“The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands” by Arend Lijphart.

What are the impacts of social cleavage paradox in politics? This is the central question the author attempts to examine in the research. Social groupings not only influence individuals’ identity in terms of political parties they align themselves to but also alter voting patterns. Andersen and Heath (2003) made a finding that groupings based on social class, region, gender, race, and age to varying degrees influence voting in most Western democracies. Conversely, an increase in sole voting and a decline in cleavage voting gaining prominence in post-materialist societies is so due to lack of attitudinal variations between the target group and the other social groups with common affiliations. Concentrating on the political systems in Holland, Arend notes that the Netherlands has a high social cleavage in terms of its political arrangements. Since Holland is among the most successful democracies in the world, Arend attributes the claim to an extraordinary degree of social cleavage, which he conducts a study on to validate.

The study tests the pluralist theory. The author assesses the Dutch case and pluralist proposition to determine the link between groupings and the type of democracy. Arend conceptualizes that the application of the Dutch case in conjunction with pluralist theory makes it easy to understand and explain the social conditions of a stable and effective democracy. Pluralist proposition illustrates the relationship between social structures and political behavior in a democracy.  The author distinguishes between sociological pluralist theory and political pluralist theory. While sociological pluralist theory focuses on social arrangements, political pluralist proposition deals with the distribution of political power. In his study, Arend Lijphart analyzes pluralist proposition under three perspectives.

To begin with, the author supposes that viable democratic governments face stiff oppositions in plural societies. Such societies have clear discernible racial, linguistic and religious differences. Besides, the obstacles facing sustainable democracies originates from social homogeneity and heterogeneity. Arend holds that unity among individuals makes a consensus easier, and foster the spirit of belonging together. However, whatever separates individuals socially groups in different camps, which leads to opposition. Furthermore is the most striking unifying and pacifying effect of the homogeneity group, which divides people along religious beliefs, attachment to classical ideals, and economic interests.

The second feature of the proposition attaches great significance to the existences of numerous secondary groups. The organized social heterogeneity groups interchangeably multiplicity of secondary group checks on, and balances governmental power. On the other hand, the groups preserve moderation and individual freedom by insulating non-elites as well as the elites from the encroachment of one another. Succeeding in the two roles require the prevention of dangerous atomization of the society, and alienation of the individuals, as well as the dispersion of power irrespectively. Whereas partial organizations jeopardize democracy since they tend to distort the general will, the more the partial societies, the better to prevent the inequality perception.

The third element of pluralist postulation Arend Lijphart advances takes into account the prerequisite of both individual freedoms and political cohesion. The author highlights both the conducive and non- favorable aspects to a stable democracy. Crosscutting affiliations and mutually reinforcing cleavages have an opposite effect on politics. Whereas independent groups imply a medieval communal society, they stabilize democracies. In support of the pluralist theory, Arend Lijphart argues that structural-functional viewpoints thrives on assumptions, which radically deviate from conflict theory. Strong relationships between party choice and various social groupings voters belong influence-voting patterns in most democracies. From the author’s point of view, most structurally essential clusters in the society contain considerable proportions of adherents of both parties influenced by structural ties, which are non-political. Integration of the binding group ties in politics relies on great and useful social communication habits. Under severe discontinuities in communication and transaction, behavior leads to disintegration. Arend is convinced that group affiliation either in a non-associational or associational membership has shared attitudes that may lead to political moderation.

The study develops the arguments through the review of existing kinds of literature and compares the political system in Holland to other democracies in the Western countries. From the literature reviewed, the author questions the extent to which cross group pressures exist in the West, especially the American politics, and the contribution of the crosscutting subcultures in the stability of the political system. Arend Lijphart not only focuses on the pluralist theory but also compares it to other approaches such as the overlapping membership theory, which he uses to explore the influence of formally organized groups on politics. Besides, the author makes key findings of social cleavages in the Netherlands. Religion and class influences groupings, which integrates with a stable democracy in the country. The pieces of literature as well analyses the effects of social cleavage in democracies such as France, Germany, Italy, which according to the author’s perspective distinctively political subcultures with the subsystem of roles including the press, churches, trade unions and political parties.

Constructively, Arend Lijphart demonstrates the relationship between social cleavage and politics with an attempt to expedite the pluralist theory. Focusing on the political system in the Netherlands, the study employs a systematic qualitative synthesis of the literature review to explain the theory. The strength of the research design used is that it strongly adds to the quantitative aspects of the study in the field of political pluralism. Besides, the author brings together accomplished studies to appreciate the coverage of the pluralist theory and identifies research gaps within a summation. On the contrary, it is not clearly stated whether the existing literature exclusively relates to the pluralist theory. Similarly, chances of bias by the author are apparent considering the need to achieve his research objectives. Regardless of the method used, the research finding applies to a broader political context since social groups influence political ideologies, voting patterns and types of democracies across the world.

In conclusion, the pluralist theory raises the question of power and influence distribution in a political system. Arend Lijphart in his book make critical findings of the group influence on political processes by studying the social cleavages in the Netherlands as the primary country of interest, then makes a comparison to other democracies. The author concludes that the Dutch case and the pluralist theory helps explain the impacts of sociable conditions on the stability of democracies.

References.

Andersen, R., and Heath, A. (2003). Social identities and political cleavages: the role of political context. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 166(3), 301-327.

Lijphart, A. (1975). The politics of accommodation: Pluralism and democracy in the Netherlands (Vol. 142). University of California Press.