Consociational Democracy - The Views of Arend Lijphartand Collected Criticisms

Consociational Democracy:
The Views of Arend Lijphart

and Collected Criticisms
The Politics of Accommodation. By Arend Lijphart. (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1968; second edition 1975).

Referred to in the text as Politics 1968 or 1975.
By Arend Lijphart. (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1977). 'Referred to in the
text as Democracy.
Democracy in Plural Societies.
Introduction *
n the fifties and the sixties many political scientists in the Western
world were concerned with the crucial question of how political

Isystems
could be made both stable and democratic. Their concern to
find an answer to this question had clearly been stimulated by their
desire "to clean the world up" after the chaotic Second World War,
to prevent a further spread over Western Europe of the Communisttype of totalitarian stability, and to support the democratic experiments of the newly independent but unstable countries of the
Third World. In their search for the conditions of stable and
democratic political rule most of these political scientists came to
believe that political fragmentation of a society poses enormous
obstacles to the realization of stability and democracy. In their view
the cleavages or fragmentation, created by differing social, ethnic,
* Literature mentioned in the bibliography is only referred to by name of author and
year of publication. An earlier and more extended version of this article was presented
to the Belgian-Dutch Conference on Pillarization, Depillarization and ConflictManagement, organized by the Erasmus University Rotterdam and the Catholic
University'Leuven, and convened in Leuven, April 1983. For comments and criticisms
the author, remaining fully responsible for this text, thanks, first of all, Arend Lijphart
and, in alphabetical order, Herman Bakvis, Jaak Billiet, Christopher Bryant, Hans
Daalder, Harry Dae;nen, Lee Dutter, Meinder Fennema, Luc Huyse, Paul Johnson,
Roland Kieve, Percy Lehning, Mogens Pedersen, Bert Pijnenburg, Ilja Scholten, Jiirg
Steiner, Siep Stuurman, and Mady Thung. This manuscript was completed in October
1983.
144
THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER
religious, and cultural groups, had somehow to be overcome before

there could be any prospect of a stable, democratic regime.
About fifteen years ago this dominant belief among political
scientists was challenged by the young Dutch Arend Lijphart. In
1968 he published his The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism
and Democracy in The Netherlands. Both within the country and
elsewhere (thanks to the English edition) the work was highly acclaimed. Its success was due, in large part, to his description of
Dutch politics as a paradoxical case of strong social segmentation or
pillarization which was also marked by stability and democracy.
That is, contrary to expectations, Holland is both stable and
democratic despite its extensive social cleavages.
Lijphart ' s views on Dutch politics have not only become popular
among non-Dutch political scientists who are interested in Dutch
politics, they have also, and more importantly, served as the foundation for the so-called theory of consociational democracy.
But how valid are Lijphart's views? In this essay we catalogue the
main types of criticism concerning his views on Dutch politics in
particular and on consociational democracy in general; most of
these criticisms are dispersed over many different journals whose accessibility is difficult for language or other reasons. On balance, the
total sum of criticisms seems to make a revision of the prevailing
views on Dutch politics and consociational democracy necessary.
However, prior to the catalogue of criticisms, we shall describe
Lijphart's views as presented in his writings between 1968 and 1981.
LIJPHART'S VIEWS
The Dutch Politics of Accommodation
The essentials of Lijphart's view of the Dutch political system are
well formulated in the opening pages of his Politics of Accommodation: "the Netherlands presents a paradox . . . . On the one hand, it
is characterized by an extraordinary degree of social cleavage .. .
on the other hand, Holland is also one of the most notable examples
of a successful democracy .... (Politics 1968, 1-2) Of a nation
with a large degree of social cleavage-let alone an extraordinary
degree-one should reasonably expect "dissension and antagonism
... ideological tension and extremism . . . and governmental immobilism alternating with revolutionary upsets...." (Politics
1968, 1-2) But on the contrary: " Dutch democracy is eminently
CONSOCIATIONAL DEMOCRACY
145
stable and effective!" (Politics 1968, 15) How can we explain this
paradox?
The main part of the book consists of a description of about fifty
years of Dutch politics. The starting point is around the year 1917,
when three issues (social issue, universal suffrage issue, schools issue)
deeply divided the nation, and the final point is around 1967, when
the author finished his book and when important electoral changes
also started to take place.
The Dutch society is said to be traditionally divided into four different and rather closed social groupings, called "zuilen" (pillars).'
The divisions are based on religious and class cleavages.The religious
cleavage is two-fold: the religious people versus the non-religious
ones (about 80 percent versus 20 percent in 1960) and, within the
religious stratum, the Catholics versus the Calvinists (each about 40
percent of the total population, 1960); the Calvinists can be further
subdivided in several groupings (e.g., Dutch Reformed, Orthodox
Calvinists, Lutherans). The class cleavage is elaborated in terms of
upper-middle, lower-middle, and lower class, a cleavage borne out
by both the Gini Index of Inequality and the subjective feelings of
inequality being held by the mass-public. The two cleavages partly
intersect each other, particularly in the non-religious ("secular")
stratum, where antagonism exists between the upper and the lower
"classes," in Dutch politics labelled as Liberals and Socialists respectively.
Around 1917 the relationships between the four pillarsCatholics, Calvinists, Liberals, and Socialists-were severely
strained by the major issues that were then on the social agenda. The
Catholics and Calvinists together demanded their own schools
which, however, were to be paid for mainly by the State. And
economic concerns-poverty and unemployment-vital to the lower
classes were joined by the issue of expanding the suffrage which to
this point had been restricted. These together not only widened the
gaps between the four pillars, dividing the nation even more than
before, but also created tensions within the Catholic pillar, where
the class cleavage had up to then been least prominent.
This social pillarization was reflected by the party system. Each of
the groupings had its own leading political party except the
Calvinists, who had two partly competing parties (one more upperclass, the other more lower-class) . These five parties of the four blocs
1. For the concept of "zuil," see Kruyt, 1957-A, 1957-B, 1959; Van Doorn, 1971.
146
dominated the political scene. They always occupied 80 to 90 percent of the seats in parliament. 2 Their relative strengths "have remained remarkably constant since the first elections under universal
manhood suffrage in 1918." (Politics 1968, 25) The class cleavage is,
however, less strongly reflected in the electoral process than the
religious cleavage. While the parties of the Socialists and the
Liberals each have a clearly different support-basis (blue-collars
versus white-collars), those of the Catholics and the Calvinists attract votes from all different classes. The strongest determinant of
voting is religion: 70 to 90 percent of the Catholics, the Calvinists,
and those who are non-religious vote for their respective parties, the
non-religious splitting up into upper and lower class.
The same four-bloc pattern is found in organizational memberships: in interest groups like trade unions, in mass media
(newspaper, radio), in voluntary associations, in educational
memberships, and in interpersonal networks. As Lijphart pictures
this, "the blocs live side by side, as distinctly separate subcultural
communities, each with its own political and social institutions and
with interaction and communication across bloc boundaries kept to
a minimum." (Politics 1968, 58) Leadership of the various organizations within each bloc strongly overlaps, but between the blocs this
overlap is almost absent.
Although the "Dutch society is at least as much divided as other
continental societies, it has maintained a stable and viable
democracy" something which, Lijphart contends, "cannot be
claimed . . . for Belgium, Austria, France, or Weimar Germany."
(Politics 1968, 70) In this assessment democracy is defined as "simply
a system of government in which the people have the opportunity to
select their own leaders" and a stable democracy as "one in which
the capabilities of the system are sufficient to meet the demands
placed upon it." (Politics 1968, 71) Democracy combined with
stability means that the masses should be able to select their leaders
and the governmental elites should be able to meet the demands
placed upon them. Accordingly Lijphart views the Netherlands as a
stable democracy. He bases his conclusion on both positive and
negative indicators: the absence of revolution, violence, and other
signs of serious disaffection, and the presence of governmental
stability and constitutional continuity.
What is the Dutch secret that explains the enduring situation of
2. Daalder, 1966.
147
stable democracy in spite of all cleavages and divisions? Discussing a

number of hypotheses, Lijphart concludes that there are two
factors, plus one indirect explanation and one comprehensive explanation. (Politics 1968, ch. 5) The two factors are firstly, the basic
sense of nationalism among the members of all four blocs, which is
reinforced by a few national symbols, and secondly, the crosscutting of the religious and class cleavages. The first factor promotes
unity and the second diminishes sharp divisions. The so-called indirect explanation is the deferential character of the Dutch political
culture: Dutch politics is "highly elitist" and the masses accept this
elitist leadership. (Politics 1968, 102) The reason for this is to be
found in the comprehensive "explanans," in itself the crux of Dutch
political stability, namely, the spirit of accommodation among the
political elites. "That is the secret of its success." (Politics 1968, 103)
Accommodation means "settlement of divisive issues and conflicts, where only a minimal consensus exists. " (Politics 1968, 103)
The key word is "pragmatism," based on "a minimum of agreement
on fundamentals," (Politics 1968, 103) that is a widespread belief
that the existing system should be maintained. "The leaders of the
blocs must be willing to bridge the gaps between the mutually
isolated blocs and to resolve serious disputes in a largely nonconsensual context. " (Politics 1968, 104) Here the value of the
metaphor of pillarization becomes apparent: the four blocs are like.
pillars, each standing on its own, but they are overarched by eliteaccommodation. Although the basic pattern of accommodation, according to Lijphart, was already established in the last decades of
the nineteenth century, it became fully institutionalized in 1917
when the three major issues mentioned before simultaneously
entered the political agenda and threatened to disturb the system's
persistence. Then "the government appealed to the contending parties to accommodate their differences ... [and] the parties reacted
favorably." (Politics 1968, 110) Prudent leadership, then, saved the
system. From that time on a variety of structures of accommodation
became institutionalized, as well as the cultural "rules of the game,"
e.g., a business-like approach to politics, agreement to disagree,
summit diplomacy among the elites, proportionality between the
pillars, depoliticization of issues, secrecy, and acceptance of the
government's right to govern.
But how can the accommodating elites be sure that their compromises will be accepted by their followers and adherents? Here
Lijphart returns to his "indirect explanation": the members of the
148
pillars are politically passive and deferential towards the leaders of

their pillar (e.g. towards their trade-union leaders) and towards the
overarching system.
Towards the end of his book Lijphart briefly discusses the
dynamic character of the Dutch political system, especially after the
Second World War and during the sixties. All crucial elements of the
Dutch political system-religious cleavage, class cleavage, eliteaccommodation, and mass-deference-show some variability. In
the mid-sixties there are signs of a decreasing religious cleavage, less
effective elite-accommodation, and decreasing deference at the mass
level. Nevertheless, "there is good reason to expect that viable
democracy will be preserved " (Politics 1968, 196), apparently with
or without continuing politics of accommodation.
Finally, Lijphart himself assesses the character of his analysis: it is
a case study, suitable to "the identification of additional variables
(to the general pluralist theory) and to the refinement of concepts
and indicators." (Politics 1968, 197) His addition and refinement
concern the pluralist proposition that cross-cutting cleavages and

