English and French Canadians, Flemish and Francophone Belgians. The Linguistic Composition of the Canadian and Belgian Federal Cabinet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In divided societies, such as Belgium and Canada, the federal principle and consociational power-sharing have been implemented in order to accommodate ethno-linguistic communities. The combination of Daniel Elazar’s seminal work on federalism in plural societies and of Arend Lijphart’s on consociationalism offers a theoretical framework which can be usefully applied to study the distribution of power between the two main ethno-linguistic communities at the highest level of the state. Using the existing “model of points” and the author’s own “model of the weight of ministerial portfolios”, this paper explores the linguistic composition of the federal governments in both countries over the last thirty years (1970-2006). Whereas the Belgian Constitution has required since 1970 that the federal cabinet be staffed by an equal number of Flemish and Francophone ministers, the Canadian Constitution does not require such a linguistic parity and therefore leaves a greater freedom for the composition of the government. On this background, two logics may explain the linguistic composition in the two cases: a logic of transaction between the two main communities and a logic of representation. The paper opens, on the one hand, with the elaboration of the theoretical framework combining the works of Elazar and Lijphart and, on the other hand, with the construction of the two models. The framework and the models are applied to each case, emphasizing the logic of transaction and the logic of representation. On the basis of this examination, this paper concludes by suggesting that Flemish and Francophone Belgians as well and English and French Canadians benefit from the composition of the federal cabinet. The conclusion opens—new—ways and means to hinder political tensions in plural societies through the institutional arrangement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".