Chapter 2, Footnote 6, Page 22:

I should first apologize because the “footnote 50” to which this footnote refers does not exist in the book. The material which had previously comprised a “footnote 50” is a list of sources discussing the role of consociational components in the list of societies mentioned in the first paragraph of page 22. These sources are: Austria: Luther (1992, 1992a, 1992b), Marin (1987), Schultz (1992), Springer (1997) ; Burundi: Lemarchand (1993); Canada: Cannon (1982), McRae (1974), Noel (1971, 1977, 1993), Smiley (1977), Staples (1974); Chile: Van Klaveren (1984); Colombia: Dix (1980), Springer (1997); European Union: Chrysoochoou (1994), Gabel (1998); Fiji: Milne (1975); Former Yugoslavia: Cohen (1982), Goldman (1985), Vasovic (1992); Gambia: Hughes (1982); Israel: Adam (1983); Italy: Guiliani (1997); Kenya: Berg-Schlosser (1985); Lebanon: Abul-Husn (1998), Crighton and Mac Iver (1991), Dekmejian (1978), Hanf (1993), Hudson (1976, 1988); Malaysia: Mauzy (1993); Nigeria: Jinadu (1985); Netherlands: Daalder (1971, 1981), Kieve (1981), Scholten (1980), Van Mierlo (1986); Northern Ireland: Crighton and Mac Iver (1991), Evans and O’Leary (2000), Knox (1995), Mitchell, Evans, & O’Leary (2009), O’Leary (1989, 1999), Taylor (1994); South Africa: Adam (1983), Adam and Moodley (1993), Boulle (1984), Connors (1996), Erkens (1983), Hanf and Weiland (1980), Horowitz (1991), Southall (1983), Steiner (1987), Taylor (1992, 1994, 1994-5), Venter (1981), Vosloo (1980); Sri Lanka: Chehabi (1980); Surinam: Dew (1972). The other material referred to in footnote 6 is contained in this excerpt of an earlier version of my book: Antecedents and Lineages of the Term “Consociation” Although Barry was correct in saying that consociation has always been a "much rarer word than 'accommodation,'" it has been used occasionally since the fifteenth century. Some, but not all, of the meanings it has acquired over the past centuries have been political. Until at least 1960, ecologists used it to identify a subdivision of an "association" that is dominated by a single species of plant life. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) categorizes early appearances of the term as generally meaning, "[a]ssociated together; united in fellowship or companionship." This apparent supposition of terminological interchangeability seems consistent with Lijphart's concept because his consociations of ethnic groups plausibly could also be described as associations. The OED's first reference to the political sense of "consociate" dates from 1638, when it was used to describe "formal co-operative arrangements" among churches of the same denomination. The OED describes these relationships as "confederations or unions" and Barry also referred to their "confederal ties." However, primary source research seems to suggest that these consociations were often more centralized than what are now commonly known as "confederations." These religious consociations in New England were apparently formed to discipline any sort of church activity that they found fault with. Tales of ministers publicly humiliated to the extent that they were "separated completely” from their churches substantiate one description of such consociations as "autocra[tic].” To "perfect the device of consociation" in this context was "to dominate a community.” The substantive extent of these organizations' effective jurisdiction seems inconsistent with their description as confederations. However, the extent of their influence also further justifies their comparison to Lijphart's ideal consociational states, which are occasionally federal but whose central governments seem to have the overriding power. Ivo Duchacek actually presents confederations as equivalent to consociational governments but this unusual view seems to be presented in order to argue that confederations can use consociational, non-majoritarian decision-making procedures, such as veto powers for grand coalition leaders. The apparently typical church consociations' charter documents also indicate that each parish supplied two delegates to its consociation and plans outlined in these documents required these members' unanimous agreement. Like Lijphart's ideal consociational government, these consociations were contracted unanimously but, unlike his ideal, their decisions were arrived at in majoritarian fashion. Like those elements of consociation designed to enhance all groups’ power over central decision-making, these church consociations gave parishes with smaller populations equal influence, through the provision of an "equal vote" for each representative. However, in contrast to the core consociational component of minority veto power, this provision did not give any groups veto power. When Lijphart first used the term, "consociation," he attributed it to Johannes Althusius, who developed a concept similar to Lijphart's in a work that was originally published in 1603. Lijphart described his notion as having been "derived" from Althusius's. Like Lijphart but unlike those conceptions of "consociation" described above, Althusius encouraged the institutionalized separation of existing population groups, within states. He believed that such groups should "surrender to the State … only such part of their rights as is definitely required for the purposes of the higher community.” The