IS DEMOCRACY CONSENSUS OR MAJORITARIAN?

Introduction

In an attempt to provide a stabilized and peaceful society where freedom and equality are significant characteristics, several forms of government like confederacy, sultanate, totalitarian, Marxism-leninism, maoism, Islamic-republic dictatorship, monarchy, oligarchy, theocracy, plutocracy etc. emanated over the years but these systems in one way or the other did not provide a suitable and sustainable result to these eye-opening ideals. Democracy as a system of government remains the only system of government that the above mentioned ideals are guaranteed because they are preconditions for it;[1] Nonetheless, Dipo Irele posits that even the etymology of the word does not prove anything let alone  of the concept which would be relevant and applicable at all times. As a result of that, the meaning of democracy has changed over the centuries and as such it has received several interpretations and improvements by numerous social and political thinkers to capture and emphasize a particular aspect of it.[2]  

To the interpretation and improvement of the concept of democracy is the contribution of Arend Lijphart. Nils-Christian Borman commented that Lijphart’s typology of democratic systems has been one of the major strides and contributions to comparative political science.[3] Lijphart in his book titled ‘Patterns of Democracy’ makes a submission of majoritarian and consensual types of democracy. He further posits that the majoritarian-consensus contrast arises from the most basic and literal definition of democracy or the representative democracy. [4]

This brings us to the proper discussion and goal of this work which is focused on examining the two typologies of democracy and then providing sufficient support for the one most preferred. In a bid to achieve this very goal, we shall firstly seek to present the definition of democracy and then delineate its origin and historical development. Thereafter, we shall provide a succinct overview of majoritarian and consensual democracy and then provide arguments to support the preference of consensual democracy then the difference between majoritarian and consensus democracy then a critique of Majoritarian democracy, and then follows the conclusion. Nevertheless, in order to fashion our study in cognizance of the course - Social and Political Philosophy, we shall focus our arguments at providing the ideal society. This is easy to obtain because of the normative nature of the course.

Definition and Historical Development of Democracy

Democracy is by far the most challenging form of government both for politicians and for the people. The word democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state of Athens during classical antiquity.[5]  Democracy is a combination of two Greek words ‘demos’ and ‘kratos’ which mean ‘people or district’ and ‘rule or strength’[6] hence, with the etymology democracy means people’s rule. It is not like any other forms of government in which power is either control or held by an individual, as it is seen in an absolute monarchy, or where power is control by a small number of individuals, as seen in an oligarchy. Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes. The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.[7] Larry Diamond, a political scientist posits that democracy consists of four key elements, which are:-

a)      Protection of the human rights of all citizens.

b)      A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.

c)      The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.

d)      A rule of law in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.[8]

In addition, Arend Lijphart lists out eight criteria as propounded by Robert A. Dahl for measuring and defining democracy. The criteria are:- 

Ø  The right to vote

Ø  The right to be elected

Ø  The right of political leaders to compete for support and votes

Ø  Elections that are free and fair

Ø  Freedom of association

Ø  Freedom of expression

Ø  Alternative sources of information

Ø  Institutions for making public policies depend on votes and other expressions of preferences.[9]

 These requisite pointed out by Dahl are already implied in Abraham Lincoln’s well known definition of democracy as “Government of the people, by the people and for the people”. For instance, ‘by the people’ signifies a suffrage that is universal, being eligible for public office, and free and fair elections. However, election cannot be free and fair election when there is no freedom of expression and association both before and between elections. Similarly, ‘for the people’ implies Dahl's eighth criterion of responsiveness by the government to the voters' preferences.[10]

Furthermore, Majority rule is one of the characteristic of democracy. Thus, democracy gives room for political minorities to be oppressed by the tyranny of majority when there are no legal protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an ideal representative democracy is competitive elections that are substantively and procedurally fair, i.e., just and equitable. In some countries, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and internet democracy are considered important to ensure that voters are well informed, enabling them to vote according to their own interests.[11] Also, it is suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of all voters to participate freely and fully in the life of their society. With its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of all the voters, democracy can also be characterized as a form of political collectivism because it is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in lawmaking.[12]

In 508-507 BC Athenians established what is generally held as the first democracy, [13] and their democracy took the form of a direct democracy. Furthermore, the Romans contributed significantly in many aspects of democracy. The Romans’ pattern of governance inspired many political thinkers over the century and today's modern representative democracies imitate more the Roman than the Greek models because it was a state in which supreme power was held by the people and their elected representatives.

