• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Graduate Theses, Dissertations and Projects
    • Queen's Graduate Theses and Dissertations
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Graduate Theses, Dissertations and Projects
    • Queen's Graduate Theses and Dissertations
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Seeking Stability Amid Deep Division: Consociationalism and Centripetalism in Comparative Perspective

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    McCulloch_Allison_200902_PhD.pdf (2.837Mb)
    Date
    2009-02-17
    Author
    McCulloch, Allison
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    For the design of power-sharing practices in deeply divided places, there are two main macro-political strategies: consociationalism, developed and defended by Arend Lijphart, and centripetalism, associated with the work of Donald L. Horowitz. In this thesis, I consider the academic debate between advocates of the two approaches and consider the extent to which either model represents a successful tool of ethnic conflict management. Two broad questions are asked: can centripetalism promote political stability in deeply divided places? Can consociationalism? I address these questions by engaging a comparative case analysis of six deeply divided places, three of which have adopted centripetal institutions (Fiji, Sri Lanka, and Nigeria’s Second Republic) and three of which have adopted consociational institutions (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, and Northern Ireland).

    I present three central arguments in the thesis. First, centripetalism should not be recommended as a strategy of conflict management in deeply divided places. Its track record in such places reveals serious weaknesses. Indeed, it has tended to promote instability and exacerbate division rather than promote moderation. Second, consociationalism is better able to promote stability in deeply divided places. Third, consociationalism’s prospects of promoting stability are further enhanced when it is implemented in a revised and expanded form, labelled here as “comprehensive consociation.” This type of power-sharing addresses issues that go beyond concern with just political institutions, such as security sector reform, property restitution, and the return of refugees. These are the type of issues that are most likely to promote political instability if left unresolved. Failure to deal with such issues, I argue, is likely to make it more difficult for elites to agree to share power, or to maintain such arrangements.
    URI for this record
    http://hdl.handle.net/1974/1708
    Collections
    • Department of Political Studies Graduate Theses
    • Queen's Graduate Theses and Dissertations
    Request an alternative format
    If you require this document in an alternate, accessible format, please contact the Queen's Adaptive Technology Centre

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    Contact Us
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of QSpaceCommunities & CollectionsPublished DatesAuthorsTitlesSubjectsTypesThis CollectionPublished DatesAuthorsTitlesSubjectsTypes

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    View Usage StatisticsView Google Analytics Statistics

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    Contact Us
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV