INSTITUTIONALISING CONSOCIATIONALISM

1.2.1 Instruments of Consociationalism

The institutionalisation of social pillars and the politics of elite acquiescence are achieved through highly-integrated decision-making structures and power-sharing arrangements. These structures may be anchored in legal-constitutional documents or remain unwritten, even tacit, agreements between representatives of the different pillars of society. The following section will briefly highlight the most pervasive instruments of consociational government.

1.2.1.1 Mutual Veto

The first instrument of consociational democracy is ‘negative minority rule’ or the power to obstruct decisions unpopular within one or more pillars or deemed a threat to their autonomy and to the principle of pluralism. Quintessentially, this allows pillars a guarantee against majoritarian electoral defeats and majority tyranny. Mutual vetoes are, conventionally, limited to questions of a sensitive nature and are enshrined in documents of national unity or constitutions and are often attained through parliamentary provisions and laws governing electoral processes.

In Switzerland, for instance, constitutional amendments require not only a nation-wide majority, but also majorities in a majority of cantons (Lijphart, 1984:29). The two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament required to amend the Belgian constitution is another example of negative minority rule adopted in 1970 to protect the Walloon minority vis-à-vis

44 

the Flemish majority (Deschouwer, 2002; Angelov, 2004). Similarly, the Dayton Accord guarantees Bosnia’s ethnic communities mutual vetoes in the three-member presidential council and in federal government (Bose, 2002:63; Stroschein, 2003).

1.2.1.2 Proportional Representation

The second instrument of consociationalism is proportional representation (PR), which entails the allocation of power and resources amongst the pillars of society in proportion to their size. In contrast to centripetal democracies which over-represent majority parties and under- represent minority/opposition parties, PR systems allocate all parties and segments a share of public office commensurate with their demographic, socioeconomic and electoral weight. Although PR is sometimes applied in majoritarian systems, it is particularly salient in consociational regimes. Crucially, this formalises social pillarisation, serves to over-represent minority groups and, thus, encourages broad enfranchisement of diverse groups in governing structures, appointments and subsidies (Lijphart, 1968:127-129; 1984:28; Stroschein, 2003).

1.2.1.3 Segmental Autonomy

Whereas mutual vetoes and proportional representation integrate all segments of society into the decision-making process on the national level, segmental autonomy entails assigning exclusive jurisdiction to subnational groups on matters of their specific and exclusive concern. In other words, by expanding the scope of administrative decentralism, consociational regimes delegate government to the subnational level with regards to affairs of the exclusive concern of each segment (Lijphart, 1977:41).

Segmental autonomy in plural societies does not only expand the limits of participatory democracy, but also avoids a situation of ‘all conflict all the time’ by channelling debates so that only essential issues of a cross-segmental nature are brought to the national domain (Stroschein, 2003). This allows pillars holding widely divergent interests and values to become self-contained reducing the incidence of overlapping affiliations and, thus, minimising the potential for conflict (Lijphart, 1968:200; 1977:42) in line with Quincy Wright’s (1951:196) assertion that the intensity of tensions is inversely proportional to social distance.

Decentralism within the context of segmental autonomy, however, must not be confused with territorial federalism. Indeed, plural societies where segmental and territorial cleavages overlap may opt for a federal system as is the case in Quebec. Nonetheless, in plural societies where social pillars are not geographically concentrated, autonomy is arranged on a non-territorial, functional basis whereby groups administer nation-wide segmental interests. This explains the ‘communitarianism’ of schools in India, Belgium and the Netherlands, for instance (Lijphart, 2004). In a similar vein, constitutional amendments adopted in 1970 introduced separate

cultural councils for the French and Flemish cultural-linguistic communities in Belgium which are only partially defined in territorial terms (Lijphart, 1984:28).

Similarly, Lebanon’s confessions can only be party defined in territorial terms. Although confessional groups are geographically concentrated in certain regions, proximity, cohabitation and territorial discontinuity necessitate non-territorial instruments of segmental autonomy. Accordingly, confessions hold sway over education, culture and personal status courts. It must be noted that scholars of the former Ottoman Empire have often attributed this autonomy to the Ottoman millet system (Melikian and Diab, 1959; Stroschein, 2003). Although partly valid, this research insists on conceptualising the autonomous administration of personal, communal and sectarian-cultural affairs in plural societies within the framework of consociational theory as the aforementioned assertion fails to explain the existence of segmental autonomy in Western democracies with no history of an Ottoman millet system. Moreover, Ottoman millets were granted autonomy over the administration of their exclusive affairs without gaining official recognition as subnational pillars in the politico-cultural sense.

