Power-sharing and the quality of democracy

Abstract

Mounting evidence indicates that power-sharing supports transitions to democracy. However, the resulting quality of democracy remains understudied. Given the increasing global spread of power-sharing, this is a crucial oversight, as prominent critiques accuse it of a number of critical deficiencies. The present article advances this literature in two ways. First, it offers a comprehensive discussion of how power-sharing affects the quality of democracy, going beyond specific individual aspects of democracy. It argues that power-sharing advances some of these aspects while having drawbacks for others. Second, it offers the first systematic, large-N analysis of the frequently discussed consequences of power-sharing for the quality of democracy. It relies on a dataset measuring the quality of democracy in 70 countries worldwide, combining it with new fine-grained data for institutional power-sharing. The results indicate that power-sharing is a complex institutional model which privileges a particular set of democratic actors and processes, while deemphasizing others.

Power Sharing and Zoning Formula for Managing Nigeria's Diversity: A Case of the Fourth Republic

“…Federalism is the most practical model for managing diversities and power sharing in complex plural societies. 22 However, despite the above eloquent presentation of a model of federal power sharing processes, most federal states have contending conflicts and agitations for an alternative federal restructuring. One of the most intensified situations is the Nigerian situation, where some section of the country is agitating for a total overhaul of the current system for a new one that is, according to them, satiable to them.…”

The two faces of power-sharing

“…This article scrutinizes this critique of power-sharing and assesses its empirical validity. In particular, we argue that power-sharing has two faces (Bochsler & Juon, 2021): On the one hand, it fosters political plurality and guarantees political inclusiveness along communal lines (Bormann, 2014; Lijphart, 1977). This increased openness of the political system represents an important advance for democracy.…”

What Do We Know about Power Sharing after 50 Years?

“…2 Over time, power sharing has become a 'dominant conflict-solving approach' (Binningsbø 2013: 89) by going beyond its strict focus on consociational cases. Both the consociational and the broader power-sharing strands of literature, however, have been tightly entangled, particularly in cross-national research (Bochsler and Juon 2021;Hartzell and Hoddie 2015;Kelly 2019;Norris 2008;Strøm et al 2017). 3 Power sharing has been heavily criticized on normative, theoretical and empirical grounds (Barry 1975;Bogaards 2000;Horowitz 2014;Lustick 1997;Rothchild and Roeder 2005;Spears 2002;van Schendelen 1985).…”

“…Over time, power sharing has become a ‘dominant conflict-solving approach’ (Binningsbø 2013: 89) by going beyond its strict focus on consociational cases. Both the consociational and the broader power-sharing strands of literature, however, have been tightly entangled, particularly in cross-national research (Bochsler and Juon 2021; Hartzell and Hoddie 2015; Kelly 2019; Norris 2008; Strøm et al 2017). 3…”

“…In response, advocates of power sharing further developed the theory to address some of its theoretical weaknesses (Lijphart 1981, 2000; McGarry and O'Leary 2006a, 2006b; Noel 2005). Advocates argue that power sharing is the most viable solution for peace and democracy in divided societies (Bochsler and Juon 2021; Cederman et al 2017; Hartzell and Hoddie 2020; Keil and McCulloch 2021; McCulloch and McGarry 2017; McEvoy and O'Leary 2013).…”