…democracy may only be stable when one group is dominant. We provide a test of a key aspect of our model using data from "La Violencia", a political conflict in Colombia during the years 1946-1950 between the Liberal and Conservative parties. Consistent with our results, and contrary to the conventional wisdom, we show that fighting between the parties was more intense in municipalities where the support of the parties was more evenly balanced.
Here is the paper, here is a non-gated version.
…fighting between the parties was more intense in municipalities where the support of the parties was more evenly balanced.
With all due caveats (i.e., I have read only the abstract posted above), just why would this finding be against “conventional wisdom”?
The conclusion, “democracy may only be stable when one group is dominant” does not follow from the evidence “fighting between the parties was more intense in municipalities where the support of the parties was more evenly balanced”. Many of those same municipalities were evenly balanced in the 1920s and 1930s (and early 40s), yet there was a democracy in Colombia then.
In a civil war, the fighting will always be most intense where the forces are nearly balanced; where they are unbalanced, the larger side wins quickly, and the fighting ends.
Am I the only one here who can see that “diversity” and stability might not be complementary?
I’ve also only read the abtract above. But I do have one obvious question: What’s a “group”?
I read Anthony Downs to conclude the same thing, but the neccessary dominant group is the
middle class.
Peace through oppression, what a novel idea, overwhelming numbers ( bombs or people )as a deterrent to confrontation, these are all old dogmas, which for better or worse, work.Even overwhelming economic pressure can work to deter conflict. So, why are so many of our young people dying in global conflicts?
It seems that the follwoing statment: “we show that fighting between the parties was more intense in municipalities where the support of the parties was more evenly balanced.” is consitent with the idea that collective decision making need enforcement power. That is probably what the ‘dominant group’ would provide. However my own wors shows that in a dynamic framework, the existence of more powerful groups may lead to tyranny and not more stable democracy.
Comments on this entry are closed.