Talk:Consociational state

message: What are the divisions in the Netherland?
Is it about the Jews?
Or the former colonies?
:Shalom, anonymous Wikiperson! ... We have Jews here? ;) Nah, it's the former colonies / new (muslim) immigrants / the 'locals'.
:The locals used to be extremely devided by their religion(s) (so you had protestant, catcholic and 'secular' barber shops for instance) but fortunately the 60s came along and people realized they were acting really silly and decided to stop doing that and act like decent human beings instead of drooling cavemen. That's where the (percieved??) tolerance comes from. --Kraftwerk--
::Oh, I thought it was between the Dutch and the Frisians. --Angr/comhrá 16:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For more on this, see pillarization. AecisBravado 18:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The divisions are (were) between Calvinist, Catholic, socialist and liberal groups. It has nothing to do with Jews, Muslims, immigrants, former colonies, etc. Cordless Larry 16:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it is at least clear that it was in the past the Netherlands were consociational. Can anybody argue the case for Spain and India? Bertilvidet 16:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd be interested to hear about that. I had certainly never thought of Spain as a consociational state. Cordless Larry 19:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, found this: "After 25 years of widespread decentralisation and latent federalisation, Spain has preserved their territorial stability according to a broad consensus among parties and elites of a consociational nature. Spain has not followed literally the four features theorised by Arend Lijphart (1977). As regards autonomy in culture, this competency falls under the exclusive constitutional powers of all Comunidades Autónomas. Power sharing is de facto exercised in the daily practice of intergovernmental life by the great number of concurrent policies needing joint action. And parliamentary support of the nationalist parties to the central government has been so important as to reach in some cases the category of 'informal vetoes' against possible decisions invading areas of their regional jurisdiction. Quota representation of minority groups in the state institutions and public sector has not been necessary. Other than the absence of discrimination against citizens from the 'historical nationalities', or any other regions, minority nationalisms have set as a priority the achievement of influence and power in their own territories by means of controlling institutions of self-government and making eventual allegiances with central elites and government" - Luis Moreno, Federalization in multinational Spain. Cordless Larry 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that was an interesting document. As it is a debate about consociational features in Spain, I do believe that Spain does not go among "Classical examples of consociational states" as the current text suggests. Bertilvidet 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Netherlands