In the modern period, the conception of democracy has the form of a representative government. This is visible in the English Puritans who migrated in 1620 and established colonies in New England whose local governance was democratic and which contributed to the democratic development of the United States.[14] Nevertheless, the 20^th century witnessed a transition to liberal democracy which is resulted from wars, revolutions, decolonization, religious and economic circumstances.[15]

Majoritarian Democracy and Its Short Coming

Majoritarian democracy is said to be a political agenda that claims that a majority (sometimes categorized by religion, language, social class or some identifying factor) of the population is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in a society and has the right to make decisions that affect the society.[16] It further argues that majority should govern and that minorities should oppose. Advocates of Majoritarianism argue that majority decision making is intrinsically democratic and that any restriction on majority decision making is intrinsically undemocratic. However, David Graeber, an anarchist anthropologist posits that majority democracy is so scarce in the historical record. This is so because majority democracy can only emerge when these two factors coincide. Firstly, a feeling that people should have equal say in making group decisions and secondly, a coercive apparatus capable of enforcing those decisions. Graeber argues that those two factors almost never meet where egalitarian societies exist; it is also usually considered wrong to impose systematic coercion where a machinery of coercion did exist, it did not even occur to those wielding it that they were enforcing any sort of popular will.[17] Majoritarian democracy has the following institutional characteristics:

·         One-party majority cabinets,

·         Executive dominance over the legislature,

·         Two-party systems,

·         Majoritarian and disproportional electoral systems, and

·         Pluralist interest group systems with free-for-all competition among groups.

Nevertheless, Arend Lijphart outlines several limitations of majoritarian democracy after making cursory evaluations of its effectiveness and consequences in United Kingdom, New Zealand and Barbados. Lijphart points out that majority rule wields vast amount of political power to rule as the representative of and in the interest of the majority that is not of overwhelming proportions. A large minority is thus excluded from the power and condemned to the role of opposition. And as a result of this, Hailsham called this system of government and ‘elective dictatorship’.[18] More so, the majoritarian system tends to produce highly disproportional results and thus possibly drift to pluralitarian democracy instead of a majoritarian democracy. Also, by concentrating power in the hands of the majority, the majoritarian model of democracy sets up a government-versus opposition pattern that is competitive and adversarial.[19] Furthermore, Sir Arthur Lewis points out that majority rule and government versus opposition pattern of politics is undemocratic because of its principle of exclusion. He further claims that the primary meaning of democracy is that all who are affected by a decision should have the chance to participate in making decision either directly or through chosen representatives. Its secondary meaning is that the will of the majority shall prevail. However, if this means that the winning parties may make all the governmental decisions and that the losers (the minority) may criticize but not govern, Lewis argues that the two meanings are incompatible i.e. to exclude the losing groups from participation in decision making clearly violates the primary meaning of democracy.[20] Moreover, the limitation of majoritarian model is clearly seen in plural societies i.e. societies that are sharply divided along religious, ideological, linguistic, cultural, ethnic, or racial lines, the flexibility necessary for majoritarian democracy is likely to be absent. Under these conditions, majority rule is not only undemocratic but also dangerous because minorities that are continually denied access to power will feel excluded and discriminated against and may lose their allegiance to the regime. Taking Northern Ireland as an instance, majority rule spells majority dictatorship and civil strife rather that democracy. Therefore, a consensus model of democracy is needed instead of majoritarian. [21]

Consensual Democracy

Consensual democracy is the application of a broad unanimity or a widespread agreement among all the members of a group in the decision making and the process of legislation in a democracy. it is characterized by a decision making structure which involves and takes into account a broad range of opinions as possible. It also features increased citizen participation both in determining the political agenda and in the decision making process itself. It further refers to a general model integrative-indirect democracy, a specific version of which can be found in countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and Austria. It is built on the explicit conviction of dissensus and outlooks in life which needs to be compromised, accommodated and pacified.[22] Moreover, consensual democracy is opposed to the systems of democracy where minority opinions are ignored by vote-winning majorities.

