UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES CEBU

Social Sciences Division

Relative Patterns of
Democratic Societies
A Book Review on Patterns of Democracy
(Government Forms and Performance in
Thirty- Six Countries) by Arend Lijphart

Submitted by:

Ma. Nikka Andrea F. Oquias

Submitted to:

Prof. Mae Claire G. Jabines

Professor, PS 175

January 7, 2013
I.

INTRODUCTION
With the widespread predominance of the call for self- determination, states even people

are composed into securing and bringing a sense of assuredness among themselves.

Relative Patterns of Democratic Societies

Democracy as a term has been the worlds most widely used and misused term by people
of different races so as to justify their claim of freedom. This freedom more often than not
strengthens the claim that democracy can thus be regarded as the most abused term so to
speak. Provided that individuals have so much leeway to interpret the term leads it to suffer
as what I call definitional impasse. Firstly this implies that wide interpretations translate into
a notion that democracy is a well- practiced ideology. And thus, secondly, would lead people
to become more concerned and critical in concerting their actions and actions of others by
seeing that actions are within the bounds of their definition. Amid the myriad interpretations
however, it is President Abraham Lincolns definition of democracy which seems to imprint
an impression to everybody. Defining democracy as government by and for the people
hitherto does not escape the fact that it still bears the reality of definitional impasse. In the
wake of this problem Lijphart (1999, 1), raises the fundamental question: who will do the
governing and to whose interests should the government be responsive when people are in
disagreement and have divergent preferences?
Going back to the ancient times the practice of democracy certainly has become utterly
different of what it has become today. Significant alterations and modifications have been
the prime agenda of many states. But such changes should not be seen as intrinsic changes
but rather superficial changes that still preserve the indispensable principles of democracy.
Such instance speaks of the case where ancient democracy does not presuppose equality
of all individuals particularly slaves and women but today, they now enjoy wider participation
in political processes and activities. For this same reason as well philosopher John Stuart
Mill have presented the paradox of democratic process- the tyranny of the majority, the
consequence of giving so much recognition of the decisive majority to the extent of
suppressing the voices of the well- informed minority. Democracy herein is no less than
sheer authoritarianism.
Generations have passed; people have already been subject to particular changeschanges that affected not just their social but their political practices as well. Along with
these changes is the fact that democracy has already become a norm not merely in few
selected societies but it is now a global phenomenon. Taking into context the democratic
practices in thirty- six democracies, this paper shall revisit the certain distinctions and
contrasting differences of practices which characterize majoritarian and consensus
democratic societies. Hence, this paper asserts that although democracies adopt the same
ideological principle, there are still considerable differences when it comes to the pattern of
1 | Page

Relative Patterns of Democratic Societies

practices which arise because of: first, the peoples socialization and political participation,
second, the political approaches of state leaders and lastly, the longevity of adopting and
practicing the said ideology. Moreover the discussion shall revolve upon the assertion that
democratic states may share the same ideology yet to a certain extent these actors shall
inevitably exhibit practices and patterns distinct from that of other societies.
II.

SUMMARY
As Lijphart (1999, 1) claims, there are many ways in which, in principle a democracy

can be organized and run; in practice, too, modern democracies exhibit a variety of formal
governmental institutions Hence this book offers a comparative account on the various
complexities of democratic practices in the thirty- six democratic states- democratic in 1996
and having been for at least nineteen years. In his book, Lijphart raises two democratic
models of democracy- the majoritarian and the consensus models of democracy- which
answers the main dilemma of democracy- Who will do the governing and to whose interests
should the government be responsive when the people are in disagreement and have
divergent preferences? On the one hand, according to majoritarian model of democracy, it
is the will and interests of the majority that must prevail. On the other hand, consensus
model asserts that as many people as possible which stipulates that although it concurs that
majority rule is better that minority rule, it considers majority rule only as a minimum
requirement. It must be noted that this difference is only the prologue of a wider and more
complex dichotomy of the democratic operations and practices of these two basic types. In
order to provide a clear distinction between the two types, the author deduced ten important
variables which are clustered into two separate dimensions: first, the executive- parties
dimension and the other is the federal- unitary dimension. These variables should be given
utmost attention for they are the main subject of the discussion. The first dimension
examines the difference between majoritarian and consensual in the context of the following:
(1) party systems, (2) breadth of participation of representatives in the executive, (3)
executive- legislative relation, (4) electoral system and lastly (5) the interest group system.
On the other hand, the second dimension, the federal- unitary deals upon contrasting the
difference of the two types in terms of the following: (1) concentration of power, (2)
distribution of power in the legislature, (3 & 4) presence or absence of explicit restraints to
legislative power, and (5) the extent of central bank independence.

