Patterns of Democracy Essay

The apply Patterns of Democracy Government Forms and Performances in Thirty-Six Countries compared consensus body politic vis-a-vis majoritarian majority rule as hostelrys backbone towards social and economic development. by its discourse, it made evident that consensus country exhibits a more mature eccentric of democracy as it better responds to many of the contemporary societys social and political issues such(prenominal) as womens rights, environmental consciousness and voters turnout. The books presented ideas that broadened my perception of sociopolitical and socioeconomic issues.It has efficaciously demonstrated the complexities of our society and the dynamics of democracy in particular. For this, the book is a good service line for building our political awareness and ideological stance. However, I find consensus democracy, as presented in the book, a very debatable concept. As the book relates, consensus democracy is a geek of government where every sector with a binding purpose is given due representation in the socio-civic segments of society. It has been practiced and seen winner in Switzerland, Belgium and even international organization such as the European Union among others.Among its identified key characteristics are the formation of a howling(a) coalition where elite leaders of to each one sector recognizes the dangers of non-cooperation exercise of coarse veto which requires consensus to confirm the majority rule proportionality where representation in the national and civic segments of the society is equal to the sectors tribe and segmental autonomy which creates a sense of individuality and wholeows for different culturally-based community laws (www. wikipedia. com). Popular literature credits Arend Lijphart as is the primary promoter of this type of democracy.Lijphart sees consensus democracy as kinder, gentler approach compared to majoritarian democracy. The book advocates this type of democracy similarly called consocia tionalism not only when as an antidote to countries in conflict that as well as as the supreme state of society. The way he presented and navigated his evidences into maintain the numerous advantages of consociationalism is unmistakablely coming from a one-track mind. Understanding his standpoint as an avid and pious promoter of this political theory as certify in his early works such as Democracy in Plural Societies (1977), he must excite been so immersed and engrossed on this concept.There is no question that this type of democracy works, in roughly situations far better even, than other democracies. Yet, as a reader, one whitethorn not help but feel overwhelmed by the bombardment of withal-good-to-be-true attributes and whence start to look for flaws and critique the concept. In his narration on how idyllic consensus democracy is, he missed out on several(prenominal) obvious contentions which real life circumstances may pose on its true implementation. He may also fi lm overlooked some contextual considerations that had served as crucial featureors in the success of consociationalism.Therefore as a review of his work Patterns of Democracy it would be insightful to mention several observations from an outsiders point of view. Consensus democracy is ideal in fact its too ideal it attends too good to be true. operate from a realist point of view, consociationalism is a fantasy. It is difficult to imagine sectors of the society each with its own agenda and interest, some with contrasting views as the other would set out together and work for a policy that may not have any effect on their cause. There will always be an opportunity cost which one or several sectors should be unstrained to pay.The question now is how much each sector is willing to gift for the familiar good. Also, the sectors which they intend to integrate in policy-making initiatives are by and large issue-based. This introduces another complexity since some of them are ad -hoc groups that disintegrate once their charge has been realized, unable to sustain the support of its subordinates. Except for some constant concerns such as labor, health and education, sectors with less important concerns need not to be raised on national level regardless of its populace.Institutionalizing a commodious term sectoral representation and compromise agreements in a much alter society is a serious challenge to meet, and even harder to maintain. Consensus democracy dreams of a welfare state with less violence, more equality, and greater environmental concern, and all the good things every government aspires for its concourse. However, the book discussion of consensus democracy makes it seem so easy to realize, eliciting false hopes, leading to unrest and eventual partitioning of the society.There is nothing wrong in setting goals but it should also be practical and pragmatic as to not mislead the people into an overnight change. The goals of consociationalism cou ld also be interpreted as being preachy. As in the case of consociationalism in Lebanon which was tagged as confessionalism due to its apparitional linkages, consensus democracy defies the separation of church and state a characteristic common to most democratic states. Aligning the governments policies with that of the churchs is a U-turn back to the conservative ages which democracies have long tried to teddy from.Another comment on the book is that it had the impression of being too imposing. Though it may have seen several successes in some countries as in the Netherlands and Belgium, this type of democracy cannot be forced upon other states. Again, operational from a relativists perspective, one must realize that each free state is a unique entity. In fact, recognizing pre-conditions for better application of consensus democracy is in itself a recognition that it cannot be function as effectively in other states.This is precisely the purpose of comparative politics where various(a) forms of governments are studied to determine which would work best in a particular society. Contrasting consensus democracy with majoritarian democracy was Lijpharts way of bring out the positive facets of the former. However, the manner on which the comparison was presented seems to be discrediting the latter in order to elevate the status of consociationalism. It is ironic that consensus democracy calls for tolerance for unparallel views for various sectors yet he is maligning majoritarian democracy to forward his thoughts.This manner of opinion holds no chance in a consensus democracy for it will only stir more conflict and cleavages among disparate groups. As sectors are delineate by elites in a consensus democracy, it manifests an imbalance in the society elites who have their own interests to protect, have secured places in the society and have nothing much to lose should they fail to forward their cause. This leaves the sectors they represent helpless should the elites decide go with the majority.The minority will have no power against the majority in fear of retaliating on them with a bigger impact. This scenario is highly hegemonic. Lastly, the federalism by kernel of identifying the racial and cultural backgrounds is not cohesive, rather its the opposite. Continuously referring to them as the minority will not improve the chances of garnering greater support. This will lead the so called ethic groups to detach from the coalition and pursue their own initiatives in some other venue that may not be as diplomatic as consociationalism suggests.