Power Sharing in Deeply Divided Places NATIONAL AND E THNIC CONFLIC T IN THE T WENT Y- FIR ST CENTURY Brendan O’Leary, Series Editor Power Sharing in Deeply Divided Places Edited by Joanne McEvoy and Brendan O’Leary U N I V E R S I T Y O F P E N N S Y LVA N I A P R E S S PHIL ADELPHIA Copyright © 2013 University of Pennsylvania Press All rights reserved Except for brief quotations used for purposes of review or scholarly citation, none of this book may be reproduced in any form by any means without written permission from the publisher Published by University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-4112 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 10 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Power sharing in deeply divided places / edited by Joanne McEvoy and Brendan O’Leary — 1st ed p cm — (National and ethnic conflict in the twenty-first century) Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 978-0-8122-4501-1 (hardcover : alk paper) Ethnic groups—Political activity activity Minorities—Political Representative government and representation Ethnic conflict—Political aspects Cultural pluralism—Political aspects I McEvoy, Joanne II O'Leary, Brendan JF1061.P68 2013 320.90089—dc23 2012041497 Hodgson CON TEN T S Power Sharing in Deeply Divided Places: An Advocate’s Introduction Brendan O’Leary PART I POWER SHARING AND ELECTORAL SYSTEMS Electoral Rules and Ethnic Representation and Accommodation: Combining Social Choice and Electoral System Perspectives Bernard Grofman 67 The Track Record of Centripetalism in Deeply Divided Places Allison McCulloch 94 Electoral Engineering for a Stalled Federation Kris Deschouwer and Philippe Van Parijs 112 PART II HISTORICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FORAYS INTO POWER SHARING A Theory of Accommodation Versus Conflict: With Special Reference to the Israel-Palestine Conflict Ronald Wintrobe 135 The Success of Religion as a Source for Compromise in Divided Empires: Ottoman and Safavid, Past and Present Benjamin Braude 176 vi Contents Geopolitics and the Long-Term Construction of Democracy Randall Collins 198 Courts, Constitutions, and the Limits of Majoritarianism Samuel Issacharoff 214 PART III CONTEMPORARY POWERSHARING QUESTIONS A Revised Theory of Federacy and a Case Study of Civil War Termination in Aceh, Indonesia Alfred Stepan 231 10 We Forbid! The Mutual Veto and Power-Sharing Democracy Joanne McEvoy 253 11 Northern Ireland: Power Sharing, Contact, Identity, and Leadership Ed Cairns 278 12 Public Opinion and Power Sharing in Deeply Divided Places Colin Irwin 295 13 The Balkans: The Promotion of Power Sharing by Outsiders Florian Bieber 312 14 Governing Polarized Cities Scott A Bollens 327 15 Power Sharing in Kirkuk: The Need for Compromise Liam Anderson 364 16 Power Sharing: An Advocate’s Conclusion Brendan O’Leary List of Contributors Index Acknowledgments 386 423 425 437 CHAPTER Power Sharing in Deeply Divided Places: An Advocate’s Introduction Brendan O’Leary The Mafia makes offers that cannot be refused In one peace process a politician was once accused of making offers that no one could understand (O’Leary 1990) Do these statements explain the difference between power and power sharing? Is power coercive capacity, whereas power sharing is incomprehensible? Power sharing is not incomprehensible, but it is frequently misunderstood To aid comprehension a comparison is useful In standard English, power is the ability to act, to be able to produce an intended effect (Russell 1992 [1938]) The powerless lack the capacity to things they might want to The powerful are in the opposite situation Power sharing, therefore, suggests spreading access to the capacity to get things done Power is also a synonym for authority, jurisdiction, control, command, sway, or dominion, as well as the capacity to persuade, induce, constrain, oblige, or force It follows that power sharing minimally means widening the access of persons or groups to the same domains or attributes In standard usage power is also “a possession,” “held” by those with authority or influence over others, especially public officials, governments, officers, managements, or establishments who constitute what Paul’s Letter to the Romans described as “the powers that be.” Power sharing, therefore, broadens membership of “the powers that be.” It also requires that the included parties have access to key and observable “decision making.” There must be no important “non–decision making” taking place off stage, that is, no hidden possessors of power who Brendan O’Leary control the agenda or exclude some issues from being addressed. There must instead be an open and negotiable public agenda among the powersharers, or at least among their leaders Any suppression of (controversial) issues must be mutually agreed upon among those who share power Theorists contrast “power to” and “power over” (see Morris 2002; Parsons 1969). “Power to” is ability, “power over” is domination The contrast resembles that between “positive-sum” and “zero-sum” relationships “Positive-sum” power is joint, collaborative, or cooperative All gain from its exercise, even if the benefits are not the same