| Abstract: | This article assesses the utility of Arend Lijphart's classification scheme of democracies by means of a case study of Namibia. In particular, the article examines whether Namibia represents a case of consensus democracy, based on institutional criteria within the power-sharing and power-division dimensions, as developed in Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy (1999). The application of the ten criteria results in a mixed outcome, with an overall modal value of ‘moderately consensus’, a modal value of strongly majoritarian for the executive-parties dimension, and moderately consensus for the federal-executive dimension. The highly varied scores for each of the criteria, particularly within the first of Lijphart's two dimensions, present several problems. It is argued that the statistical modal value represents a distorted image of Namibian politics. Namibia scores consistently on the majoritarian side for criteria which conceptually concern the essence of the consensus modal. Moreover, apparent consensus features such as tripartite institutions, bicameralism, and a rigid constitution do not ‘behave’ as such due to one-party dominance, and neither does proportional representation produce consensus politics. Lijphart's criteria are too formal, and should not receive equal weight. The article concludes that power-sharing is better investigated by focusing on just two criteria, namely the party system and the strongly related criterion of government coalitions. Moreover, it is essential to examine political behaviour, in particular of governing elites, to look for the presence of cooperation and compromise, paradoxically issues which were more prominent in Lijphart's earlier work. |
