A government by the people or, democracy, is an ideal rather than a precise form of governmental procedures and goals. Arend Lijphart's Democracies is a comparison of the two basic models of democracy: majoritarian (or Westminster) and consensus. Each of these models use a different approach at how to best represent the people. Is it more democratic to delegate policy-making power to the majority only or is it better to include minorities, as well?

The majoritarian model holds that majority rule comes closer to the democratic ideal than a government responsive to a minority. On the other hand, the consensus model contends that majority rule and the government vs. opposition pattern of government may be undemocratic because it is exclusionary.

In any case, most political scientists have favored stability over other political objectives in a democracy, and the majoritarian is generally considered the more stable approach.

The first half of this analysis will differentiate between the ideal-typical majoritarian and consensus models in detail, while the second half will offer reasons why the majoritarian model should not necessarily be encouraged in all of the world's advanced indu

Lipjhart shows that a majoritarian model of democracy is stable in homogeneous countries. By simply allocating full power to the majority party, destructive competition is prevented. But in plural societies, the majoritarian model has flaws that will result in antagonistic parties that have a largely skewed representation of the society.

For example, Switzerland is a democracy that had benefited from a multiparty system. Switzerland is a plural society that is divided among several lines of cleavage including religious, socioeconomic, and language. This illustrates how different members of a society will have different concerns that can not be covered by one-dimensional parties.

The majoritarian model is usually attributed with avoiding political gridlock, discouraging splinter parties, being less issue-contentious, and having a centralized power structure. Each of these factors has helped provide stability in several advanced industrial countries such as Great Britain and Australia.

The composition and powers of a government and its citizens' rights are defined by basic laws, customs, and conventions rather than a written constitution.

This can loosely be interpreted as near unicameralism. In the British case, this is seen by the clear dominance of the House of Commons over the House of Lords.

Socioeconomic policy disagreement is the most typical dimension dividing policy-makers. This is not usually considered destabilizing, being an issue that does not endanger the hegemony of the two parties.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Weimar Germany, According Lijphart, Model Lipjhart, Lijphart's Democracies, House Lords, Catholics Socialists, Conclusion Lipjhart, Britain Australia, Austria's Republic, majoritarian model, consensus model, two-party system, cabinet dominance, multiparty system, power majority, majority party, executive power, plurality system elections, plural societies, advanced industrial, power cabinet dominance,
Approximate Word count = 1400
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)