How Consensual Are Consensus Democracies? A Reconsideration of the Consensus/Majoritarian Dichotomy and a Comparison of Legislative Roll-Call Vote Consensus Levels from Sixteen Countries
نویسنده
چکیده
In the following study, I develop two new institutional dimensions of consensus/majoritarian democracies, building on the variables of the two forms of democracy identified by Lijphart. Based on these two new dimensions, I establish a classification of consensual regime types and winnow out two permutations which would most closely approximate the ideal of domestic social conflict resolution, and could also more plausibly be explained by irenic cultural norms, rather than institutional mechanisms. Then I conduct an empirical investigation to assess whether there is a correlation between consensus or majoritarian democracies and average levels of legislative roll-call vote consensus acquired over time. My results suggest that proportional representation and ideological cohesion are not in tension with one another, as the opponents of PR would have us believe, and in fact may be more amenable to consensus building and ideological cohesion than their majoritarian counterparts. Interested researchers should aim to substantiate the correlation between consensual institutions and outcomes, and then conduct thicker investigations in order to determine whether consensual outcomes in consensus democracies can be explained by institutional mechanisms, or if, more ideally, irenic cultural norms might be at work. _____________________________________________________________________________
منابع مشابه
Homogeneity, Heterogeneity and Direct Democracy: The Case of Swiss Referenda
In his famous dichotomy of consensual versus majoritarian democracies, Lijphart ~1984! claims that “consensual” means are more applicable in heterogeneous societies, while “majoritarian” means are more adequate in homogenous societies. While discussing at length many features of both consensual and majoritarian democracy, Lijphart refrains from reaching a conclusion concerning the desirability ...
متن کاملThe ‘British Policy Style’ and Mental Health: Beyond the Headlines
Recent Mental Health Acts provide evidence of diverging UK1 and Scottish government policy styles. The UK legislative process lasted almost ten years following attempts by ministers to impose decisions and an unprecedented level of sustained opposition from interest groups. In contrast, the consultation process in Scotland was consensual, producing high levels of stakeholder ‘ownership’. This a...
متن کاملModel-Based Cluster Analysis of Democracies
We apply model-based cluster analysis to data concerning types of democracies, creating an instrument for typologies. Noting several advantages of modelbased clustering over traditional clustering methods, we fit a normal mixture model for types of democracy in the context of the majoritarian-consensus contrast using Lijphart’s (1999) data on ten variables for 36 democracies. The model for the ...
متن کاملA Review on Consensus Algorithms in Blockchain
Block chain technology is a decentralized data storage structure based on a chain of data blocks that are related to each other. Block chain saves new blocks in the ledger without trusting intermediaries through a competitive or voting mechanism. Due to the chain structure or the graph between each block with its previous blocks, it is impossible to change blocking data. Block chain architectur...
متن کاملExplaining the Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks
Advances in understanding the democratic anchorage of governance networks require carefully designed and contextually grounded empirical analysis that take into account contextual factors. The article uses a conjectural framework to study the impact of the national democratic milieu on the relationship between network governance and representative institutions in four European countries: the Un...
متن کامل