Centripetalism

Last updated March 22, 2024

Centripetalism, sometimes called integrationism^{[ citation needed ]}, is a form of democratic power sharing for divided societies (usually along ethnic, religious or social lines) which aims to encourage the parties towards moderate and compromising policies and to reinforce the center of divided political spectrum. As a theory, centripetalism developed out of the criticism of consociationalism by Donald L. Horowitz. Both models aim to provide institutional prescriptions for divided societies. While consociationalism aims to give inclusion and representation to each ethnic group, centripetalism aims to depoliticize ethnicity and to encourage the establishment of multi-ethnic parties.^[1]

Instruments

Centripetalism is associated with institutions that provide incentives for elite cooperation such as vote pooling. Vote pooling occurs when politicians need to attract voters from the different groups in order to win the elections. For example, if some ethnic group is not large enough to get their own ethnic political representative, voters from that group would prefer to cast their second preference to the moderate politicians of the other ethnicity, rather than to the radical politician of the other ethnicity. In this theoretical model, vote pooling gives advantages to the moderate politicians aiming to attract the votes from the other groups because of the electoral system allowing voters to indicate preferences. This model incentivizes the formation of pre-electoral coalitions across conflict lines.^[2] Based on this logic, centripetalists prefer such voting systems as alternative vote, supplementary vote, single transferable vote.^[3]

Examples

Centripetalist institutions and voting systems are quite rare and there are not many examples of their use. The most famous examples come from Fiji (1997-2006), Northern Ireland (June 1973 to May 1974), Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka,^[1] Indonesia, Kenya, and Nigeria.^[4]^[5]

Criticism

One of the main problems of the theory is the lack of empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of centripetalism.^[3] Centripetalist institutions do not work in the electoral systems in which electoral districts are homogenous, because in those cases politicians would not have incentives to create multi-ethnic parties as they do not need to appeal to the voters outside of their group.^[6] Some evidence suggests that centripetal institutions lead to more instability and extremism^[4]

Strong supporters of consociationalism argue that centripetalism does not provide enough guarantees of representation and argue that what groups want is representation and not an indirect influence of majority decisions.^[7] O'Leary also notes that "centripetal vote- pooling institutions unfairly privilege the majority or largest group; politicians from such groups have to pool fewer votes to win office than do politicians from smaller groups.”^[8] McGarry also criticises that centripetalism tends to leave hardliners outside of the political system, which polarizes the political environment, making it impossible for moderates in the government to compromise. The moderates thus become more hardline.^[9]

Related Research Articles

Proportional representation (PR) refers to any type of electoral system under which subgroups of an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. The concept applies mainly to political divisions among voters. The essence of such systems is that all votes cast – or almost all votes cast – contribute to the result and are effectively used to help elect someone – not just a bare plurality or (exclusively) the majority – and that the system produces mixed, balanced representation reflecting how votes are cast.

In political science, Duverger's law holds that in political systems with only one winner, two main parties tend to emerge with minor parties typically splitting votes away from the most similar major party. In contrast, systems with proportional representation usually have more representation of minor parties in government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ethnic conflict</span> Conflict between ethnic groups

An ethnic conflict is a conflict between two or more ethnic groups. While the source of the conflict may be political, social, economic or religious, the individuals in conflict must expressly fight for their ethnic group's position within society. This criterion differentiates ethnic conflict from other forms of struggle.

Accountability, in terms of ethics and governance, is equated with answerability, culpability, liability, and the expectation of account-giving.

In political science, voter turnout is the participation rate of a given election. This is typically either the percentage of registered voters, eligible voters, or all voting-age people. According to Stanford University political scientists Adam Bonica and Michael McFaul, there is a consensus among political scientists that "democracies perform better when more people vote."

Political polarization is the divergence of political attitudes away from the center, towards ideological extremes.

Arend d'Angremond Lijphart is a Dutch-American political scientist specializing in comparative politics, elections and voting systems, democratic institutions, and ethnicity and politics. He is Research Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of California, San Diego. He is influential for his work on consociational democracy and his contribution to the new Institutionalism in political science.

Ghana elects on national level a head of state, the president, and a legislature. The president is elected for a four-year term by the people. The Parliament of Ghana has 275 members, elected for a four-year term in single-seat constituencies. The presidential election is won by having more than 50% of valid votes cast, whilst the parliamentary elections is won by simple majority, and, as is predicted by Duverger's law, the voting system has encouraged Ghanaian politics into a two-party system, creating extreme difficulty for anybody attempting to achieve electoral success under any banner other than those of the two dominant parties. Elections have been held every four years since 1992. Presidential and parliamentary elections are held alongside each other, generally on 7 December every four years.

Consociationalism is a form of democratic power sharing. Political scientists define a consociational state as one which has major internal divisions along ethnic, religious, or linguistic lines, but which remains stable due to consultation among the elites of these groups. Consociational states are often contrasted with states with majoritarian electoral systems.

Noocracy is an ideal type of government where decisions are delegated to those deemed wisest. The idea is classically advanced, among others, by Plato, al-Farabi and Confucius.

An ethnic party is a political party that overtly presents itself as the champion of one ethnic group or sets of ethnic groups. Ethnic parties make such representation central to their voter mobilization strategy. An alternate designation is 'Political parties of minorities', but they should not be mistaken with regionalist or separatist parties, whose purpose is territorial autonomy.

