By using the results of an initial consultation under proportional representation, it is possible to distinguish the main fault lines in the electorate, to assess their independence or any possible overlap and to evaluate their respective importance. If fragmentation is marked and based essentially on qualitative factors (ethnic/cultural or religious for example), the crucial choice lies between (i) a universalist conception of citizenship which transcends de facto differences and boosts de jure equality so as to define a general higher interest, and (ii) a pluralist conception, that of a mosaic that recognises, protects and promotes the specific rights of the various communities. These two conceptions are equally valid, whatever followers of Jean-Jacques Rousseau may think. And to impose an abstractly egalitarian conception of citizenship on a very heterogeneous society constitutes a very weak protection against the risks of actual discrimination or even genocide. If the divisions run deep, it is better to recognise them officially and to try to compel the communities to recognise their respective rights as constituting reciprocal duties.