Consociationalism and Centripetalism: Friends or Foes?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract (may include machine translation)

Two schools dominate the literature on democracy in divided societies: consociationalism and centripetalism. The first advocates group representation and power sharing while the second recommends institutions that promote multi-ethnic parties. Although often presented as mutually exclusive choices, in reality many new democracies display a mix. Drawing on the experiences of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Fiji, Lebanon, Malaysia, and Northern Ireland, this article examines the empirical and theoretical relationship between centripetalism and consociationalism. The aim is to explore the conditions under which they reinforce each other (friends) or work at cross-purposes (foes). A better understanding of the interaction between consociational and centripetal elements in post-conflict societies not only yields a more nuanced picture of institutional dynamics, but also holds lessons for institutional design.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)519-537
Number of pages19
JournalSwiss Political Science Review
Volume25
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Dec 2019

Keywords

  • centripetalism
  • consociationalism
  • divided societies
  • electoral system
  • institutions
  • power sharing
  • vote pooling

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Consociationalism and Centripetalism: Friends or Foes?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this