The Uneasy Relationship Between Empirical and Normative Types in Consociational Theory
License
Access Rights
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
0951-6298
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2000, 12, 4, 395-423
Cite
BOGAARDS, Matthijs, The Uneasy Relationship Between Empirical and Normative Types in Consociational Theory, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2000, 12, 4, 395-423 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/16924
Abstract
Consociationalism has enriched comparative politics with a whole lineage of non-majoritarian types of democracy: from consociational democracy to consensus democracy and power-sharing. This article unravels the development, interaction and succession of empirical and normative typologies in 30 years of consociational literature as embodied in the work of Lijphart. It argues that consociational theory is plagued by serious conceptual problems which remain undetected by current inquiries into proper concept formation. The problem lies both in Lijphart's empirical typology of democracies and in the presence of a complementary but incongruent normative typology. The conclusion is that in the end the two kinds of typology weaken instead of strengthen each other and lay bare fundamental weaknesses in consociational theory. It is suggested that the empirical investigation of the normative rival types of consociational and majoritarian democracy, properly defined and operationalized, should be at the heart of new research strategies.