message: I know it's not a full state, but is the governing of the European Union consociational?
-----
I've moved a large segment from consensus democracy here, including references to consociational decision making in the EU. The segment seemed to fit better here.
C_mon 12u20, February 1 2006
Might I venture the opinion that the tone of the article is a little too positive about consociationalism. Its success has been exaggerated and most of the examples given could have been deliberately chosen to "talk up" the benefits of the theory.
From the little I know of post-war Dutch history, the perceived "liberal" and "tolerant" nature of Dutch society and the state springs mainly from the conflict, between Roman Catholicism and Calvinism, as has been suggested. However, it wasn't so much that the Dutch people left religion behind [although secularism is strong, these days]. It was more that one side of the religious divide could never agree with the other, so that the government often took a neutral, "third" option, which was "equally unfair" to both. In some cases, one side would support a measure, just to annoy or outwit the other. I never found the Netherlands to be any more "Hey, man, make love, not war" than anywhere else and, in fact, outside Amsterdam, it was your typical, up-tight conservative, Northern European country. The Dutch pretend not to care what anyone thinks: it's part of their coping mechanism. [I thought that every town looked the same, with one or two exceptions, and I was sick of the radioactive colours in the endless flat fields. It was a very boring and claustrophobic country, to my mind. I also observed that, like England (and America), the Dutch are very insular and parochial. If something happens in Holland, it'll be on the news but it has to be a very, very big story, to get any coverage, if it's foreign. It's funny that, at one time or another, each of those countries has been "Top Nation" and controlled a vast, global trading network. Maybe they were too embarrassed to admit it and preferred to talk about the weather, crockery, folk dancing or whatever.
Most of the examples of consociational states, which were given in the article, are federal states of one sort or another, where minorities are more heavily represented in some regions than in others. [Where is Canada, by the way? Just past the 49th Parallel. Ha ha] Therefore, any consociational structures, at national level, are- more or less- irrelevant. Switzerland is stable and succesful, not primarily because positions on the Federal Council rotate, every year, but because of (a) the way, in which power is devolved to the lowest possible level and (b) the direct involvement of the people in most aspects of government. If loose confederations of mutually loathing "cantons" can form a "consociational state", then Bosnia-Herzegovina is a certainly consociational state! In reality, many would argue that the Bosnia's top-tier of government, run by the UN, is a diplomatic fig leaf, to most intents and purposes. 
I am a little surprised that the three most obvious examples of consociational states, in which religio-ethnic groups were well and truly mixed geographically [or at least, where the tribal geography was so complicated that the groups couldn't have been separarated without massive disruption and a risk of instability], were not listed. These unitary states, which- for geographical, historical or demographic reasons- were unable to benefit from the safety valve of federalism, have been the real test of consociationalism. I refer to Cyprus, between 1960 and 1974; the constitution, inspired by the Cypriot settlement, in Northern Ireland (1998- ); and Lebanon (1943-75 and c1990- ). 
It's true that each of these "states" [Northern Ireland being a province of a larger state] has not been terribly successful or stable. Lasting stability was brought to Cyprus, as it was brought to Bosnia [not counting the repression and denial of the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Yugoslav eras, in the case of Bosnia, or the Ottoman era, in the case of Cyprus!], only in the wake of partition and "ethnic" cleansing on a large scale. Lebanon was quite prosperous in the 1960s (and looked set to recover, until the Israelis levelled it in 2006). It once appeared stable but the Lebanese state has never done very much to tackle the causes of division and foster a common Lebanese identity. Some of the results of that sectarian divide are almost amusing. For instance, although Lebanon became independent in 1943, there has still not been a census in the country, because the population balance is such a sensitive issue! [Incidentally, it's estimated that Christians have gone from about 55%, in the 1960s, to around 43%, today.]
Despite thirty years of conflict, Northern Ireland never descended into the abyss, thanks largely to the determination of the British Government, which, although it inevitably made many mistakes, has more than made up for largely ignoring the Six Counties, between 1925 and 1968 [apart from a brief, secret, wartime flirtation with the idea of a "United" Ireland, in order to bring "Eire" into the Second World War, on the Allied side]. Northern Ireland's community relations, which deteriorated in the immediate aftermath of the two Provisional IRA ceasefires and the polticial settlement of 1998, are steadily improving. 
Northern Ireland and Cyprus, unlike Lebanon, and both had "nannies", in the form of the British Government. As Northern Ireland was part of the UK, British involvement in the conflict there, was unavoidable. [It's often forgotten that British troops were first sent on to the streets of Northern Ireland, at the request of Catholic/ Nationalist politicians!] Harold Wilson chose not to intervene in Cyprus, in 1974, when Greek Nationalists took control of the Cypriot Government. Arguably, Britain had a duty to stop them, under the treaty it signed with Greek and Turkish Cypriot representatives, when the island became independent. When the British guarantees of 1960 proved to be worthless, Cyprus was apparently left in the same position as Bosnia or Lebanon and seemed to be on the verge of a bloody and protracted civil war, with the Greek Community probably having the upper hand. However, both "tribes" in Cyprus had their sponsors and Turkey, which went to war with its "fellow" NATO member, Greece, over the issue of Greek influence on the island, came to the rescue of the Turkish community there. There are some parallels with Lebanon, which returned to some kind of normality, under Syrian protection. To this day, defence spending in Greece and Turkey is higher, in "per capita" terms, than in anywhere else in the Western World. In fact, among developed countries, Israel is the only country with higher "per capita" defence spending.
The lesson, from some of the "consociational" states, which have worked, is that federalism, direct democracy, devolution and economic progress are better mechanisms for reducing or eliminating ethnic or religious conflict than bizarre constutional architecture, at a "national" level. The lesson, from those, which have failed at some point, is that consociational states can only exist when there is peace and order, guaranteed by the threat of external force, and a return to economic normality is feasible. 
While its tribal geography has changed significantly, since 1969, Northern Ireland remains a patchwork of majority Irish/Roman Catholic/Nationalist/Republican areas, on the one hand, and British/Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist ones, on the other. There has been no great movement of Nationalists to the West and Unionists to the East, which might make a second partition of the country possible. Similarly, Lebanon also remains divided in a complex way, although there are areas, where Maronites or Shi'ites form majorities.
In contrast, Bosnia and Cyprus have, through violent conflict and "ethnic" cleansing, changed the model to which both belong: they are now moving slowly towards the "Swiss" solution, where different groups are free to do what they like (up to a point), within their own autonomous regions and the "national" government is, relative to the lower, "ethnic" tier, very weak. Bosnia is now, in effect, three separate countries [perhaps not with the powers of sovereign states], marketed by the UN under the banner of a federal "Bosnia-Herzegovina". Cyprus was divided into two states: one is internationally recognised and the other recognised only by Turkey. however, the Turkish Republic of Norhern Cyprus functions as a sovereign state and, although hampered by the efforts of Greece and the Republic of Cyprus (its southern neighbour), it trades with the rest of the World and accepts many part-time residents from the rest of Europe. 
87.113.10.252 20:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EU

message: I'm proposing that we merge this article with consociationalism. I've started to make some edits to improve that article and it seems to make sense to merge them and work on one good article rather than two lacklustre ones. Cordless Larry 16:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should be split: it now merges the notion of consensus democracy with consociationalism. Consensus democracy only refers to the form of government, while consociationalism refers to the society and the government. I would prefer a specific article about Consensus democracy (political science) and about consociationalism. The information on this article should be split between the two. C mon (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the former already exists at consensus democracy? As for the IP editor's point, surely this is just an argument for improving the article, not for having two bad articles that both need to be read to understand the topic? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can merge consociationalism with consociational state, that's fine by me. But there should also be a clear article about consensus democracy. Most of what is written here does not refer to a consociational state, but to a consensus democracy. C mon (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger

message: Would Canada as a Federation of anglophones and francophones, not to mention an official policy of multiculturalism, be considered a consociational state?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.17.169 (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say no. If you look at Lijphart's characteristics of consociationalism, I don't think these can be said to apply to Canada in they way that they do to, say, Belgium. The best work on this is Kenneth McRae's edited book Consociational Democracy: Political Accommodation in Segmented Societies. McRae concludes that Canada is a "very imperfect example of consociational democracy". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada