Political Pluralism and Pluralist Critiques of Sovereignty

A Brief Introduction to Political Pluralism

The term ‘pluralism’ is often used in many senses like philosophical, ethical, cultural and political. However, for our purpose we are concerned only with ‘political pluralism’. Political pluralism has been viewed as a doctrine, which asserts that certain groups in society (e.g., church, family, professional associations, labour unions, local governments, etc.) embody important social values prior to and independent of their authorization or approval by the State. It sees social life in terms of groups and as such group autonomy, historical priority of associations and organizations in society and plurality of authority vis-à-vis the State is emphasized. K. C. Hsiao in his book Political Pluralism has sought to define a pluralistic state by contrasting it with a monistic state. A monistic state is ‘one which possesses, or which should possess, a single source of authority that is theoretically comprehensive and unlimited in its exercise.’ By contrast, a pluralistic state is ‘one in which there exists no single authority that is all competent and comprehensive, no unified system of law, no centralized organ of administration, no generation of political will.’¹ Broadly, political pluralism is characterized by the following elements:

• Denial of the State as the sole source of law and law as command of the sovereign and positing social and historical sources as competing factors as sources of law.
• Denial of legally unlimited sovereignty to the State and positing state sovereignty in the context of society and along with group autonomy.
• Viewing the State as an association along with other associations and groups, though giving prominence to the state at times.
• Denial of all encompassing allegiance of individuals to the State and positing individuals as having variety of interests and allegiances to a variety of interests groups in society, state being one of them.
• Viewing the State not in terms of ‘sovereignty and power’ but authority and also ‘purpose it serves’ and limiting its authority as per the purpose it serves.
• Viewing sovereignty as irrelevant in the wake of political federalism and decentralization as contemporary necessities.
• Limiting external sovereignty by an effective international law and internationalism.