pressures are favorable to stable and effective democracy and that
their absence leads to the opposite situation. According to Lijphart,
the Dutch case study shows that such an absence of cross-cutting
cleavages can be compatible with stable democracy, on the condition that the political elites are "fully aware of the dangers (of this
absence) and are determined to find a solution by accommodating
their differences." (Politics 1968, 199) Then, by prudent leadership,
the prophecy of instability and chaos becomes a self-denying prophecy. "Overarching cooperation at the elite level can be a substitute
for cross-cutting affiliations at the mass level." (Politics 1968, 200)
Lijphart goes even further: when groups in society are very different, mutual isolation (pillarization) "can be more conductive to
stable democracy than a high incidence of overlapping affiliations."
(Politics 1968, 200) His final position now is that the model of accommodation is very well suited for other countries with deep social
cleavages. But "the crucial factor
. is the quality of leadership."
(Politics 1968, 211)
149
In his article Lijphart presented the following typology of

democratic systems:
political culture
non-competitive
non fragmented
fragmented
carteldemocracy
(depoliticized)
accommodationdemocracy
(consociational)
centripetal
democracy
centrifugal
democracy
style of elites
competitive
Shortly after The Politics of Accommodation Lijphart published

the Dutch edition of this book. 3 While his conception of democracy
and stability are somewhat different in this translation, his reasoning and argumentation are essentially the same as in the English edition.
In 1969 Lijphart published an article in Acta Politica in which he
tried to explain the recent political changes in the Netherlands, as
well as its near political future, on the basis of his model of pillarization and accommodation. 4 He saw the electoral decline of the five
main parties as the most important political change. Not only had
their total votes dropped from 87 percent (the mean for 1946-1959)
to 72 percent, there were new party formations, social uprisings and
protests, conflicts between the elites of the different pillars, and a
general sense of mass disaffection for the rules of the game at the
elite level.
For the Dutch near future he predicted a development from
political accommodation to a political cartel. He assumed that the
style of elites would remain constant (i.e., non-competitive) and
that political change would remain limited to the political culture
(i.e. from fragmentation to homogeneity). So, while Lijphart in his
Politics of Accommodation considered the style of elites to be a
response to the dangers of social fragmentation, he now considers
this style to be independent of the social setting. However, accor3. Lijphart, 1968-B.
4. Lijphart, 1969; also published in Politics 1975 and Lijphart, 1976-B; partly based
on A. Lijphart, "Typologies of Democratic Systems," Comparative Political Studies 1
"
(1, 1968) 3-44 and A. Lijphart, " Consociational Democracy, World Politics 21 (2,
1969), 207-55.
150
ding to Lijphart, the expected development of a cartel democracy

will initially be accompanied by certain political turmoils and instabilities, mainly coming from the mass-level. According to the
standards of prudent leadership, a further development to a centripetal democracy might be wise, he believes, but the real chances
for it are low, because it would demand some important constitutional reforms. For the elites he sees no alternative but the cartelstyle.
In another Dutch article, published in 1971, Lijphart elaborates
on the main political changes taking place and characterizes them as
"depillarization." s Four of the five changes he observes are located
at the mass-level of the society: "the end of ideology" and, in particular, of religious attachments, the increasing number of nonpillarized organizations (parties, mass-media), the loosening of the
"overlapping directorates" within the pillars, and the increase of interactions and communications between the members of the pillars.
The fifth change is explicitly related to elite-behavior: the political
control ("encouraged or even decreed pillarization") from the top
has almost come to an end.
A few years later, in a new chapter to the second edition of The
Politics of Accommodation, Lijphart makes a different analysis of
Dutch political change. (Politics 1975, 197) Now he observes "far
reaching changes [concerning] all four essential elements of the
politics of accommodation": the social cleavages have lost their
sharpness, many leaders have rejected the overarching cooperation
and "the rule of the game," deference and indifference of the masspublics are on the wane, and there have been many unmistakable
signs of political instability. Among the indicators of this outcome of
instability he cites are: civil disobedience, cabinet instability, and
time consuming cabinet formations. The Dutch politics of accommodation, in short, has become a historical phenomenon. But as a
model of "viable democracy"-so-called consociational
democracy-Lijphart still considers the Dutch case to be of great
relevance to other countries with sharp social cleavages which are,
as a result, in permanent danger of disintegration.
The third edition of the Dutch version of the Politics of Accommodation (1979), in contrast to the previous editions, is written in
the past tense. But neither this nor other editorial changes substan5. Lijphart, 1971.
6. Also Lijphart, 1976-B, 12.
151
tially change the basic text or its message. The Dutch political
system from the twenties to the seventies is still held to be
theoretically important because of the stability and democracy
achieved by elite accommodation in the face of deep social cleavage.
The Consociational Democracy
In the early seventies, when the Dutch politics of accommodation
crumbled, Lijphart lost an active interest in the Dutch political
developments and he shifted to the study of other countries with
sharp social cleavages. Taking up general theoretical lines, set out in
his earlier writings,' he tried to develop a cross-national theory of
consociational democracy.
A first result of this effort is a review article on the Northern
Ireland problem.' After discussing ten different views on the
political instability of Northern Ireland, he proposes an eleventh
view: through political accommodation, i.e., "by inviting the
`disloyal opposition' to share power," 9 Nothern Ireland can become
a stable democracy. At least three factors, said, to be conducive to
consociational democracy, he considers to be present in Northern
Ireland : the size of the population is small and, therefore, the normal burdens of government are not too heavy; the cleavages are
distinct and, therefore, there are few occasions for conflict; and the
external threats from either the Irish Republic or the government in
London might stimulate cooperative attitudes among the Catholics
and Protestants. However, three other factors, generally conducive
to consociational democracy, are, according to Lijphart, lacking in
Northern Ireland: there is no multiple balance of power and,
therefore, the Protestants are capable of exercising hegemonic
power; there is insufficient support for the idea of a "grand coali
tion," because it lacks a strong element of political opposition; and
there is insufficient basic national solidarity, which might help to
overarch the deep cleavages. Because of the absence of these conditions, Lijphart considers the consociational solution to be
"theoretically possible but unworkable in Northern Ireland," 10 and
he proposes a partition into two (or more) homogeneous societies,
imposed by Dublin and London.
7. See note 2 in particular.
8. Lijphart, 1975-B.
9. Ibid., 99.
10. Ibid., 105.
152
In a contribution to Milton Esman's book on Ethnic Conflict in

the Western World,
Lijphart raises the topic of ethnic conflict in
11
Western societies. Contrary to many predictions by different

scholars, he maintains that these societies are exposed to not less but
more ethnic conflict than before. He offers "speculative and
hypothetical" 12 explanations for this, one of the more interesting
being that the increase of ethnic conflict is caused by a "horizontalization of vertical ethnic groups. "1a The ethnic groups of the
Western World are said to be generally vertically rather than
horizontally segmented (exception: American Negroes); that is, they
are less likely to come into conflict with each other than horizontal
groups. Like the Dutch pillars each vertical ethnic group is isolated
from the other and provides full stratification to its members. By implication Lijphart stresses the topicality of his earlier thinking on
vertically segmented societies and the problem of viable democracy.
In 1977 Lijphart puts his comparative insights together in one
book: Democracy in Plural Societies. Referring to the political
systems of the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and Austria he
develops a general model of consociational democracy and applies it
to a variety of other plural societies, ranging from Canada to Israel
and from Lebanon to Indonesia. Thus, consociational democracy is
no longer regarded a unique phenomenon of the Low Countries:
rather it is considered to be a more general phenomenon (empirical
generalism) and a more universal solution for plural societies (normative generalism).
Basic concepts are the following: ( Democracy, 3-5) plural
societies are societies divided by segmental cleavages of various
kinds-religious, ethnic, and so forth; Democracy is used
throughout as a "synonym of what Dahl calls polyarchy."
( Democracy, 4) 14 Stability is used "as a multidimensional concept"
which embraces "system maintenance, civil order, legitimacy, and
effectiveness." (Democracy, 4) And while these dimensions are not
defined, Lijphart does accept the framework set forth by Eckstein
and Hurwitz. 15 Democratic stability is also characterized by these
11. In Esman, 1977, 46-64.
12. Ibid., 64.
13. Ibid., 57.
14. See R.A. Dahl, Polyarchy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971).
15. H. Eckstein, The Evaluation of Political Performance (London: Sage, 1971); L.
Hurwitz, "Contemporary Approaches to Political Stability," Comparative Politics 5
(4, 1973), 449-63.
153
four dimensions and, more specifically, by a high probability of

system's democracy, a low level of actual and potential civil
violence, and high degrees of legitimacy and decisional effectiveness. Consociational democracy, finally, "can be defined in
terms of four characteristics. The first and most important element
is government by a grand coalition of the political leaders of all
significant segments of the plural society. . . . The other three basic
elements are (1) the mutual veto . . . (2) proportionality . . . and (3)
a high degree of autonomy for each segment." (Democracy, 25)
However, "Elite cooperation is the primary distinguishing feature of
consociational democracy." (Democracy, 1)
In a separate chapter Lijphart distinguishes formally six and factually eight "conducive or favorable conditions . . . that are helpful
but neither indispensable nor sufficient in and of themselves to account for the success of consociational democracy." (Democracy,
ch. 3) 18 These conditions are: a balance of power among the
segments; a multi-party sytem with segmental parties; a small size of
the country; some cross-cutting cleavages; overarching loyalties; a
representative party-system; isolation of the segments from each
other; and traditions of elite accommodation. These elements, he
points out, are not to be unique for consociational democracy, as
they can also be present in nonconsociational democracies, just as
they can be absent in consociational democracies. (Democracy,
153-57) But the more the elements are present, the better the
chances for the stability and democracy of a plural society.
In his discussion of specific countries Lijphart also distinguishes
unfavorable conditions, ambivalent factors, and counterconsociational elements. (Democracy 153-57, 170-73, 209-11) He
only gives examples of each category: some consequences of modernization in the Third World, such as decreasing deference and rising
expectations, are termed unfavorable; factors of size of the country
and the balance of power among the segments are regarded as ambivalent; and the pressures-well intended or not-from both the
Belgian and the Dutch governments on their former colonies (Congo
and Dutch Guinea respectively) to form a majority-government are
deemed counter-consociational. Lijphart openly regrets such
counter-elements: Consociational democracy is not only workable in
plural societies, but it is also, for many countries, a necessary
16. In Lijphart, 1981-A he distinguishes another set of favorable conditions: all
minorities, balance of power, few segments, small size, external threats, overarching
values, socio-economic equality, isolation, and traditions.
154
method to attain democratic stability, because "the realistic choice

