Pluralist theory of democracy is based on pluralist concept of power distribution in society. Pluralist model appears in two forms – one treats democracy as competition between plurality of elites and the second treats democracy as negotiation between pluralities of power centres in society. While the first is based on the assumptions of power concentration in the hands of variety of elites; the second is based on the assumption of power distribution amongst a variety of groups.
Mannheim and Aron’s view relates to pluralist elitist model and draws on the elitist theory of democracy. Both Karl Mannheim and Raymond Aron treat elites in liberal-capitalist society as plural and divided. Aron distinguished between elites in socialist-industrial society as unified and in capitalist-industrial society as pluralistic. Pluralist-elitist model treats democracy as a competition between various elites and applies the other assumptions of elitist model discussed in the previous section.
On the other hand, theorists such as Robert Dahl and Arnold Rose refute the elitist assumption and developed a model of power distribution wherein power instead of being concentrated, is dispersed amongst various interest and sectional groups. Accordingly, various groups such as industrialists, workers, traders, cultural and educational groups, religious groups and consumers wield power within their respective realms. Pluralist theory of democracy views industrial society as composed of a variety of social and sectional groups with independent and respective organised interests. They press for their interests, compete, negotiate and reconcile. Political power is seen as widely distributed amongst these competing groups and political process as competition amongst these competing groups for decision-making, resource allocation and favourable power distribution. As such, politics become business of bargaining, compromise, negotiation and reconciliation of interests. Political decisions are outcome of negotiations, bargaining and reconciliation amongst variety of groups.
Government is seen as composed of two or more political parties, competing for electoral support and elections are seen as competition amongst political parties. Political parties appeal to wider audience and interests than sectional and social groups. As a result, resultant government is seen as representing wider, compromised and balanced interest of society. In short, government is seen as arbiter, mediator and ‘honest broker’, which coordinate and compromises between the demands of various groups. It works as balancer of conflicting interest and demands. Political process is seen as conflict resolution, negotiation and compromise. Pluralist perspective views power distribution in liberal democracies on multi-dimension scale. Power is not seen as concentrated in the hands of either a class, or elite or dominant group rather shared amongst competing groups. There is difference of opinion as to whether power of one balances that of the other. John Kenneth Galbraith in his American Capitalism (1952) holds that there is dynamic equilibrium amongst competing groups as there is balance of power.
Robert Dahl has given the theory of Polyarchy which holds that democratic government must take into account interests of many groups in society compulsorily. Dahl’s study of local politics in New Haven, Connecticut (USA), Who Governs? explored how decision-making is done. Dahl uses actual decision-making method to study distribution of power. His conclusions that there is widespread dispersal of power among various interest groups and these groups compete and negotiate as per their issue areas, suggest that ‘local politics is business of bargaining and compromise without any group dominating decision-making. Based on his conclusions and observations, Dahl suggested a model of democracy where various groups participate in decision-making. He calls this polyarchy.
Polyarchy refers to a model of democratic decision-making where multiple groups participate in decision-making without anyone of them dominating. Dahl accepts that there is no equality of participation by all groups but he assures us against a single elite group that dominates. He also refutes the thesis that a combination of power elite groups can dominate. Dahl’s polyarchy bears all the characteristics of modern representative democracy37 such as universal suffrage, free and fair elections, freedom to hold political office or to right to criticise and protest, elected government as representative of the people, relative independent groups and associations and alternative sources of information. One important implication of polyarchy model is that minority groups also get wide range of chance to participate and influence decision-making. In classic liberal majority model, minority is at the receiving end. On the other hand, compared to the elite model where minority dominates, in Polyarchy, minority (e.g., elites, politicians) cannot dominate for long as they would be required to dependent on majority for being selected to the public offices.
Arnold M. Rose’s The Power Structure reflects Dahl’s conclusions on power distribution. He studied the policies of the National Associations of Manufacturers and the United States Chamber of Commerce, the two bodies that represent economic elite. Rose, unlike Dahl, concludes that plurality of elites, relatively small, are operating in different spheres. Like Dahl, he identifies several influencing centres such as economic, political, military, associational, religious and others. Leading from such conclusions, Rose proposes a ‘multi-influence hypothesis’38 where a variety of influences go into decision making instead of dominance of any single group. Dahl and Rose reach more or less the same conclusion and suggest pluralism as the basis of power distribution. However, while Dahl does not hint at elite within the respective groups, Rose tends to hold that there are pluralities of elites who are competing. Rose sounds like Schumpeter who talks of decision-making amongst competing elites. Rose’s pluralism suggests elite pluralism.
Pluralism provides an important model of power distribution. It relies on decision-making as on of the empirical methods to examine power distribution. Pluralism has been attacked for being selective in its decision-making methodology. It is argued that decision-making methodology of examining power distribution fails to see why a particular issue has reached the stage of decision-making and why certain others have been excluded without consideration. It is possible that certain issues do not at all reach the level of decision-making and are excluded by dominant elite. Both elitist and pluralist models aimed at refuting the class perspective of capitalist-industrial social relations given by the Marxian approach.
Leave a Reply