The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands

Lijphart argues that stable democracy is possible in deeply divided societies if the leaders of contending groups are willing and able to systematically counteract tendencies toward conflict [citation:5]. He rejects the pluralist assumption that cross-cutting cleavages are necessary for democratic stability. The Dutch case from 1917 to 1967 stands as an anomaly: strong, mutually reinforcing cleavages did not spoil but in fact strengthened democratic stability [citation:4]. The mechanism is elite accommodation—leaders cooperate at the top even as their constituencies remain isolated from one another.

Pillarization is the vertical division of Dutch society into four distinct blocs—Catholics, Calvinists, Liberals, and Socialists—each with its own political party, trade unions, schools, media, and social organizations [citation:10]. Lijphart notes that each bloc lived autonomously and separately from the others, with little communication between segments [citation:10]. Marriage across blocs was rare. Despite this separation, elites from each pillar negotiated compromises on issues like suffrage and confessional education, creating a stable political system through elite cooperation rather than mass integration.

Lijphart argues that the essence of Dutch political stability lies in the spirit of accommodation among political elites [citation:10]. For elite compromises to be accepted by followers, the masses must be politically passive and respectful toward their leaders. This requires a strong hierarchy within parties, with leaders negotiating compromises that ordinary members accept without protest [citation:10]. Lijphart explicitly identifies this elitist behavior—and the masses' acceptance of elite leadership—as the direct explanation for Dutch stability, alongside shared nationalism and the mitigating effects of some cross-cutting divisions.

The central criticism is that Lijphart's minimalist definition of democracy—'a system of government in which the people have the opportunity to select their own leaders'—ignores participation and democratic quality [citation:4]. Critics argue that a system based on secrecy and elite exclusion of the people from politics suffers from democratic deficits. Lijphart acknowledges this tradeoff, asserting that stability in a deeply divided society can only be achieved at the expense of deviating from ideal democratic norms [citation:4]. Critics question whether such a system should be called democratic at all, or whether it merely preserves order.

Lijphart added a new chapter, 'The Breakdown of the Politics of Accommodation,' to the revised edition, tracing how traditional social cleavages weakened in the mid-1960s, deference to elite authority waned, and public attitudes changed [citation:1]. He admits he underestimated the political changes beginning as he completed the manuscript in 1967, and that his judgment in the second edition that these changes were 'revolutionary' was influenced by his proximity to the Dutch scene during his tenure at Leiden [citation:5]. The breakdown occurred precisely as citizens began questioning elite authority and valuing self-determination.

The Politics of Accommodation is Lijphart's first major work and the foundation of his entire scholarly project [citation:17]. He states that the book's conclusion—that there is no incompatibility between democracy and deep social cleavages—became the major theme of his work, elaborated in Democracy in Plural Societies (1977) and later in Democracies [citation:5]. The Dutch case study provides the empirical anomaly that generated the general theory of consociational democracy, which Lijphart subsequently applied and prescribed for divided societies worldwide, from South Africa to Northern Ireland.