ABSTRACT

This chapter outlines the institutional configuration of the two models: consociational model and centripetal model, and discusses the protracted intellectual conflict that persists between consociationalists and centripetalists. Consociationalism represents one of the leading theories in the field of Comparative Politics. The theory assumes that political stability and democratic legitimacy are best brought about by elite-level cooperation between the representatives of the different segments that make up a polity. The central and perhaps most recognizable feature of consociationalism is the grand coalition, which entails the participation of the major segments in the executive decision-making process. The model of centripetalism, alternatively called the integrative or incentives approach, is said to encourage minority influence on majority decision-making through the use of electoral rules that necessitate cross-ethnic appeals on the part of political leaders. It assumes, rather, that moderation will follow from the pursuit of self-interest: politicians who, in order to gain office, will have to pursue policies of cross-group vote-pooling and coalition-building.