is . . between consociational democracy and no democracy at all."
(Democracy, 238)
On the basis of this insight, not only does Lijphart make a

theoretical plea for political engineering of plural societies in the
direction of consociationalism, but also a practical attempt. Invited
by the Legislative Assembly of KwaZulu-as Plato by the rulers of
Syracuse-he advised a consociational solution for South Africa. In
a paper published for the South African Political Science Association
he compares the British majority rule with the consociational model
and gives preference to the latter because in the British model there
would be dominance of one group over the other.'' Between the
elites of the different ethnic groups of a plural society there should
be accommodation, not dominance. He adds that "the possibilities
of consociational democracy should be very seriously considered
before the drastic solution of partition is attempted"1 8 (in South
Africa partition is territorial "apartheid" in the so-called Bantustans). In another address to a similar audience he goes one step
further: "among the many ways of implementing consociational
principles, federalism is a particularly promising method and
deserves special attention. "18 A few years later Lijphart publicly
complained that the South African government, because of its
policies of partition, abused his ideas. 20 Elsewhere he makes it clear
that the ignoring of the black population and the denial of effective
veto-power to the colored
and Indian people are incompatible with
2
consociational thinking. '
COLLECTED CRITICISMS
Lijphart's theory has to date been criticized principally from three
perspectives: the lack of conceptual clarity or the imprecisions and
17. In Rhoodie, 1978, 27-43. More about South Africa, but not on consociationalism
in A. Lijphart, "Language, Religion, Class and Party Choice: Belgium, Canada,
Switzerland, and South Africa Compared," in different versions published in both R.
Rose (ed.), Electoral Participation (London: Sage, 1980), 283-328 and the American
Political Science Review 73 (2, 1979), 442-58. See also Boulle, 1981.
18. In Rhoodie, 1978, 33.
19. Lijphart, 1979-B, 515.
20. Dutch newspaper NRC-Handelsblad, May 18, 1982. Same point in Survey of
Race Relations in South Africa 1982 (Johannesburg: South African Institute of Race
Relations, 1983), 4.
21. Lijphart, 1981-A, 139.
155
mutability of key concepts; the difficulty of operationalizing or

measuring crucial elements of consociational democracy; and the
absence of scientific attributes or qualities. We turn now to these
criticisms which are set forth at various places in the literature dealing with consociational democracy.
Conceptualizations
We shall discuss here the following five conceptualizations:
pluralism (as being the genus to which pillarization belongs),
democracy, stability, accommodation, and the so-called favorable
conditions. These five are crucial in Lijphart's own theory and
together they form its full skeleton. Following Easton, our criterion
of evaluation will be their
usefulness for the understanding of
22
politics in plural societies.
Pluralism. Lijphart considers a society as plural if it is divided by
segmental cleavages. But when is a division within a society a
cleavage and when is a cleavage segmental? Or, to raise a delicate
methodological question: on the basis of which criterion can one say
that some division is not a cleavage and that a cleavage is not
segmental? In his critical review of Lijphart's Democracy in Plural
Societies, Jurg Steiner has tried to answer these questions. 23 Every
society exposes, everywhere and always, cultural diversity: by
language, class, or something else. Because of this univeralism the
specific form of subcultural segmentation needs to be defined (and
operationalized) very clearly. This is, however, not done by
Lijphart, who makes use of a mixture of elements. Sometimes he
refers to outward isolation of groups, sometimes to inward cohesion;
he shifts between degrees of segmentation, as though any degree is
still quite distinct from universal cultural diversity. Criteria to assess
when overarching loyalties and cross-cutting cleavages transform
segmentation into universal diversity are not given. As long as this
conceptual vagueness endures, according to Steiner, "there will
always be confusion about the validity of the theory." 2" Subsequently he advises us to forget about pluralism and "to extend the theory
from plural to non-plural societies," 25 thereby treating pluralism
22. D. Easton, A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall, 1965).
23. Steiner, 1981-A.
24. Mid., 344.
25.Ibid.
156
simply as one variable of the consociational theory. In his review of

the same book G. Bingham Powell, Jr. raised a similar point: "Little, if any,
"28 attention is in fact paid to intra-segment political processes. Is there really no diversity within a so-called segment and,
if it exists, is it then overruled by external antagonisms? Lijphart
seems to suggest only positive answers.
In Lijphart's theory the concept of cross-cutting cleavages is important because, if such cross-cutting is missing, political instability
is the prospect for a plural society. The only alternative to crosscutting cleavages is, then, prudent leadership. However, Sten Nilson
points out that cross-cutting cleavages can also endanger, instead of
improve, political stability. 27 What will happen depends on the intensity of a polarized dimension. Especially where the political
order is dynamic, the rise of a salient issue, which cross-cuts existing
cleavages, can bring society into a turmoil.
Democracy. Lijphart uses different concepts of democracy. In his
first book he refers to the election process, in the second to Dahl's
concept of polyarchy. Between the two there exist, of course, important differences: for Dahl elections are only one element of polyarchy among many. In his first conceptualization Lijphart leaves
open the possibilities that political parties fully control the recruitment of candidates for an election; that in the interelection period
the relationships between electors and elected are almost nonexistent or antagonistic; that elites' opinions and behavior are nonrepresentative of the people's demands; and that elite-politics is full
of secrecy and immune to popular control. But for many leading
theorists on democracy these possibilities are hardy distinguishable
from the concepts of authoritarian or even totalitarian rule. 28
Lijphart's more recent definition-Dahl ' s concept of polyarchy
-is certainly more comprehensive. Most of the possibilities mentioned above are already excluded by definition. In a polyarchy the
recruitment is more-or-less open; active relationships exist between
electors and elected, the elite's opinions and behavior are more or
26. In American Political Science Review 73 (1, 1979), 296.

27. S. Nilson, "Toward a Theory of Cross-Cutting Cleavages," paper International
Political Science Association, Moscow, 1979. Same point, but weaker in Barry,
1975-B, 487.
28. From the ubiquity of literature: D. Thompson, The Democratic Citizen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); J. Roland Pennock, Democratic Political
Theory (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979).
157
less representative, and there are continuous possibilites for popular

control. The irony, however, is that the concept of polyarchy, if
strictly taken, is incompatible with the consociational model-a fact
which Lijphart does not seem to fully appreciate. In a polyarchy,
competition between elites is, more than anything else, essential; in
a consociation, 29
the antithesis of competition, i.e., intense collaboration, is crucial.
Stability. This concept too is defined differently in the two books
by Lijphart. In the first book it is called "the capabilities to sufficiently meet demands." As indicators of such effective problem solving he mentions the absence of revolution, violence, or disaffection
and the presence of Cabinet-stability and constitutional continuity.
There is, however, neither a logical nor a close empirical relationship between effective problem solving on the one hand and these
indicators on the other. With or without revolution, violence or
disaffection, elites can fail (or not) to meet societal demands; and
with or without the presence of the positive indicators, they can be
either effective or ineffective in the ratification of demands. The
reason is that many other factors exist that can determine the elites'
problem solving effectiveness. And besides, especially in consociational countries, the proposed indicators can remain "invisible,"
which seriously limits their usefulness. For example the attitudinal
antagonisms (negative indicators) are supposed to be isolated or
segmented from each other: they are present but hidden and not at
top level but at pillar level. The realities of Cabinet stability and
constitutional continuity (positive indicators) usually are that an exceptional amount of political energy repetitiously has to be invested
in the production of accommodation and that its agreements have a
rather informal status: low degrees of stability and continuity then
remain "invisible."
In his second book (Democracy), Lijphart refers to two other
authors for the meaning of his concept of stability. Here the problem
is that the one author (Leon Hurwitz) discusses not one but several
conceptualizations of stability, so that it is unclear to which conceptualization Lijphart refers. What is more, Hurwitz concludes that
"the concept of political stability remains as elusive as other abstract
29. And there are other important differences. For example: In a polyarchy citizens
can be participative and critical; in a consociation they are always passive and
deferent. See R.A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1956); Dahl, Polyarchy, op. cit., 142 sees nevertheless the Netherlands
as a peculiar polyarchy.
158
concepts. ..." 30 And the other author (Harry Eckstein), providing

four dimensions of stability (system maintenance, civil order,
legitimacy, and efficiency), evaluates his own conceptualization as
"tentative ideas . . . everything treated in them should be regarded
as provisional. ... "31 Lijphart, however, takes both conceptualizations for granted. Without discussion he adopts Eckstein's dimensions, although these are located at the level of "the polity," a term
which refers to the whole system. Among others Adriano Pappalardo points out that in a consociation the relevant level of analysis is
not something like "the polity," but both the level of the single
segments and the relationships between these. 32 The reason is that a
segment may break down, while the overall system persists-or the
opposite, when one segments starts overruling the others. For this
reason, Eckstein's analysis and discussion of system maintenance appears somewhat inappropriate in Lijphart ' s context. Similar observations can be made about the other dimensions: in a consociation
civil disorder is usually more directed towards the competing
segments than towards "the polity," the sense of legitimacy is more
related to the pillar-leaders than to the overarching polity, and efficacy ("prompt and relevant decision-making and
implementation," according to Eckstein'3) is more an affair of "the
autonomous segments" (Lijphart) than of the whole polity. In short,
Lijphart's second concept of stability is neither developed out of his
theory of consociationalism nor very: useful for the evaluation of
consociations.
Accommodation. In both his books Lijphart considers accommodation to be the essence of consociational stability. In the first
book (Politics) he conceives it as a matter of "spirit" of cooperation
among the elites of the different pillars; in the second, primarily as
"a grand coalition" and, additionally, as the existence of a mutual
veto, proportionality, and segmental autonomy (in short, one can
say, as institutionalized segmentation). As he makes clear in his
typology of systems, which was mentioned earlier, accommodation
should be seen as a non-competitive style of elites, as the opposite of
elite-competition.
Brian Barry points out that the concept is much more than a tool
30. Hurwitz, op. cit., 461; see also Pedersen, 1982.
31. Eckstein, op. cit., 6.
32. Pappalardo, 1981.
33. Eckstein, op. cit., 65.
34
159
to understand plural societies. It contains a whole theory in