groups were to be "on a level of full equality with the State.” These elements of Althusius's thought closely correspond to Lijphart's consociational requirement for potentially antagonistic groups’ inclusion in executive governing bodies and their segmental autonomy. Not surprisingly, Althusius and the New England religious groups, favoring what they both termed, "consociation," may have both been partially inspired by the Bible and previous religious organizations. Daniel Elazar surmises that Althusius "synthesized the political experience of the Holy Roman Empire with the political ideas of the covenant theology of Reformed Protestantism." Althusius's depiction of religion bears a strong resemblance to Presbyterianism and he states that each province of a state should have a "presbytery." Apparently not coincidentally, the notion of consociation adopted by Congregationalists in New England bore such close resemblance to similar organizations used by Presbyterians that presbyteries were occasionally referred to as consociations. These religious uses of the term further corroborate the conceptual, historical integrity of Lijphart's notion of consociation. Democracy in the Netherlands stimulated Lijphart's imagination and perhaps even he was indirectly influenced by Protestant religious organization, considering the religious makeup of the Netherlands. The similarity between Lijphart's and Althusius's notions of segmental autonomy and voluntary union is not surprising, considering that both can be traced to early uses of the term, “consociation,” and Lijphart was aware of Althusius’s work. In addition to Althusius, Lijphart explains that he was influenced also by David Apter's introduction of the term to modern political science. To Apter, consociation was one of three "dynamic political arrangement[s]" being adopted in post-colonial African states, as of 1961. He defines it as "a joining together of constituent units which do not lose their identity when merging in some form of union." He believes that its maximum level of centralization is achieved in federation and it "does not require a total commitment on the part of its members.” Apter observes that negotiation within such systems requires constant argument, which renders them susceptible to "crisis, fission," and "recombination" of the groups in their governance organizations. Lijphart's judgments concerning the likely permanence of consociation are more optimistic. However, like Lijphart, Apter believes that it is a system marked by compromise, accommodation, and coalitions of durable groups. They agree that consociation is entered into voluntarily, its members hold multiple loyalties, and power is "shared between the constituent units and a central agency.” In contrast to Lijphart's, Apter's notion of consociation is a majoritarian one. Apter and Lijphart also seem to disagree about the reason masses would support elites who cooperated with one another. Apter identifies one of the five most distinctive characteristics of consociation as the groups’ possession of an ideologically related motivation to unite with each other. While Lijphart believes that overarching loyalty can promote consociation’s success, he also envisions people consenting to political union solely for practical reasons, and gradually becoming allegiant to the union following the system’s operation. In fact, Kris Deschouwer interprets Lijphart's model as precluding strong ideological attachment among the masses. He argues that ideological passion among the masses would endanger the consociational system by causing the "party leadership” to “forfeit its strategic freedom.” Lijphart and Apter disagree concerning consociation's applicability to unitary states, its likely stability, means of decision-making, and motives for its institutionalization. However, in general, it is obvious that Lijphart's and Apter's models are two interpretations of the same sort of phenomenon. Lijphart's conception of consociation may also have been influenced by M.G. Smith's 1969 use of the term, which was published the same year as Lijphart's introduction of his theory. In a 1977 publication, Lijphart explains that Smith's "definition is quite similar" to his but "the fact that the same term is used is a coincidence." Like Lijphart, Smith portrayed consociations as "associations of separately constituted corporate collectivities as equal and internally autonomous partners in a common society" that also "surpass alliance[s] in … scope, content, and intensity" and maintain their “internal distinctness." However, Smith appeared not to share Lijphart's consistently articulated belief that institutionalization of segmental borders encourages stability in plural societies. Smith believed that consociation's greatest value is its "tendenc[y] toward increasing cohesion" between groups, manifested through "increases in the scope for social mobility, assimilation, and wider allegiances." Like Apter but unlike Lijphart, Smith was also not entirely optimistic about individual consociational systems' likely permanence. He believed that they "provide an imperfect and conditional basis for union, since they presuppose… internal autonomy and mutual exclusiveness of the segments.” Nevertheless, Lijphart and Smith seemed to disagree about the ramifications, rather than the definition, of consociation.