Arend Lijphart is the proponent of consociational democracy (Lijphart, 2018).
Consociationalism seeks to share, disperse, and limit power (Lijphart, 2012: 2). This is actualised through consensus. It is about how power can be shared in diverse societies and those that will benefit from this. The political elites are the drivers of consociationalism, and they are the primary beneficiaries. They assume this position because of the followership they command ethnically and religiously and their economic prowess. Lijphart has used other
69
terms like accommodation, consociation, power sharing and consensus, but the static point is that compromise among groups in a divided society needs to meet the four basic characteristics (Lijphart, 2018: 1). These characteristics are cultural autonomy, grand coalition, proportionality, and minority veto. These are what are referred to as principles of consociationalism.
Consociationalism promotes a grand coalition of majorities and minorities through the establishment of agreed guarantees, including proportional group participation in government and minority vetoes of policies (Horowitz, 2014: 5). To have a comprehensive overview of consociational democracy, its four basic principles as offered by Lijphart are expedient (Lijphart 1977: 25-44; Lijphart, 1996: 258; Lijphart, 2008: 42-43). These are:
1. Government by 'grand coalition', that is, by a broadly representative coalition of all significant ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups.
2. Group autonomy by means of territorial and/or non-territorial federalism and decentralisation.
3. Proportionality, especially in political representation and civil service.
4. Minority veto power concerning issues of vital and fundamental importance to minority rights and autonomy.
The four basic elements of consociationalism enable the government to become a wide- ranging multi-ethnic alliance (Duruji, 2008: 97). Executive power sharing, distinctive veto rights, and joint autonomy help prevent a group from becoming so powerful to become a threat to the fundamental interests of other group(s) (Deets, 2018: 136). This is achieved through the cooperative attitude of the elites, and this encapsulates these four principles.
In Nigeria, this power sharing principle has been adopted in the form of the unofficial sharing of political offices among ethnic and religious groups. Allocation of positions of principal officers of political parties and federal character principle for occupying offices in the public service have also been based on equity format and not merit (Mustapha, 2009: 568). Rotating the office of the President and Vice President and the appointment of a Minister from each state in Nigeria are typical examples. Other measures that the Nigerian state have adopted to
70
boost inclusive participation are the NYSC scheme, quota system, state creation, the establishment of unity schools, establishment of federal universities, among others.
Consociations in the form of documented agreements and constitutions have been adopted in different countries at different times. These are Switzerland (1943), Belgium (1970), Malaysia (1971), South Tyrol (1972), Lebanon (1989), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995), Northern Ireland (1998), Burundi (2000 and 2005), Macedonia (2001), Afghanistan (2004), Iraq (2005) and Kenya (2008) (McCulloch, 2014: 507; McGarry and O’Leary, 2007; 677;
O’Flynn and Russell, 2005: 1). Others are South Africa, Uruguay, Colombia, Malaysia, among others (Deschouwer, 2006: 895; Hazan, 1999: 109; Lijphart, 2008: 278; Loizides, 2018:155; Mushtaq et al., 2011: 284; Qvortrup, 2018: 181).
Consociational democracy has recorded success in Switzerland, Austria, the Netherlands, and Belgium, while it has failed in Cyprus, Fiji, and Malaysia (Jarrett, 2018: 42; Wolff, 2010: 4).
It is a significant ingredient in international intervention in conflict-ridden countries like Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Iraq (McCulloch, 2014: 501). Northern Ireland experimented with centripetalism in 1974 and since 1998 (though irregular) embraced consociational coalition government characterised by chronological and proportional allocation of rules (McGarry and O’Leary, 2016: 498). Aside from its partial adoption in the 1960s, India has not embraced consociationalism with respect to having cross-community representation with executive power sharing at the centre, but it has always taken diversity in religion, language, and ethnicity into consideration in the civil service and cabinet appointments (McGarry and O’Leary, 2009: 16). Undermining consociationalism was greatly responsible for the breakup of the Yugoslav federation because Serbians dominated the army and the federal executive (McGarry and O’Leary, 2009: 16).
4.3.1 The four principles of Consociationalism 1. Government by Grand Coalition
The main idea of Lijphart is elites’ cooperation and grand coalition among ethnic representatives (Spears, 2000: 107). Grand coalition accords greater security and guarantees the input of the minorities in decision-making (Traniello, 2008: 31). Grand coalition is an elites’ cartel designed to respond to the problems of fragmentation into unfriendly subgroups (Lijphart, 2008: 31). Grand coalition through elites’ cooperation is expected to achieve
71
political security for smaller groups and peace (Sullivan, 2005: 78). Grand coalition in consociationalism may take the form of a large representative and multi-party coalition cabinet, informal advisory structure, and rotating presidency (Lijphart, 2008: 8).
Grand coalitions are linked with ethnic, linguistic, religious, partisan, and sectarian factors.
These have resulted sometimes formally and mostly informally in agreement on allocation of President’s Office, Office of the Prime Minister, Presiding officer of the Parliament and other top government positions (Deschouwer, 2006: 895; Khidasheli, 1999: 199; Lijphart, 1998:
148; Lijphart, 2008: 45). This is in congruence with the rotational presidency in Nigeria because, since the commencement of the Fourth Republic, political elites have used ethnic and/or religious yardsticks to support or oppose the emergence of some candidates for the positions of the President and Vice President. For instance, the emergence of the two Yoruba elites candidates as presidential candidates in the 1999 presidential election was ethnically driven. This was because political elites in the country felt that Yoruba elites were short- changed in the annulment of the 1993 presidential election.
Grand coalition has operated in different dimensions in Belgium, Colombia, Lebanon, Switzerland, Germany, Cyprus, Burundi (1999), Fiji (1997), Kenya (2008), Zimbabwe (2009) (Deschouwer, 2006: 895; McGarry and O’Leary, 2016: 500; Lijphart, 2008: 67). It has also been in operation in Austria, Malaysia and South Africa (Lijphart, 1996: 259). Other forms include the Dutch design of permanent makeshift councils or committees with better influence than advisory roles (Lijphart, 1996: 259). The Indian Congress party which was in power6 in India during the first two decades of its existence was inclusive and had a grand coalition in its intra-party framework because the ministers it produced belong to all the foremost religious, linguistic, and regional groups (Lijphart, 1996: 260).