disguise and the introduction of theory-laden terms he considers to
be "hazardous" because it very much limits their usefulness. In this
regard he points out that if one of the elements implied in the
theory-laden term is not fulfilled, the whole concept becomes
useless. In the case of Lijphart's concept of political accommodation
at least two packages of elements are involved. One is related to the
broader concept of consociational democracy: accommodation is the
type of elite cooperation in societies characterized by segmentation,
low consensus between the segments, decisive issues, segmental
isolation, et cetera. Or, as Barry paraphrases Lijphart: "the elites of
rival subcultures are willing and able to accommodate the divergent
interests and demands, because they are committed to the
maintenance of the system and they see the need for accommodation
as a means to this. "35 The other package of elements, contained by
the concept of accommodation, involves the so-called rules of the
game. Proportionality, veto power, and so forth are seen as "essential aspects of the elite accommodation. "3e Because of these two
packages, the concept of accommodation is not a more-or-less
technical tool to understand politics-let alone a variable-but an
"implicit theory, that under conditions of dissensus and segmenta37
tion, only elite accommodation . . . can produce stability. "
To put it in different terms: the implied norm of elite cooperation
has not been formulated after extensive empirical research in plural
societies-out of which the compelling conclusion could have risen
that accommodation indeed is a necessary and sufficient condition
for stability-but the norm has been formulated in advance, on the
basis of deviant (Dutch) case analysis. One of the clearest examples
of this bias is provided by the idea of prudent leadership: Lijphart
not only believes he observes elite cooperation, but also suggests he
already knows the elites' motive for cooperation, namely prudence.
The apodictic status of the concept of accommodation is also illustrated by the complete lack of any elaboration of the counterconcept of political competition. In spite of all the assumed conflicts
in a plural society, competition at elite level is implicitly supposed
not to exist and not to need any conceptualization.
Conditions. In his comparative analyses of plural societies
34.
35.
36.
37.
Barry, 1975-B.
Ibid., 480.
Ibid.
Ibid., 480-81.
160
Lijphart has listed a variable number (six to nine) of favorable conditions for the development of consociational democracy. The main
methodological problem here is that they are "empty." In Lijphart's
own words they are helpful but neither indispensable nor sufficient
nor unique for consociations nor necessarily present in consociations. He treats them as an aggregate: the more conditions present,
the better the chances for consociational democracy. An aggregate,
however, presupposes that there are fixed single items, which can be
aggregated. But Lijphart's single items are empty: the conditions
may be present and absent, necessary and unnecessary, in short conditions or not conditions at all. If this conclusion is wrong, and
Lijphart is right, it should be possible to predict, on the basis of the
presence or absence of the conditions, the chances of elite cooperation occurring in a plural society. The poor results of such a test of
the predictive power of Lijphart's conditions will be mentioned
below.
Measurements
A criticism repeatedly made is that the crucial elements of consociationalism have not been operationalized by Lijphart; that,
more specifically, the main concepts are loosely formulated (not to
mention the minor concepts), that they are often based on implicit
theoretical thinking, sometimes badly adapted to the complexities of
the plural society to be studied, and that their indicators, in so far as
they are mentioned, are often just as loosely formulated, theoretically biased, and not accurate measures of the complexities in consociational politics.
The qualities of the conceptual tools create, of course, problems
for empirical measurements. Lijphart has evaded these problems by
leaving almost all empirical research to others. Both his study on the
Netherlands and his cross-national analysis of plural societies are
hardly based on results obtained after the application of methods
and techniques of empirical research. His "method" has been called
by Jurg Steiner "the impressionistic method." 38
This peculiar method does not by itself disqualify the conclusions
which Lijphart draws regarding plural societies. Weak methods can
also produce strong results, but the chance is much smaller than
when the toolbox of scientific research is fully opened and used. On
38. Steiner, 1981-A, 346; see also Steiner, 1981-B.
161
this score, the best we can and should do is to compare Lijphart's

conclusions with those of other authors. The more unanimity there
is, the better the chances that Lijphart with his impressionistic
method has after all yielded results, which can meet the standard of
intersubjective acceptance.
As Barry has done with the Swiss case, 39 we shall concentrate on
the Dutch case. There are several reasons for this choice: the Dutch
case has been the starting-point of the consociational democracy
theory; the evaluation of Lijphart's many descriptions of other countries can best be left to the respective country-specialists; and we are
most familiar with the Dutch case.
We shall present different views and data regarding the following
crucial elements of the Dutch case: the structure of society, mass attitudes and behavior, elite behavior, political stability, democracy,
and favorable conditions; to these we add alleged omissions.
The structure of societies. Initially, Duch pillarization was mainly
a sociologist's concern. Their level of analysis was the group level,
not the State or the individual. They were struck by the structure
and basis of group memberships-particularly school organizations,
welfare organizations, professional and labor organizations, mass
media, and leisure organizations-and how they recruited their
members from different social categories, particularly religion and
class. At the time (the end of the fifties) these sociologists started to
write about social depillarization and related changes, political
scientists entered the field and started to write about political
segmentation and accommodation. According to such sociologists as
Kruyt and Verwey-Jonker the pillarization was, however, already
seriously weakening: the Catholic pillar was changing from within
and lost members; the Protestant pillar was not only more split by
internal divisions than the other pillars but also changing towards
ecumenial cooperation with other denominations; and the nonconfessional pillars, according to these authors, had always been less
pillarized (particularly the Liberals). 40 Increasing numbers of
people abstained from convergent memberships and preferred crosscutting memberships (for example: Catholic school plus secular
sports club).
Van de Kaa notices that the real demographic distances between
39. Barry, 1975-B.
40. Kruyt, 1959; Verwey-Jonker, 1957. See also Sociologische Gids, 1979 and
Bryant, 1981.
162
the so-called pillars (measured in terms of convivium and the like)

have, in the post-war period, been much smaller than Lijphart suggests. 41 Obliquely Lijphart also remarks that the secular pillars are
of minor importance, that the Protestant pillar has internal divisons,
that religion and class partly cross-cut one another, and that class in
itself is a weak factor. (Politics 1968, ch. 2) Nevertheless he stresses
cleavages, internal cohesion and external isolation. According to
Steininger "pillarization in the Netherlands [has been more] a party42
political phenomenon, . . . [than] a denominational one." But
even at party level there was no clear cut pillarization by either
religion or class. To be sure, the Catholic party was strongly supported by Catholics-and in this respect it is the clearest example of
pillarization43 -but in 1964 only 60 percent of the Catholics had an
outspoken preference for the Catholic Party and all other parties
had Catholics among their voters (Politics 1968, 31) 44 ; already in the
fifties these distributions were changing to the disadvantage of the
Catholic Party. 45 While all the other parties were mixed, although
biased, with respect to religion, the Catholic Party was extremely
mixed by class. The other parties were more biased by class,
although no party recruited its voters from only one socio-economic
or occupational segment. 4e (Politics 1968, 27-29) In short: while
pillarization is more a party-political than a denominational
phenomenon, it is not even a clear-cut phenomenon at party-level.
Every party had its own mixture, however biased it may have been,
of groups different by class or religion.
Both Scholten and Kieve remark that during the alleged era of
pillarization there has not been any important religious or socioeconomic issue that cleaved the political scene. 47 Lijphart would
answer: thanks to the success of accommodation; but then, accommodation of what? Scholten also notices that in several societal sectors (particularly the occupational groupings) there have always
been cross-cutting structures and sometimes (e.g., in the case of the
41. D. Van De Kaa, "Bevolking: asymmetrisehe tolerantie of accomodatiepolitiek,"

in Nederland na 1945 (Deventer: van Loghum Slaterus, 1980), 82-101.
42. Steininger, 1977, 252.
43. Coleman, 1978; Bakvis, 1981.
44. If one recalculates the percentages in the other direction.
45. Kruyt, 1959, 28.
46. If one recalculates the percentages in the other direction.
47. Scholten, 1980; Kieve, 1981.
163
employers) there was hardly anything to cross-cut because pillarization was weak. 48
Mass attitudes and behavior. Most of the people hardly participate in politics and they behave deferentially. This is not only
true of the Netherlands during the so-called pillarization, but also
for any country under normal circumstances. 48 So the relevant question here is: has there been slightly less participation and more
deference than, for example, in the post-pillarization period of the
seventies? Reliable and comparative data-sets based on identical
conceptualizations do not exist. In the seventies there has been an increase in so-called protest groups and a decrease of participation
through the membership of institutionalized organizations, but
what does this change mean for the total level of participation? The
vote-rate, another possible indicator, cannot be relied upon,
because, before the seventies, a formal obligation existed to go to the
ballot box. Lijphart mentions that more than 85 percent of the
voters did not have a nominal voice in the composition of the party
r
lists; but in the seventies less than ten percent of the people are
registered party members and (an estimated) one to two percent are
active party members.5 In a 1954 poll more than 40 percent of the
respondents said they regularly read the newspapers about
parliamentary matters; but in a 1981 poll 50 percent of the
respondents said they read in the newspapers about governmental
problems-a much broader topic than merely parliamentary affairs. 51 In 1954, 50 percent of the people were said to be very or
fairly interested in politics; but since 1972 this percentage has risen
52
to 63 percent (1981). Lijphart mentions that 54 percent of the
respondents of a 1964 poll said they would not object if Parliament
were to adopt a law which they considered to be unjustified or
harmful; but in 1973, 72 percent of the respondents said that such a
48. In his review of The Politics of Accommodation, 1960 in the American Political
Science Review 62 (4, 1968), 1349-51 the Dutch A. Hoogerwerf remarks: "crosscutting is camouflaged."
49. L. Milbrath and M. Goel, Political Participation (Chicago: Rand McNally,
1977, second edition) for comparative literature.
50. R. Koole, "Politieke partijen: de leden en het geld," in Documentatie-centrum
Nederlandse Politieke Partijen, Jaarboek 1981 (Groningen: Universiteit van Groningen, 1982), 1-95.
51. De Nederlandse kiezer (Den Haag: Staatsuitgeverij, 1956); C. van der Eijk and
others, Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1981 (Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 1981).
52. See note 51 above.
164
53
law should not be obeyed. (Politics 1968, 151) Another indicator of
mass deference Lijphart uses is the vote-support for the larger
(" established ") parties: between 1918 and 1963 it varied between 87
percent and 95 percent; after 1963 it varied between 71 percent and
87 percent. 54 (Politics 1968, 162) Lijphart considers the high number
of individual memberships of institutionalized organizations to be
an indicator of political satisfaction. (Politics 1968, 150) But
Scholten and Kieve, among others, point out that these organizations did create enduring memberships not only by rewards, but also
by punishments to their members, especially in the fields of housing,ss
schooling, health care, welfare provisions, and social assistance.
Kieve also refers to the militancy of the lower classes in the in55
terbellum and afterwards.
In short, the whole picture of deference and passivity, as described by Lijphart, needs much more differentiation and precision.
The same applies to the picture of overarching loyalties. On the one
hand they are said to be strong enough to provide some basic and
minimal consensus ("favorable condition"), but on the other hand
Lijphart considers them to be so weak that the elites have to create
real consensus. (Politics 1968, ch. 5)
Elite behavior. Lijphart characterizes the behavior of the elites as
a spirit of accommodation, a grand coalition, specific rules of the
game, and prudence. But whatever the structure of society, the
structure of the electoral system (extreme proportional representa tion, free entry of new parties, no threshold for mini-parties) is such
that in the resulting multi-party system (usually there are 10 to 14
parties in Parliament, and all have always had a minority status)
cooperation is inevitable to create a majority, either for Cabinet formation or for legislation. So, more important than any "spirit" is the
objective need to cooperate. Daudt points out that such a spirit of
57
accommodation has never even existed. The elites of the parties
treat each other not as equal partners, but as unequal competitors.
53. De Nederlandse Kiezer 1973 (Alphen aan den Rijn: Samson, 1973), 60.
54. M.P.C.M. Van Schendelen, "Crisis of the Dutch Welfare State," in Contemporary Crisis 7 (2, 1983), 209-30.
55. Scholten, 1980, 351; Kieve, 1981.