A plural society is defined by Fredrik Barth as a society combining ethnic contrasts: the economic interdependence of those groups, and their ecological specialization. The ecological interdependence, or the lack of competition, between ethnic groups may be based on the different activities in the same region or on long–term occupation of different regions in the Defined by J S Furnivall as a medley of peoples - European, Chinese, Indian and native, who do mix but do not combine. Each group holds by its own religion, its own culture and language, its own ideas and ways. As individuals they meet, but only in the marketplace in buying and selling. There is a plural society, with different sections of the community living side by side, within the same political unit.

Peacebuilding is an activity that aims to resolve injustice in nonviolent ways and to transform the cultural and structural conditions that generate deadly or destructive conflict. It revolves around developing constructive personal, group, and political relationships across ethnic, religious, class, national, and racial boundaries. The process includes violence prevention; conflict management, resolution, or transformation; and post-conflict reconciliation or trauma healing before, during, and after any given case of violence.

Brendan O'Leary is an Irish political scientist, who is Lauder Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania. He was formerly a professor at the London School of Economics. In 2009–10 he was the second Senior Advisor on Power-Sharing in the Standby Team of the Mediation Support Unit of the Department of Political Affairs of the United Nations.

Donald L. Horowitz is James B. Duke Professor of Law and Political Science Emeritus at Duke Law School and Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, United States.

Power sharing is a practice in conflict resolution where multiple groups distribute political, military, or economic power among themselves according to agreed rules. It can refer to any formal framework or informal pact that regulates the distribution of power between divided communities. Since the end of the Cold War, power-sharing systems have become increasingly commonplace in negotiating settlements for armed conflict. Two common theoretical approaches to power sharing are consociationalism and centripetalism.

Clientelism or client politics is the exchange of goods and services for political support, often involving an implicit or explicit quid-pro-quo. It is closely related to patronage politics and vote buying. Clientelism involves an asymmetric relationship between groups of political actors described as patrons, brokers, and clients. In client politics, an organized interest group benefits at the expense of the public. Client politics may have a strong interaction with the dynamics of identity politics. This is particularly common in an elite pluralist or rigidly duopolistic system, such as in the United States, where lobbying can have considerable power shaping public policy. The opposite of client politics is 'entrepreneurial' politics, or conviction politics.

A hybrid regime is a type of political system often created as a result of an incomplete democratic transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one. Hybrid regimes are categorized as having a combination of autocratic features with democratic ones and can simultaneously hold political repressions and regular elections. Hybrid regimes are commonly found in developing countries with abundant natural resources such as petro-states. Although these regimes experience civil unrest, they may be relatively stable and tenacious for decades at a time. There has been a rise in hybrid regimes since the end of the Cold War.

Political polarization is a prominent component of politics in the United States. Scholars distinguish between ideological polarization and affective polarization, both of which are apparent in the United States. In the last few decades, the U.S. has experienced a greater surge in ideological polarization and affective polarization than comparable democracies.

Constructivism presumes that ethnic identities are shapeable and affected by politics. Through this framework, constructivist theories reassesses conventional political science dogmas. Research indicates that institutionalized cleavages and a multiparty system discourage ethnic outbidding and identification with tribal, localized groups. In addition, constructivism questions the widespread belief that ethnicity inherently inhibits national, macro-scale identification. To prove this point, constructivist findings suggest that modernization, language consolidation, and border-drawing, weakened the tendency to identify with micro-scale identity categories. One manifestation of ethnic politics gone awry, ethnic violence, is itself not seen as necessarily ethnic, since it attains its ethnic meaning as a conflict progresses.

References

1 2 Reilly, Benjamin (June 2012). "Institutional Designs for Diverse Democracies: Consociationalism, Centripetalism and Communalism Compared". European Political Science. 11 (2): 259–270. doi:10.1057/eps.2011.36. ISSN 1680-4333. S2CID 256508316.
↑ Horowitz, Donald L. (1991). A democratic South Africa? : constitutional engineering in a divided society. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520073425.
1 2 Bogaards, Matthijs (December 2019). "Consociationalism and Centripetalism: Friends or Foes?". Swiss Political Science Review. 25 (4): 519–537. doi: 10.1111/spsr.12371 . ISSN 1424-7755.
1 2 McCulloch, Allison (June 2013). "Does Moderation Pay? Centripetalism in Deeply Divided Societies". Ethnopolitics. 12 (2): 111–132. doi:10.1080/17449057.2012.658002. ISSN 1744-9057. S2CID 144570242.
↑ Coakley, John; Fraenkel, Jon (June 2014). "Resolving conflict in bipolar societies: The fate of political settlements in Fiji and Northern Ireland". Political Science. 66 (1): 23–45. doi:10.1177/0032318714531979. ISSN 0032-3187. S2CID 54946790.
↑ Bogaards, Matthijs (November 2003). "Electoral choices for divided societies: Multi-ethnic parties and constituency pooling in Africa". Commonwealth & Comparative Politics. 41 (3): 59–80. doi:10.1080/14662040412331310201. ISSN 1466-2043. S2CID 154817047.
↑ McCulloch, Allison (2019). McCulloch, Allison; McGarry, John (eds.). Power-sharing: Empirical and normative challenges. London: Routledge. p. 5. ISBN 9780367173784.
↑ O'Leary, Brendan (2013). Power sharing in deeply divided places: An advocate's introduction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
↑ McGarry, John (2019). "Classical Consociational Theory and Recent Consociational Performance". Swiss Political Science Review. 25 (4): 538–555. doi: 10.1111/spsr.12378 . S2CID 211380638.