The effectiveness of consociational democracy: The example of Lebanon

Deeply divided society; These are communities where ethnic, religious, linguistic and national identities differ and there is a danger that the competition between these differentiated identities may turn into conflict. In this way, it becomes difficult for communities with differences to live together peacefully within a state. Consociational democracy is recommended to build peace and ensure stability for deeply divided communities. This system, called the consociational democracy model, was defined by Arendt Lijphart; It is defined as the 'elite cartel' administration appointed to transform a democracy with a fragmented political culture into a stable democracy. The model of consociational democray based on power sharing is recommended to ensure peace and stability in countries with deeply divided societies. In this study, the practices and effectiveness of consociational democracy in Lebanon, which has a deeply divided society, are discussed. In Lebanon, power appears to be shared between Christian and Muslim communities through a verbal gentlemen's agreement called the 1943 National Pact. Within the scope of power sharing, it was decided that the President would be Maronite, the Prime Minister would be Sunni and the Speaker of the Parliament would be Shiite. It seems that the parliament is also divided within the framework of sectarian proportions. In the fourth part of the study, the effectiveness of consociational democracy in Lebanon was analyzed based on certain criteria. These criteria are government stability, continuation of power-sharing agreements, the existence of democracy and the absence of violence and conflict. As a result, it has been concluded that the consociational democracy model, which is presented as a prescription for deeply divided societies, is not successful in providing peace and democracy for Lebanon.