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