![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
Political scientists have had a great deal to say about the prospects for democracy in deeply divided societies. Yet this article defends the view that political theorists also have a vital, if too often overlooked, role to play in terms of defining larger normative goals and purposes. To make this case, I focus specifically on the principle of political equality. Throughout, however, my guiding assumption is that normative prescriptions inevitably imply empirical questions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank Stephen Elstub, Donald Horowitz, David Russell and two anonymous referees for this journal for their insightful criticisms of earlier drafts of this article.
Notes
1. According to the Heidelberg Institute on International Conflict Research, there were 39 highly violent conflicts worldwide in 2008, 38 of which are described as internal or intrastate conflicts. Although the number of highly violent internal conflicts peaked in 1992, shortly after the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the overall number of internal conflicts (i.e., low, medium and high intensity conflicts combined) continues to rise. Conflict Barometer 2008. Available at: http://hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/pdf/ConflictBarometer_2008.pdf accessed 13 August 2009.
2. On the idea of a ‘deeply divided society’, cf. Lijphart (Citation1977: 3–4), Lustick (Citation1979: 325), Reilly (Citation2001: 4). On the idea of ethnicity, cf. Horowitz (Citation1985: 51–55), Hutchinson and Smith (Citation1996).
3. The literature on this topic is vast. Classic texts include Kymlicka (Citation1995) (on the distinction between ‘internal restrictions’ and ‘external protections’) and Okin (Citation1997) (on the implications of multiculturalism for female group members). For a good collection (on the issue of ‘minorities within minorities’) see Eisenberg and Spinner‐Halev (2005).
4. Scholars favouring AV included Donald Horowitz (Citation1991: 177–96; 2007) and Benjamin Reilly (Citation2001: 20–4). Critics of AV include Jon Fraenkel and Bernard Grofman (Citation2006), whereas supporters of STV include John McGarry and Brendan O’Leary (2004: 30–2). Lijphart favours party‐list PR (Lijphart Citation2004).
5. AV was used for general elections in Papua New Guinea between 1964 and 1975 with some success (Reilly Citation2001: 81–6); STV is currently used in Northern Ireland, again with some success (McGarry and O’Leary Citation2006: 59–61).
6. Although he may not agree with the conclusions that I draw, I am grateful to Donald Horowitz in personal correspondence for this account of the working of AV.
7. Relatedly, AV also has no moderating impact whatsoever in districts where hard‐liners constitute a majority.