Article Critique: The Consensus Model of Democracy
The problem proposed by the author is that a majoritarian interpretation of democracy does not actually represent democracy and alternatively a consensus model is needed to insure that the primary meaning of democracy is not violated. The author believes that this is an important subject since belief in the majoritarian view can not only exclude minority groups but it can lead to problems such as war. As an alternative to the problem, the consensus model is presented.
The author argues that in a plural society such as Northern Ireland, which is divided into a Protestant majority and a Catholic minority, a majority rule democracy is actually a dictatorship leading to problems such as civil war. When the minority is not considered, the majority rules and this can be dangerous. Instead a consensus model is needed to ensure that all parties are represented and democracy rules.
For methodology, the author presents examples of the consensus model to support the claims made, to include Switzerland, Belgium, and the European Union. Ten elements are used to describe democracy in these areas, which are in contrast to the ten majoritarian characteristics of the Westminster model. The author reports that the consensus model shares, disperses, and restrains power by methods such as: executive power-sharing in broad coalition cabinets, executive-legislative balance of power, multiparty system, proportional representation, interest group corporatism, federal and decentralized government, strong bicameralism, constitutional rigidity, judicial review, and central bank independence. The European Union is further discussed since principal institutions do not fit the previous classifications of executive, legislative, judicial, and monetary organs in the same manner as other sovereign states discussed. The author presents this information with only a few citations from other source