Power sharing

Broadly, power-sharing agreements contain provisions relating to at least one of the following: Political, economic, military, or territorial control.

Political power-sharing involves rules governing the distribution of political offices and the exercise of decision-making powers. Power may be shared by guaranteeing the inclusion of all significant parties simultaneously in the governing cabinet through rules on grand coalition formation.{{cite journal |last1=Hartzell |first1=Caroline |last2=Hoddie |first2=Matthew |title=Institutionalizing Peace: Power Sharing and Post-Civil War Conflict Management |journal=American Journal of Political Science |date=2003 |volume=47 |issue=2 |pages=318–332 |doi=10.2307/3186141|jstor=3186141 }} Alternatively, it may involve sharing power by guaranteeing sequential access to political office, like a rotating premiership.{{R|McCulloch and McGarry 2017|p=18}} Electoral systems can provide power-sharing through political proportionality, which better allows for minority groups to remain competitive and win a portion of political power through democratic elections.{{cite book |last1=Lijphart |first1=Arend |title=Democracy in Plural Societies: A comparative exploration |date=1977 |location=New Haven |isbn=978-0-300-15818-2 |pages=38–41}}

Proportionality also informs economic power-sharing, as the distribution of public resources may be instituted respective to the size of communities.{{R|Hartzell and Hoddie 2003|p=320}} In neopatrimonial systems, political office may also be closely related to economic opportunity, meaning an equitable distribution of political power overlaps with economic power-sharing.{{cite journal |last1=Spears |first1=Ian S. |title=Africa's Informal Power-Sharing and the Prospects for Peace |journal=Civil Wars |date=March 2013 |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=37–53 |doi=10.1080/13698249.2013.781302|s2cid=145619573 }} even equitable distribution of political power overlaps with economic power-sharing.{{cite journal |last1=Spears |first1=Ian S. |title=Africa's Informal Power-Sharing and the Prospects for Peace}}

Power-sharing theories make empirical and normative claims about the utility or desirability of power-sharing systems for conflict management in divided societies. Two salient power-sharing theories, which stake competing claims, are consociationalism and centripetalism. Empirically, each theory prescribes different systems for power-sharing, such as consociationalism's proportional voting compared to centripetalism's alternative vote.

Some political scientists argue that power sharing is an effective way to reduce the likelihood of conflict in divided states.{{Cite book |last=Cederman |first=Lars-Erik |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/sharing-power-securing-peace/06519C1E88804281457102B93C697037 |title=Sharing Power, Securing Peace?: Ethnic Inclusion and Civil War |last2=Hug |first2=Simon |last3=Wucherpfennig |first3=Julian |date=2022 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-41814-0 |doi=10.1017/9781108284639}}

{{Main|Consociationalism}}

Consociationalism is a form of democratic power sharing.{{cite book|last1=O'Leary|first1=Brendan|title=From Power Sharing to Democracy: Post-Conflict Institutions in Ethnically Divided Societies|editor=Noel, Sid JR|publisher=McGill-Queen's Press|location=Montreal |year=2005|pages=3–43|chapter=Debating consociational politics: Normative and explanatory arguments|isbn=0-7735-2948-9|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oQHX2Xz185EC}} Political scientists define a consociational state as one which has major internal divisions along ethnic, religious, or linguistic lines, with none of the divisions large enough to form a majority group, but which remains stable due to consultation among the elites of these groups. Consociational states are often contrasted with states with majoritarian electoral systems.

Consociational power-sharing in ethnically pluralistic societies consists in a set of measures and rules which distribute decision-making rights in order to guarantee fair and equal participation of the representatives of all main ethnic groups in decision-making; in this way it reassures minorities that their interests will be preserved.{{Cite book |last1=Rothchild |first1=Donald |title=Sustainable peace: power and democracy after civil wars |last2=Roeder |first2=Philip G. |publisher=Cornell University Press |year=2005 |isbn=978-0801489747 |edition=1st |pages=30–31}}