1.2.1.4 Power-Sharing and Broad Coalition Government

The fourth instrument of consociational government pertains to the importance of acquiescence between prudent and circumspect elites. In this vein, broad coalition governments and power- sharing schemes are considered to be a measure of the extent to which a political system is consociational. According to this view, cabinets in consociational regimes are likely to include a larger number of political actors than is minimally required to attain a simple parliamentary majority. Empirical evidence shows that the percentage of time spent under majoritarian cabinets in such consociational democracies as Belgium and Switzerland, for instance, averaged at 28.8% and 8.7% respectively (Lijphart, 2002).

1.2.1.5 Summit Diplomacy: The Business of Politics

As essential to consociational democracies as they are, broad coalition and oversized cabinets are, plausibly, an impediment to efficient government rendering decision-making a tedious and slow process. Moreover, balance-of-power politics and the compromises they entail inevitably reduce cabinets’ ability to take ambitious and effective policy decisions.

Consequently, summit diplomacy or government by elite cartel is designed to circumvent the inefficiencies of power-sharing schemes. Summit diplomacy entails limiting decision-making and debate over thorny issues to the higher echelons of each segment. In other words, divisive and time-sensitive matters are debated in elite circles much less broad than coalition governments and proportionally-segmented parliaments (Lijphart, 1968:126).

46 

Essentially, minimising the number of individuals and raising the level at which crucial issues are debated results in a businesslike determination within the ruling establishment and, thus, the convictions of each segment are tolerated while disagreements are not allowed to sprawl out of control (Daalder, 1955; Lijphart, 1968:123). It is, therefore, unsurprising that countries with a long tradition as ‘business nations’ with longstanding merchant middle-classes such as the Low Countries, Switzerland and Lebanon are more ‘successful’ at summit diplomacy.

1.2.2 Applications of Consociational Government

Practical applications of the instruments of consociational government discussed above, however, predate academic endeavours intended to conceptualise consensus regimes by almost a century. Since the birth of the Swiss Confederation, for instance, symmetrical or balanced bicameralism has embodied the principle of broad-coalition government as well as mutual vetoes: whereas the National Council (lower house) represents the Swiss people, the Council of States (upper house) represents cantons on an equal basis. Balanced bicameralism, therefore, guarantees all cantons representation in the legislature and over-represents smaller cantons in the upper house.

In the Netherlands, where the political system was officially consociational between 1917 and 1967, the Seniorenconvent (Senior’s Assembly) demonstrated the concept of summit diplomacy. The five-man committee was made up of the chairperson of the Parliament and the chairmen of the major parties representing the zuilen of Dutch society – the Calvinists, Catholics, socialists and liberals. Although the assembly had no formal status and operated only intermittently, it assumed political significance at times of crises and parliamentary or governmental deadlocks (Lijphart, 1968:127).

In a similar vein, the Bundesrat (Federal Council) is an ostensible case of summit diplomacy in Switzerland. The seven-person council constitutes the country’s government on the federal level, serves as the collective head of state and is ascribed decision-making prerogatives on crucial issues pertaining to the Federation. The summit-diplomacy aspect of the Bundesrat, however, does not counteract the inclusiveness of consociational government nor does it downplay the importance of proportional representation. Election to the Bundesrat, for instance, depends on broad alliances of cantonal parties forged through complex bargains. According to constitutional provisions and informal conventions, elected members of the

Bundesrat come from different cantons. In other words, government on the federal level

embodies a conventional zauberformel (magic formula) of 2:2:2:1 according to which the linguistic lagern are respectively represented (Lehmbruch, 1993).

In Belgium, proportional representation is even pervasive: customarily, cabinets include an equal number of Felmish- and French-speaking ministers. In 1970, this became an official requirement mandated by the Constitution (Lijphart, 1984:26).

In line with longstanding consociational democracies in Western Europe, post-Dayton Bosnia demonstrates similar power-sharing and PR arrangements. Seats in Parliament, for instance, are allocated amongst the country’s ethnic groups proportionally and each group retains veto rights in Parliament. Moreover, cantonal decentralism in the Bosnian-Croat Federation and the autonomy of Republika Srpska embody segmental autonomy. It must also be noted that federal governments since 1996 demonstrate the commitment to broad-coalition government while the three-person Presidential Council can be seen as an institution of summit diplomacy whereby the three elected representatives of the Bosniak, Serbian and Croat communities are expected to negotiate and decide on matters of crucial importance circumventing the inefficiencies of the broad-coalition governments and high levels of decentralism5 _{(Bose, 2002; Zahar, 2004; 2005,} Morrow, 2005).

Government structures and the dynamics of decision-making in modern Lebanon are strikingly similar. Consociationalism in Lebanon, however, is discussed later in this research. It suffices to note here that proportional representation, segmental autonomy, power-sharing and summit diplomacy are enshrined in the Constitution and the political conventions that govern political life in Lebanon. Moreover, consociationalism is evident in the size and allocation of government portfolios and seats in the national legislature6 _{as well as in the limiting of debate} over thorny issues of foreign policy and national security to such conventional (yet unofficial) institutions as the National Dialogue and extra-ordinary summits.