Arend Lijphart

agree on the necessity of democratic institutions. The question is whether these institutions should be built on the principle of inclusion or moderation (O‘Flynn 2007: 731). O‘Flynn is reviewing the work of Arend Lijphart and Donald Horowitz, the two main characters of this debate. While Lijphart focuses on inclusion with his consociational democracy (ibid.: 734), Horowitz‘s incentives-based approach deals with moderation (ibid.: 736). The author enters the discussion by pointing out that inclusion

Scotland fits well into Arend Lijphart’s consensus model of democracy, however only to a certain extent. Arend Lijphart’s strategy of the consensus model is how majoritarian a government is. The consensus model aims to share out power so that it is not all down to the one governing party. The consensus model is very important when it comes to Scotland as it can be argued that is only effective for highly divided societies. There are a few significant elements such as party systems, proportional representation

politics. In “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”, Arend Lijphart, perceives a problem viz., the low ebb of “explicit methodological concern and the implicit methodological awareness among students of comparative politics”(681). To address this problem Lijphart sets forth a systematic approach to political analysis, advocating for the greater use of the comparative method as the tool for political inquiry. Lijphart delineates the strengths and weaknesses of the comparative, experimental

Arend Lipjhart’s majoritarian model of democracy is closely linked to the Westminster style of government, and it is the similarities between the Majoritarian model and this government that has resulted in this model being referred to as the Westminster model. This majoritarian model places emphasis on single party cabinets, concentrated power and the majority rule. Despite the initial appearance that Westminster has deviated from the majoritarian model, upon closer inspection it is clearly shown

for office which operated under a disproportional election. Similar to the consensus model the majoritarian model of governance aims to govern for the people, however, the majoritarian model believes the non-governing party should always oppose (Lijphart 30). This form of governance indicates that once a party is not elected into office, their ideas for ruling should be excluded from all forms of governance. This form of governing excludes a large portion of the population, not only the members

democratic systems. Liberal and social democracies differ in many ways. Comparing the United States’ presidential system with the United Kingdom’s parliamentary system provides excellent example of how. One of the main differences, laid out by Arend Lijphart, lies in the within the type of democracy– consociational or majoritarian. The United Kingdom is a majoritarian democracy. This means that they have elections that leave one party in control of the government. This type of democracy can be broken

Disadvantages of compulsory voting The most common argument against mandatory voting is individual freedom. Countries using compulsory voting force people to vote, but it can definitely be considered as a step against freedom of individuals. Even Lijphart, who is known as a propagator of compulsory voting, argues that mandatory voting has a very strong disadvantage, which is individual freedom. In case of

parliamentarism. The first advantage I will be discussing is the lack of an executive-legislative deadlock. The second is a parliamentary flexibly advantage. Furthermore I will be discussing the convenience of passing legislation. I will be using the works of Lijphart and Young to illustrate my point. The most prominent advantage of a parliamentary government is the lack of the potential problem of executive-legislature conflict. This is where two

One of our most, and many would argue, the most valuable rights as citizens of a democracy is our right to vote. It gives us a voice in the direction our elected representatives steer our country. Unfortunately, historically young voters are underrepresented due to their low voting turnout. This came as a shock to me being a young voter myself. Growing up in California I was excited about getting the chance to vote, to have a voice as it were. However, this is clearly not the case for all potential

According to Chapter 9 of Patterns of Democracy by Arend Lijphart titled Interest Groups: Pluralism versus corporatism, the author sought to explain the fifth and last difference between majoritarian and consensus democracy in terms of interest groups. Majoritarian democracies tend to have pluralism tendencies insofar as interest groups while consensus democracies tend to have corporatism tendency. Below, the chapter’s detailed analysis of the subject matter will be extensively be judged. The strength