The goals of consociationalism are governmental stability, the survival of the power-sharing arrangements, the survival of democracy, and the avoidance of violence. In a consociational state, all groups, including minorities, are represented on the political and economic stages. Supporters of the consociationalism argue that it is a more realistic option in deeply divided societies than integrationist approaches to conflict management.{{cite journal|first1=John|last1=McGarry|author2=O'Leary, Brendan|year=2006|title=Consociational theory, Northern Ireland's conflict, and its agreement 2: What critics of consociation can learn from Northern Ireland|journal=Government and Opposition|volume=41|issue=2|pages=249–77|doi=10.1111/j.1477-7053.2006.00178.x|s2cid=51859873 }}

{{Main|Centripetalism}}

Centripetalism, sometimes called integrationism,{{Cite book |last=Anderson |first=Liam D. |title=Federal solutions to ethnic problems: accommodating diversity |date=2013 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-415-78161-9 |series=Exeter studies in ethno politics |location=New York |chapter=4 Territorial federalism and the logic of centripetalism |quote=often termed “integrationism,” but is also sometimes referred to as “centripetalism.” Though the two terms are often used interchangeably, McGarry et al. (2008, Chapter 2) argue, convincingly, that they are analytically distinct and should be dealt with as such.}} 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 centre of the 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.{{Cite journal|last=Reilly|first=Benjamin|date=June 2012|title=Institutional Designs for Diverse Democracies: Consociationalism, Centripetalism and Communalism Compared|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1057/eps.2011.36|journal=European Political Science|language=en|volume=11|issue=2|pages=259–270|doi=10.1057/eps.2011.36|s2cid=144295799 |issn=1680-4333}} Horizontal power sharing refers to different organs of the state such as legislature, judiciary and executive. It is a democratic system in which power is divided among various bodies such as legislature, executive and judiciary. It means that every organ of the state has equal powers

Research by Killian Clarke, Anne Meng and Jack Paine, which examined all rebellions that overthrew a government since 1900, found that unified rebellions (with one major group taking power) tended to build lasting governments. Rebel governments formed through a coalition of rebel groups tended to produce short-lived governments, as coalition partners might renege on agreements, leading the country back into civil war.{{Cite news |date=2024 |title=Why Do Some Rebel Governments Last When Others Fall? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/12/world/middleeast/syria-rebel-government.html |work=New York Times}}

Examples of power sharing include the Peace of Augsburg,the Peace of Westphalia,{{cite journal |last1=Lehmbruch |first1=Gerhard |title=Consociational Democracy in the International System |journal=European Journal of Political Research |date=1975 |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=377–391|doi=10.1111/j.1475-6765.1975.tb01252.x }} and the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 in Northern Ireland.{{cite book|last1=O'Leary|first1=Brendan|year=2001|chapter=The character of the 1998 Agreement: Results and prospects|pages=49–83|editor=Wilford, Rick|title=Aspects of the Belfast Agreement|location=Oxford|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=0-19-924262-3}}

Examples of consociational power sharing include the Netherlands (1917–1967), Belgium since 1918, and Lebanon since 1943.{{cite journal |last1=McGarry |first1=John |title=Classical Consociational Theory and Recent Consociational Performance |journal=Swiss Political Science Review |date=December 2019 |volume=25 |issue=4 |pages=538–555 |doi=10.1111/spsr.12378|s2cid=211380638 |doi-access=free }}

Examples of centripetal power sharing include Fiji (1999–2006), Northern Ireland (June 1973 – May 1974), Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Kenya and Nigeria.{{Cite journal|last1=Coakley|first1=John|last2=Fraenkel|first2=Jon|date=June 2014|title=Resolving conflict in bipolar societies: The fate of political settlements in Fiji and Northern Ireland|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1177/0032318714531979|journal=Political Science|language=en|volume=66|issue=1|pages=23–45|doi=10.1177/0032318714531979|s2cid=54946790 |issn=0032-3187}}

• Comparative politics
• Peace and conflict studies
• Peaceful transition of power

• Ziff, Alix; Barnum, Miriam; Abadeer, Ashley; Chu, Jasmine; Jao, Nicole; Zaragoza, Marie; Graham, Benjamin AT (2024). "De jure powersharing 1975–2019: Updating the Inclusion, Dispersion, and Constraints Dataset". Journal of Peace Research.

{{reflist}}

Category:Political theories

Category:Comparative politics

Category:Ethnicity in politics

Category:Democracy