for all “Zero-sum power,” by contrast, describes a distinct antagonism: if power could be measured, then A’s gain and B’s loss would sum to zero Positive-sum and zero-sum conceptions not exhaust the logical possibilities of power relations The exercise of power may generate net losses (a “negative sum”) or the mutual ruin of the contending parties It may create winners and losers; there may be disparities in benefits among the winners as well as in losses among the losers; and only one party may gain, while the others experience no net losses. Power sharing, for its proponents, is defended as “power to.” It enhances collective capacity; it is “positive sum.” Those who share will gain from a constructive way of making public decisions, from which all stand to gain, notably through the preservation of order and peace Critics, by contrast, suggest that power sharing shapes public life at the expense of other and better kinds of politics— more competitive, individualist, or harmonious The opposite of power sharing is power’s monopolization by a person, faction, group, organization, or party On inspection, it is usually true that the chief power-holder has to delegate some power to organize and maintain the monopoly But to delegate power is not to share it The principal who delegates requires the delegated agent to perform specified tasks and may withdraw the mandate Monopolies of power exist, at least formally, in tyrannies, despotisms, military autocracies, monarchies, lordships, papacies, theocracies, and oneparty dictatorships They also exist, however, in democracies, a more unsettling idea To say that democracy may coexist with monopolistic domination requires no commitment to theories suggesting that behind the faỗade of electoral competition lies the power of a ruling class or a power elite (see, e.g., Miliband 1980 [1969]; Domhoff 1990; Mills 1956) For example, no matter how competitive or free elections may be, critical political power can be monopolized between elections by the incumbent president, prime minister, cabinet, and nominated judges associated with the dominant party, Introduction ethos, or ideology Even a temporary domination (between elections) is nevertheless domination, and the opportunities for elected leaders to dominate their societies against widespread or deeply held public preferences are significant (see, e.g., Nordlinger 1981, 92–94, 111–12, 130–32) That democracy might lead to domination was the theme of the “tyranny of the majority,” which deeply concerned eighteenth-century republicans, such as James Madison, and nineteenth-century liberals, such as Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill They were mostly preoccupied, however, with the impact of that possible tyranny on the individual’s property and liberty (including the individual’s religious beliefs) rather than on national, ethnic, or linguistic minorities as such (Madison, Hamilton, and Jay 1987 [1788]; Mill 1997, 5– 6, 81–82, 192–94; de Tocqueville 1988 [1835, 1840], vol 1., chap 7, esp 250ff ) Democracy is, however, also straightforwardly compatible with the (temporary) tyranny of a minority, especially democracies with institutions that encourage the “winner” to take all For example, an ideological faction, not supported by a majority of voters in a country, may nevertheless control a cabinet, which in turn controls a party, and which in turn controls a legislature In consequence, law or public policy may be dictated in the interests of the faction as long as its control is maintained. Defining Power Sharing, Deeply Divided Places, and Well-Ordered States These considerations suggest the following broad definition of power sharing: Any set of arrangements that prevent one agent, or organized collective agency, from being the “winner who holds all critical power,” whether temporarily or permanently This suggestion explains why the synonyms of power sharing usually include the following generally positive connotations: “coalition” or “cooperative” government and “consensual” and “inclusive” decision making Critics of power sharing just as powerfully insist upon negative connotations They refer to power-sharing arrangements as “rudderless” or “leaderless,” and they complain of “stalemated,” “deadlocked,” or “blocked” decision making The general definition of power sharing just suggested is broad if not vague It does not, for example, specify how power is shared among the parties It is capacious enough to include arrangements such as the Roman Republic’s executive, based on the annual election of two consuls, and its tribunes, who ... Ireland: Power Sharing, Contact, Identity, and Leadership Ed Cairns 278 12 Public Opinion and Power Sharing in Deeply Divided Places Colin Irwin 295 13 The Balkans: The Promotion of Power Sharing. . .Power Sharing in Deeply Divided Places NATIONAL AND E THNIC CONFLIC T IN THE T WENT Y- FIR ST CENTURY Brendan O’Leary, Series Editor Power Sharing in Deeply Divided Places Edited... as its control is maintained. Defining Power Sharing, Deeply Divided Places, and Well-Ordered States These considerations suggest the following broad definition of power sharing: Any set of arrangements