Power Sharing: New Challenges For Divided Societies - Softcover

Softcover

ISBN 10: 0745322921 ISBN 13: 9780745322926

Verlag: Pluto Press, 2005

Inhaltsangabe

It is widely assumed that internal power-sharing is a viable democratic means of managing inter-communal conflict in divided societies. In principle, this form of government enables communities that have conflicting identities to remedy longstanding patterns of discrimination and to co-exist peacefully. Key arguments in support of this view can be found in the highly influential works of Arend Lijphart and Donald Horowitz. New Challenges for Power-Sharing seeks to explore the unintended consequences of power-sharing for the communities themselves, their individual members, and for others in society. More specifically, it is distinctive in questioning explicitly whether power sharing: perpetuates inter-communal conflict by institutionalising difference at the political level; inhibits conflict resolution by encouraging extremism; stifles internal diversity; and fails to leave sufficient space for individual autonomy. This book not only provides a theoretical exploration and critique of these questions, but comprehensively examines specific test cases where power-sharing institutions have been established, including in Northern Ireland, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Lebanon. It also explores such issues as the role of political leaders, human rights instruments, the position of women, and the prospects for reconciliation within such societies. Furthermore it provides a detailed set of policy recommendations to meet the challenges of transition in deeply-divided societies.

Über diesen Titel

Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

Dieter Haller is Associate Professor of Anthropology in the Department of Germanic Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. His focus is on political anthropology, borderland studies, gender, and the Mediterranean. Cris Shore is Professor of Social Anthropology at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). His most recent publications are: 'Up Close and Personal: On Peripheral Perspectives and the Production of Anthropological Knowledge', Oxford/New York: Berghahn (co-edited with Susanna Trnka, 2013) and 'The Sage Handbook of Social Anthropology'

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Power Sharing

New Challenges for Divided Societies

By Ian O'Flynn, David Russell

Pluto Press

Copyright © 2005 Ian O'Flynn and David Russell
All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-0-7453-2292-6

Contents

Foreword Donald L. Horowitz, vii, 
Introduction: New Challenges for Power Sharing Ian O'Flynn and David Russell, 1, 
Part I Conceptual Issues, 
1 Democratic Values and Power Sharing Ian O'Flynn, 15, 
2 Integration and Autonomy: Minority Rights and Political Accommodation Tom Hadden, 30, 
3 Breaking Antagonism? Political Leadership in Divided Societies Duncan Morrow, 45, 
4 Electoral-Systems Design and Power-Sharing Regimes Stefan Wolff, 59, 
Part II Case Studies, 
5 The Failure of Moderate Politics: The Case of Northern Ireland Anthony Oberschall and L. Kendall Palmer, 77, 
6 The Unintended Consequences of Consociational Federalism: The Case of Belgium Kris Deschouwer, 92, 
7 Partial Implementation, Partial Success: The Case of Macedonia Florian Bieber, 107, 
8 The Dichotomy of International Mediation and Leader Intransigence: The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina Marie-Joëlle Zahar, 123, 
9 Power Sharing and National Reconciliation: The Case of Lebanon David Russell and Nadim Shehadi, 138, 
Part III Deepening Democracy, 
10 Overlapping Identities: Power Sharing and Women's Rights Rachel Rebouché and Kate Fearon, 155, 
11 Below and Beyond Power Sharing: Relational Structures across Institutions and Civil Society Manlio Cinalli, 172, 
12 The Challenge of Reconciliation in Post-conflict Societies: Definitions, Problems and Proposals Brandon Hamber and Grainne Kelly, 188, 
13 Towards a Civic Culture: Implications for Power-sharing Policy Makers Robin Wilson, 204, 
List of Contributors, 219, 
Index, 223, 

CHAPTER 1

Democratic Values and Power Sharing

Ian O'Flynn

THE CHOICE OF DEMOCRATIC VALUES

At one point or another, many of us may have wondered why democratic power-sharing proves so difficult in some divided societies. It is true that there is no such thing as a perfect democracy, at least not in the real world. But since there are numerous countries around the globe where power sharing, in one form or another, has been relatively successful, we must wonder what it is that makes the difference. Why is it that groups and communities in countries like Switzerland and the Netherlands have managed to prosper – not in spite of power sharing, but precisely because of it – while those in countries like Sri Lanka and Macedonia have struggled to move beyond a mere tentative commitment to sharing power? Why is it that Great Britain can move with some success towards greater devolution, while Belgium seemingly moves ever closer to partition?