Brian Williams illustrates Arend Lijphart’s conception of consensual democracy as a form of government where institutional structures allow power-sharing to take place in politically heterogeneous and divided societies. According to Lijphart, consensus democracies empower ethnic, religious, linguistic or ideological minorities by them into governmental decision making process and gives them leverage I the process of state policy formation. In Lijphart’s words, the consensus model of democracy, instead of relying on pure and concentrated majority rule, tries to limit, divide, separate and share power in a variety of ways.[23] Lijphart identifies ten variables which determine whether a country is either a consensus democracy or a majoritarian democracy, the variable are:-

          i.             The institutional design of a fully consensual democracy would allow executive power sharing to take place through the application of proportional representation to the executive office. That is, it allows most of the important parties share the executive power in a broad coalition

        ii.            It would be a presidential system rather than a parliamentary system.

     iii.             The legislature would be bicameral rather than unicameral.

      iv.             The system would allow for multiparty governance.

        v.            There would be proportional representation in the legislature

      vi.             There would be interest group corporatism

    vii.            It would be made up of a federal intergovernmental arrangement with relatively autonomous regions at the more local levels.

 viii.             A constitutionally enshrined checks and balances.

      ix.             A judicial review process

        x.            The presence of centralized bank independence.[24]

As was stated above in the introductory section, the creation of a stabilized and peaceful society where freedom and equality is idealistic is man’s social and political endeavor. This demonstrates the preference of prescriptive undertone and perspective rather than a descriptive one. Based on this salient element, this work envisions claiming the preference of a consensus model of democracy over the majoritarian model. Nevertheless, it would seem plausible that the majoritarian model is simpler and quicker in practice; nevertheless, its catastrophic consequences like, tyranny of the majority and social conflicts are not worth embarking on.

Despite the fact that the ideal consensus model of democracy might be difficult to achieve, Robert Michels asserts that it can be automatically developed through striving for it where he says:- “The peasant in the fable, when on his deathbed, tells his sons that a treasure is buried in the field. After the old man’s death, the sons dug everywhere in order to discover the treasure. They do not find it. But their indefatigable labor improves the soil and secures for them a comparative wellbeing. The treasure in the fable may symbolize democracy”[25]

Also, Dr. Harald Wydra maintains that development of democracy should not be viewed as a purely procedural or as a static concept but rather as an ongoing process of meaningful formation.[26]

Therefore, in pursuit of this ideal society, the development of democracy is paramount. However, it is not just any model of democracy but that very model which would seek to enhance an adequate societal relationship and co-existence. Brian William posits that building consensus democracy is central to the resolution of social conflicts thus as the level of popular agreement increase, the level of political division decreases commensurately. He further argues that since individuals are largely motivated by some conception of the common good, the adoption of a consensus democracy serves better to pacify this idea. Moreover, ideally speaking, consensual outcomes are a product of shared irenic cultural norms, rather than institutional constraints placed on strategic actors with narrow interests (Majoritarianism).[27] Consensus democracy, is characterized by sharing, dispersing, and limiting power instead of concentrating power, and it has the following typical features:

·         executive power-sharing in broad multi-party coalitions,

·         executive-legislative balance of power,

·          multi-party systems,

·         proportional representation (PR), and

·         a coordinated, ‘corporatist’ interest group system aimed at compromise and

concertation.

