Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:38:15.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Power‐sharing versus Majority Rule: Patterns of Cabinet Formation in Twenty Democracies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Arend Lijphart
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

THE TERM ‘MAJORITY RULE’ IS OFTEN USED EITHER AS A synonym of democracy or as one of its defining characteristics. An important contribution that the scholars belonging to the consociational school have made to democratic theory is to point out that this close identification of majorit rule and democracy is fallacious. Majoritarian democracy, of which the Westminster model is the ideal type, is not the only form of democracy; the major alternative is consociational democracy. Furthermore, majority rule is not necessarily the best form of democracy; especially in plural societies - that is, societies deeply divided by religious, ideological, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, or racial cleavages into separate sub-societies with their own political parties, interest groups, and media of communication - consociational democracy is the more suitable democratic model.

Type
Original Article
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , 01 October 1981 , pp. 395 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See the work of Hans Daalder, Edward M. Dew, Theodor Hanf, Luc Huyse, Enver M. Koury, Gerhard Lehmbruch, W. A. Lewis, Arend Lijphart, Val R. Lorwin, Kenneth D. McRae, R. S. Milne, Eric A. Nordlinger, K. Z. Paltiel, G. Bingham Powell, Jr, John Seiler, Jürg Steiner and Karl von Vorys. An excellent anthology of basic writings on consociational democracy is Kenneth D. McRae (ed.), Consociational Democracy: Political Accommodation in Segmented Societies, Toronto, McClelland & Stewart, 1974.

2 Steiner, Jürg, ‘The Principles of Majority and Proportionality’, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 1, No. 1, 01 1971, pp. 63–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gerhard Lehmbruch, Proporzdemokratie: Politisches System und politische Kultur in der Schweiz und in Österreich, Tübingen, Mohr, 1967.

3 Riker, William H., The Theory of Political Coalitions, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1962, pp. 32–46 Google Scholar.

4 Leiserson, Michael, ‘Coalition Government in Japan’, in Sven Groennings, Kelly, E. W. and Leiserson, Michael (eds), The Study of Coalition Behavior: Theoretical Perspectives and Cases from Four Continents, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970, p. 90 Google Scholar.

5 Axelrod, Robert, Conflict of Interest: A Theory of Divergent Goals with Applications to Politics, Chicago, Markham, 1970, pp. 165–87Google Scholar.

6 Abram De Swaan, Coalition Theories and Cabinet Formation: A Study of Formal Theories of Coatition Formation Applied to Nine European Parliaments After 1918, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1973, p. 153.

7 Eric C. Browne also tested these three theories and found them wanting; see his Coalition Theories: A Logical and Empirical Critique, Sage Professional Papers in Comparative Politics, Vol. 4, No. 01–043, Beverly Hills, Sage, 1973, pp. 22–30.

8 See Graziano, Luigi, ‘The Historic Compromise and Consociational Democracy: Toward a New Democracy?’, pp. 345–68, International Political Science Review, Vol 1, No. 3, 1980, pp. 345–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Riker, Op cit., p. 88.

10 De Swaan, Op. cit., p. 148.

11 De Swaan's own ‘policy distance theory’, which is exclusively based on the assumption that parties will prefer that coalition that is closest to their own policy preference, is not a good predictor of actual cabinet coalitions (ibid., pp. 151–53).

12 Budge, Ian and Herman, Valentine, ‘Coalitions and Government Formation: An Empirically Relevant Theory’, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 8, No. 4, 10 1978, pp. 463, 469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 De Swaan, op cit., p. 159.

14 Valentine Herman and John Pope, ‘Minority Governments in Western Democracies’, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, April 1973, p. 195.

15 Arthur Lewis, W., Politics in West Africa, London, Allen & Unwin, 1965, p. 55 Google Scholar.