56. Kieve, 1981, 330.
57. H. Daudt, "De ontwikkeling van de politieke machtsverhoudingen in Nederland
sinds 1945," in Nederland na 1945 (Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1980), 186. See
also A. De Swaan, "The Netherlands: Coalitions in a Segmented Polity," in E. Browne
and J. Dreijmanis (eds.), Government Coalitions in Western Democracies (New York:
Longmans, 1982), 217-36; Van den Berg en Molleman, 1974.
165
In fact, the confessional and liberal parties have often shown a

preference for leaving the Socialists in the opposition and for
monopolizing political power. A real "grand coalition," that is, all
major parties in one Cabinet-has never existed. The best one can
say is, as Hoogerwerf does, that policy distances at elite level were
smaller than at mass level, but his data relate to 1963, a year in
which political change at mass level already became manifest. 58 As
to the specific rules of the game, Scholten
among others remarks that
50
they are hardly unique in politics. Most elites, almost always and
everywhere, have an inclination to summit diplomacy, to secrecy, to
depoliticization if this is opportune, to do politics as a business-like
job, to agree to disagree in order to make compromises, to allocate
more-or-less proportionally, and to accept the government's title to
rule. The proposition of prudence, finally, is most difficult to assess.
Within Lijphart's model it is a logical proposition, but the relevant
question is whether this prudence is also empirically true. Lijphart
does not provide any data about this "black-box" variable.
Stability. In terms of Lijphart's negative indicators the
Netherlands can be said to have been a stable country., For the
Netherlands Taylor and Hudson report low scores on political protest, riots, armed attacks, and other signs of violence. 80 But this was
also true for many of the decades before 1917. During the interbellum there have, however, been
many strikes, which at least in01
dicate socio-economic instability. In terms of positive indicators
Lijphart considers the Netherlands to be stable as well. But the real
facts about Cabinet stability are that between 1917 and 1967 there
have been 23 different Cabinets (almost every two years a new one),
of which only four completed their regular terms of four years. And
even these experienced some perodic crises resulting in resignation or
in a change of the Cabinet. During the interbellum the country was
ruled by a caretaker-government for an average of 27 days a year;
after the Second World War this average increased to more than one
month (33 days) a year. These facts can hardly be said to indicate
political stability. On the contrary, according to Kieve, the reality is
one of "political immobilism and deep inter-elite divisions." B2 Next
58. A. Hoogerwerf, "Sociaal-politieke strijdpunten; smeulend vuur," in
10 (2, 1963), 249-63.
59. Scholten, 1980, 332-35.
60. C. Taylor and M. Hudson, World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), chapter 3.
61. Fennema, 1976, 66.
62. Kieve, 1981, 326.
Sociologische Gids
166
to manifest instability, there has always been latent instability: in a

coalition-government within a multi-party system there is a permanent danger that some partner in the coalition shifts its loyalties.
Usually, more-or-less detailed agreements between the parties-incoalition had to be concluded before the Cabinet could start and
many additional negotiations had to be carried out during the
Cabinet's existence. Even now this is the case.
Constitutional continuity-that other positive but undefined indicator of stability-is difficult to measure. In its narrow sense the
(written) constitution has always undergone change, usually
-because of the specific procedure of its change-at the time of the
regular elections. In the broader sense of "the ordering and dividing
of the exercise of political power, "e3 constitutional change has
become an even more important characteristic of Dutch politics,
especially after the Second World War. In constructing the welfarepolity much of the power necessary to make binding decisions has
shifted from the autonomous and private organizations to the public
system. By the delegation of legislation a good deal of power has
shifted from the Parliament to the Government and its public
bureaucracy. Moreover, with the development of the European
Community, decision-making authority in a variety of policy fields
is now exerted at the European level. Because Lijphart did not
specify his concept of continuity, it is impossible to conclude
whether these fundamental changes indicate continuity or not. But
at least they indicate constitutional dynamics, which have
resulted-within a few decades-in a very different political order.
'
On the second set of Lijphart s elements of stability (borrowed
from Eckstein) the remark has already been made that these
elements lack any operationalization, or in any case one which is
widely accepted as useful. They do, however, bear a close relationship to other concepts which have already been examined, namely,
system maintenance with constitutional continuity, civil order with
the absence of violence, and legitimacy ("worthy of support") with
deference. The fourth element of stability, decisional efficacy, conceived as "the prompt and relevant making and implementing of
decision," is not very characteristic of Dutch politics. Lijphart
himself observed that in a consociation the time-costs of decisionmaking are very high and that much decision-making is left to
autonomous segments. 84 ( Democracy, 47-52)
63. C.J. Friedrich, Limited Government (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1974),
21.
64. Also in Rhoodie, 1978, 39.
167
Democracy. Looking at the practices of Dutch politics, with their

rules of secrecy and depoliticization, Lee Dutter poses the rhetorical
"65
question: "can the Netherlands really be called a democracy?
According to the standard of regular elections, the country has been
and still is a democracy. But, as said above, this conceptualization of
democracy is very narrow and nowadays hardly accepted as useful.
According to the broader standards of polyarchy-a concept which,
as remarked above, is not very compatible with the idea of eliteaccommodation-the country's democratic nature shows many
shortcomings.
The greatest imperfections appear as soon as one begins to use the
standard of participatory democracy. The construction of a Cabinet
has always been an elite affair. In almost all cases of serious
Cabinet-crises new elections were not held (as the Constitution
permits) and the reconstruction of the Cabinet remained an elite affair. The fairly closed elite system has been described by Daalder as
an oligarchy ("regentensfeer"), characterized by mutual distrust
and disaffection between the rulers and the ruled. 86 The 1967 election study shows indeed high percentages of people who consider the
political system as being, in some respects, not highly democratic:
MPs do not bother very much about what the people demand (64
percent of the respondents), referenda should be held (61 percent),
and the prime-minister should be elected (50 percent) . 67 Based on
the same questionnaire Van Putten reports dissatisfaction with the
practices of politics (37 percent), the MPs (34 percent) and the
political parties (36 percent) . 88 After his analysis of the relationships
between Government and Parliament, Geismann concludes that the
Netherlands has a limited democracy, because the political and
parliamentary elites in fact do not behave as representatives of the
voters and because the political control over the Cabinet is weak. 8
Using Dahl's model of polyarchy Daudt concludes that "because of
obsolete structures . . . the political demands and activities of the
citizens are, through the political parties, insufficiently reflected in
representative and executive bodies. "70 In Dahl's own rank-order of
65. Dutter, 1978, 565.
66. Daalder, 1974-A, 13.
67. De Nederlandse kiezers in 1967 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1967).

68. J. Van Putten, Ontevredenheid over Politiek (Meppel: Boom, 1971).
69. Geismann, 1964, 234-39.

70. H. Daudt, "Recente opvattingen over democratic," in
(Meppel: Boom, 1967), 43.
Democratie Anno
1967
168
polyarchies, the Netherlands (for the year 1969) scores far from
perfect and appears to be behind such countries as Jamaica, Costa
Rica and France. 71 Taking the list of definitional characteristics of a
polyarchy,72 one sees that, according to the 1967 poll, 46 percent of
the respondents do not see any difference between the competing
parties; that, according to Hudson and Taylor, there exist, in the
mid-sixties, some imperfections of press freedom; that political
knowledge and interest are unequally distributed among the people;
that majority-formation is not an electoral but an elite affair; that
the elected elites are repetitiously overruled by the non-elected elites
in the government or elsewhere; and that only in a narrow and in7a
direct sense the elections control the interelection decisions. The
lack of mass participation in Dutch politics during the interelection
periods has already been observed above, where the people's
deferent and non-participatory behavior was discussed. Direct
forms of mass participation were always incidental (e.g. demonstrations) or kept under strict political control (e.g. public advisory committees).
In his first book Lijphart poses the rhetorical question: "is it fair to
measure the quality of Dutch democracy against the standards of
the ideal model?" (Politics 1968, 179) Perhaps it is not (and at least
not very useful), but in that case he should have treated democracy
as a variable and should have avoided the apodictical statement that
the Netherlands really is a democracy. As with stability, its
democratic nature is in need of far greater refinement.
Conditions. Pappalardo has made a comparative analysis, which'
includes the Netherlands, of the conditional nature of Lijphart s
74
conditions for a consociational democracy. His general conclusion
is that only two conditions seem to have conditional status: stability
among subcultures, and elite predominance over a deferential and
organizationally encapsulated following. He also remarks that these
two conditions have not had constant values, but that they are
variables and that their dependent variable (consociational
democracy) should have reflected that variety. Regarding size and
traditions, which Pappalardo considers as not conditional, we finally refer to Dahl and Tufte who, also discussing the case of the
Netherlands, have hesitant conclusions about any straight relation71. Dahl, Polyarchy, op. cit., Appendix B.
72, Dahl, Preface, op. cit., 84.
73, See note 68 above, 63; Taylor and Hudson, World Handbook, op. cit., 51.
74. Pappalardo, 1981.
169
ship between size and democracy, 75 as well as to Daalder who,

