No abstract

The belief that modern democracy is party democracy is widespread. However, the belief may be questioned. A number of small independent island states that subscribe to a high extent to democratic values, standards, and institutions manage without political parties. In all, six such cases exist, namely, Belau (Palau), the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Tuvalu. The analysis of these cases is guided by three general assumptions: (a) the impact of diminutive size on the existence and number of parties, (b) the corresponding impact of geographical noncontiguity, and (c) the impact of culturally defined resistances against party life and party rule. Comparisons with conditions in other small island states suggest that the assumptions are valid given that extreme values are entered into the analysis. Extreme smallness, an extremely archipelagic geography, and an intense cultural resistance all contribute to an absence of political parties in democracies.

In their well‐known volume on ‘Size and Democracy’ (1973), Robert Dahl and Edward Tufte argue that small units are likely to be more homogeneous, whereas larger units are likely to exhibit more diversity. This study of the microstates of the world and of selected control groups of states supports this view only in part. In terms of attitudinal diversity, smaller units are indeed more homogeneous. In terms of ethnic and religious diversity, however, no significant differences emerge between small states and large states. This suggests that categoric differences are transformed in larger units to a greater extent into attitudinal differences. Bearing in mind that most microstates are island states, the capacity of microstates to manage ethnic diversity may in several cases be due to the intimacy of island communities which binds members together in mutual solidarity.

No abstract

Abstract:Research on small state politics suggests that smallness reinforces popular rule and that small states are more likely to be democratic than large states. The mechanisms that serve to transform smallness into democratic conduct remain, however, under-researched, and this study contributes by probing the very foundations of the belief that small size fosters democracy. For smallness really to count, small states should display a propensity for democracy at different points of time and where ever they are on the globe. If this is not the case, then, obviously, the size factor is surpassed by factors that relate to diffusion, culture or to regional circumstances rather than to smallness per se. The empirical findings suggesting that this is indeed the case, the study ends on a general discussion of circumstances that are likely to enhance or weaken the link between small size and democracy.