The Westminster Model of Democracy and the Consensus Model of Democracy

The former elements are typical of the system found in the United Kingdom while the latter typically represents elements found in the US system. The apparent implausibility of majoritarian models of political governance as been thrust to the forefront of debate by Lijphart while much of their credibility deficit is primarily attributed to the colossal waste of mental energy spent on reconciliation efforts by pro-majoritarian scholars. While he does not question the legitimacy of majoritarian models, he definitely argues that political pluralism is not necessarily a circumscribed domain within the fundamental theoretical limits that have been imposed on the freedom of expansive political thinking. Liberal ideological constructs could have been more accommodating to welcome the kind of divergent models that are basically founded on the same majoritarian principles of democracy.
Political pluralism and majoritarian parliamentary representation are not identical though, for the former strictly refers to party politics at the grassroots while the latter seeks to identify majoritarian models that are increasingly becoming divergent in their operational environments. While the spectrum of connotations and denotations in majoritarian models of parliamentary democracy is so extensively marked, there is an element of constriction applied to the freedom to diverge. This is altogether an unconscious element though. Political pluralism based on heterogeneous societies is appropriate for consensus democracy while majoritarian democracy is more likely to produce concrete results in homogeneous societies.
&nbsp.&nbsp.&nbsp.&nbsp.&nbsp.&nbsp.&nbsp.&nbsp.&nbsp. It’s the former – consensus democracy – that Lijphart basically attempts to explain and expand. &nbsp.Lijphart’s efforts to advocate consociational or consensus democracy began way back in 1977 with his earlier book “Democracy in Plural Societies”. According to him, consensus democracy is better suited to heterogeneous societies so that there is a certainty that minority rights would not be subject to a roughshod riding process by a roller-coaster majority in the legislature.