following many historians, has stressed repeatedly that oligarchic
rule already existed before there was pillarization, 7 and to Van
Schendelen who observed, in the mid-seventies, the return ("restoration") of traditional elements of elite-politics. 77 On the basis of these
observations it may be concluded that, apparently, elitist traditions
and consociational democracy can be very unrelated to each other.
Omissions. Some authors have stressed that important political
variables have been overlooked by Lijphart. Manifold are the mentions of the role of bureaucracy and the build-up of the State's
welfare sector. 78 Although the pillarized elites tried to influence and
control both the bureaucracy and the welfare system, these efforts
soon appeared to score only limited success. The bureaucracy
became one of the main objects of depoliticization: party spoils
ought to be kept out. Because of this the public bureaucracy could
develop itself as one of the first and main depillarized structures
and, thanks to the growth of its powers and resources, with increasing autonomy. The rapid growth of general welfare provisions since
the mid-fifties weakened the exchange-relationship between the
pillars' elites and their adherents, especially regarding health, housing and allowances for unemployment, disablement and sickness,
old age, and social assistance.7 0 Fennema is one of the many who
stress that historical factors of pillarization and accommodation
have insufficiently been taken into account by Lijphart. For this
reason, these authors have doubts about Lijphart's thesis that the accommodation started around 1917. 80 Other omissions Fennema
notes are the underestimation of foreign pressures and international
circumstances, including the two World Wars; the under-exposure
of the economic growth and development of the country, with its
i mpressive rise of big multinational firms; the neglect of the changing role of the State, which increasingly intervened in the society;
75. R. Dahl and E. Tufte, Size and Democracy (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
1973).
76. Daalder, 1966; Daalder, 1974-A; Daalder, 1981. See also De Jong, 1957; Stuurman, 1981.
77. Van Schendelen, 1978. See also Sociologische Gids, 1979.
78. For example, S. Verba, "Some dilemmas in Comparative Research, " in World
Politics 19, (1, 1967), 123.
79. T. Braakman, M.P.C.M. Van Schendelen and R. Schotten, Sociale Zekerheid in
Nederland (Utrec: Aula, 1984).
80. Fennema, 1976; see also note 76 above.
170
and the failure to pay any attention to political socialization with

the result that mass-culture is presented as almost unrelated to the
social order. 81 That the international environment traditionally has
been an important determinant (integrating factor) of the Dutch
political system and should have been given
more attention by
82
Lijphart, has also been argued by Daalder.
A more general omission, observed by many authors mentioned
above, is the lack of variability and dynamics in Lijphart's description of Dutch politics. Fifty years of Dutch politics have been
described as almost constant and static. Lijphart does not provide
complete data-series, which might prove that, indeed, Dutch
politics have been constant and static. Instead he uses data from
very different years and decades and he puts them together into one
picture of politics. At the same time he frames this picture with the
break-points of 1917 and 1967, thus suggesting extreme variability
and dynamics before and after the period in question.
Scientific Qualities
Here we shall discuss four aspects of scientific quality: the theory's
validity, its verifiability, its predictive power, and its applicative
potential.
Validity. That Lijphart ' s analysis is widely contested now, is at
least partly due to his method, which has been described by Jurg
Steiner as " impressionistic " and Lee Dutter as " largely inductive.""
In their view, Lijphart has presented an interesting interpretation of
how, through prudent leadership, a pluralistic society can become
stable and democratic. But, instead of rigorous theory construction
and testing, he based his ideas on illustrations from Dutch political
life. And in this endeavor, it is contended, he used selective and incomplete illustrations of doubtful authenticity.
When Lijphart presented his ideas for the first time, he saw the
Dutch case as an almost unique one. Later on he started seeing consociational democracies almost all over the world. By now, critical
studies have been written about some of the many other alleged consociational democracies. On Switzerland, for example, Jurg Steiner
and Jeffrey Obler - two members of the "consociational democracy
81. Fennema, 1976.
82. Daalder in McRae, 1974, 107.
83. Steiner, 1981-A, 346; Dutter, 1978, 566.
171
school" - report that "the theory is certainly not clearly rejected. It

appears to be a plausible explanation . . . . But several reservations
are in order." 84 Their claim, not that the theory should be confirmed, but that it should not be rejected is, of course, minimal.
Their report is a reply to Brian Barry, who is much more outspoken:
"I propose to argue . . . 1. that Switzerland provides no support for
the theory of consociational democracy, 2. that the Austrian case is
less clear-cut than is often assumed, 3. that Belgium and the
Netherlands, although plausible supporting cases, still fall short of
fully bearing out the theory, and 4. that the relevance of the consociational model for other divided societies is much more doubtful
than is commonly supposed." 85
Verifiability. In a logical analysis of Lijphart's theory of consociational democracy, as presented in the Politics of Accommodation,
Boynton and Kwon come to the conclusion that the theory
is not yet
86
developed well enough to meet the test of verification. According
to them, the theory, first of all, does not specify under what conditions consociational democracy occurs, though in his second book
Lijphart has made an effort to do this. Secondly, they maintain,
elite-accommodation does not necessarily follow from a segmented
structure of society: "at best the argument is incomplete." Thirdly,
they hold, what Lijphart writes is the reverse of what he implies.
Accommodation is not a necessary and sufficient condition for stable
democracy, as he claims it is, but, quite the reverse, a stable
democracy is a necessary and sufficient condition for accommodation. If the population is deferent and passive, if the antagonistic
segments are isolated from each other and produce only few divisive
issues, and if the elites tend to converge their policy-views, then
there is already stability in the country, even in Lijphart's own terminology of "problem-solving capacity." Fourthly, they argue, to
become logical the reasoning should be extended with the assumption that the elites are willing to discount their own views of what
should be done about political problems. Indirectly, the authors
point to the possibility of tautology in Lijphart's analysis. Sometimes
the concepts of consociational democracy and elite-accommodation
84. J. Steiner and J. Obler, "Does the Consociational Theory Really Hold for
Switzerland? " , in Esman, 1977, 340.
85. Barry, 1975-B, 481.
86. Boynton and Kwon, 1978.
172
are being used by Lijphart as identical. In that case, however, the

one can never produce the other.
Other circular reasoning is found in Lijphart's second book,
(Democracy). About Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, and
Switzerland he remarks: "These countries are now retreating from
their high point of consociational development . . . (but) not . . . as
a result of the failure of consociational democracy, but because consociationalism by its very success has begun to make itself
superfluous." (Democracy, 2-3) What does this mean? One possibility is that Lijphart means that accommodation has become so successful that in the end all segmentations and cleavages of the society
will be solved, in which case there is no need any more for further
accommodation. This suggests that political change in the sixties has
been a performance of the elite-politics of accommodation, a suggestion which is not only factually wrong, but also contrary to
Lijphart' s own description of what happened in the sixties. It is an
example of circular reasoning as well, because an apparently stable
democracy (the outcome of accommodation) produces stable
democracy (the superfluity of accommodation). Another possible interpretation of the statement is that the political change of the sixties, with all its indicators of instability (violence, protest behavior,
the high turnover of elites), this time did not result in the need for
elite-accommodation (the so-called self-denying prophecy), but permitted non-accommodation. But then instability can result in either
accommodation or non-accommodation. However realistic this conclusion may be, it weakens Lijphart's argument, because the conditions under which the one or the other occurs must be spelled out for
the sake of theoretical coherence.
"
Predictive power. Lijphart remarks that " the predictive power
of his theory is "rather limited. Elite behavior seems to be more
elusive and less susceptible to empirical generalization than mass
phenomena." (Democracy, 54) Whether this last sentence is true or
not, a usual standard of theoretical quality is that it possesses predictive power. Lijphart's own prediction, written in 1969, for the near
future of Dutch politics, appears to be wrong: while the political
culture changed from fragmented into non-fragmented, he assumed
the style of elite-politics to remain the same (non-competitive). But
the system in fact developed towards a highly competitive elitesystem. 87 So, there is something important missing in his theory. It is
87. Daalder, 1974-A, part II; Van Schendelen, 1978; Dutter, 1978; Middendorp,
1979; Sociologische Gids, 1979; Daudt, De ontwikkeling, op. cit.
173
interesting to note that, while Lijphart regards the elite behavior of

1917 as dependent on the then existing instabilities, he predicted the
opposite for the seventies; namely, an elite behavior independent
from the then existing instabilities.
The predictive weakness of the theory also appears from Pappalardo's test of the "favorable conditions." 88 Only two conditions-and only under reservations-showed a relationship with the
outcome of consociationalism.
Applicative potential. Lijphart himself seems to attach more
value to the theory's potential for engineering societies than to any
other criterion of science. (Democracy, 55) If elite-accommodation
in a segmented society produces stable democracy, the theory is considered to be good in both an empirical and a normative sense.
Brian Barry has discussed Lijphart's proposals for Northern
Ireland which, as mentioned above, were elite accommodation and,
if the elites are unable to accommodate, partition of the country. 89
Barry replies that any effort to introduce consociationalism in
Northern Ireland is not only unrealistic, but also dangerous because
the accommodation ("compromising behavior") of the elites might
provoke extremism of the middle-elites and adherents; and if the
leaders of the segments are willing to solve the cleavages, a much
simpler solution suggests itself, namely, that the Protestant majority
makes conciliatory moves and that the Catholic minority responds in
kind. Barry's comment does not imply, of course, that Lijphart ' s
theory basically lacks engineering potential; its potential is only contested in this case.
The normative side of the theory has been discerned almost from
the beginning. In his review of early consociational literature,
Daalder observed its "danger of aprioristic normative notions. "90 A
major problem for Barry is the implication that "only elite accommodation institutionalized in consociational devices can produce
stability. 9 ' Any consociational counsellor, then, is very biased in his
political engineering. To these points one can add the earlier concerns regarding the conceptualization of stability and, particularly,
democracy. They are limited and do not contain modern elements
as, for example, institutionalized mass-participation. Consociational democracy remains elitist democracy.
R. Pappalardo, 1981,
89. Barry, 1975-A on Lijphart, 1975-B; see also Hanf, 1982 and Hughes, 1982.
90. Daalder, 1974-B, 620.
91. Barry, 1975-B, 480.
174
CONCLUSIONS
The catalogue of collected criticisms raised against Lijphart's
views demonstrates at least one thing: his views are widely and fundamentally contested. But the catalogue also demonstrates that
Lijphart's views have been taken seriously and that they have at
least provoked critical debate and analysis among scholars. This
critical inquiry attests to the substance and importance of Lijphart ' s
efforts.
Given all the collected criticisms, how valid and useful is
Lijphart's main thesis, namely, that deeply divided societies can
become stable and democratic as well, if the elites of the different
segments of society effectively manage their conflicts through a
system of mutual accommodation?
Lijphart himself does not seem to bother very much about all the
criticisms. With reference to Gabriel Almond, he declares that
" `choices in politics are constrained but indeterminate.' This conclusion may be disappointing for `political science, but for political
problem solving there may be cause for satisfaction.' Consociational
theory fits what Almond calls the `political science literature that
stresses room for maneuver, ranges of freedom, the place for risktaking.' " ( Democracy, 55) Lijphart seems to be more concerned
about the applicability or the engineering potential of his theory
than about its political science validity. If, along the basic lines of
his essential views, democratic stability could be realized in highly
unstable countries, then the theory may be weak, but not wrong.
Very recently Lijphart himself has formulated seven points of
criticism against his own theory. 92 Four of them mainly refer to The
Politics of Accommodation: the ending of the Dutch politics of accommodation, at the end of the sixties, should have been elaborated
more; pillarization is partly also a dependent variable, a construct
by politicians; the factual pattern of Dutch consociationalism has
shown more variations than suggested; and the Dutch case was correctly presented as a deviant case, but incorrectly as a unique case.
The other three points of self-criticism are more related to
Democracy in Plural Societies: a clearer distinction between
crosscutting cleavages and crosscutting memberships should have
been made; partition, as a technique of conflict-management,
92. A. Lijphart, " Time Politics of Accommodation: reflections, fifteen years later,"
in Acta Politica 19 (1, 1984).
175
should not be advocated so unconditionally as might have been suggested; and there seems to be less reason to apologize for the
democratic quality of consociational democracies, although any
alternative solution of societal conflicts would have been even less
democratic.
His own conclusion about the impact these points of criticism
should have on his theory, he puts as follows: "[they] are rather
small modifications and clarifications. They do not affect the fundamental propositions of consociational theory. On the whole, I
believe that the theory has stood the test of time and continues to be
of value both empirically and prescriptively." 93 To the prescriptive
assessment he adds, "I hear no better models being proposed . . . [I
disagree] that the majoritarian model is more likely
to work well in a
94
plural society than the consociational model."
Such modest and moderate formulations might save the basics of
The Politics of Accommodation and Democracy in Plural Societies.
Nothing more is being claimed now than that Dutch politics has
been segmented to some degree during certain periods and that it
has realized, thanks to some practices of accommodation, a degree
of both political stability and democracy.
The empirical question, however, is whether the degree to which
the Netherlands have been vertically segmented into different and
competing minority groups, with all the dangers of political centrifugalism, has been high enough to legitimate the conclusion that the
country is a paradoxical case of democratic stability and a deviant
case, unexplainable by dominant theories of the fifties and the sixties.
The answer to this question is still open. Empirical political
research in (or on) the country is still young and scarce. The spell
which Lijphart's easy readable and fascinating analysis of Dutch
politics has spread among Dutch scholars, has surely been more of a
handicap than a stimulus for critical empirical research. Only very
recently has critical debate among Dutch scholars started and
historical research been undertaken. 95 Not before it is proven that
the Netherlands has been a highly divided plural society and, at the
same time, has met accepted international standards of stability and
93. Ibid.
94. Ibid.
95. On these new efforts M.P.C.M. Van Schendelen (ed.), Consociationalism,

