Features of Political Pluralism and Its Underlying Principles

Doctrine of real or juristic/corporate personality of groups

Otto Van Gierke, a German jurist and F. W. Maitland, an English legal historian, are considered to have given a theoretical basis of political pluralism in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. We may call it Gierke-Maitland thesis, which enunciates the doctrine of real/juristic personality of groups/corporations. The underlying principle of this thesis is that groups and corporations have both a real and juristic personality. They are considered to be real as they have a consciousness and will of their own as distinct from those of their individual members. Groups grow naturally based on the permanent end or purpose pursued by a set of individuals like family-familial affiliation, church-religious expression, trade union-economic interest etc. Based on these naturally grown expressions, groups should be considered as real. They are real in the sense of their independent existence, pursuing naturally grown ends or purposes irrespective of sanction from the State. Secondly, though some of these groups like family, church or some cultural groups may be unincorporated in legal or statutory sense, they are juristic because they have legal rights and responsibilities as a corporate personality. In India, for the purpose of taxation, we have a category of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). As such for the purpose of taxation law, HUF has corporate or juristic responsibilities.

The word personality derives from the Latin term persona, which refers to the mask worn by an actor’ and latter identified with both the actor and the role-played. In legal sense, ‘person’ refers to individual or body of individuals (a living human being or a group) either or both having legal rights and responsibilities.⁸ As such, it implies juristic personality of the groups, corporations and associations. This for pluralists helps in positing their juristic personality against that of the State. However, the concept of personality is not real in the biological sense. It is real in the sense of not being fictitious or hypothetical or created from without.

Some pluralists, like Barker recognized at least three senses in which the concept of ‘person’ could be applied. These are: (i) psychological sense—groups have power of self-consciousness, (ii) ethical sense—groups have self-consciousness and are self-determining according to certain principles, and (iii) legal sense—groups have ‘power or capacity for legal action and possess certain rights and duties’.⁹ Barker tends to accept only the legal/juristic sense of personality and does not feel comfortable with the psychological and ethical sense of it. Nevertheless, in general, the pluralists treat groups as entities with will and purpose of their own, neither subject to the sanction of the state nor subsumed with that of the State. For them, this provides the basis for: (i) treating groups as juristic persons with their right and duties, (ii) advocating group autonomy as a means to limit sovereignty of the State, (iii) insisting that individuals have deeper loyalties to particular groups and associations than to the State given the depth and immediacy of purpose and ends of these groups and associations, and (iv) envisaging limited political obligation to the State on the part individual.

J. N. Figgis applied the doctrine of real personality in relation to the church. He says the church does not exist by an act of grace on the part of the state but has ‘powers of self-development like a person’. Accordingly, the corporate personality of the church is neither granted nor withheld by the state but has simply to be recognized. Its rights, duties and functions, privileges and obligations are independent of state sanction.

We can contrast the concept of group personality advocated by pluralist with that of Hobbes who unequivocally declared groups as ‘worms in the entrails’ of the body politic and that they must not be allowed independent autonomous characters. For the traditional concept of sovereignty, groups would be treated as artificial entities whose existence is seen as a concession from the sovereign.

It would not be out of place to mention three writers who, though in different contexts, have touched upon the subject of the role of associations and groups in society and state. In certain ways, these writers have given credence to the theoretical basis of pluralism by giving prominence to groups and associations though they did not invoke the doctrine of real personality of associations and groups.

Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist (The Division of Labour in Society, 1893) felt that economic diversification and specialized division of labour in industrial society might result in a situation of normlessness, what Durkheim calls anomie (in the sense of weak social and moral control on individual behaviour). Division of labour means specialization in works based on individual differences and not on similarities. As a possible solution to anomie, he suggested that economic activities should be subject to moral regulation of occupational associations. Durkheim was largely influenced by professional and occupational associations like of doctors and lawyers. As such, he gave an important role to these associations and argued for the restoration of occupational associations as a definitely recognized public institution. However, he sought to maintain a balance between the State and occupational associations. ‘In their (occupation associations) absence, the State may assume despotic power and, conversely, without some form of state regulation, each association may assume despotic control over its members.’¹⁰ We see how Durkheim places associations between the individuals and the State and moderates states’ role in the economic life of individuals by presence of associations. We find echo of this in the formulation of Ernest Barker also.

Like Durkheim in the late ninteenth century, M. J. Paul Boncour at the beginning of the twentieth century (The Economic Federalism, 1901) also found the inevitability of professional and economic associations in society. According to Coker, Boncour argued that these associations emerged spontaneously as voluntary associations and gradually develop into associations with obligatory character where relations between members and these associations became relations of a sovereign character.¹¹ We can find examples of this view in present day Bar Associations (lawyers being regulated and controlled), Medical Council (doctors being regulated and controlled under certain oath) etc.

Arthur F. Bentley (The Process of Government) provided a theoretical ground of group approach to politics, which maintains that society consists of various interest groups each pursuing specific common interests. This provides the ‘functional basis of government’ where politics is understood in terms of group conflict and the government playing the balancing act. In the 1950, David Truman (The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion) furthered the thesis and located the political process in the interest and conflict of various groups.¹² Robert Dahl’s theory of polyarchy was an extension of this argument.

Political pluralism views the State in relation to society in sociological terms and not merely in legalistic terms. The pluralist character of the social set-up and political process is marshalled to bring upon the argument that the State cannot and should not claim legal or moral right to be an overarching institution either in relation to groups and associations or individuals. Multiplicity of associations and groups in society have their own interests and prior claims on individuals. Individuals could be members of various groups and associations and their affiliation to them should not be subject to either sanction or approval by the State. In fact, the State is viewed as one of these associations and groups competing for individual’s affiliation. The State is not the only association that fulfils or will fulfil all the requirements of an individual. There are different interests involving political, economic, cultural, religious, emotional, educational, artistic and scientific aspects that require an individual’s association or affiliation with various groups and associations. Political pluralism puts forward doctrine of pluralistic nature of society in order to limit the claim of overarching sovereignty of the state.