GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Literature reviews
    • Professional development packs
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • Projects
  • About us
    • Staff profiles
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»Document Library»Electoral Systems for Divided Societies

Electoral Systems for Divided Societies

Library
B Reilly
2002

Summary

Electoral systems can reduce conflict in countries divided by race, ethnicity and language. They can also play an important role in helping new or transitional democracies achieve stability. This article from the Journal of Democracy looks at the impact that ‘preferential’ electoral systems (that is, those that enable voters to rank-order their preferences) have on divided societies, drawing on case studies from Northern Ireland, Estonia, Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea.

Traditionally, political science literature has favoured a ‘consociational’ approach which encourages the formation of ethnic parties, replicating ethnic divisions in the legislature. However, this approach does not necessarily reduce conflict, and its application in developing countries is questionable. Preferential systems — Single Transferable Vote (STV) and Alternative Vote (AV) — encourage cooperation and accommodation of rival groups through reciprocal vote-pooling. Voters rank candidates in order of preference on the ballot: The candidate with the lowest number of ‘first preferences’ is eliminated and the votes are redistributed. This continues until a quota (STV) or an absolute majority (AV) is reached. Politicians are, therefore, reliant on support from other groups and are encouraged to include them in their campaign: An incentive for creating alliances. This can help to create an aggregative party system with moderate, multi-ethnic parties.

In practice, there have been mixed results: Similar institutional designs have different impacts in different countries. However, cooperation amongst competing groups can be promoted under certain circumstances. Key findings were that:

  • The presence of ‘moderates’ both in political leadership and in the electorate is a key facilitating condition for conflict reduction
  • Highly fractionalised societies can benefit from AV systems. STV may be more appropriate for ‘bipolar’ splits
  • Voting behaviour appropriate to a new electoral system can take years to develop
  • Multi-ethnic constituencies enable cross-ethnic campaigns.

Key policy recommendations are that:

  • A one-size-fits-all approach does not work. Societies are divided in different ways and this needs to be taken into account when considering electoral systems
  • Successive elections (that is, more than one election) under the same rules are essential in order to encourage political learning
  • Care should be taken when drawing up electoral boundaries so that ethnic or other divisions are not reinforced through homogenous constituencies.

Source

Reilly, B. 2002, 'Electoral Systems for Divided Societies', Journal of Democracy, vol. 21, no. 2,

Related Content

Donor Support to Electoral Cycles
Helpdesk Report
2021
Donor support for post-conflict elections
Helpdesk Report
2017
Religious leaders and the prevention of electoral violence
Helpdesk Report
2016
Voluntary voter registration
Helpdesk Report
2015

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2026; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2026; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2026

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".