Power‐sharing versus Majority Rule

Patterns of Cabinet Formation in Twenty Democracies

Bibliographic Data

ID6267280
AuthorsArend Lijphart (corresponding author)
Year1981
Volume16
Issue4
Pages395-413
Publication date1981-10-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueGovernment and Opposition (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0017-257X • E-ISSN: 1477-7053
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1111/j.1477-7053.1981.tb00319.x
OpenAlexW2098994267
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited3

THE TERM ‘MAJORITY RULE’ IS OFTEN USED EITHER AS A synonym of democracy or as one of its defining characteristics. An important contribution that the scholars belonging to the consociational school have made to democratic theory is to point out that this close identification of majorit rule and democracy is fallacious. Majoritarian democracy, of which the Westminster model is the ideal type, is not the only form of democracy; the major alternative is consociational democracy. Furthermore, majority rule is not necessarily the best form of democracy; especially in plural societies - that is, societies deeply divided by religious, ideological, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, or racial cleavages into separate sub-societies with their own political parties, interest groups, and media of communication - consociational democracy is the more suitable democratic model

Democracy · Direct democracy · Ideal (ethics · Ideology · Liberal democracy · Linguistics · Plural · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Rule of law · Sociology · Irish and British Studies · Law · Philosophy · Political and Economic history of UK and US · Political Systems and Governance

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub