¹ For Lakatos's harsh views on the behavioral sciences, see Lakatos, , “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 176n. One finds additional evidence of the growing influence of Lakatos's work among political scientists in the prominent methodological guide by three political scientists—Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba—who invoke Lakatos as something of an epistemological authority for their approach. See Keohane, King, and Verba, , Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 12Google Scholar. See also the Winter-Spring 1995 issue of Critical Review, containing a wide-ranging symposium on the criticisms launched against rational choice theory by Green, Donald P. and Shapiro, Ian, in Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994)Google Scholar. At least six of the contributions, both pro and con, based themselves in part on their interpretations of Lakatos's theory of research programs.

² Lakatos (fn. 1), 132. Most references by social scientists to Lakatos's work are to this essay. Between 1980 and 1995 the Social Science Citation Index lists an annual average of 10.5 inches of citations to works by Lakatos.

³ In his later work Lakatos specifically emphasized those portions of his 1965 paper, published in expanded form in Lakatos, (fn. 1), that portrayed the progress of science in “instrumental’ terms. See Lakatos, “Replies to Critics,” in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8 (1971), 182nGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Musgrave, Alan, “Method or Madness?” in Cohen, R. S. et al., eds., Essays in Memory oflmre Lakatos (Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel, 1976)Google Scholar. In this same volume Paul Feyerabend makes a very strong case that in 1965 Lakatos had already come to this conclusion but that it was camouflaged in his essay “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes” by his own preferences that science be otherwise than it is. See Feyerabend, “On the Critique of Scientific Reason.” Lakatos's discomfort with this skepticist interpretation of his work, as well as his inability to deny its validity, is well reflected in his posthumous published review of Stephen Toulmin's book Human Understanding. See “Understanding Toulmin,” in Mathematics, Science, and Epistemology: Philosophical Papers oflmre Lakatos, vol. 2, ed. Worrall, John and Currie, Gregory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978)Google Scholar.

⁵ Lijphart, Arend, “Consociational Democracy,” World Politics 21 (January 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ See the discussion below on Lijphart s most recent intervention in this discussion; and see Lijphart, Arend, “The Puzzle of Indian Democracy: A Consociational Interpretation,” American Political Science Review 90 (June 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Lijphart, Arend, The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 2Google Scholar.

⁸ Ibid., 3.

⁹ Ibid., 5.

¹⁰ Ibid., 7.

¹¹ Ibid., 9–10.

¹² Lijphart (fh. 5), 207.

¹³ McRae, , ed., Consociational Democracy: Political Accommodation in Segmented Societies (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, Carelton Library no. 79,1974)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Referenced either directly from World Politics or from the McRae volume, the article was listed as eked by the Social Science Citation Index at least 120 times between 1970 and 1994. An earlier article—Iijphait, “Typologies of Democratic Systems,” published in the very first issue Comparative Political Studies 1 (April 1968)Google Scholar—was listed as cited approximately seventy times during the same period. Although Lijphart referred to it in his World Politics article in the following year as “earlier and briefer” (p. 207n), the Comparative Political Studies article was not only longer but also in some ways a more systematic presentation of his basic ideas. For my purposes, it is sufficient to note that the analytic posture lijphart adopted in that article was even more markedly positivist and methodologically orthodox than his approach in the World Politics version—a posture that, as we shall see, he substantially abandoned in die process of defending his ideas.

¹⁵ Lijphart (fh. 5), 208.

¹⁶ Ibid., 209,208.

¹⁷ Ibid., 207.

¹⁸ Ibid., 210–11.

¹⁹ Ibid., 211.

²⁰ Ibid., 212, emphasis in original.

²¹ Ibid., 213.

²² Ibid. Lijphart accurately cites Dahrendorf's book Society and Democracy in Germany but fails to mention that Dahrendorfs use of the term “cartel of elites” is part of a characterization of Holland, not as a “democracy,” but as “a condition of political stagnation … an unintentional authoritarianism.” See Dahrendorf, Ralf, Society and Democracy in Germany (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1967), 276–77Google Scholar. As we shall see, this appeal to the authority of others for terms and definitions that are then used much differently than intended by their originators has been a regular feature of Lijphart's work.

²³ Lijphart (fh. 5), 216.

²⁴ Indeed, the introduction of this term in the 1969 article was, without doubt, the most important difference between this version of consociationalism and that presented in the 1968 Comparative Political Studies article (fh. 14), in which the term does not appear.

²⁵ Lijphart (fa. 5), 216.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ Ibid, 217–19,221—22; all emphases in this paragraph are in the original.

²⁸ Ibid., 223.

²⁹ The locus classicus for this argument is Geertz, Clifford, “The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New States,” in Geertz, , ed., Old Societies and New States (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963)Google Scholar. In 1970 Donald Rothchild authored a review essay in World Politics on pluralism in the Third World. See Rothchild, , “Ethnicity and Conflict Resolution,” World Politics 22 (July 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Rothchild approached the problem in terms of “conflict regulation” and “hegemonial exchange” and made only passing reference to Lijphart s 1969 article; but he did cite the term “consociation” as it was used in an essay by Smith, M. G.. See , Smith, “Pluralism in Precolonial African Societies,” in Kuper, Leo and Smith, M. G., eds., Pluralism in Africa (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

³⁰ In his World Politics article Lijphart cited (p. 220) the influential essay by Connor, Walker, “Self-Determination: The New Phase,” World Politics 20 (October 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ On this point, see Samuel Huntington in his foreword to Nordlinger, Eric A., Conflict Regulation in Divided Societies, Occasional Papers in International Affairs, no. 29 (Cambridge: Harvard Center for International Affairs, 1972)Google Scholar.

³² For complete references, see Kenneth D. McRae, “Introduction,” in McRae (fn. 13), 2–8.

³³ Rogowski, Ronald and Wasserspring, Lois, Does Political Development Exist? Corporatism in Old and New Societies, Sage Professonal Paper, Comparative Politics Series, no. 01–024, vol. 2 (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1971)Google Scholar. The authors report that this monograph was first presented as a paper at the 1969 annual conference of the American Political Science Association. See also Ronald Rogowski, Rational Legitimiacy: A Theory of Political Support (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

³⁴ McRae (fn. 32), 3ff. In his 1977 book Lijphart would use much the same argument as presented by McRae for preferring “consociationalism” to “segmented pluralism,” “proportional democracy,” and so forth. See Lijphart, , Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 3–7Google Scholar.

³⁵ Daalder, , “The Consociational Democracy Theme,” World Politics 26 (July 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ Ibid., 606,609,605.

³⁷ Ibid., 609.

³⁸ Ibid., 616–20.

³⁹ Ibid, 620–21.

⁴⁰ Among those who have tried to follow Nordlinger's approach, adhering in spirit if not in exact terminology to Lijphart's early work, are O'Leary, Brendan, “The Limits to Coercive Consociationalism in Northern Ireland,” Political Studies 37, no. 4 (1992)Google Scholar; McGarry, John and O'Leary, Brendan, “The Macro-Political Regulation of Ethnic Conflict,” in McGarry, John and O'Leary, Brendan, eds., The Politics of Ethnic Conflict Regulation: Case Studies of Protracted Ethnic Conflict (London: Routledge, 1993), 35—37Google Scholar; Rothchild, Donald, “Hegemonial Exchange: An Alternative Model for Managing Conflict in Middle Africa,” in Thompson, Dennis L. and Ronen, Dov, eds., Ethnicity, Politics, and Development (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1986)Google Scholar; and Lustick, Ian, “Stability in Deeply Divided Societies: Consociationalism versus Control,” World Politics 31 (April 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ Barry, , “Review Article: Political Accommodation and Consociational Democracy,” British Journal of Political Science 5 (October 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van Schendelen, M.P.C.M., “The Views of Arend Lijphart and Collected Criticisms,” Ada Politico 19 (January 1984)Google Scholar.

⁴² Barry (fn. 41), 488–89.

⁴³ Ibid, 479.

⁴⁴ Ibid., 480.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 481, emphasis in original.

⁴⁶ Ibid., 486. Barry's discussion of Switzerland is based on work by Jiirg Steiner and William R. Keech.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 490–500. Barry's analysis of Austria relies on work by P. G. J. Pulzer, William T. Bluhm, and G. Bingham Powell.

⁴⁸ Ibid., 501.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 504–5. Lorwin, Nordlinger, and Horowitz made similar assessments of the inappropriateness of consociationalism for societies that are “deeply divided” as opposed to divided in the manner of the small European democracies. Each therefore doubted that the model could usefully be applied to most Third World cases or to countries where class divisions coincided with cultural fragmentation. Val R. Lorwin, “Segmented Pluralism: Ideological Cleavages and Political Cohesion in the Smaller European Democracies,” in McRae (fh. 13), 35; Nordlinger (fn. 31), 92; and Horowitz, Donald L., Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 571–72Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ See van Schendelen (fn. 41); and Barry (fn. 41), 501. For other effective critiques, see Pappalardo, Adriano, “The Conditions for Consociational Democracy: A Logical and Empirical Critique,” European Journal of Political Research 9 (December 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Halpern, Sue M., “The Disorderly Universe of Consociational Democracy,” West European Politics 9 (April 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵¹ Van Schendelen (fn. 41), 48.

⁵² Ibid., 42.

⁵³ Ibid., 35.

⁵⁴ See Lijphart (fn. 7), 89–92.

⁵⁵ Van Schendelen (fn. 41), 36. See also Kieve, Ronald A., “Pillars of Sand: A Marxist Critique of Consociational Democracy in the Netherlands,” Comparative Politics 13 (April 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Scholten, Ilja, “Does Consociationalism Exist? A Critique of die Dutch Experience,” in Rose, Richard, ed., Electoral Participation: A Comparative Analysis (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1980)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Van Schendelen (fn. 41), 37–38.

⁵⁷ Ibid., 38–39.

⁵⁸ Ibid., 39.

⁵⁹ Ibid.

⁶⁰ Van Schendelen cites works in Dutch by J. van Putten, Geismann, and H. Daudt; see van Schendelen (fn. 41), 39–40.

⁶¹ Ibid., 40.

⁶² Ibid., 34,43.

⁶³ On the general problem of calibrating the stylization of cases to make comparison possible but avoid selection bias, see Lustick, Ian S., “History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias,” American Political Science Review 90 (September 1996), 605–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁴ Lijphart (fn. 34), 4.

⁶⁵ Van Schendelen (fn. 41), 32.

⁶⁶ Lijphart (fn. 34), 4, emphasis in original.

⁶⁷ Hurwitz and Eckstein as cited in van Schendelen (fn. 41), 33.

⁶⁸ Lijphart (fh. 34), 3–4, emphasis in original. ”

⁶⁹ Van Schendelen (fn. 41), 31, emphasis in original.

⁷⁰ Hoogerwerf, Andries, review of The Politics of Accommodation, American Political Science Review 62 (December 1968), 1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷¹ Lijphart (fii. 7), 88–89,205.

⁷² At the end of the book Lijphart presents a graph treating pluralism as a variable that, as it increases, slightly increases the likely success of consociationalism. As the degree of pluralism increases beyond a certain point, however, the expectations of consociational success decline (though not as rapidly as expectations of successful centripetal democracy) until such a high degree of pluralism is leached that any kind of democracy, including consociationalism, is doomed. Lijphart (fn. 34), 237. See also fa. 77.

⁷³ In 1985 Lijphart wrote that in his 1977 book. Democracy in Plural Societies, he “listed nine conditions conducive” to consociational democracy. See Lijphart, , Power-Sharing in South Africa, Policy Papers in International Affairs, no. 24 (Berkeley: University of California, Institute of International Studies, 1985)Google Scholar, 114. In the pages he cites there are indeed nine subheadings for topics treated as such conditions. But these nine include “crosscutting cleavages” which he describes on the next page of this 1985 book as 'not a favorable condition,” emphasizing that “just because it was a subheading doesn't mean I meant it as a favorable condition.” It is thus difficult to tell exactly how many conditions he did list as “conducive” in 1977.

⁷⁴ Van Schendelen (fn. 41), 34.

⁷⁵ Ibid, 44,26.

⁷⁶ See, for example, Henderson, Conway W., “Comment: Consociational Democracy and the Case of Switzerland,” Journal of Politics 43 (November 1981), 1232–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Toit, Pierre du, “Consociational Democracy and Bargaining Power,” Comparative Politics 19 (April 1987)Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Lijphart (fn. 73), 101, emphasis added. The extremely broad referent for this statement derives in part from the expansive and ambiguous definition of “plural,” a term, he observes, that “is just about as difficult to define precisely as the concept of democracy.” Explaining that societies vary from 0 percent to 100 percent plural, Lijphart warns that “the degrees of pluralism are still not exactly measurable, and a judgment of the extent to which a given society satisfies each of the criteria is necessarily ‘impressionistic’ but unfortunately no better method is available in the current stage of development of the social sciences”; see Lijphart (fn. 73), 87.