Difference between Majoritarian Democracy and Consensus Democracy

There are fundamental differences in the way the decision-making process is carried out when reaching a conclusion via majority rule versus when an agreement is negotiated through consensus. Majority rule and consensus each have their own set of benefits and obstacles, and each is impacted by unique social factors and political considerations.

A consensus requires that a group reach a decision which has been agreed on by a collective. In order for the decision to be fully supported going forward, it is necessary that all group members participate in the decision-making process, including those with minority opinions.

Majority rule does not require that the group comes to any agreements or compromises. The decision of the group is decided according to whom or what receives a majority of votes. There are some instances, particularly in the field of politics, when a super-majority is required to pass or block a piece of legislation or prompt political action by Congress. It is not always the case that the majority rules, absolutely.
Consensus, a democratic decision-making process, necessitates that group members engage in a dialogue and share information for the purpose of increasing others’ understanding of the issues and to provide a rationale for choosing a particular position. By including the whole of the group in the discussion and decision-making process, everyone becomes invested. If only some group members participate, it is more likely that only those who were the biggest advocates would continue to provide support for a decision. To reach a consensus, there has to be a context or environment created that is conducive to respectful dialogue and the healthy exchange of ideas. There should be a mutual respect, common vision, or shared principles between group members in order for the group to succeed in reaching a worthwhile consensus.
Majority rule does not require the same level of interpersonal communication. It is a democratic process which ultimately comes down to simple mathematics. This method of decision-making, outside of registration, is often anonymous. The nature of the process, in many cases, allows individuals to maintain their privacy, as others cannot know with certainty, for whom or what a person has voted. Since there is only the matter of counting votes, decisions can be reached much more quickly with majority rule. Due to the time that may be required to reach a consensus, this method can be an inefficient means to addressing time-sensitive issues. When seeking a consensus there is always the risk that groupthink develops. Instead of hearing arguments which may lead to the discovery of obstacles or disadvantages of a certain position, in the interest of avoiding conflict, group members may agree to a decision they do not genuinely support.

The difference between majoritarian democracy and consensus democracy lies in the constitutional bias of the governmental system. A majoritarian democracy is constitutionally biased toward quick decision making and action by a democratically elected majority in the government. A consensus democracy is constitutionally biased toward operation of numerous checks and balances, making necessary delay and prolonged debate, deliberation, negotiation, bargaining, and compromise before the government can resolve highly controversial issues of public policy.[28]

            Majoritarian system of government is that which operates on the principle of straight majority rule. The governmental system is geared for quick and easy political decision making by a popular majority and its elected representatives in the government. The governmental system is geared for:

            i.            Quick decision making and action by the voters in a single national election

          ii.            Quick decision making and action by a united, highly disciplined party majority in the legislature, led and managed by its legislative leadership group, which is also the top executive authority in the government.

Consensus Democracy It is the type of constitutional democracy that operates to prevent quick and easy majority decision making and action. The governmental system in the U.S.A. functions to prevent quick and easy decision making and action by the nation's voters, making it virtually impossible for a simple majority of the electorate, as a result of victory in a single national election, to give one unified, highly disciplined political party complete control of the major policymaking institutions of the national government and enable that party to exercise its will, unhindered, in all important areas of national public policy.

Critique on Majoritarian Democracy

Majoritarian Democracy is the majority’s ability to vote against the interests and preferences of those in the minority without those groups or individuals being heard or involved in the discussion. Those in the minority may be disenfranchised and remove themselves from the decision-making process because they are aware they do not have the numbers to win or significantly impact the vote.  Poor decisions may be made by the majority simply because they have enough votes to implement their plans.

Consensus requires participation from all group members, including those with minority opinions. Majority rule does not require a collective agreement. Consensus enables all group members to be invested in the chosen outcome. Majority rule may result in those in the minority feeling left out of the decision-making process. Consensus requires an environment that is conducive to healthy discourse. Majority rule does not require the same level of interaction, and may allow members to keep their beliefs private, if they so choose.

o   Majority rule is a quicker decision-making process.

o   Majority rule is susceptible to abuse by the majority, while groups seeking to reach a consensus may fall victim to groupthink.

