• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Politics of Accommodation, Power Sharing and Consociational Democracy Dr. Mohd Foad Sakdan Dr. Oemar Hamdan Political of Accommodation The concept of accommodation refers to pragmatic solution to divisive conflicts by abandoning the principles of unilateral majority decisions and including representatives of the main group in the organs of government and decision marking. The political of accommodation is based mainly on a recognition of the need for political stability, and not necessarily on a recognition in principle of the right of all group in society to participation, representation and equal status. Therefore, the more societal and political a particular group has, the more willingness there will be to consider it as a partner to the politics of accommodation.1 The political potential of a group is not determined exclusively or even mainly by its electoral achievements or even its coalition bargaining position. Other important factors are recognition of the legitimacy of the value and interests represented by group and acceptance of the group as part of the social and cultural consensus. Meanwhile, political stability in the country has been attributed to the political system that could be called `an elite accommodation model' or `consociational model' in which each ethnic community is unified under a leadership that can authoritatively bargain for the interests of that community. The leaders of each community, in turn, have the capacity to secure compliance and legitimacy for the bargains that are reached by elite negotiations. Under such circumstances, there exists sufficient trust and empathy among the elite to be sensitive to the most vital concerns of other ethnic communities. Above all, representative institutions accept their diminished role of merely ratifying the product of elite bargaining as appropriate for a resolution of ethnically sensitive issues ( Means, 1992). The politics of accommodation is based on a weakness and cooperation among the elite level. The success of this system depends to a large extent on the leaders’ joint efforts at peace- 1 Since the establishment of the basic pattern of the politics of accommodation in 1917, the process of negotiation among bloc leaders has become more institutionalized. It takes place in words of the Dutch Reformed Synod, within `so-called summit organization’. From informal and ad hoc contact, it has moved to formal and more or less permanent institution and finally to official organization anchored in the country’s legal-consitutional framework (Lijphart, 1968,112). keeping and peaceful change. The politics of accommodation a divided to two categories; Autonomy and Power Sharing. 1.1. Autonomy The option generally preferred by states is a system based on the liberal principles of equality and non-discrimination and the operationalisation of the individual rights language. Minorities claim that the liberal solution does not employ sufficient guarantees for the preservation of ethnic identity, in particular linguistic rights. They require collective rights and autonomy, in order to be able to control their cultural reproduction. The contents of the terms "autonomy"2 and " collective rights" remain highly controversial and there is little agreement on what concrete meanings should be ascribed to these terms. Nevertheless, both terms indicate a degree of self- rule, which can only be achived collectinely. Ruth Lapidoth (1997) describes autonomy in territorial terms, as "an arrangement aimed at granting to a group that differs from the majority of the population in the state, but which forms the majority in a specific region, a means by which it can express its distinctive identity". Autonomy can be operationalised either as territorial autonomy or as personal autonomy. Either form employs language rights and access to education in mother tongue, participation in the local or regional government and a degree of control over the allocation of land and natural resources (Hannum 1990). Unlike secession and repressive practices, autonomy is a less threatening and costly mechanism of ethnic conflict management (Gurr 1995). The concept of autonomy indicates a subsystem of governance within the state, which is controlled and administered by a minority through its legitimate elites. 1.2 Power Sharing The concept of Power sharing has long been debated within political science notably by Nordinger (1972), Lijphart (1977,1991,1999), Lehmbuch (1967,1975), McRae (1974a,1986), Alcock (1994) and McGarry/O’Leary (1990a, 1993). The term power sharing has been defined by scholars such as Arend Lijphart as a set of principles that, when operationalized through practices and institutions, provide every significant identity group in a society representation and decision-making abilities on common issues and a 2 Hannum (1990) definition of autonomy is; "Personal and political autonomy is in some real sense, the right to be different and to be left alone; to preserve, protect, and promote values which are beyond the legitimate reach of the rest of society". degree of autonomy over issues of importance to the group. Lijphart's principles of power sharing-known as consociational democracy (Lijphart, 1977a). Power sharing 3 in the executive in a grand coalition, or a variant thereof, ensures that the minority is not permanently excluded from political power. Parliamentary systems are argued to be more conducive to the creation of inclusive governing coalitions. In grand coalitions, political elites-representing the various segments of society-thrash out their differences in an effort to reach consensus, but public contestation among them is limited. The common denominator, and most important feature, is that decision making takes place consensually at the top among elites representing underlying social segments (Lijphart 1977a). Consociational principles are based upon the acceptance of national and ethnic pluralism. They aim to secure the rights and identities of all communities, and to create political and other social institutions which enable them to enjoy the benefits of equality without forced assimilation. In some zones of conflict the relevant populations effectively have the choice of creating consociational democratic institutions or having no meaningful democratic institutions at all. During the Cold war era, political science developed two major normative models of conflict management. These are the consociational theory4 and the integrative model. These approaches to conflict management have become the most advocated theoretical models of ethnic conflict management. These models were originally developed in order to explain the types of group accommodation in selected fragmented societies in Western Europe and the nation-building processes of plural (Eckstein, 1966, Lijphart, 1977) or deeply divided (Horowitz, 1985), societies in the new independent states formed as a result of de-colonisation. Later, both approaches were incorporated in the broader concept of power sharing (Sisk, 1996), which has become the theoretical umbrella for tackling conflict resolution in fragmented societies throughout the world. 3 There are a few points to be noted here. First, Power Sharing is likely to be most effective if it is constitutionally mandated. In this case, Power-Sharing is not a simple coalition or marriage of convenience but it is a "grand coalition" cabinet comprising the representative parties and Cabinet positions are divided in proportion to the percentage of votes acquired at election. What differentiates Power Sharing from the simple coalition is that the former is constitutionally mandated while the latter is not. Second, any grand coalition must be premised on an agreed national direction that includes agreement on a broad national developmental program. Third, the leaders of the various segments must have a deep and abiding commitment to the unity of the nation and must be prepared to uphold the laws and the democratic process. Cooperation and compromise must be the guiding principles and must be predicated on a willingness of the leaders of one segment to work with the other segments. 4 The Consociationalism Theory was first presented by Arend Lijphart ( Consociational Democracy ) and Gerhard Lehmbruch ( A Noncompetitive Pattern of Conflict Management in Liberal Democracies: The Case of Switzeland, Austria and Lebanon) , working independence at the 1967 World Congress of the International Political Science Association in Brussel. Since then a broad discussion has followed (Lijphart, 1969,207-25). 1.3 The Consociational Approach There are two approaches to constructing democracy in divided societies. First , the consociational or group building-block approach that relies on accommodation by ethnic group leaders is a mains actor and second the integrative approach, which seeks to create incentive structures for moderation by political leaders on divisive ethnic themes and to enhance minority influence in majority decision making. Consociational approaches rely on elite accommodation and guarantees to groups to protect their interests, such as a mutual or minority veto, whereas the integrative approach relies on incentives for intergroup cooperation, such as electoral systems that encourage the formation of pre election pacts among candidates or political parties across ethnic lines. a). Consociational democracy", Consociation derives from the Latin word `consociatio’ which means ` the action or fact of associating together’ or `union in fellowship’ (Barry, 1975). Apter

Load more

  28

Copy Link