Skip to main content
Log in

Institutional Designs for Diverse Democracies: Consociationalism, Centripetalism and Communalism Compared

  • Symposium
  • Published:
European Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An intense scholarly and public policy debate concerns the optimal design of institutions for new democracies, particularly those facing deep ethnic or cultural cleavages. This paper surveys the main contending models that have been advanced for ethnically diverse democracies – consociationalism, centripetalism and communalism – and examines the key components of each of those models. It then explores some aspects of their application, arguing that there is much more cross-over between the models than is commonly assumed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bermeo, B. (2003) Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times: The Citizenry and the Breakdown of Democracy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duverger, M. (1954) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnivall, J.S. (1948) Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggard, S. and Kaufman, R. (1995) The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggard, S. and Webb, S.B. (1992) Voting for Reform: Democracy, Political Liberalization and Economic Adjustment, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. and Reilly, B. (1998) Democracy and Deep-rooted Conflict: Options for Negotiators, Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, D. (1985) Ethnic Groups in Conflict, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, D. (1991) A Democratic South Africa? Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, S.P. (1991) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarstad, A. (2008) ‘Power Sharing: Former Enemies in Joint Governments’, in A. Jarstad and T. Sisk (eds.) From War to Democracy: Dilemmas of Peacebuilding, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jarstad, A. and Sisk, T. (eds.) (2008) From War to Democracy: Dilemmas of Peacebuilding, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1977) Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1984) Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries, New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1985) ‘Power sharing in South Africa’, Berkeley CA: Policy Papers in International Affairs No. 24, Institute of International Studies, University of California.

  • Lijphart, A. (1990) ‘Electoral Systems, Party Systems and Conflict Management in Segmented Societies’, in R.A. Schreirer (ed.) Critical Choices for South Africa: An Agenda for the 1990s, Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1994) ‘Prospects for Power-sharing in the New South Africa’, in A. Reynolds (ed.) Election ’94 South Africa: The Campaigns, Results and Future Prospects, Claremont: David Phillip Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1995) ‘Self-determination versus Pre-determination of Ethnic Minorities in Power-sharing Systems’, in W. Kymlicka (ed.) The Rights of Minority Cultures, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (2004) ‘Constitutional design for divided societies’, Journal of Democracy 15 (2): 96–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2004) Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G.B. (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions, New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, B. (2001) Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, B. (2004) ‘Elections in Post-conflict Societies’, in E. Newman and R. Rich (eds.) The UN Role in Promoting Democracy: Between Ideals and Reality, Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, B. (2006) Democracy and Diversity: Political Engineering for Conflict Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, B. (2007) ‘Political engineering in the Asia-Pacific’, Journal of Democracy 18 (1): 58–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, B. and Nordlund, P. (eds.) (2008) Political Parties in Conflict-prone Societies: Regulation, Engineering and Democratic Development, Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, B. and Reynolds, A. (1999) Electoral Systems and Conflict in Divided Societies, Washington, DC: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeder, P.G. and Rothchild, D. (2005) Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars, Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sisk, T. (1995) Democratization in South Africa: The Elusive Social Contract, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, E. (2005) ‘Multiracialism engineered: The limits of electoral and spatial integration in Singapore’, Ethnopolitics 4 (4): 413–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reilly, B. Institutional Designs for Diverse Democracies: Consociationalism, Centripetalism and Communalism Compared. Eur Polit Sci 11, 259–270 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2011.36

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2011.36

Keywords

Navigation