Basis of pluralism

From our survey of the underlying principles of political pluralism, we can identify various basis on which the pluralists have attacked and criticized the theory of sovereignty in general and the monist theory of sovereignty in particular. These include historical, social, economic, legal, political, philosophical and international bases.²¹

Historical basis: Pluralism finds a parallel in the medieval political set-up and economic relations. In the chapter on origin of the State we have seen how suzerainty characterized medieval feudal Europe. Power was decentralized and shared amongst the Church, the kings, vassals, feudal lords and other feudatories, which vassalage and sub-infeudation had created. Added to these were guilds and artisan associations which also enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy by way of their trade, handicraft etc. The pluralist’s position that sovereignty may not be the necessary condition for existence of society draws a parallel in medieval Europe.

Social basis: Political pluralism recognizes plurality of social existence and refutes the assumption that a single, unified sovereign can represent interests of the whole society in all its aspects. Pluralists cite the plurality and diversity in society with communities like tribe, city, village and associations like family, church, party etc. We have seen how views and observations of Durkheim and Boncour suggest occupational and vocational diversification and inevitability of their growing control on members and the need for independent authority for them. Social basis of pluralism assumes that there is no unitary interest in society and hence unified sovereignty has no social ground.

Economic basis: Industrial economy has also given rise to organized interest of workers. The pluralists seek to argue against the growing power and its concentration in the hand of economic monopolies and capitalist interests. Hobson, Penty, Cole advocated guild socialism (represent interest of both producer and consumer) and Laski advocated industrial federalism as the basis for organizing industrial relations in a capitalist society. Sydney Webb also supported economic decentralization.

However, in the post–Second World War, due to various factors like defence and strategic concerns, developmental and welfarist role, etc., we have witnessed a more interventionist state than what pluralists would approve. Pluralism may not be successful in effecting distribution of power where capitalist interest is dominant.

Legal basis: The monist concept of sovereignty treats sovereign as the single source of law, and law as command originating from this sovereign. Pluralists like Duguit, Krabbe and MacIver have sought to locate law not in the command of a particular sovereign but as product of social and historical factors and social utility. While for Duguit, basis of law is not command but social solidarity and for Krabbe it is a sense of right. In fact, MacIver argued that law exists prior to state and hence the latter does not create law but only codifi es or modifi es it. The pluralists, in fact recognize the supremacy and authority of law and not of sovereignty. However, while recognizing the overwhelming authority of law, they locate its origin in social, historical and moral factors and not in the command of the sovereign. In this way, they seek to remove the very basis of legal supremacy of the State. MacIver goes to the extent of saying that ‘law is the very antithesis of command’. Pluralists recognize multiplicity of the sources of law like associations, customs and social institutions, state, etc., hence, sovereign is not the only source of law. It is not the command of the sovereign that makes the law binding but its social utility, morality, etc.,that elicit obedience.

Political basis: As we have mentioned in the beginning of the chapter, the monist theory of sovereignty is not conducive for operation of the concepts like consent, representation, majority rule, etc., which are signifi cant for liberal democracy. Though in its original sense liberal democracy would appreciate individual initiative and freedom vis-à-vis the State and its sovereignty, pluralists arguing for autonomy of associations and their members also appealed to those who sought to limit the State. In fact, pluralists more or less argue within the liberal democratic framework. One signifi cant addition by the pluralist to the liberal doctrine of representation is the introduction of the principle of functional representation. This is based on the assumption that elected representatives alone cannot represent the total interests of an individual. Administrative decentralization and political federalism were added developments that provided the basis for pluralists to doubt the absoluteness of sovereignty. Thus, the liberal concept of representation as modifi ed, political federalism and administrative decentralization provided bases for pluralism.

Philosophical basis: Philosophical pluralism is closely linked with the pragmatist school of William James, John Dewey and others. Pragmatism advocates diversity of theories of ‘knowledge or frames of understanding and accepts that knowledge is not fixed but open to perpetual critical change’. William James’s book The Pluralistic Universe was based on the theme that we live in a ‘multi-verse’ of meanings and ideas and all beliefs were open to experimental test and criticism. Thus, there is no absolute monistic solution to problems.²² Though not all, but some of the pluralists like Laski were infl uenced by pragmatism.²³

International basis: Inspired by ideal of internationalism and seeing the consequences of war, pluralists’ attack on the concept of external sovereignty emerged. Developments in the field of international organizations and international law further added to this attack.