⁷⁸ Laitin, David D., “South Africa: Violence, Myths, and Democratic Reform,” World Politics 39 (January 1987), 263CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁹ Lijphart (fh. 73), 110–11,84n, 109.

⁸⁰ Lijphart (fh. 7), 140. In 1977 Lijphart had already indicated his discomfort with this logically important but normatively unattractive aspect of consociationalism by complaining that Brian Barry's arguments were *concentrat(ing) too much on the problem of elite control of the segments”; see Lijphart (fh. 34), 234. It should be noted that in his 1985 book Lijphart repeatedly blames the concerns of critks on exaggerations and errors found in his early work on consociationalism, but he does not explain what he means, thus enabling him to claim that the hard core of his research program remains intact while making it impossible to separate out for any given time the claims, definitions, and hypotheses be still stands by from those that he has discarded. See Lijphart (fn. 73), 83,115n.

⁸¹ Lijphart (fh. 73), 109,63.

⁸² Lijphart (fh. 5), 220; idem (fn. 34), 16.

⁸³ Lijphart (fa. 73), 68,87,108.

⁸⁴ Ibid, 83.

⁸⁵ Ibid, 87–88.

⁸⁶ Laitin (fh. 78), 265.

⁸⁷ Ibid, 275–77.

⁸⁸ McGarry, and Noel, , “The Prospects for Consociational Democracy in South Africa,” Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 27 (March 1989), 4–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, emphasis in original. Lijphart's lack of restraint in his application of consociationalist formulas and his singularly close identification with the term create problems for scholars such as McGarry and his collaborator, Brendan O'Leary, who have sought to use consociationalist propositions rigorously and selectively. See their interchange with one critic who uses Lijphart's shifting meanings to criticize their work. Dixon, Paul, “The Politics of Antagonism: Explaining McGarry and O'Leary,” Irish Political Studies 11 (1996), 130–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 155–59; McGarry, and O'Leary, , “Proving Our Points on Northern Ireland (and Giving Reading Lessons to Dr. Dixon),” Irish Political Studies 11 (1996), 142–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁹ At the beginning of the chapter written as a response to his critics, Lijphart includes footnotes listing 104 separate published studies of various countries “from a consociational perspective.” See Lijphart (fn. 73), 84n.

⁹⁰ According to the University of Michigan's index of dissertation abstracts, consociationalism was the focus of twenty-seven Ph.D. dissertations between 1980 and 1989 (more than half of these appeared in the period 1980—82.), but only of eight from 1990 to 1995. No dissertations on consociationalism were listed for 1994,1995, or the first quarter of 1996.

⁹¹ Arend Lijphart, “Consociational Theory and the Case of Northern Ireland” (Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, August 31-September 3,1995), 5. Two decades earlier Lijphart judged Northern Ireland as unfit for consociational treatment, recommending partition instead. See Lijphart, “Review Article: The Northern Ireland Problem—Cases, Theories, and Solutions,” British Journal ofPolitical Science 5 (January 1975)Google Scholar.

⁹² Lakatos (fn. 1), 154–74.

⁹³ Lijphart (fh. 6), 258,259.

⁹⁴ Lijphart (fn. 34), 225; and idem (fh. 73), 39.

⁹⁵ Lijphart (fn. 6), 259.

⁹⁶ Lijphart (fn. 6), 262.

⁹⁷ It should be noted that in his World Politics article Lijphart had criticized Almond for using the presence of “aggregative” political parties to classify democracies. To make his point, he identified such parties as operating within one segment of a consociational polity (the Belgian Catholic party), as well as in a nonconsociational “centrifugal” democracy (Italian Christian Democrats). Lijphart (fn. 5), 210.

⁹⁸ Ibid., 260.

⁹⁹ Ibid., 261. With the “numerical majority” of Hindus thus divided, Lijphart declares that there really is no “political majority in India.”

¹⁰⁰ Lijphart (fn. 5), 213, emphasis added.

¹⁰¹ Lijphart (fn. 6), 262.

¹⁰² Ibid., 263.

¹⁰³ Ibid., 263,264.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid., 266,265.