CONCLUSION

Concisely, we believe that the consensus model is the most effective and most democratic system to implement and consensus democracy portrays the main theme in social and political relation which is the creation of a society where every rational being’s voice and vote when decisions are made and  during election. Consensus democracy which serves the purpose of prescribing the ideal system of governance whereby peaceful co-existence, equality and freedom are essential is the main ideal of this course social and political philosophy.

---

[1] Cf. Dipo Irele, Introduction to Political Philosophy, (Ibadan University Press, Ibadan, 1998) p. 86

[2] Cf. Dipo Irele, Introduction to Political Philosophy. pp. 83-84

[3] Cf. Nils-Christian Borman, Patterns of Democracy and its Critics (Center for International Comparative Studies, Zurich 2010) p. 1

[4] Cf. Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, (Yale University Press, New Haven 1999) p. 1 

[5] Cf. John Dunn, Democracy: the unfinished journey 508 BC-1993 AD. (Oxford University Press, 1994) p. 1-5

[6] www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=democracy

[7] Cf. Adam Przeworski, Democracy and the Market, (Cambridge University Press, 1991) pp. 10-14

[8] Cf. Larry Diamond and L. Morlino, In Search of Democracy: The Quality of Democracy, (Routledge publication 2016) pp. 15-17

[9] Cf. Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, (Yale University Press, New Haven 1999) pp. 48-49

[10] Cf. Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, (Yale University Press, New Haven 1999) pp. 48-49

[11] Cf. Aharon Barak, The Judge in a Democracy: Protecting the constitution and democracy. (Princeton University Press, New Jersey 2006) p. 27

[12] Cf. Richard Snyder and David Samuel, “Devaluing the vote in Latin America” in Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner Electoral systems and democracy. (John Hopkins University press, Baltimore 2006) p.168

[13]Cf. R. Po-chia Hsia, Lynn Hunt, Thomas and Co., The Making of the West, Peoples and Cultures, A concise History, Volume I: To 1740 (Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston 2007)p.44

[14] Cf. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (Barnes & Noble, New York, 2003) p. 11, 18-19

[15] Cf. Larry Diamond, Timeline: Democracy in Recession, (The New York Times. 15 Sept. 2015). Retrieved 25 January 2016

[16] Cf. Adam Przeworski, Democracy and the Rule of Law (NetLibrary, JM Maravall 2003) p. 223

[17] Cf. David Graeber, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthroplogy, (Prickly Paradigm Press, Chicago. 2004) p. 89

[18] Cf. Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, (Yale University Press, New Haven 1999) pp. 10-12

[19] Cf. Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy. Pp. 15-20

[20] Cf. Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, p. 31

[21] Cf. Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy. pp. 32-33

[22] Cf. www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/

[23] Cf. Brian D. Williams, How Consensual are Democracies? A reconsideration of the consensus/majoritarian dichotomy and a comparison of Legislative Roll-Call Vote Consensus Levels from sixteen countries (University of California at Riverside)  p. 3-4

[24] Cf. Brian D. Williams, How Consensual are Democracies? A reconsideration of the consensus/majoritarian dichotomy and a comparison of Legislative Roll-Call Vote Consensus Levels from sixteen countries (University of California at Riverside)  p. 4

[25] Cf. Robert Michels, Political parties by Crowell-Collier 1962 (Transaction Publishers, New Jersey, 1999) p. 243

[26] Cf. Harald Wydra, Communism and the Emergence of Democracy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007) pp. 22-27

[27] Cf. Brian D. Williams, How Consensual are Democracies? A reconsideration of the consensus/majoritarian dichotomy and a comparison of Legislative Roll-Call Vote Consensus Levels from sixteen countries (University of California at Riverside)  pp. 2-3

[28] www.proconservative.net/CUNAPolSci201PartThreeC