Fantastic, a book not about sexism or racism in the 21st century. No, the only gap Lijphart is discussing in this book is an empirical one; many academics namely consider majoritarian democracies to be better than consensus democracies without basing this on actual proof (p. 255). With Patterns of Democracy, Lijphart intends to close this gap by describing the different sorts of democratic governments and proving whether or not majoritarian democracies are really exceeding consensus democracies by providing statistical evidence (pp. 255-294). One of his main conclusions is that the many sorts of democratic governments can be reduced to two sorts: the majoritarian and the consensus one (p. 295). Another conclusion is that the general assumption, …show more content…
273) and by showing in chapter 16 that consensus democracies are actually of higher democratic value and implement policies that are attributed to the “kinder gentler nations” (pp. 293-294). The implications he provides can be found in chapter 17. One of these implications is that consensus democracies are better for the culturally divided countries, but also for countries that do not suffer from evident cultural division (p. 296). Lijphart therefore recommends a constitutional reformation for all countries who consider moving to democratic governance, one that would make sure a consensus democracy is implemented (p. …show more content…
He, however, does not back away from being critical or even nuancing his own conclusions. This can be seen when he adds to the conclusion that “it is easier to change governments in consensus democracies” (p. 280) that these changes are not as powerful as they are in majoritarian governments, where governments can completely change after elections (p. 280). By being in favor of a consensus government but not letting himself get too biased on the topic, Lijphart manages to make himself stand out as one of the most critical promoters of the consensus