Patterns of Democracy Essay

The have Patterns of commonwealth Government Forms and Performances in Thirty-Six Countries comp ared consensus country vis-a-vis majoritarian absolute majority rule as hunting lodges backb nonpareil towards cordial and sparing development. Through its discourse, it made evident that consensus majority rule exhibits a more mature slip of commonwealth as it better responds to legion(predicate) of the contemporary communitys social and political issues such as womens rights, environmental awareness and voters turnout. The books presented ideas that broadened my perception of sociopolitical and socioeconomic issues.It has effectively present the complexities of our clubhouse and the dynamics of democracy in particular. For this, the book is a good baseline 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 sheath of brass where every sector with a valid purpose is given collect pay offation in the socio-civic segments of order of magnitude. It has been practiced and seen victor in Switzerland, Belgium and point intertheme placement such as the European uniting among separates.Among its identified key characteristics are the establishment of a grand coalition where elite group leaders of each sector recognizes the dangers of non-cooperation performance of mutual veto which requires consensus to confirm the majority rule proportionality where representation in the national and civic segments of the society is compare to the sectors population and metameric autonomy which creates a sense of identity element and allows for different culturally-based community laws (www. wikipedia. com). Popular belles-lettres credits Arend Lijphart as is the primary doer of this suit of democracy.Lijphart sees consensus democracy as kinder, gentler approach compared to majoritarian democracy. The book advocate s this type of democracy excessively called consociationalism non only as an antidote to countries in conflict but also as the supreme carry of society. The focusing he presented and navigated his evidences into asserting the numerous advantages of consociationalism is evidently coming from a one-track mind. Understanding his vantage designate as an avid and pious impresario of this political theory as demonstrate in his early recreates such as Democracy in plural Societies (1977), he must feature been so immersed and engrossed on this concept. at that place is no question that this type of democracy works, in rough situations far better even, than separate democracies. Yet, as a reader, one may not help but encounter overwhelmed by the bombardment of in like manner-good-to-be-true attributes and then last to look for flaws and critique the concept. In his narration on how idyllic consensus democracy is, he missed out on some(prenominal) obvious contentions wh ich real life muckle may pose on its actual implementation. He may also harbour overlooked some contextual considerations that had served as crucial circumstanceors in the success of consociationalism. then as a review of his work Patterns of Democracy it would be insightful to think of some(prenominal) observations from an outsiders point of view. Consensus democracy is ideal in fact its too ideal it bets too good to be true. Operating from a realist point of view, consociationalism is a fantasy. It is difficult to cogitate sectors of the society each with its own schedule and interest, some with contrasting views as the early(a) would come together and work for a policy that may not have any effect on their cause. there will always be an prospect cost which one or several sectors should be automatic to pay.The question promptly is how untold each sector is willing to sacrifice for the common good. Also, the sectors which they intend to unify in policy-making in itiatives are generally issue-based. This introduces an separate complexity since some of them are ad-hoc groups that disintegrate once their mission has been realized, ineffective 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 ample term sectoral representation and compromise agreements in a much diversified 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 people. However, the book discussion of consensus democracy makes it seem so easy to realize, eliciting false hopes, guide to unrest and eventual contributedown of the society.There is nothing wrong in circumstance goals but it should also be h ard-nosed and pragmatic as to not pervert the people into an overnight change. The goals of consociationalism could also be interpreted as being preachy. As in the case of consociationalism in Lebanon which was labeled as confessionalism due to its religious linkages, consensus democracy defies the separation of church and state a characteristic common to most egalitarian states. Aligning the governments policies with that of the churchs is a U-turn back to the blimpish ages which democracies have long tried to break 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, operating from a relativists perspective, one must realize that each sovereign 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 mould as effectively in other states.This is precisely the purpose of comparative political science where various forms of governments are studied to secure which would work best in a particular society. Contrasting consensus democracy with majoritarian democracy was Lijpharts way of highlighting the plus facets of the former. However, the manner on which the comparison was presented seems to be discrediting the latter in order to invoke 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 ruling holds no chance in a consensus democracy for it will only disturb more conflict and cleavages among disparate groups. As sectors are represented 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 n othing 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 billet against the majority in fear of retaliating on them with a bigger impact. This scenario is highly hegemonic. Lastly, the federalism by means of identifying the racial and cultural backgrounds is not cohesive, rather its the opposite. Continuously referring to them as the minority will not emend the chances of garnering greater support. This will allow the so called ethic groups to detach from the coalition and result their own initiatives in some other venue that may not be as diplomatic as consociationalism suggests.