2 | Page

Relative Patterns of Democratic Societies

To further illustrate the ten contrasting variables cases which exemplify majoritarian and
consensual democracies are cited. The author goes to show that pure or almost pure
majoritarian democracies are quite rare and limited to United Kingdom, New Zealand and
Barbados. While relatively pure cases of the consensus democracy are exemplified in the
countries of Switzerland, Belgium and the European Union. The Westminster model, used
interchangeably with majoritarian model aptly resembles the British parliamentary and
governmental institutions. UK, New Zealand and Barbados are the leading examples of
Lijphart to closely represent the majoritarian model which means that none of these are pure
cases. UK deviates from the pure majoritarian model of a single house or chamber because
the Parliament consists of two chambers- the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
New Zealand falls short on the disproportional system of election and shift of central bank to
being autonomous. Then again, Barbados although remains almost completely intact in the
first dimension, it thoroughly deviates with regard to the second dimension. Switzerland,
Belgium and the supranational organization, European Union resembles that of the
consensus model of democracy. Unfortunately, the first two countries aforementioned move
away from the consensus criteria of having a judicial review.
The selection of the thirty- six democratic countries which includes: Switzerland, Israel,
Italy, Finland, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Belguim,
Portugal, Austria, Luxembourg, Iceland, Sweden, Japan, India, Colombia, Ireland, France,
Norway, Spain, Venezuela, United States, Australia, Costa Rica, Canada, United Kingdom,
Greece, Trinidad, New Zealand, Bahamas, Barbados, Botswana, Jamaica and Malta for the
comparative analysis of democracy had been subject to 2 factors. First is the time factorcountries must be democratic for an extended period so as to give assurance that countries
being studied are not ephemeral but stable democracies. The second factor is procedural. In
order to study for instance, the results that elections tend to have, the kinds of cabinets that
tend to be formed, the durability of cabinets and so forth (Lijphart 1999, 53). In addition to
this, the countries being selected are representatives of each of the three waves of
democratization. The first wave happened as early as 1828 until 1926, the short second
wave form 1943- 1962 and the third wave in 1974.
Lijphart (1999, 60-61) social and economic variables are important factors to consider in
the comparative analysis of the underlying relationship between the type of democracy and
the democratic performance in each respective nation. He further noted that GNP per capita
is a flawed measure because of its sensitivity to exchange fluctuations and its tendency to
3 | Page

