Samenvatting

Consociationalism is a power-sharing arrangement often recommended to divided societies to avert inter-group conflict and induce stability. The consociational theory has been described by Arend Lijphart following the observation of the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Switzerland. Based on the example of stable consociational democracies, the arrangement has been prescribed to several states with plural societies all over the world. The consociational structure has also been widely criticised for its potential effect to strengthen divisions and facilitate separatist movements. Among the recent arguments challenging the theory, scholars have linked consociational systems to the rise of radical right populist parties. Populism is increasingly present in Europe, mainly manifesting itself on the radical right side of the political spectrum. The phenomenon is often viewed negatively and associated with attack on the liberal establishment of the state, nativism and demagogue rhetoric. The theories suggesting a correlation between consociational democracies and the success of radical right populist parties could have significant implications for the application of the consensus-based arrangement in prospect. This paper seeks to answer whether these theories are generally applicable through the case study of Belgium. It follows the theory-testing single case study approach and applies the process tracing method to reach the conclusion. Belgium is chosen because despite the country’s consociational nature, the radical right populist party is in decline. The study examines the consociational theory and compares its features against contemporary Belgium to determine whether the country can still be considered a consensus democracy. Furthermore, it defines the populist ideology and analyses the Belgian radical right populist party’s performance. Lastly, it concludes that Belgium is still consociational and other factors need to be taken into account for the rise of radical right populist parties.