Ballots not Bullets Ethnic Conflict & Electoral Systems Pippa Norris KSG Harvard University
Do systems reduce ethnic conflict? I. Theory: Consociational democracy Arend Lijphart II. Evidence: CSES 12 nation survey III. Results & Conclusions: No direct relationship Indirect?
1.Theories Consociational Party List + Executive powersharing Why? Party leaders will moderate ethnic conflict to gain Cabinet seats Incentives AV or STV + heterogeneous districts Why? Party reps. will moderate ethnic conflict to gain votes/ seats in parliament
? Election of smaller parties Elections? Proportional votes: seats? Election of ethnic? minority parties Minority satisfaction with political system
Lijphart: Patterns of Democracy (1999) Especially in plural societies majority rule is not only undemocratic but also dangerous, because minorities that are continually denied access to power will feel excluded and will lose their allegiance to the regime. p22-23.
II. Evidence Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 12 national elections 1996-8 (2 nd release) (NES, BES etc.) Work in progress 40+ nations www.umich.edu/~nes
Electoral Systems Majoritarian Mixed List Britain (FPTP) US (FPTP) Australia (AV) Taiwan (SNTV+) Ukraine (FPTP+) Lithuania (2 nd Ballot+) Israel Spain Romania Poland Czech NZ (MMP) (For details see Table 2 + Appendix A1)
Ethnic Minority Measures (For details see table 3) National Place of birth Racial Self identity Linguistic Main language spoken at home Religious Self-identity inc. athiests/agnostics Center-periphery Residency urban/rural
Primary Ethnic Cleavage (For details see table 3) Israel Religion: Arab/Muslim 9.6% Spain Region:Catalans,Galicians,Basques17.4% Czech Region: Moravian/Roma 5.1% Britain Region: Scots/Welsh 14.3% Taiwan Language: Mandarin/Hakka 24.8% Ukraine Language: Russian 50.4% Romania Language: Hungarian 6.4% US Race: Non-white 13.8% Poland Center-Periphery: Rural 36.0% Australia Center-Periphery: Rural 24.0% NZ Ethnic origins: Maoris 15.1% Lithuania Ethnic origins: Russians/Poles 15.8%
Research Strategy No direct comparison of nations Can compare majority-minority gap within nations. H#1 Ethnic majorities will support the political system more strongly than ethnic minorities. Compare electoral systems H#2 The majority-minority gap will be less under than majoritarian systems.
Indicators Support for the political system 1. Fairness of the election 2. Satisfaction with democracy 3. Political efficacy 4. Voting turnout
E.g. Majority-Minority difference % Voting Turnout: Israel 1996 Muslim minority 67% Jewish majority 86% ------- Difference -18% -------
III: % Election Fair? In some countries people believe their elections are conducted fairly. In other countries, people believe their elections are conducted unfairly. Thinking of the last election in [country], where would you place it on a scale or one to five where ONE means the election was conducted fairly and FIVE means the election was conducted fairly? (% Fair = 1 or 2.) Figures represent % majority minus % minority. 40 30 20 See Table 4 10 0-10 -20 US-Maj GB-Maj Pol- NZ- Israel- Spain- Czech- Tai- Ukr- Rom- Lith- Mix Mix Mix
% Satisfaction with Democracy On the whole are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied or not at all satisfied with the way democracy works in [country]. 5 See Table 4 0-5 -10-15 -20 IsraelLith - Ukr Aust -GB - Pol -NZ- US- Tai - Sp - Rom - Cz Mix Mix Maj Maj Maj Mix ech-
Political Efficacy? 15-point 3-item 15 scale: Figures represent % majority - % minority. 10 See Table 4 5 0-5 -10-15 Tai- Ukr- GB- Isr- Aus - Cz US- Pol- NZ- Rom- Lith- Sp- Mix Mix Maj Maj ech- Maj Mix
Turnout (% Majority - % minority) 5 See Table 4 0-5 -10-15 -20 Rom- Aust- NZ- GB-Maj Tai-Mix Czech- Ukr- US-Maj Sp- Pol- Isr- Maj Mix
Core Conclusions elections lead to??more proportional votes:seats??election of smaller parties? Election of ethnic minority parties??ethnic minority support for the political system
Explanations? Why no direct relationship? Geography of ethnic minorities Degree of politicization & mobilization Special arrangements eg reserved seats Electoral system one part of consociational democracy Role of minority leaders to promote disaffection not conciliation?
Future research agenda: Parliaments: Proportion of ethnic minority members? Systematic monitor of parliaments Party strategies: Competition on ethnic minority issues? Manifesto data 1945+ Citizens: Response to different systems? Ballot paper exit polls CSES
More details available at: www.pippanorris.com www.aceproject.org www.idea.int
Electoral Systems Worldwide 1997-8 Parallel 9% Other 11% FPTP 33% List 32% 2nd Ballot 15%
Typology of Democracy Source: Lijphart Democracies (1984) Democracies Majoritarian (Westminster) Mixed Consensus (Consociational) eg UK? New Zealand? India eg USA Costa Rica France eg Netherlands Belgium Switzerland
I: Consociational Theory Arend Lijphart Democracy in Plural Society (1979) Democracies (1984) Electoral systems & party systems (1994) Patterns of Democracy (1999)
Ideal types : Institutions Consensual party list elections Multiparty system Multidimensional social cleavages Coalition Executive Executive-Legislative Balance Balanced bicameralism Federalism Rigid constitution Values inclusiveness & dispersion of power Majoritarian Plurality elections Two party system Dominant social cleavage Single-party Executive Cabinet dominance Strong lower House Unitary state Flexible constitution Values strong but accountable government