Not all social cleavages are the same: On the relationship between religious diversity and party system fragmentation

Abstract

Most studies examining the relationship between social cleavages and party system fragmentation maintain that higher levels of social diversity lead to greater party system fragmentation. However, most aggregate-level studies focus on one type of social cleavage: ethnic diversity. In order to develop a better understanding of how different cleavages impact electoral competition, this article considers another type of social cleavage: religious diversity. Contrary to previous literature, higher levels of religious diversity provide incentives for cross-religious cooperation, which in turn reduces party system fragmentation. Using a cross-national data set of elections from 1946–2011, the results show that, in contrast to most studies examining the effects of social cleavage diversity on the number of parties, higher religious diversity is associated with lower levels of party system fragmentation.

The effects of district magnitude and social diversity on party system fragmentation in majoritarian systems

“…In addition to the impact of majoritarian rules on the relationship between ethnic diversity and party system fragmentation in multimember districts, there is also reason to believe majoritarian rules may have similar consequences for the effects of religious diversity. While previous research suggests the relationship between religious diversity and party system fragmentation shifts from negative to positive as M increases (Raymond, 2016), the impact of M on this relationship may differ significantly between countries awarding seats according to majoritarian and proportional rules. In PR systems, higher M increases the chance that religious groups may be able to form and elect their own parties, and thus one would expect to see a positive relationship between religious diversity and party system fragmentation in PR systems.…”

“…Previous literature applying this model across a broad range of countries and elections concludes that social diversity is positively associated with party system fragmentation, particularly in PR systems electing large numbers of representatives per district (Amorim Neto and Cox, 1997; Clark and Golder, 2006; Geys, 2006; Ordeshook and Shvetsova, 1994; Singer and Stephenson, 2009). Even though other research – responding to the problems of using ethnicity as the sole marker of social diversity as most previous research has done (Stoll, 2008) – shows that religious diversity puts downward pressure on party system fragmentation (Raymond, 2016), the relationship between religious diversity and party system fragmentation becomes positive at higher levels of M .…”

Religious voters and the religious-secular cleavage since 1990

“…Note: the solid black line is the predicted probability of voting for National among voters frequently attending religious services (and who do not belong to one of the four 'traditional' religions), while the solid grey line is the predicted probability of voting for National among voters infrequently/never attending religious services (dashed lines are 90% confidence intervals), using the results from Table 1 and holding all other variables at their median values. i While some definitions of 'cleavage' require political parties representing social group interests more explicitly than is the case with National/Labour regarding religious/secular issues-see Bartolini and Mair (1990)-this paper builds on previous research concerned more with the behaviour of religious groups and their voters for the appearance of religious cleavages (see Raymond 2016). ii While some research finds evidence of a cleavage between Protestants and Catholics-see, e.g., Medeiros and Noël (2013)-other research suggests that Catholics tend to side with Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Methodists in supporting National over Labour-see, e.g., Vowles and Aimer (1993, 33-34); Vowles (1998a, 66-67).…”

African, Religious, and Tolerant? How Religious Diversity Shapes Attitudes Toward Sexual Minorities in Africa

“…People often update their attitudes when they interact directly with those who are perceived as different or marginalized. Researchers attribute inter-religious cooperation (Raymond 2016) and tolerance toward out-groups or marginalized identities to various forms of social diversity (Kasara 2013), including socio-economic heterogeneity (Branton and Jones 2005), reductions in exclusionary social solidarity (Gibson and Gouws 2000), or increases in social identity complexity (Brewer and Pierce 2005). If following these patterns, religious diversity could help strengthen Africans' inclusionary attitudes toward their gay and lesbian neighbors.…”