An exploratory study of constitutional design in three island states: Seychelles,Comoros, and Mauritius

This article explores the effects of constitutional design on conflict management and democratisation outcomes in three African island states: Seychelles, Comoros, and Mauritius. As an exploratory framework, the article reflects upon Arend Lijphart’s theory of accommodative constitutional design in view of political developments in the three cases, beginning around their independence and continuing into recent times. The case studies provide some general support to Lijphart’s accommodative theory, and particularly to the need to facilitate broad representation and an overall sense of political inclusion, but they also raise critical questions regarding the effects of his institutional recommendations. Contrary to Lijphart’s approach, majoritarian legislative elections might under certain conditions facilitate greater inclusion than proportional representation, and direct presidential elections could sometimes be more inclusive than a parliamentary executive. The findings on Lijphart’s recommendations of group autonomy are less clear, particularly regarding the question of whether territorial autonomy might increase risks of secession.     

Prospects and Concerns of e-Democracy at the European Parliament

Bicameralism remains a common legislative arrangement, providing a classic potential check on political executives. But this potential is not always realised, leading scholars to ask which factors contribute to bicameralism that is ‘strong’. One well-established analysis is that of Arend Lijphart, in his account of majoritarian and consensus democracies. This bases bicameral strength on two dimensions: ‘symmetry’ of the two chambers' formal powers and ‘incongruence’ of their composition. Other theorists reason in similar ways. But recent British developments, backed by evidence from other states, expose flaws in this approach. A more convincing theory must be ‘three-dimensional’, recognising the centrality of perceived legitimacy to bicameral strength. Legitimacy is fundamental to understanding bicameralism, due both to the composition of some second chambers and to the role of all such chambers in challenging democratically elected first chambers. Lijphart did note that legitimacy affected the dynamics of bicameralism, but its role is both more central, and significantly more complex, than he suggested.