Centripetal Solutions for Centrifugal Games: the Possibility of Applying Ideas of Centripetalism in Ukraine.

Authors

  • Tatyana Dublikash V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29038/2306-3971-2015-02-12-17

Keywords:

social cleavages, divided society, centripetalism, consociational model of democracy, institutional mechanisms

Abstract

The article is devoted to the comparison of the founding principles of consociational and centripetal models of reintegration of divided societies. The triplex structure of social cleavages is analyzed in connection to level of political interaction and attitudes and strategies toward centre. The possibilities of centripetalism to overcome the centrifugal tendencies in Ukrainian society given the limitations of Ukrainian political culture are considered. Centrifugal tendencies are understood both as a desire to advance radical positions in the political field and the desire for autonomy and self-isolation of certain territories under the direct control or influence of radical forces. The main institutional mechanisms proposed by centripetalism for overcoming of violent conflicts among segments of divided society are analysed. Among them such instruments as electoral incentives for campaigning politicians, preferential, rank-order electoral systems, the development of centrist parties, and the presence and strengthening of multiethnic arenas of bargaining. Other insruments such as state information policy and development of NGO sector are suggested. Conclusions on the risks of implementing consociational or centripetal model in Ukrainian society are made.

References

1. Dublikash, T. M. (2015), “From divided to shared societies: institutional engineering for reconciliation”, Methodology, the theory and practice of sociological analysis of modern society, Issue 21, Pp. 46–49.
2. Ryzhenkov, S. (2013), “Dilemmas of changes in segmental societies: Russian Projection”, http://www.strana-oz.ru/2013/6/dilemmy-peremen-v-segmentarnyh-obshchestvah-rossiyskaya-proekciya
3. Sisk, T. D. (1995), “Democratization in South Africa: The Elusive Social Contract”, Princeton NJ : Princeton University Press, 342 р. https://doi.org/10.1177/002071529803900207
4. Reilly, B. (2012), “Centripetalism: cooperation, accomodation and integration”, https://www.google.com.ua/ url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj0v4T7ls3KAhXhl3IKHbozBzwQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fethnopolitics.org%2Fisa%2FReilly.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGu8Db1cSyshHN_d5PfQ9sCkuJKjQ&bvm=bv.112766941,d.bGQ
5. Norris, P. (2004), “Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior”, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 390 р.
6. Gosselin, T. (2008), “The Impact of Cleavages on Political Participation and Electoral Volatility”, http://www.personal.ceu.hu/staff/Gabor_Toka/Papers/GosselinToka08Vancouver.pdf.
7. “Political Science: textbook” (2008), A. Yu. Melvil [et al.], Moscow: Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of theMFA of Russia :Welby, Publishing House of the Prospectus, 618 p.
8. Shveda, Yu. (2015), “Typology and ideology of political parties”, http://yuriy-shveda.com.ua/en/communion/ typolohiyataideolohiyapolitychnykhpartiy.html?start=45

Published

21.05.2018

Issue

Section

SOCIOLOGY: CURRENT, DISPUTABLE