Which type of democracy performs best?

Abstract

Which type of democracy performs best? While some scholars argue that an electoral system with proportional representation combined with a decentralized system works best, and that the type of electoral system is crucial (Lijphart 1999), others state that a proportional electoral system with a centralized (and hence not decentralized) system lead to better performance (Gerring et al. 2005;Gerring and Thacker 2008). Still other scholars claim that decentralization is crucial, particularly in countries with deeply divided societies (Norris 2008). In this article, we argue that Lijphart's earlier 1960s work needs to be combined with his more recent 1990s work, which results in an eightfold classification. This cube with eight different types of democracy not only enables us to compare the three rival claims in a systematic way, but is also a helpful tool for future studies focusing on types of democratic systems, and their origins and consequences. Our findings show that the type of electoral system is always crucial; the other two dimensions are crucial as well, though under different circumstances. In order to achieve the highest level of good governance, the best choice for the type of political system (centralization or decentralization) depends on the structure of the society (homogeneous or not). Centralization is best in homogeneous societies, while decentralization is best in heterogeneous societies. We recommend that future studies take into account all eight different types of democracy that can be distinguished based on Lijphart's theoretical arguments in earlier and later work.

Patterns of democracy reconsidered: The ambiguous relationship between corporatism and consensualism

“…For example, Doorenspleet and Pellikaan () quantitatively test the performance of eight different types of democracy, combining old and recent dimensions originally advanced by Lijphart.…”

Political differentiation and consolidation of choice in a U.S. media malaise environment: indirect effects of perceived alikeness on voter participation

“…The U.S. is a representative democracy with an electoral college system that modifies proportionality based on geography (Grofman and Feld 2005;Pattie and Johnston 2014). Official selection of government representatives is based on votes cast but ultimately decided by an indirect system (Doorenspleet and Pellikaan 2013). For example, during the presidential elections from 2000 to 2016, the popular vote did not decide two of the last five presidential race winners (Federal Election Commission (FEC) 2018).…”

Power-sharing and the quality of democracy

“…There is a large literature that investigates the implications of consensus democratic systems, or its most prominent components, proportional (PR) electoral systems and federalism, for the quality of democracy (e.g. Armingeon, 2002;Charron, 2009;Kittilson and Schwindt-Bayer, 2010;Bernauer and Vatter, 2012;Doorenspleet and Pellikaan, 2013;Giuliani, 2016). Consensus democracies have been described as being 'kindler and gentler' due to their positive associations with several aspects of democratic quality (Lijphart, 1999: 275-300;cf.…”