Power sharing
| Part of thePolitics series |
| Politics |
|---|
 Politics portal |
Power sharingis a practice inconflict resolutionwhere multiple groups distribute political, military, or economic power among themselves according to agreed rules.[1]It can refer to any formal framework orinformal pactthat regulates the distribution of power between divided communities.[2]Since the end of theCold War,power-sharing systems have become increasingly commonplace innegotiating settlementsfor armed conflict.[3]Two common theoretical approaches to power sharing areconsociationalismandcentripetalism.
Dimensions of power sharing
[edit]Broadly, power-sharing agreements contain provisions relating to at least one of the following: Political, economic, military, or territorial control.[1]
Political power-sharing involves rules governing the distribution of political offices and the exercise of decision-making powers. Power may be shared by guaranteeing the inclusion of all significant parties simultaneously in the governingcabinetthrough rules ongrand coalitionformation.[4]Alternatively, it may involve sharing power by guaranteeing sequential access to political office, like a rotating premiership.[2]: 18 Electoral systemscan provide power-sharing through politicalproportionality,which better allows for minority groups to remain competitive and win a portion of political power through democratic elections.[5]
Proportionality also informs economic power-sharing, as the distribution of public resources may be instituted respective to the size of communities.[4]: 320 Inneopatrimonialsystems, political office may also be closely related to economic opportunity, meaning an equitable distribution of political power overlaps with economic power-sharing.[6]even equitable distribution of political power overlaps with economic power-sharing.[7]
Theories of power sharing
[edit]Power-sharing theories make empirical and normative claims about the utility or desirability of power-sharing systems for conflict management individed societies.Two salient power-sharing theories, which stake competing claims, are consociationalism and centripetalism. Empirically, each theory prescribes different systems for power-sharing, such as consociationalism'sproportional votingcompared to centripetalism'salternative vote.
Some political scientists argue that power sharing is an effective way to reduce the likelihood of conflict in divided states.[8]
Consociationalism
[edit]Consociationalismis a form of democratic power sharing.[9]Political scientistsdefine a consociationalstateas one which has major internal divisions along ethnic, religious, or linguistic lines, with none of the divisions large enough to form a majority group, but which remains stable due to consultation among theelitesof these groups. Consociational states are often contrasted with states withmajoritarian electoral systems.
Consociational power-sharing in ethnically pluralistic societies consists in a set of measures and rules which distribute decision-making rights in order to guarantee fair and equal participation of the representatives of all main ethnic groups in decision-making; in this way it reassures minorities that their interests will be preserved.[10]
The goals of consociationalism are governmental stability, the survival of the power-sharing arrangements, the survival ofdemocracy,and the avoidance ofviolence.In a consociational state, all groups, including minorities, are represented on the political and economic stages. Supporters of the consociationalism argue that it is a more realistic option in deeply divided societies thanintegrationistapproaches toconflict management.[11]
Centripetalism
[edit]Centripetalism,sometimes called integrationism,[12]is a form of democratic power sharing fordivided societies(usually along ethnic, religious or social lines) which aims to encourage the parties towards moderate and compromising policies and to reinforce the centre of the divided political spectrum. As a theory, centripetalism developed out of the criticism ofconsociationalismbyDonald L.Horowitz.Both models aim to provide institutional prescriptions for divided societies. While consociationalism aims to give inclusion and representation to each ethnic group, centripetalism aims to depoliticize ethnicity and to encourage the establishment of multi-ethnic parties.[13]Horizontal power sharing refers to different organs of the state such as legislature, judiciary and executive. It is a democratic system in which power is divided among various bodies such as legislature, executive and judiciary. It means that every organ of the state has equal powers
Examples
[edit]Early modern examples of power sharing include thePeace of AugsburgandPeace of Westphalia.[14]TheGood Friday Agreementof 1998 inNorthern Ireland[15]is one of the famous examples of power sharing.
