Possible Reasons for Emergence of Doctrine of Political Pluralism

The monist theory of sovereignty (of Bodin, Hobbes and Austin) is characterized by legal supremacy and absoluteness. Rousseau’s concept of General Will also adds to its absoluteness and comprehensiveness. According to monists, ‘the State exists to enact and apply law and that the State can not itself be subjected to limitations of the same character as those which it itself established to formulate and apply.’³ Understood as such, sovereignty as an integral element of the State bestows unlimited power to the State. As being the single source of law within any given territory, it is considered as superior to all other social groups. In fact, this leads to attributing to an overarching juristic personality to the state. Up to the nineteenth century, the doctrine of legally unlimited sovereignty was generally accepted.

On the other hand, philosophical formulation of omnipotence of the State in organic-idealist terms had also emerged. In the hands of thinkers like Hegel, Bluntschli, Bosanquet and Bradley, the State has been designated as ‘march of God on earth’ or at least organic personality leading to ‘doctrine of state absolutism, which attributes to the state not only legal supremacy and social and moral utility but also moral supremacy.’⁴ In such a formulation, the State is projected as the only agency for moral development and capable of embracing all social interests. Critics have pointed out that the monist theory of sovereignty and the organic-idealist concept of the State combine to produce a spectre of omnipotent state. In fact, many pluralists identified the Hegelian theory of the State as an example of a monistic State.⁵

This, in turn, leads to reaction from pluralist critics in the form of attributing real personality and juristic personality to various associations and organizations also found in society. Analytical school of jurisprudence and positive law that supported the monist and legal theory of sovereignty came under attack by the sociological school of jurisprudence, which questions the legal sovereignty as the sole source of law and gives primacy to various historical and social factors.

Besides, we should not forget developments in the field of industrial economy, political arrangements and international law while attributing reasons for emergence of pluralist critique. Firstly, industrial economy has given birth to diverse economic interests and groups. By the second half of the nineteenth century, a variety of interests—labour, economic, professional, guilds and other interest groups had emerged which demanded rights and power against the state. Added to this were social, religious and cultural interests that sought freedom and autonomy for their respective fields. This position has been beautifully captured by Professor Laski when he says, ‘the individual is not merely a member of the State. In the society of which he is a part, there are innumerable interests-units to which he may belong. He is a member of a church, an ardent trade-unionist, a keen freemason, a zealous supporter of a movement for compulsory vaccination, a pacifist to whom a conscientious objection to military service is the central principle of life. He is, so to say, intrinsically connected with associations seeking to promote each of these interests.’⁶

Secondly, political federalism has emerged as a means of sharing political power and lawmaking spheres at different levels of government. For example, USA’s federal arrangement has given credence to formulation of federal power sharing.

Thirdly, the early twentieth century saw the First World War and hence realization of need for international law and limit on sovereignty. The doctrine of external sovereignty could be associated with war, which involves loss of human life. Pluralist critique of sovereignty more or less coincided with these developments in the international arena. Need for international law for the purpose of regulating behaviour of and relations amongst the states have been insisted. Emergence of international organizations like the League of Nations was somewhat a reflection of gathering momentum of internationalism, what Laski calls ‘international interdependence’ as against the old principle of sovereignty of a state.⁷ We can say that pluralist concept of authority which got prominence in the late nineteenth and first half of twentieth century emerged as a result of above factors.