Dimensionality of Policy Space in Consociational Northern Ireland

Abstract

A criticism of consociational power sharing as an institutional response to violent conflict is that it buttresses rather than ameliorates the underlying (linguistic, religious or ethno-national) divide, hence prohibiting the emergence of new dimensions of political competition (such as economic left-right or moral liberal-conservative dimensions) that are characteristic of 'normal' societies. We test this argument in the context of the illustrative Northern Ireland case, using data from expert coding of party policy documents and opinion data derived from two Voter Advice Applications (VAAs). We find evidence for a moral liberal-conservative dimension of politics in addition to the ethno-national dimension. Hence, we caution against assuming that consociational polities are unidimensional. Keywordspost-conflict democracy, consociation, multidimensional politics, Northern Ireland, liberalconservative dimension Accepted: 11 May 2016 One response to violent conflict in deeply divided places is to implement consociational power-sharing arrangements. Political parties from the opposing groups in society enter an inclusive coalition government, and each group is given a right of veto over important legislation that may adversely affect their particular community. There is quite a heated normative debate over the merits and demerits of the power-sharing approach to conflict resolution. 1 Proponents argue that it is a system that is most likely to generate a secure and peaceful polity in which all groups are included in decision-making. Critics argue that

Helping Citizens to Locate Political Parties in the Policy Space: a Dataset for the 2014 elections to the European Parliament

“…For instance, vaa data on party positions has been used to assess government coalitions (Linhart & Shikano, 2015), polarization across policy issues (Wall & Williams, 2018), the dimensionality of political space (e.g. Katsanidou & Otjes, 2016;Garry, Matthews, & Wheatley, 2017;Nyhuis & König, 2018), continuity and change in parties' ideological profiles (e.g. Dalton, 2016), and political representation (e.g.…”

Unified voters in a divided society: Ideology and regionalism in Belgium

“…This strategy also allows us to see a more complete picture of the ideological congruence of niche parties, as previous research has supported that a single left-right ideological dimension is too broad (Bischof and Wagner 2020). Furthermore, a multidimensional framework allows to better understand partisan divisions in divided societies (Garry, Matthews, and Wheatley 2017).…”

How power-sharing includes and excludes non-dominant communities: Introduction to the special issue

“…Much of the support for such arrangements relates to consociationalism’s inclusive nature of executive decision-making, as well as its legislative guarantees for the main societal groups. John Garry, Neil Matthews and Jonathan Wheatley, for example, commend consociationalism’s ability to ‘generate a secure and peaceful polity in which all groups are included in decision-making’ (Garry et al, 2017: 493). Sid Noel suggests: ‘power-sharing mechanisms are intended to serve the dual purpose of promoting post-conflict peace building and serving as a foundation for the future growth of democratic institutions’ (Noel, 2005: 1).…”