No one chapter can possibly hope to offer anything more than a partial perspective on these enormously complex and contested issues. However, even partial perspectives can add to our understanding of the challenges that democratic power sharing brings, and help build new solutions to old problems. In this spirit, I want to offer a philosophical perspective on what might best be described as a matter of measurement. We know that when people are engaged in violent conflict, they can measure progress in terms of territory gained or lost. But in countries that have already made the transition to democracy, and are striving to build sustainable power-sharing institutions, progress can be much more difficult to measure. It can be more difficult to measure because the values and standards by which we might assess that progress – values like equality, freedom, inclusion and so forth – are often vaguely defined and badly understood.

There are doubtless many reasons why democratic values sometimes prove so problematic. Perhaps the most basic reason, however, is how to choose from the many different values to which we might conceivably appeal and, correspondingly, how to decide what that choice implies for the course that power sharing ought to follow. The ongoing debate between advocates of consociational versus integrative power sharing provides a clear illustration of what is at issue here: while both recognise the importance of the values of inclusion and moderation to conflict management and resolution, the different weight that each accords to those values results in what are seemingly conflicting institutional prescriptions. Thus, if democratic values really are to provide clear and unambiguous standards by which we might assess the progress of a power-sharing democracy, we need to be explicit about the priority that we give to some values and not to others, as well as about the institutional implications of that choice (see Weale 1999, pp. 40-2). In order to explore what is at issue here, this chapter will consider the account of democratic values advanced by Robert Dahl in his Democracy and Its Critics (1989). While I maintain that this prominent account is plausible in its own right, I will suggest a number of ways in which it needs to be developed with respect to the challenges of sharing power in divided societies.

DAHL ON DEMOCRATIC VALUES

Dahl's account of democratic values – or what he variously refers to as democratic ideas, principles or assumptions – is situated within a much broader project that aims to show that democracy is a better form of government than any of its rivals (Dahl 1989, p. 84 and passim). Here, I will simply assume that, although far from easy to establish and maintain, democracy represents the best hope for divided societies as their members struggle to build a just and stable political society (Sisk 1996, p. 29). Following Dahl, I will also assume that in a democracy citizens should be regarded as equally well qualified, taken all around, to participate in the political process (Dahl 1989, pp. 97-8), an assumption which he elaborates in terms of two key democratic values: intrinsic equality and personal autonomy. To these two values, I will add a third: the value of inclusion. Like Dahl, I take it that the value of inclusion is implicit in the values of intrinsic equality and personal autonomy. However, the value of inclusion is worth considering in its own right since it draws our attention to a number of further questions that are of crucial importance with respect to how democracy should proceed in divided societies.

Intrinsic equality

According to Dahl, virtually all arguments for democracy ultimately fall back, even if only by implication, on the value of intrinsic equality. This value, associated with Kant but defended by philosophers of different schools, holds that each individual has independent moral standing and hence is valuable in his or her own right. It holds, furthermore, that because our moral standing cannot be reduced to that of any other, all individuals are intrinsically equal (Dahl 1989, pp. 84-5; see also Dworkin 1970, p. 11; Weale 1999, p. 58). Although the value of intrinsic equality has proved immensely powerful as an abstract ideal, it has, however, proved notoriously vague in practice. Philosophers disagree about the precise respects in which intrinsic equality should be ascribed to individuals, and about the requirements, if any, that this value places upon democratic practices and institutions. Like Dahl, I agree that the interpretation that seems 'most relevant to the democratic process is expressed in the principle of equal consideration of interests' (Dahl 1989, p. 86). But even here there is scope...

Details zur Ausgabe

• Verlag: Pluto Press
• Erscheinungsdatum: 2005
• Sprache: Englisch
• ISBN 10: 0745322921
• ISBN 13: 9780745322926
• Einband: Taschenbuch
• Anzahl der Seiten: 240
• Herausgeber: O'Flynn Ian
• Kontakt zum Hersteller: Nicht verfügbar
• Verantwortliche Person: gpsr@libri.de; gpsr@libri.de; ; Friedensallee 273; Hamburg; 22763; Deutschland