Abstract
Research on consociational power-sharing divides on whether it provides a successful model for peacebuilding or instead exacerbates antagonistic ethnic divisions. In these debates, non-sectarian movements are either invisible or rendered as actors marginalized, co-opted, stripped of agency and disempowered by power-sharing. This article moves the focus away from ‘either’ ‘or’ analyses of consociationalism measuring its capacity to entrench or weaken ethnic divisions. Alternatively, it examines the different ways power-sharing effects a range of issues and groups and the varying modes of engagement generated by non-ethnic social movements in response. Power-sharing creates various dynamics that can result in either hegemonic compliance, constructive engagement, or active resistance by social movement actors that cross-cut ethnic cleavages. Using Lebanon as a case study, the paper examines movements that deal with sexuality, privatization and public goods, issues that are shaped by consociational institutions but rarely incorporated in power-sharing research.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1370-1389 |
Number of pages | 20 |
Journal | Ethnic and Racial Studies |
Volume | 41 |
Issue number | 7 |
Early online date | 7 Feb 2017 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Jun 2018 |
Bibliographical note
The author would like to thank the reviewers for comments that greatly improved the manuscript. He would also like to extend his gratitude to Prof. Bernie Hayes for providing feedback.Keywords
- consociationalism
- power-sharing
- Lebanon
- social movements
- Peacebuilding
- LGBT rights