Pillarization and Conflict-Management in the Low Countries (Amsterdam: Boom,
1984.)
176
democracy, can this country be viewed as a paradoxical and deviant

case. The same applies to any other assumed consociational country,
whether it be Belgium, Austria, or Switzerland.
In sum, consociational democracy presents us with a challenging
and provocative point of view. But, at the present time, it provides
less than is needed for solid prescriptions for deeply divided societies
anxiously searching for stable democracy. Perhaps, after rigorous
analysis and evaluation, it might lead us to answers for problems
confronting such societies. Any answers it might provide would certainly be highly valued by those who seek a stable, democratic
political system.
Erasmus University, Rotterdam
M.P.C.M. VAN SCHENDELEN
Appendix
Bibliography of Consociational Democracy
Although Lijphart can be said to be the most productive and imaginative author on consociationalism, he is by now only one among
many. In the Netherlands particularly sociologists (Van Doorn,
Ellemers, Kruijt, Thurlings) have presented basically similar
analyses of the phenomenon of pillarization, even before Lijphart
published his The Politics of Accommodation, but without his
political explanation of accommodation. Some political scientists
have presented variations or amendments of Lijphart's theory by
stressing the historical dimension of Dutch pillarization (Daalder),
the factor of effective elite-control (Van Schendelen), and the corporatistic structure of decision-making (Scholten).
On the international scene only one author can be said to have
presented an analysis of plural societies basically similar to
'
'
Lijphart s view. In 1967, one year before Lijphart s The Politics of
Accommodation, Gerhard Lehmbruch published his Proporzdemokratie, a small booklet on Austria and Switzerland. In these
plural societies social cleavages were said to be reconciled through
political compromises at elite-level, by which political stability was
performed. Interestingly enough, Lijphart and Lehmbruch have
worked isolated from each other; neither refers to the other. While
Lijphart afterwards became highly productive on consociationalism, Lehmbruch shifted to the partly related theme of corporatism.
177
In the rest of Europe the theme of consociationalism was soon

taken up in especially Belgium (Huyse, Lorwin) and Austria (Steininger, Stiefbold) or placed in the more comparative perspective of
"the smaller democracies" (Obler, Steiner, Dierickx, Esman, Tarrow).
Outside Europe, countries which have been placed in a consociational perspective, are Canada (McRae), Ghana and Lebanon
(Smock and Smock) and South Africa (Rhoodie) . Broad comparative
analyses, like Lijphart in his Democracy in Plural Societies, have
been presented by Babushka and Shepsle and by Nordlinger.
Within one decade consociational thinking seems to have obtained its own domain in political theory, research and engineering.
There exists a "Consociational Democracy School."
Bibliography
* Comparative literature; the other items only or mainly on the
Netherlands.
H. Bakvis (1981). Catholic Power in the Netherlands. Kingston:
McGill-Queens University Press, 1981.
* B. Barry (1975-A). "The Consociational Model and Its
Dangers." In European Journal of Political Research 3 (4, 1975),
393-412.
* B. Barry (1975-B). "Review Article, Political Accommodation
and Consociational Democracy." In British Journal of Political
Science 5 (4, 1975), 477-505.
* J. Billiet (1977). Secularisering en verzuiling in het onderwijs.
Leuven: Universitaire Pers, 1977.
* J. Billiet (1982). "Verzuiling en politiek, theoretische beschouwingen over Belgie na 1945. " In Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste
Geschiedenis 13 (1, 1982), 83-118.
J. Blom (1981). Verzuiling in Nederland. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1981.
J.C. Boogman en C.A. Tamse (eds.) (1978). Emancipatie in
Nederland: De ontvoogding van burgerij en confessionelen in de
negentiende eeuw. Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1978.
* L. Boulle (1981). " Federation and Consociation. " In South
African THRHR 44 (2, 1981), 238-54.
* G.R. Boynton en W.H. Kwon (1978). " An Analysis of Consocia-
178
tional Democracy." In Legislative Studies Quarterly 3 (1, 1978),

11-25.
L.P.J. de Bruyn (1972). " Verzuiling en politieke deconfessionalisering. " In Acta Politica 7 (1, 1972), 42-47.
C.G.A. Bryant (1981). "Depillarisation in The Netherlands." In
British Journal of Sociology 32 (1, 1981), 56-74.
J.A. Coleman (1978). The Evolution of Dutch Catholicism,
1958-1974. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.
K. Crawford (1982). "The Netherlands: In search of stability." In
Parliamentary Affairs 35 (2, 1982), 297-314.
H. Daalder (1964). "Politiek in Nederlands Kader." In Mens en
Maatschappg (64, 1964), 99-122.
H. Daalder (1966). " The Netherlands, Opposition in a Segmented
Society. " In R. Dahl (ed.), Political Oppositions in Western
Democracies. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966, 188-236.
* H. Daalder (1971). "On Building Consociational Nations: The
Cases of the Netherlands and Switzerland." In International Social
Science Journal 23 (3, 1971), 355-70.
H. Daalder (1974-A). Politisering en lijdelijkheid in de Nederlandse politiek. Assen: Van Gorkum, 1974.
* H. Daalder (1974-B). " The Consociational Democracy Theme. "
In World Politics 26 (4, 1974), 604-21.
H. Daalder (1981). " Consociationalism; Center and Periphery in
The Netherlands." In P. Torsvik (ed.), Mobilization, CenterPeriphery Structures and Nation-building. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1981, 181-240.
* E. Dew (1978). The difficult flowering of Surinam. Den Haag:
Nijhoff, 1978.
L. Dutter (1978). " The Netherlands as a plural society. " In Comparative Political Studies 10 (4, 1978), 555-88.
* N. Elder and others (1982). The Consensual Democracies;
Government and Politics of the Skandinavian States. Oxford:
Robertson, 1982.
J.E. Ellemers (1968). "De Nederlandse maatschappij in
sociologisch perspectief." In Sociologische Gids 15 (4, 1968), 326-36.
J.E. Ellemers (1979). "Nederland in de jaren zestig en zeventig.
In Sociologische Gids 26 (6,1979), 429-51.
* M. Esman (ed.) (1977). Ethnic Conflict in the Western World.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977.
M. Fennema (1976). "Professor Lijphart en de Nederlandse
politiek." In Acta Politica 11 (1, 1976), 54-77.
179
G. Geismann (1964). Politische Struktur and Regierungssystem in

