Suchergebnisse

AbstractTwo schools dominate the literature on democracy in divided societies: consociationalism and centripetalism. The first advocates group representation and power sharing while the second recommends institutions that promote multi‐ethnic parties. Although often presented as mutually exclusive choices, in reality many new democracies display a mix. Drawing on the experiences of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Fiji, Lebanon, Malaysia, and Northern Ireland, this article examines the empirical and theoretical relationship between centripetalism and consociationalism. The aim is to explore the conditions under which they reinforce each other (friends) or work at cross‐purposes (foes). A better understanding of the interaction between consociational and centripetal elements in post‐conflict societies not only yields a more nuanced picture of institutional dynamics, but also holds lessons for institutional design.

Most assessments of power-sharing institutions focus on their functionality, that is, on their prospects for delivering peace, stability, and prosperity. This article focuses instead on the prior question of "adoptability," that is, on whether particular power-sharing institutions can be accepted (agreed to) in the first place. While the adoptability question is scarcely touched on in the academic literature, it is just as important as the functionality question, as it hardly matters whether an institution is functional if it is not adoptable. The article examines the adoptability question through a close-up look at the negotiations in Cyprus. The evidence from there suggests that consociational power sharing is more likely to be adoptable than centripetal power sharing in contexts where agreement is needed.

An intense scholarly and public policy debate concerns the optimal design of institutions for new democracies, particularly those facing deep ethnic or cultural cleavages. This paper surveys the main contending models that have been advanced for ethnically diverse democracies - consociationalism, centripetalism and communalism - and examines the key components of each of those models. It then explores some aspects of their application, arguing that there is much more cross-over between the models than is commonly assumed.

An intense scholarly and public policy debate concerns the optimal design of institutions for new democracies, particularly those facing deep ethnic or cultural cleavages. This paper surveys the main contending models that have been advanced for ethnically diverse democracies -- consociationalism, centripetalism and communalism -- and examines the key components of each of those models. It then explores some aspects of their application, arguing that there is much more cross-over between the models than is commonly assumed. Adapted from the source document.

In this article, the author analyzes the term "power-sharing" in the context of power exercised within a state. He first examines the term in the very general sense, in which it can be applied to all types and dimensions of sharing of power between various groups and institutional entities. Second, the author examines the meaning of the term in the narrow sense, that is, the phenomenon of systemic sharing of power by groups (segments) whose membership is based on ascribed criteria such as common ancestors, relatives, or racial background, and (or) cultural ones such as a common language, religion, or celebrations. The basic segmental units in this sense are nations (understood in the sociological sense), ethnic groups, or religious and denominational communities that form part of divided societies. Third, the article shows the differences between the principal models (types) of power-sharing in the narrow sense: consociationalism, centripetalism, and hybrid power-sharing. The article has been published in "Studia Polityczne" (2018, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 9-30).

An intense scholarly and public policy debate concerns the optimal design of institutions for new democracies, particularly those facing deep ethnic or cultural cleavages. This paper surveys the main contending models that have been advanced for ethnically diverse democracies - consociationalism, centripetalism and communalism - and examines the key components of each of those models. It then explores some aspects of their application, arguing that there is much more cross-over between the models than is commonly assumed.

In 2001 the Indonesian government agreed to the introduction in the Indonesian Papua of regional, consociational elements of power-sharing, despite the fact that the dominant model of this system in Indonesia is centripetalism. The so-called special autonomy for the Indonesian Papua has never been fully implemented, however. The article seeks to test the thesis that the Indonesian authorities' institution of consociational arrangements for Papua, and their subsequent failure to fully implement those arrangements, were in fact tactical moves serving to reduce the threat arising from growing pro-independence aspirations among the Papuans and to firmly attach Papuan territory to Indonesia. This article has been published in "Hemispheres" 2016, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 5-20.

Artikel ini membincangkan tentang pertukaran kerajaan yang berlaku di Malaysia pada PRU-14 berdasarkan kerangka teori konsosiasionalisme dan centripetalisme, iaitu dua strategi makro-politik dalam perkongsian kuasa di dalam masyarakat multi-etnik yang terpecah. Rejim Barisan Nasional seringkali diklasifikasikan sebagai bersifat konsosiasional. Pendekatan alternatif kepada konsosiasionalisme yang dipanggil centripetalisme sesuai dikaitkan dengan Pakatan Harapan walaupun elemen-elemen konsosiasional masih terdapat dalam koalisi tersebut. Perubahan lanskap politik dari tahun 2008 sehingga 2018 telah menimbulkan persoalan tentang kerelevanan konsosiasionalisme pada abad ke-21. Kekalahan Barisan Nasional menandakan berakhirnya era kegemilangan model konsosiasionalisme ala-Barisan Nasional yang digelar coercive consociationalism. Kegagalan sistemik dalam amalan coercive consociationalism Barisan Nasional telah menyumbang kepada kekalahannya pada PRU-14. Kerapuhan model konsosiasionalisme tersebut terserlah apabila koalisi Barisan Nasional berpecah dengan pantas setelah ia kehilangan kuasa kerajaan pusat. Pergerakan ke arah centripetalisme di kalangan gerakan oposisi sejak tahun 1998 adalah selaras dengan fenomena kebangkitan politik baharu. Pakatan Harapan mempunyai cabaran yang besar untuk menampilkan agenda centrist dan moderat bagi mencairkan elemen perkauman dalam politik Malaysia. Selain itu, masa depan pendekatan centripetalisme dan Pakatan Harapan turut bergantung kepada kejayaan reformasi institusi yang dijanjikannya. This article discusses the change of government in Malaysia during GE-14 based on the theoretical frameworks of consociationalism and centripetalism, namely two macro-political strategies for power-sharing in deeply divided multi-ethnic societies. The Barisan Nasional regime is often classified as consociational. An alternative approach to consociationalism, called centripetalism, is best suited to Pakatan Harapan, although some elements of consociationalism are still present in the coalition. The change of political landscape from 2008 to 2018 has raised concerns about the relevance of consociationalism in the 21st century. Barisan Nasional's defeat marks the end of the glorious era of Barisan Nasional's style of consociationalism, called coercive consociationalism. The systemic failure in the practice of Barisan Nasional's coercive consociationalism has contributed to its defeat in the GE-14. The fragility of the consociationalism model is evident when the Barisan Nasional coalition is rapidly breaking up after it loses the power of the central government. The movement towards centripetalism among opposition movements since 1998 is in line with the phenomenon of new politics. Pakatan Harapan has a great challenge to show its centrist and moderate agenda to dilute racial elements in Malaysian politics. Furthermore, the future of centripetalism and Pakatan Harapan will depend on the success of the institutional reforms it promises. Keywords: GE-14, Consociationalism, Centripetalism, Pakatan Harapan, Barisan Nasional