Kompatibilnost Lajphartove koncepcije konsocijalne demokratije i deliberativne demokratije
Compatibility of Lijphart’s Concept of Consocial Democracy and Deliberative Democracy

Summary/Abstract: The subject of this paper is compatibility between Lijphart’s model of consocial democracy and ideas of deliberative democracy. The first part of the paper presents the views of deliberative democracy by different political philosophers. Although different authors give different operationalization of deliberative democracy, that on which they agree is that this view of democracy requires that political decisions are made in informed and reasoned debate, which will include all stakeholders, and where the minority opinions and arguments will have the same weight as well as the opinions and arguments of the majority. The paper presents the vision of deliberative democracy of the following authors: Jürgen Habermas, John Rawls, Joshua Cohen, Amy Guttman and Denis Thompson, and James Fishkin. The second part presents two rival models of democracy, consociational and majority type, as they were defined by political scientist Arend Lijphart. Lijphart analyzes the differences between these two models of democracy in the specific case of 36 countries through ten different variables. At the end we show that deliberative democracy is more compatible with the consociational than with the majority type of democracy.

• Details
• Contents