den Niederlanden. Frankfurt am Main: Atheneum, 1964.
L. Giebbels (1972). "Van deconfessionalisering naar verzuiling."
In Socialisme en Democratie 29 (8, 1972), 487-93.
P. van Gorkum (ed.) (1965). Pacificatie en de zuilen. Meppel:
Boom, 1965.
* L. Graziano (1980). " The Historic Compromise and Consociational Democracy. " In International Political Science Review 1 (3,
1980), 345-68.
* B. Gunawan en O.D. van de Muijzenberg (1967). "Verzuilingstendenties en sociale stratificatie in Indonesie. In Sociologische
Gids 14 (1, 1967), 146-58.
* T. Hanf (1982). "Education and Consociational Conflict
Regulation in Plural Societies." Paper International Political Science
Association, Rio de Janeiro.
* M.O. Heisler (ed.) (1974). Politics in Europe. New York:
McKay, 1974.
* A. Hughes (1982). "The Limits of `Consociational Democracy ' in
The Gambia. " Paper International Political Science Association, Rio
de Janeiro.
* L. Huyse (1970). Passiviteit, Pacificatie en verzuiling in de
Belgische politiek. Antwerpen: Standaard, 1970.
* L. Huyse (1980). De Gewapende Vrede. Leuven: Kritak, 1980.
Fr. de Jong Edzn (1957). "Verzuiling in historisch perspectief." In
Socialisme en Democratie 14 (1, 1957), 2-10.
R. Kieve (1981). "Pillars of Sand, a Marxist Critique of Consociational Democracy in The Netherlands." In Comparative Politics. 13
(2, 1981), 313-37
J.P. Kruijt (1957-A). "Levensbeschouwing en groepssolidariteit in
Nederland." Sociologisch Jaarboek, deel 11, 29-65.
J.P. Kruijt (1957-B). "Sociologische beschouwingen over zuilen en
verzuiling." In Socialisme en Democratie 14 (1, 1957), 11-29.
J.P. Kruijt et al. (1959). Verzuiling. Zaandijk: Heijnis, 1959.
J.P. Kruijt en W. Goddijn (1968). "Verzuiling en ontzuiling als
sociologisch proces." In Drift en Koers: Een halve eeuw sociale
verandering in Nederland. Assen: Van Gorkum, 1968, 227-63.
* G. Lehmbruch (1967). Proporzdemokratie: Politisches System
and politische Kultur in der Schweiz and in Osterreich. Tubingen:
Mohr, 1967.
* G. Lehmbruch (1975). "Consociational Democracy in the International System. " In European Journal of Political Research 3 (4,
1975), 377-91.
180
* G. Lehmbruch (1979). " Consociational Democracy, Class Conflict, and the New Corporatism." In P. Schmitter and G.
Lehmbruch (eds.), Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation.
London: Sage, 1979, 53-62.
* G. Lehmbruch and J. Hayward (eds.) (1983). "Interest Intermediation." In International Political Science Review 4 (2, 1983),
149-260.
A. Lijphart (1968-A). The Politics of Accommodation. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1968.
A. Lijphart (1968-B). Verzuiling, pacificatie en kentering in de
Nederlandse politiek. Amsterdam: DeBussy, 1968.
A. Lijphart (1969). "Kentering in de Nederlandse politiek. " In
Acta Politica 4 (3, 1969), 231-47.
"
A. Lijphart (1971). "Verzuiling. In A. Hoogerwerf (ed.),
Verkenningen in de politiek, part 2. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samson,
1976, 3rd edition, 26-38.
A. Lijphart (1975-A). The Politics of Accommodation. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1975, 2nd edition.
"
* A. Lijphart (1975-B). Review Article: the Northern Ireland
Problem; Cases, Theories, and Solutions. " In British Journal of
Political Science 5 (1, 1975), 83-106.
A. Lijphart (1976-A). "Repliek (op M. Fennema)." In Acta
Politica 11 (1, 1976), 78-84.
A. Lijphart (1976-B). Verzuiling, pacificatie en kentering in de
Nederlandse politiek. Amsterdam: DeBussy, 1976, 2nd edition.
* A. Lijphart (1977). Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.
A. Lijphart (1979-A). Verzuiling, pacificatie en kentering in de
Nederlandse politiek. Amsterdam: DeBussy, 1979, 3rd edition.
* A. Lijphart (1979-B). "Consociation and Federation: conceptual
and empirical links." In Canadian Journal of Political Science 12 (3,
1979), 499-515.
* A. Lijphart (1981-A). " De theorie van de
pacificatie-democratie." In J. Thomassen (red.), Democratie.
Alphen aan den Rijn: Samson, 1981, 128-45.
"
* A. Lijphart (1981-B). " Comment, Consociational Democracy.
In Comparative Politics 14 (2, 1981), 355-60.
"
* V. Lorwin (1971). "Segmented Pluralism. In Comparative
Politics. 4 (1, 1971), 141-75.
* K. McRae (ed.) (1974). Consociational Democracy: Political Accommodation and Segmented Societies. Toronto: McClelland and
Stewart, 1974.
181
C.P. Middendorp (1979). Ontzuiling, politisering en restauratie

in Nederland: De jaren 60 en 70. Amsterdam: Boom, 1979.
S. Miedema (1957). "De kosten van de verzuiling. " In Socialisme
en Democratie 14 (1, 1957), 47-58.
W.E. Miller and Ph.C. Stouthard (1975). "Confessional Attachment and Electoral Behavior in the Netherlands." In European
Journal of Political Research 3 (3, 1975), 219-58.
D.O. Moberg (1961). "Social Differentiation in the Netherlands."
Social Forces 39 (4, 1961), 333-37.
* S. Neuman (ed.) (1976). Small States and Segmented Societies.
New York: Praeger, 1976.
* E.A. Nordlinger (1972). Conflict Regulation in Divided
Societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972.
* J. Obler, J. Steiner and G. Dierickx (1977). Decision-Making in
Smaller Democracies: The Consociational `Burden'. London: Sage,
1977.
* A. Pappalardo (1981). "The Conditions for Consociational
Democracy: a logical and empirical critique." In European Journal
of Political Research 9 (4, 1981), 365-90.
"
* M. Pedersen (1982). The Dissatisfied Voter as Deus ex
"
Machina. Working paper 16, Odense University, Denmark
(mimeo).
J. Ponsioen (1957). "Godsdienst en groepssolidariteit." In
Sociologisch Jaarboek, deel 11, 5-22.
* G.B. Powell, Jr. (1970). Social Fragmentation and Political
Hostility: An Austrian Case-study. Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 1970.
* A. Rabushka and K. Shepsle (1972). Politics in Plural Societies: A
Theory of Democratic Instability. Columbus: Merrill, 1972.
* N. Rhoodie (ed.) (1978). Intergroup Accommodation in Plural
Societies. London: McMillan, 1978.
I. Schoffer (1956). "Verzuiling, een specifiek Nederlands probleem." Sociologische Gids 3 (2, 1956), 121-27.
I. Scholten (1980). " Does Consociationalism Exist? A Critique of
the Dutch Experience. " In R. Rose (ed.), Electoral Participation.
London: Sage, 1980, 329-55.
* D. Smock and A. Smock (1975) . The Politics of Pluralism, a comparative study of Lebanon and Ghana. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1975.
Socialisme en Democratie 14 (1, 1957), special issue.
Sociologische Gids 3 (2, 1956), special issue.
Sociologische Gids 26 (6, 1979), special issue.
182
* J. Steiner (1974). Amicable Agreement versus Majority Rule.

Chapel Hill: University Press of North Carolina, 1974.
* J. Steiner (1981-A). " Review Article, The Consociational Theory
and Beyond." In Comparative Politics 14 (2, 1981), 339-54.
* J. Steiner (1981-B). "Research Strategy beyond Consociational
Democracy." In Journal of Politics 43 (4, 1981), 1241-50.
* R. Steininger (1975). Polarisierung and Integration: Eine
Vergleichende Untersuchung der strukturellen Versaulung der
Gesellschaft in den Niederlanden and Osterreich. Meisenheim:
Hain, 1975.
R. Steininger (1977). "Pillarization and Political Parties." In
Sociologische Gids 24 (3, 1977), 242-57.
* R. Stiefbold (1973). Segmented Pluralism, Consociational
Democracy, and Austrian Electoral Politics. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 1973.
S. Stuurman (1980). "Verzuiling en klassenstrijd in Nederland."
Jaarboek voor de Geschiedenis van Socialisme en Arbeidersbeweging in Nederland 1980. Nijmegen: Sun, 1980, 48-93.
S. Stuurman (1981) . Het ontstaan van de verzuiling in Nederland.
Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1981.

S. Stuurman (1983). Verzuiling, Kapitalisme en Patriarchaat.
Nijmegen: Sun, 1983.
* S. Tarrow et al. (eds.) (1978). Territorial Politics in Industrial
Nations. New York: Praeger, 1978.
M. Thung et al. (1982). "Dutch Pillarization on the Move?" In
West European Politics 5 (2, 1982), 127-48.
J.G.M. Thurlings (1971). De wankele zuil: Nederlandse
Katholieken tussen assimilatie en pluralisme. Nijmegen: Dekker &
VanderVegt, 1971; Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1978, 2nd edition.
J.Th.J. Van den Berg en H.A.A. Molleman (1974). Crisis in de
Nederlandse politiek (Alphen aan den Rijn: Samson, 1974.
J.A.A. Van Doorn (1958). "De emancipatie der Nederlandse
Rooms Katholieken in de sociologische literatuur." In Sociologische
Gids 5 (2, 1958), 194-204.
J.A.A. Van Doorn (1971). "Verzuiling als verbinding van
organisatie en ideologie." In idem, Organisatie en Maatschappij.
Leiden: Stenfert Kroese, 1971, 62-71.
J.A.A. Van Kemenade (1968). De Katholieken en hun onderwijs.
Meppel: Boom, 1968.
M.C.P.M. Van Schendelen (1978). "Verzuiling en restauratie in
183
de Nederlandse politiek." In Beleid en Maatschappij 5 (2, 1978),

42-64.
J. Van Vugt (1981). Godsdienst en Kerk in Nederland 1945-1980,
een bibliografie. Nijmegen: Katholiek Documentatiecentrum, 1981.
H. Verwey-Jonker (1957). "De psychologie van de verzuiling. " In
Socialisme en Democratie 14 (1, 1957), 30-39.
* K. Von Vorys (1975). Democracy without Consensus. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1975.

Consociational Democracy - The Views of Arend Lijphartand Collected Criticisms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consociational Democracy - The Views of Arend Lijphartand Collected Criticisms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consociational Democracy - The Views of Arend Lijphartand Collected Criticisms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is Arend Lijphart's view of Dutch politics?

What is Arend Lijphart's view of Dutch politics?

What criticisms has Lijphart's view received?

What criticisms has Lijphart's view received?

Consociational Democracy:

The Views of Arend Lijphart

The Politics of Accommodation. By Arend Lijphart. (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1968; second edition 1975).

Democracy in Plural Societies.

world were concerned with the crucial question of how political

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

religious, and cultural groups, had somehow to be overcome before

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

stable democracy in spite of all cleavages and divisions? Discussing a

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

pillars are politically passive and deferential towards the leaders of

concern the pluralist proposition that cross-cutting cleavages and

In his article Lijphart presented the following typology of

Shortly after The Politics of Accommodation Lijphart published

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

ding to Lijphart, the expected development of a cartel democracy

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

In a contribution to Milton Esman's book on Ethnic Conflict in

Western societies. Contrary to many predictions by different

four dimensions and, more specifically, by a high probability of

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

method to attain democratic stability, because "the realistic choice

On the basis of this insight, not only does Lijphart make a

mutability of key concepts; the difficulty of operationalizing or

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

simply as one variable of the consociational theory. In his review of

26. In American Political Science Review 73 (1, 1979), 296.

less representative, and there are continuous possibilites for popular

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

concepts. ..." 30 And the other author (Harry Eckstein), providing

to understand plural societies. It contains a whole theory in

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

this score, the best we can and should do is to compare Lijphart's

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

the so-called pillars (measured in terms of convivium and the like)

41. D. Van De Kaa, "Bevolking: asymmetrisehe tolerantie of accomodatiepolitiek,"

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

55. Scholten, 1980, 351; Kieve, 1981.

In fact, the confessional and liberal parties have often shown a

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

to manifest instability, there has always been latent instability: in a

Democracy. Looking at the practices of Dutch politics, with their

67. De Nederlandse kiezers in 1967 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1967).

69. Geismann, 1964, 234-39.

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

ship between size and democracy, 75 as well as to Daalder who,

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

and the failure to pay any attention to political socialization with

school" - report that "the theory is certainly not clearly rejected. It

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

are being used by Lijphart as identical. In that case, however, the

interesting to note that, while Lijphart regards the elite behavior of

THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER