ABSTRACT
I set out to do three things in this book. The first was to construct a genealogy of a particularly influential approach to peace making, known as consociationalism. This approach has been the focus of a sustained ‘liberal’ critique, but has still managed to become the default approach of the liberal state when it comes to conflict resolution. ‘Liberal’ critics complain that consociation by recognising particular ethno-national identities in the name of equity or parity of esteem does not advance the cause of conflict resolution but institutionalises division and antagonism. Following on from that, my second aim was to answer a puzzle: how it was that the liberal state accommodated itself to apparently illiberal ethnic subjects and practices. I found an answer in anthropological ideas about culture and the plural society. Exploring the applications of these ideas in debates surrounding census data, anti-discrimination legislation, community relations work and so forth, it became apparent that what ‘liberal’ critics took as evidence of the ‘failure’ of consociation – for example, an apparent increase in communal segregation – was for the pioneer of consociation, an indicator of its success: make society more plural says Lijphart, recognise the ethnic protagonists and turn them into constructive elements of stable democracy. So, the ‘liberal’ critique of consociation misses the point, and that brings me to the third aim of this book; namely, to develop a more effective critique of the emerging common technology of peace.
