Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration

Lijphart identifies four characteristics: a grand coalition of political leaders from all significant segments, a mutual veto granting each group the ability to block decisions affecting it, proportional representation in allocation of offices and resources, and segmental autonomy allowing each group to govern itself in areas of exclusive concern [citation:5]. He argues that these elements are necessary because majoritarian democracy, which works in homogeneous societies with cross-cutting cleavages, fails in plural societies where cleavages are segmental and reinforcing. In the latter, a permanent majority can exclude a permanent minority, destroying incentives for peaceful compromise and making democracy itself unstable [citation:2].

Critics have challenged the theory on several fronts. One major criticism is that consociationalism assumes ethnic divisions are fixed and primordial, thereby entrenching rather than resolving the sectarianism that produced conflict [citation:15]. Lijphart's measurement of 'plural society' has been called vague and inconsistent; Jürg Steiner noted he mixes external isolation with internal cohesion without clear operational criteria [citation:1]. Others criticize the theory for concentrating power in the hands of elites, producing weak opposition and a lack of democratic accountability. Empirical cases like India have been cited as deviant examples that consociationalism cannot adequately explain [citation:7].

Patterns of Democracy (1999) is the empirical culmination of the research program that Democracy in Plural Societies launched. Where the 1977 book focuses specifically on deeply divided societies and prescribes consociationalism as the solution, Patterns of Democracy broadens the argument by mapping all established democracies onto a two-dimensional typology of majoritarian vs. consensus democracy [citation:12]. Lijphart himself acknowledges that the arguments in Democracy in Plural Societies are somewhat dated and points readers to Patterns for the updated version [citation:5]. The later book drops the focus on 'plural societies' as a distinct category, embedding consociational insights into a more general theory of democratic performance.

A common misconception treats consociational democracy as a purely descriptive typology of a few small European countries. In fact, Lijphart's project is explicitly prescriptive and normative, especially after the 1970s. He argues that consociational arrangements are not only feasible but are the only realistic settlement capable of attracting agreement among all factions in post-conflict divided societies [citation:2]. The model has been applied in constitutional design for South Africa, Northern Ireland, and other divided societies [citation:11]. The four elements are presented as 'recipes' or 'devices' that can be employed piecemeal rather than as an all-or-nothing package [citation:14].

Lijphart initially used 'consociational democracy' as an academic term, but later admitted it was too polysyllabic and esoteric for political actors [citation:10]. He adopted 'power-sharing' as an intuitive synonym to facilitate communication beyond academia. This shift reflects the book's trajectory from a descriptive academic concept to a prescriptive tool for constitutional engineering. By the 1980s, Lijphart was fully convinced of the prescriptive power of consociationalism, and the term 'power-sharing' became the standard vocabulary in international conflict resolution and constitution-making [citation:10].

Lijphart drew on several sources. His earlier study of the Netherlands, The Politics of Accommodation (1968), established the puzzle of how a deeply divided society achieved stable democracy [citation:19]. Arthur Lewis's 1965 analysis of thirteen postcolonial African states provided the first modern argument that British-style majoritarian democracy was unsuitable for plural societies [citation:10]. Gerhard Lehmbruch's work on Switzerland and Austria (1967) offered the concept of 'concordance democracy' [citation:10]. Lijphart synthesized these into a general theory, examining political systems across six continents to demonstrate that consociational democracy can be successful in severely divided societies [citation:9].