Early examples of consociational power sharing include the Netherlands (1917–1967),Belgiumsince 1918, and Lebanonsince 1943.[16]
Examples of centripetal power sharing include Fiji (1999–2006),Northern Ireland(June 1973 – May 1974),Papua New Guinea,Sri Lanka,[13]Indonesia,KenyaandNigeria.[17]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^abHartzell, Caroline A.; Hoddie, Matthew (2007).Crafting peace: power-sharing institutions and the negotiated settlement of civil wars.University Park, Pa.: Penn State University Press. p. 14.ISBN978-0-271-05474-2.
- ^abMcCulloch, Allison; McGarry, John (2017).Power-sharing: empirical and normative challenges.London. pp. 2–3.ISBN9780367173784.
{{cite book}}:CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^Taylor, Rupert (2009).Consociational theory: McGarry and O'Leary and the Northern Ireland conflict.London: Routledge. p. 7.ISBN9780415666015.
- ^abHartzell, Caroline; Hoddie, Matthew (2003). "Institutionalizing Peace: Power Sharing and Post-Civil War Conflict Management".American Journal of Political Science.47(2): 318–332.doi:10.2307/3186141.JSTOR3186141.
- ^Lijphart, Arend (1977).Democracy in Plural Societies: A comparative exploration.New Haven. pp. 38–41.ISBN978-0-300-15818-2.
{{cite book}}:CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^Spears, Ian S. (March 2013). "Africa's Informal Power-Sharing and the Prospects for Peace".Civil Wars.15(1): 37–53.doi:10.1080/13698249.2013.781302.S2CID145619573.
- ^Spears, Ian S. "Africa's Informal Power-Sharing and the Prospects for Peace".
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^Cederman, Lars-Erik; Hug, Simon; Wucherpfennig, Julian (2022).Sharing Power, Securing Peace?: Ethnic Inclusion and Civil War.Cambridge University Press.doi:10.1017/9781108284639.ISBN978-1-108-41814-0.
- ^O'Leary, Brendan (2005). "Debating consociational politics: Normative and explanatory arguments". In Noel, Sid JR (ed.).From Power Sharing to Democracy: Post-Conflict Institutions in Ethnically Divided Societies.Montreal: McGill-Queen's Press. pp. 3–43.ISBN0-7735-2948-9.
- ^Rothchild, Donald; Roeder, Philip G. (2005).Sustainable peace: power and democracy after civil wars(1st ed.). Cornell University Press. pp. 30–31.ISBN978-0801489747.
- ^McGarry, John; O'Leary, Brendan (2006). "Consociational theory, Northern Ireland's conflict, and its agreement 2: What critics of consociation can learn from Northern Ireland".Government and Opposition.41(2): 249–77.doi:10.1111/j.1477-7053.2006.00178.x.S2CID51859873.
- ^Anderson, Liam D. (2013). "4 Territorial federalism and the logic of centripetalism".Federal solutions to ethnic problems: accommodating diversity.Exeter studies in ethno politics. New York: Routledge.ISBN978-0-415-78161-9.
often termed "integrationism," but is also sometimes referred to as "centripetalism." Though the two terms are often used interchangeably, McGarry et al. (2008, Chapter 2) argue, convincingly, that they are analytically distinct and should be dealt with as such.
- ^abReilly, Benjamin (June 2012)."Institutional Designs for Diverse Democracies: Consociationalism, Centripetalism and Communalism Compared".European Political Science.11(2): 259–270.doi:10.1057/eps.2011.36.ISSN1680-4333.S2CID144295799.
- ^Lehmbruch, Gerhard (1975). "Consociational Democracy in the International System".European Journal of Political Research.3(4): 377–391.doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.1975.tb01252.x.
- ^O'Leary, Brendan (2001). "The character of the 1998 Agreement: Results and prospects". In Wilford, Rick (ed.).Aspects of the Belfast Agreement.Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 49–83.ISBN0-19-924262-3.
- ^McGarry, John (December 2019)."Classical Consociational Theory and Recent Consociational Performance".Swiss Political Science Review.25(4): 538–555.doi:10.1111/spsr.12378.S2CID211380638.
- ^Coakley, John; Fraenkel, Jon (June 2014)."Resolving conflict in bipolar societies: The fate of political settlements in Fiji and Northern Ireland".Political Science.66(1): 23–45.doi:10.1177/0032318714531979.ISSN0032-3187.S2CID54946790.