patterns in the New Democracies of Asia: Forms, Origins and Consequences

“…First, Lijphart's patterns of democracy do not fit well in Asia. This finding is similar to the results obtained by recent research on new democracies in Eastern Europe, which were unable to find empirical evidence for Lijphart's two-dimensional pattern of democracy (Robert, 2006; Fortin, 2008). Second, the majority of Asian democracies (six out of nine cases), appear to be hybrids, mixing Lijphart's consensus and majoritian categories.…”

“…This finding is similar to the results obtained by recent research on new democracies in Eastern Europe, which were unable to find empirical evidence for Lijphart's two-dimensional pattern of democracy (Robert, 2006;Fortin, 2008). First, Lijphart's patterns of democracy do not fit well in Asia.…”

“…employs the length of the average cabinet duration in months as an indicator of executive dominance. Some scholars criticize this measure, claiming that cabinet duration is not an appropriate indicator for measuring the patterns of dominance and balance of power between both institutions (Taagepera, 2003; Fortin, 2008). Although Lijphart agrees that his indicator can give ‘a completely wrong impression of the degree of executive dominance’ (1999: 134), we use it because of the lack of a satisfactory alternative measurement.…”

Patterns of (party competition in) democracy: Voter certainty and party strategy in different institutional settings

“…Indeed, Russia and Ukraine have more than nine effective number of parties, while others have less than seven in my data. Further, because some argue that the two countries are not consensus models in a strict sense (Fortin 2008), 5 it may be inappropriate to interpret the results as evidence that consensus models necessarily allow strategic uncertainty to become an electoral success. Thus, I estimate the same models above without the two countries and report the results in Table 3.…”

Two Cheers for Czech Democracy

“…A great deal of political science writing about the Czech Republic and the CEE region has been preoccupied with the question of whether -and to what extent -these newer democracies fit models formulated on the basis of the Western European historical experience. There is thus a rich comparative literature asking if CEE institutions as diverse as welfare regimes (Aidukaite 2009), varieties of capitalism (Holscher et al 2006;Adam et al 2009) and political parties fit models defined by older, more established democracies (Roberts 2006;Fortin 2008;Hloušek and Kopeček 2010).…”