Elite Conflict In A Plural Society

Social research and historical study of political leadership in Bengal from 1912 to 1947.

While it may be difficult to achieve and maintain stable democratic governments in countries with deep religious, ideological, linguistic, cultural, or ethnic cleavages, Lijphart argues that it is not at all impossible. Through the analysis of political systems in six continents, he demonstrates that what he calls consociational democracy can be successful in severely divided or plural societies. "Here, once again, Arend Lijphart is directing our attention to matters which will surely engage much of the attention of students of comparative politics in the next decade." G. Bingham Powell, Jr., American Political Science Review "A study which can speak to such a wide audience in political science deserves a warm welcome from the profession." Government and Opposition "A copybook example of the comparative method of political analysis, as well as indispensable reading for all who have an interest in the nature and prospects of representative democracy, whether in Europe or beyond."--The Times Higher Education Supplement "This well-written work, containing a wealth of information on politics of many diverse nations, is highly recommended."--Library Journal

This paper is one of a series being prepared for the National Research Council's Committee on International Conflict Resolution. The committee was organized in late 1995 to respond to a growing need for prevention, management, and resolution of violent conflict in the international arena, a concern about the changing nature and context of such conflict in the post-Cold War era, and a recent expansion of knowledge in the field. The committee's main goal is to advance the practice of conflict resolution by using the methods and critical attitude of science to examine the effectiveness of various techniques and concepts that have been advanced for preventing, managing, and resolving international conflicts. The committee's research agenda has been designed to supplement the work of other groups, particularly the Carnegie Corporation of New York's Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, which issued its final report in December 1997. The committee has identified a number of specific techniques and concepts of current interest to policy practitioners and has asked leading specialists on each one to carefully review and analyze available knowledge and to summarize what is known about the conditions under which each is or is not effective. These papers present the results of their work.

`It is, I think, a timely and sobering reminder of the power of all kinds of fundamentalisms in the contemporary world, and that no society is proof against their ravages, even those which have prided themselves on their secularism, tolerance and pluralism. Bangladesh is a country haunted by divisions - not only the Partition of India, but also that of the War of Liberation, and the even more fateful split, between Muslim and Bengali, which is the more menacing because it exists within individuals, within the people themselves. Whether the wholeness of a specifically Bengali version of islam can be restored is the question which this book poses′ - Jeremy Seabrook, The Guardian `This book should ring a warning bell for policymakers in the South Block. If you do not agree, read Karlekar′s chilling tale of the death of Mjuibur′s dream - and that of many others who naively believed in it′ - Kanchan Gupta, India Today `The book unravels how the hate matrix has found a place in a culturally vibrant society that just two decades back asked for freedom from the shackles of an oppressive regime′ - Anju Kumar, The Hindu `Dubbed a hotbed of terrorism across the world, Bangladesh is under the spotlight. Hiranmay Karlekar′s timely book tackles the issue with depth and insight... A must read for strategic thinkers and those involved in watching India′s neighbourhood′ - Tehelka `The author argues that the headquarters of Islamic terrorism is shifting from Afghanistan to Bangladesh, which he describes as a soft state with an ineffective government and a weak police force′ - The Pioneer `Karlekar has a long experience of reporting on Bangladesh. His book resonates with this experience and with a wealth of details, and will help fill the vacuum of information on Bangladesh and it′s crisis of fundamentalism′ - The India Express Bangladesh focuses on the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Bangladesh. Hiranmay Karlekar analyzes, in detail, the historical, social, cultural and political circumstances that have led to this, and discusses the chances of the situation being altered. From a wealth of reliable sources he discusses the circumstances which account for this rise in fundamentalism and he demonstrates the forces that function within the ruling coalition in Bangladesh allowing this rise unchecked. Hiranmay Karlekar is Consultant Editor of The Pioneer and a member of the Press Council of India. During his career, he has been Editor of The Hindustan Times, Deputy Editor of The Indian Express, and Assistant Editor of The Statesman and the erstwhile Hindusthan Standard published from Kolkata by the Anandabazar Patrika group.

Seminar paper from the year 2004 in the subject Politics - Political Theory and the History of Ideas Journal, grade: 1,0 (A), Free University of Berlin (Otto-Suhr-Institute for Political Science), course: Empirisch-analytische Demokratietheorien, 44 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: The central question of this paper is almost as old as the mere concept of consociationalism: to what extent can consociational democracy serve as the appropriate democratic form to divided and multiethnic societies? Soon after Arend Lijphart and Gerhard Lehmbruch had depicted consociational democracy as a viable alternative to majoritarian forms of democracy, a fierce debate about its wider applicability took root. Lijphart and Lehmbruch had presented the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Switzerland as cases of consociational democracies - but would the concept work in countries that are divided more deeply? For a good reason, the issue regained relevance and interest of scholars during the 1990s: Intra-state wars now took their tolls on an unprecedented scale - many of which had an ethnic dimension. It requires no statistical analysis to acknowledge ethnic divisions as one of the most serious sources of today's violent conflicts. In this context, it has been asked whether consociational democracy is a suitable and appropriate model to accommodate the diverse interests and cultures of groups in a multiethnic society. Is it a sustainable model able to prevent conflicts from turning violent? Should it be part of peacebuilding efforts in a post-conflict society? If applied, how should a consociational design look like?