Relative Patterns of Democratic Societies

exaggerate the poverty of less developed nation. He proposes an alternative measure to to
this, which is the human development index- a composite index of achievements in basic
human capabilities in 3 fundamental dimensions- long and healthy life, knowledge and a
decent standard of living. HDI ranges from a high of 1 to a low of 0, however 4 nations have
much lower indices: India, with the lowest score followed by Papua New Guinea, Botswana
and Jamaica. On this regard, the author claims that plural societies tend to be less
developed as proved in the cases of India and Papua New Guinea. Cautiously, he further
added that, larger countries are somewhat less developed than smaller ones, though there
is only a very weak relationship.
The first variable in the dichotomy of majoritarian- consensus model is the type of party
system each adopts. Two party- systems epitomize the majoritarian democracy while multiparty system typifies that of the consensus model. Most importantly the author addresses
the question on how the number parties in a party system should be counted particularly as
in the case of the effective number of parliamentary parties. Such index upon determining
the effective number of parties was devised by Laakso and Taagepera (1979). Moreover,
Lijphart delves into providing solution on the disparities involved in a factionalized and
closely allied parties where he proposes for both cases to be counted as one- and-a-half
parties. In line with the issue on determining the effective number of parties, he incorporates
the relationship of the number of parties with the number issue dimensions. Herein, there is
a very strong correlation involved between the two variables- when there is a higher number
of issue dimension, equitably the higher the number of effective political parties.
The second variable in the first dimension difference deals with the breadth of
participation by the peoples representative in the executive branch. On the one hand,
majoritarian democracy is characterized by the concentration of power in the hands of the
cabinet contrasted with the broad power- sharing in consensus democracies. Lijphart, in this
case examines the relation existing between party systems and the types of cabinets. It
shows that as the effective number of parties increases, conversely there is a decrease in
incidence of one- party minority cabinets.
The third difference between majoritarian and consensus democracy contends with the
matter concerning executive and legislative branches of the government. By which the
former is characterized by executive dominance while the latter by a more balanced
executive- legislative relationship. Lijphart elaborates this topic by contrasting two of the
most prevalent executive- legislative arrangements, referring to the parliamentary and
4 | Page

Relative Patterns of Democratic Societies

presidential government. Such systems differ significantly in terms of the election, function
and the degree of collegiality in decision making. To Lijphart there is a positive relationship
that exists between minimal winning and one- party cabinets with executive dominance.
Although these fourth and fifth differences are supposedly not included in this review, still
they are worth mentioning. The fourth difference relates with the type of electoral system.
The typical electoral system adopted in majoritarian democracies is the single- member
district plurality or majority system; consensus democracy on the other typically uses
proportional representation (PR) (Lijphart 1999, 143). These two systems in purpose; SMP
are winner- take- all method where the rule of the majority are given utmost consideration
leaving the other voters unrepresented. In clear contrast, the proportional representation
method of consensus democracies aims at securing to represent not just the majority but
the minorities as well. And lastly, the fifth difference between majoritarian and consensus
democracies concerns with the interest group systems. In majoritarian democracies, a
competitive and uncoordinated pluralism of independent groups are common in contrast
with the coordinated and compromise oriented system of corporatism typical in consensus
democracies.
In terms of the federal- unitary dimension, Lijphart also provides a detailed account on
the majoritarian and consensus contrast. Firstly, the prime distinction between these two
basic types is the issue on the division of power. Notably, there are primary and secondary
traits of federalism. While primary traits of federalism are noncentralization and
decentralization, the secondary traits serve to ensure that the basic federal division of power
will be preserved. On the basis of primary traits, Lijphat (1999, 186, 189) developed a fivepoint scale of federalism and assign each of the thirty- six democracies in place. This
classification proved two striking features: first is that federalism is relatively rare and
second, most federal systems are decentralized and most unitary are centralized. Apart from
this form of classification, there is also the institutions autonomy index which measures tax
share can also be used as another indicator. The data that the author presented shows that
there is a negative relationship between the degree of federalism and- decentralization and
the central governments share of total central and noncentral tax shares. This measure
however, cannot be used as an alternative because data are available to only have of the
thirty- six democracies. Lijphart, further discusses the potential advantages of federal for two
purposes: providing autonomy for minority groups in plural societies and permitting
institutional experimentation.
5 | Page

Relative Patterns of Democratic Societies

The second component of the federal- unitary dimension is the concentration versus the
division of legislative power. In the case of the majoritarian model, concentration of
legislative power is in the hands of a single chamber while consensus model is
characterized by a bicameral legislature. Among the thirty- six democracies, bicameral
legislatures appear to be more common compared to unicameral legislature. Lijphart also
argued that thirteen countries with unicameral parliaments tend to be smaller countries and
adopts a unitary system. Apparent strong empirical relationship between federal systems
and bicameral legislatures and unitary and unicameral legislatures is also noted.
Third and fourth components of the second dimension contrast between majoritarian and
consensus democracy has something to do with the presence or absence of explicit
restraints on the legislative power of parliamentary majorities, specifically this refers to the
presence or absence of written constitution and judicial review. The relationship between the
degree of constitutional rigidity and judicial review is also taken into consideration. Wherein
as a state appears to adopt higher constitutional rigidity the higher the tendency of it to show
higher judicial review.

III.

POINTS OF AGREEMENT

6 | Page

Relative Patterns of Democratic Societies

The most striking statement of Lijphart (1999, 6)which I reckon certainly holds true and
extensively applies although not in all but most societies is that, there is a strong and
persistent tendency in political science to equate democracy solely with majoritarian
democracy and fail to recognize consensus democracy as an alternative and equally
legitimate type. Indubitably with regards to the flow of information in fact most democracies
have significant or even predominantly consensual traits than the majoritarian model of
democracy, which sharply implies consensus democracy tends to be more democratic than
majoritarian democracy in most respects. Agreeably, consensus is more democratic in
practice than majoritarian democracies not only because it considers the decisive majority
but most importantly because it acknowledges and caters to the needs and plea of the
minority groups.
In a diverse and pluralistic societies- where societies are sharply divided along ethnic,
religious, linguistic and racial lines, majority rule might tend to become undemocratic and
also dangerous because minorities will continually be denied of access to power and will fell
excluded and discriminated. I hold the same view with the author that taking from here
majoritarian system might fail to pass the democratic criteria of the government for the
people. And this is further emphasized by Sir Arthur Lewis (1965, 64-65) that the primary
meaning of democracy is that all who are affected by a decision should have more chance
to participate in making that decision either directly or through chosen representatives.
In line with the aforementioned argument, the strong positive correlation between the
effective number of parties with the number issue dimension present in a society reflects
that in a very pluralistic society where people bears the burden concerning their socioeconomic status, religion, culture, regimes and many others, it is also expected that a
relatively large number of parties are to arise to express these several dimensions of
political conflict. This instance allows us to deduce that the support of consensus democracy
on proportional representation translates into a laudable inclusive character of consensus
democracy.
The compatibility of federal systems with consensual model of democracy further shows
how more democratic consensual type is than the majoritarian type. Firstly because the very
core of federalism which is decentralization or the distribution of power among different
centers allows a particular state to stimulate participation from the masses because the
scope of its constituency is narrower which allows leaders to attend and focus to the
peoples demands. Secondly, the division of legislative branch allows leaders to formulate
7 | Page

Relative Patterns of Democratic Societies

policies which are inclusive and more compromising since ideas will not only come from a
concentrated chamber but rather from two separate entities.
Remarkably, another salient argument is the perceived advantages of federalism: first, is
that it provides autonomy for minority groups- a very consensual trait, which refers to that
being an advocate of proportional representation over plurality. And second, federalism
permits institutional experimentation. This gives states or regions the freedom or the leeway
to pattern their laws, ordinances and policies in line with the interests of their own society.
Giving the opportunity to experiment with different forms of governments stipulates that
states can explore things which could by far trigger the development process promptly.
Indeed, plural societies tend to be less developed. This is clearly manifested in the case
of India- a highly pluralistic society with a very large population apparently with low
economic status. The extent of plurality speaks of the extent of deep- seated issues in the
society. Plural societies which are divided into various social cleavages imply how
compatible it is to adopt the consensus democracy for it tries to maximize democratic
participation and proportional representation.
Socioeconomic status of a country determines the type and the performance of
democracy. I further agree with the approach being taken by the author, rejecting the GNP
per capita as a measuring instrument and replacing it with the human development index.
By the way I see it, this approach do away with the tendency of materializing the democracy
and consequently drawing it to a more human oriented approach- through focusing the
extent of measurement on: the long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of
living in a particular society lean towards being democratic in the fact that variables are
centered upon examining the living status of the mass.

POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT
8 | Page

Relative Patterns of Democratic Societies

Long democracies tend to be more developed than just established democracies. This is
partly true recognizing the fact that long democracies have dealt with the test of time where it
has already undergone series of changes and modifications in their adopted system that made it
more resilient to the demands of the society. This brings me the thought that democracy is
characterized with instability presumably for two interconnected reasons. First, of the inclination
towards majoritarian rule makes people compete for interests and bring the system to succumb
to what theses interests may be. Second, the election of representatives tends to establish
preferences.
Lawrence Lowell (1986, 70, 73-74) one of the modern political scientists wrote that the
legislature must contain two parties and two parties only in order that the parliamentary form
a government should produce. This may imply a stable and effective environment for legislators
and a more durable and dominant cabinet. However, these do not stand to ensure effective
decision making for all of the groups within the society particularly the underrepresented, also
implies placing stability in the midst of sacrificing proportional representation. It may be that
majoritarian voice is the indispensable call for democracy but oftentimes the majority tends to
neglect what is right so as to satisfy personal interests.
In lieu with the issue on proportional representation Giovanni Sartoris (1976, 122-23)
treatment on the problem of determining the adequate number of parties in a party system.
Here, he suggests that parties that fail to win seats in parliament be disregardedthat one
which cannot establish an arbitrary cut-off point should be ignored. Primarily, not only I think
this strongly shows a very exclusivist pattern but most of all it undermines the right of those
unrepresented to be heard in the government they created. This instance creates a sort of
democratic dilemma in a sense that the more legislators place prime importance to majoritarian
interests, the more also it begets aversion from minorities which could affect the socialization of
those akin to the family- friends, relatives, workmates, neighbors and the like. Predictably, this
might lead to the expanse of triggering apathy which blocks the path of development.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9 | Page

Relative Patterns of Democratic Societies

Amid the increasing diversity of democratic pattern, there is a strong implication that this
is brought also by the trending diversity of peoples preferences and priorities. Thus,
societies naturally develop their own pattern of applying democracy in the context of what is
apt in their society. This is why we find former colonies modifying to the extent of replacing
the political system which was brought before by their colonizers. The long standing fact is
that relative practices of democracy primarily are brought by three factors. First, by how long
it has adopted the system, second, the attitude of the people towards the ideology, usually
brought by the socialization and the extent of political participation and lastly on how political
leaders respond and deal with the policies and rules which would supplement what are
those that need to be modified and changed in the existing political system. Notably, what is
essential is the certainty that democratic states live up to the spirit of what true democracy
really means that is, equality, fairness and justness.
The concept of judicial review and presence if rigid constitution often dubbed as antimajoritarian devices although these help protect the interest of the majority from arbitrary
actions still should partly be given concern particularly in the as these have the power to
sacrifice what is perceived to be the best for the society from what legality entails.
Whether societies places preference either on the majoritarian or consensus model for
establishing democracy of course matters but not for the reason that either one of the two
has already become a norm but because they settle to adopt it for the reason that it is the
best for the community and the society as a whole.
Reflected in the study it shows that most of the democratic states are highly centralize
leaving a very tiny percent of being a federal and decentralized. Presumably I think that
Tendero is right upon claiming that centralization and decentralization are two concepts
which must not be seen as opposing themes rather as compliments of each other. This
means that to achieve a highly decentralized state, it must have established an effective
centralized state. So that in this manner it will be able to support and guide those regions
which seeks to detach from the center to make its own.
I may have established my personal preference over pure consensual type of
democracy but for the main reason that I have seen what Lijphart goes to show in the
dichotomous contrasts between the two basic types. Nevertheless, this is not to say that
majoritarian practices are undemocratic in a sense as what has been noted, in the context of
social relativism, what might be deemed applicable to a certain society may not hold true to
10 | P a g e

Relative Patterns of Democratic Societies

other societies. Hence, states are judged not by what type or how they practice democracy
but rather it is seen on how the state is able to deliver what is the best for its people. An
underlying caveat must be distinguished upon this claim such that, the state may play the
central role upon determining how will the democratic process be carried but cooperation
from other sectors of society is essentially expected particularly form the private sector and
the civil society in order to ensure an effective and efficient democratic governance.

BIBLIIOGRAPHY
Lijphart, Arend. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in ThirtySix Countries. Yale University Press, 1999.

11 | P a g e