Empirically Depicting Consociation’s Role

  • Brighid Brooks Kelly


The variables and data used to represent consociation and stability in the quantitative analysis are discussed and specified. The set of phenomena which ideally would be included through control variables is explored, and six are identified which can be incorporated into the statistical analyses. The close correspondence between this project’s variables and Lijphart’s theory of consociation is emphasized by the inclusion of five representing factors which he identifies as favorable to the success of this political system. While the dependent variable of instability is analyzed through protest and rebellion data, multiple independent variables portraying consociation are used to enable discrimination of the effects of its four components.


  1. Bogaards, Matthijs. “The Favourable Factors for Consociational Democracy: A Review.” European Journal of Political Research. 33 (1998) 475–496.Google Scholar
  2. Bonneuil, Noël and Nadia Auriat. “Fifty Years of Ethnic Conflict and Cohesion: 1945–94.” Journal of Peace Research. 37:5 (2000) 563–581.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, Frank S. “Proportional Versus Majoritarian Ethnic Conflict Management in Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies. 30:5 (October, 1997) 607–630.Google Scholar
  4. Gurr, Ted Robert. Minorities at Risk: A Global View of Ethnopolitical Conflicts. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. Gurr, Ted Robert. Peoples Versus States: Minorities at Risk in the New Century. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. Gurr, Ted Robert, Monty G. Marshall, and Christian Davenport. Minorities at Risk: Dataset Users Manual.1002. Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. Hibbs, Douglas A. Mass Political Violence: A Cross-National Causal Analysis. New York: Wiley, 1973.Google Scholar
  8. Horowitz, Donald L. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. Keefer, Philip. DPI2000: Database of Political Institutions: Changes and Variable Definitions. The World Bank, March 2002.Google Scholar
  10. Khosla, Deepa. “Third World States as Intervenors in Ethnic Conflicts: Implications for Regional and International Security.” Third World Quarterly. 20:6 (1999) 1143–1156.Google Scholar
  11. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. Krain, Matthew. “Contemporary Democracies Revisited: Democracy, Political Violence, and Event Count Models.” Comparative Political Studies. 31:2 (April, 1998) 139–164.Google Scholar
  13. Le Vine, Victor T. “Conceptualizing ‘Ethnicity’ and ‘Ethnic Conflict’: A Controversy Revisited.” Studies in Comparative International Development. 32:2 (Summer, 1997) 45–75.Google Scholar
  14. Lijphart, Arend. “Typologies of Democratic Systems.” Comparative Political Studies. 1:1 (April, 1968) 3–44.Google Scholar
  15. Lijphart, Arend. “Consociational Democracy.” World Politics. 21:2 (January, 1969) 207–225.Google Scholar
  16. Lijphart, Arend. The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. Second Edition. Berkeley: University of California, 1975.Google Scholar
  17. Lijphart, Arend. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  18. Lijphart, Arend. Power-Sharing in South Africa. Berkeley: Institute of International Affairs, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. Lijphart, Arend. “From the Politics of Accommodation to Adversarial Politics in the Netherlands: A Reassessment.” Politics in the Netherlands: How Much Change. Eds. Hans Daalder and Galen A. Irwin. London: Frank Cass, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. Lijphart, Arend. “The Puzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation.” American Political Science Review. 90:2 (June, 1996) 258–268.Google Scholar
  21. Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. Lustick, Ian. “Stability in Deeply Divided Societies: Consociation Versus Control.” World Politics. 31:3 (1979) 325–344.Google Scholar
  23. Muller, Edward N. “Income Inequality, Regime Repressiveness, and Political Violence.” American Sociological Review. 50 (1985) 47–61.Google Scholar
  24. Muller, Edward N. and Mitchell A. Seligson. “Inequality and Insurgency.” American Political Science Review. 81 (1987) 425–51.Google Scholar
  25. O’Leary, Brendan. “Debating Consociational Politics: Normative and Explanatory Arguments.” From Power Sharing to Democracy: Post-conflict Institutions in Ethnically Divided Societies. Ed. Sid Noel. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University, 2005.Google Scholar
  26. Powell, G. Bingham. Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, and Violence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  27. Reilly, Ben. Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brighid Brooks Kelly
    • 1
  1. 1.Andrea Mitchell Center for the Study of DemocracyUniversity of PennsylvaniaSwarthmoreUSA

Personalised recommendations