Belgium has long been considered a copybook example of consociational democracy. In this article we first explore the nature of this ‘old’ Belgian consociationalism. We conclude that consociational decision-making was not a permanent feature of the system, but rather a technique of decision-making at moments where deep conflicts severely threatened the stability or even survival of the political system. Next, we ask whether Belgium can still be labelled a consociational democracy today. If so, one must be aware of the fact that the societal segments are in the first place territorial. It is the federal construction that still displays the typical characteristics of consociational decision-making. However, its stability so far cannot be simply explained by referring to elite attitudes, but rather to institutional features making the absence of a negotiated compromise unattractive to all partners.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kris Deschouwer (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: