Even so there are certain factors of the grand coalition that do not match with the standards of democracy. In Switzerland, representatives of the major parties are not always the ones nominated by the actual party. Due to this factor, each party cannot hold the representative liable, isn't this contrary to one of the most important characteristics of democracy? When looking at the majoritarian model, it is possible to observe nine characteristics. One of the most important characteristics is the large amount of executive power.
This, for example can be seen materialized in a form of the one party bare majority cabinets. He asserts that the British one party and bare majority cabinet wields vast amount of political power to rule as the representative of and in the interest of a majority that is not in overwhelming proportions. Lijphart does not assert that the Westminster model works always without deviations. Even in Britain there were minority and coalition governments in the period from 1918 to 1980. Second important feature of the Westminster model is the fusion of power and cabinet dominance.
The Cabinet and the Parliament are dependent upon each other. The majority in the parliament backs the cabinet and at the same time the cabinet is controlled by the Parliament and can even be voted out. It has to be said that not always the system works in such a way. While introducing major bills within the parliament, the British cabinets have frequently failed. 6 We can notice, throught the majoritarian model that the main core of it revolves around majority rule and competition.
In more simplistic terms, the party that terminates the campaign with the most votes should govern, whereas the minority should oppose. It can be said that the minorities will be excluded from decision making, although as Lijphart states In relatively homogeneous societies, where people are grouped around the political center, there is no problem with this principle. 7 In majoritarian democracies, the opposition will have the possibility to become the majority once the next election campaign is underway.
Liphart states, that within certain societies there might/will be strong differences within the religious, linguistic and ethnic opinions, "majority rule is not only undemocratic but also dangerous, because minorities that are continually denied access to power will feel excluded and discriminated against and will lose their allegiance to the regime". 8 Due to these factors within a society, there is a large possibility that eventually the majoritarian model will collapse, causing conflict between individuals and political crises.
In conclusion, is consociational democracy more democratic than majoritarian democracy? After having assessed both the consociational and majoritarian models, understood the meaning of democracy and captured some of Arend Lijphart view, it is possible to give an answer. When looking back at the main theme of Liphart, the grand theory, we can see that he seeks to represent all groups of society, but the uncompetitive manner of decision making raises problems of accountability. Furthermore it is also a very slow-pace process.
The concept of proportionality aims at a quite large amount of power and therefore will be achieved often at the expense of administrative efficiency. On the other hand it is possible that the short-term efficiency of majority rule may lead in plural society to a breakdown in the long run. Even though both consociational and majoritarian democracy are similar in certain aspects and logically coherent I believe that mojoritarian democracy is more democratic that consociational democracy.