Editing Arend Lijphart (section)

===Consociationalism and consensus democracy===
Lijphart is the leading authority on [[consociationalism]],<ref name=":0" /> or the ways in which segmented societies manage to sustain [[democracy]] through power-sharing. Lijphart developed this concept in his first major work, ''The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands'' (1968), a study of the [[Politics of the Netherlands|Dutch political system]], and further developed his arguments in ''Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration'' (1977).

In ''The Politics of Accommodation'' (1968), Lijphart challenges the influential [[Pluralism (political theory)|pluralist theory]] and argues that the main factor in having a viable democracy in a strongly divided society is the spirit of accommodation among the elites of different groups.<ref>Arend Lijphart, ''The Politics of Accommodation. Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands'', Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1968.</ref>

In ''Democracy in Plural Societies'' (1977), Lijphart demonstrates that democracy can be achieved and maintained in countries with deep religious, ideological, linguistic, cultural, or ethnic cleavages if elites opt for a set of institutions that are distinctive of [[Consociationalism|consociational democracy]]. In this book, Lijphart defines a consociational democracy in terms of four characteristics: (1) "government by grand coalition of the political leaders of all significant segments of the plural society," (2) "the mutual veto", (3) proportionality, and (4) "a high degree of autonomy of each segment to run its own internal affairs."<ref>Arend Lijphart, ''Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration''. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977, p 25.</ref> Lijphart's work challenged the then influential view that democracy could only be stable in countries with a homogenous political culture.

Beginning with his book ''Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian & Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries'' (1984), Lijphart focused on the broader contrast between [[majoritarian democracy]] and [[consensus democracy]]. While Lijphart advocated consociationalism primarily for societies deeply divided along ethnic, religious, ideological, or other cleavages, he sees consensus democracy as appropriate for any society with a consensual political culture.<ref>{{cite book|last=Lijphart|first=Arend|title=Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries|publisher=Yale University Press|location=New Haven, CT|year=1999|isbn=978-0-300-07893-0|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a_YGjQiZI98C}}</ref> In contrast to majoritarian democracies, consensus democracies have multiparty systems, parliamentarism with oversized (and therefore inclusive) cabinet coalitions, [[Proportional representation|proportional electoral systems]], corporatist (hierarchical) interest group structures, federal structures, [[bicameralism]], rigid constitutions protected by [[judicial review]], and independent [[central bank]]s. These institutions ensure, firstly, that only a broad supermajority can control policy and, secondly, that once a coalition takes power, its ability to infringe on minority rights is limited.

In ''Patterns of Democracy'' (1999, 2nd ed., 2012), Lijphart classifies thirty-six democracies using these attributes. He finds consensus democracies to be "kinder, gentler" states, having lower incarceration rates, less use of the death penalty, better care for the [[environment (biophysical)|environment]], more foreign aid work, and more welfare spending – qualities he feels "should appeal to all democrats".<ref>{{cite book|last=Lijphart|first=Arend|title=Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries|publisher=Yale University Press|location=New Haven, CT|year=1999|isbn=978-0-300-07893-0|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a_YGjQiZI98C|page=293}}</ref> He also finds that consensus democracies have a less abrasive [[political culture]], more functional business-like proceedings, and a results-oriented ethic. The 2012 edition included data up to 2010 and found proportional representation (PR) was vastly superior for the "quality of democracy", being statistically significantly better for 19 of 19 indicators. On the issue of "effective government" 16 out of 17 indicators pointed to PR as superior, with 9 out of 17 statistically significant. These results held up when controlling for the level of development and population size.

Peter Gourevitch and Gary Jacobson argue that Lijphart's work on democracy make him "the world's leading theorist of democracy in sharply divided societies."<ref>Peter Gourevitch and Gary Jacobson, "Arend Lijphart, A Profile." ''PS: Political Science & Politics'' 28(4)(1995): 751–754, p. 751</ref> Nils-Christian Bormann claims that "Arend Lijphart's typology of democratic systems has been one of the major contributions to comparative political science in the last decades."<ref>Bormann, Nils-Christian. 2010. "Patterns of Democracy and Its Critics." ''Living Reviews in Democracy'', p. 1.[https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/cis-dam/CIS_DAM_2015/WorkingPapers/Living_Reviews_Democracy/Bormann.pdf]</ref> Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder hold that "Arend Lijphart is a leading empirical democratic theorist who reintroduced the study of political institutions into comparative politics in the wake of the behavioral revolution."<ref>Munck, Gerardo L. and Richard Snyder (2007). "Arend Lijphart: political institutions, divided societies, and consociational democracy," pp. 234–272, in Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, ''Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics.'' Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, p. 234.</ref>