Lijphart’s consociational theory is examined through multiple regression, factor analysis, and scatterplots. The results of these quantitative tests collectively demonstrate that elements of consociation do affect stability in plural societies, highly inclusive executives are beneficial, and the influence of minority veto (MV) power is nuanced. Tests performed on this dataset do not find that segmental autonomy (SA), or the overall category of proportional representation electoral systems, exert stabilizing influences on stability in plural societies. Factor analysis suggests that Lijphart is correct in observing that consociations are not inherently less stable than more majoritarian democracies operating in less plural societies. These results emphasize the future potential explanatory value of increasingly precise quantitative representation of diverse manifestations of consociational components.
- Abdi, Hervé. “Factor Rotations in Factor Analyses.” Encyclopedia for Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Eds. Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan E. Bryman, and Tim Futing Liao. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003.Google Scholar
- Lijphart, Arend. The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California, 1975.Google Scholar
- Lustick, Ian. “Stability in Deeply Divided Societies: Consociation Versus Control.” World Politics. 31:3 (1979) 325–344.Google Scholar
- Rabushka, Alvin and Kenneth A. Shepsle. Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1972.Google Scholar
- Rabushka, Alvin and Kenneth A. Shepsle. Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 2009.Google Scholar
- Torres-Reyna, Oscar. “Getting Started in Factor Analysis (Using Stata 10) (ver.1.5).” Princeton University. http://dss.princeton.edu/training/Factor.pdf.