In Chapter 3, Gerring and Thacker explore conflict mediation. The authors suggest that a successful form of government must develop a process that institutionalized conflict, incorporate input from diverse groups and competing interests. Additionally, this form of conflict mediation has an apparent concern with “ethnic struggles” that stem from a diverse set of ethnic groups as they pose an increased level of difficulty as consensus needed to reach a decision is harder to reach. Garrett and Thacker add that this struggle “poses the greatest threat to social peace, good governance, and indeed to the integrity of the polity” (Pg 39). This issue is problematized through the theoretical framework of social conflicts in political institutions. More specifically, the role of key centripetal …show more content…
What if a different approach that included other forms of political systems (federalism, separate powers, and majoritarian governments)? Another area where I needed to question the authors was in the description of Parliamentarism. Parties as described as a form of representation that can easily accomplish the task of descriptive representation (Pg.46). When digging deeper this observation is not that convincing. In the UK, in regards to MP’s elected in the 2017 election, only 32% are women, and the representation of diverse racial and religious groups are very minimal. Of course, this is one country but the trend is apparent in other centripetal governments as well. Another comment that I needed to clarify was that of legislatures. Gerring and Thacker argue that “Legislatures, by contrast, are spheres in which compromise and accommodation are more easily played out” (Pg 47). In the case of the US, this cooperative relationship described above is not