Pluralism Vs Elitism - Grade: 68 PDF

Preview

Summary

This essay tries to draw in the difference between pluralism (which assumes participants are assumed to equal status) and Elitism (where participants mostly consist of the privileged elites). It also explores the influence both parties have in terms of policy making....

Description

Al4302: Politics and Public Policy

1. Compare, contrast and evaluate two of the following theories of the distribution of power in modern states: pluralism, elite theory, Marxism, feminism.

Pluralist and Elitist theory are two theories which are mostly concerned with the distribution of power within society. The two are on the opposite spectrum as far as political theories are concerned and therefore in this essay I shall illustrate and highlight the key differences between them. In general terms, it can be said that the Pluralist theory is one where all those who participate have an equal status whether it concerns possession, power or rights. A theory where the masses and underprivileged class are on equal footing with privileged or upper class. The Elitist theory, on the other hand, is the complete opposite and consists mostly of the privileged or elite class who inherit governing power through material possession, political connections or familial background.

Elitism centres mostly around material power and it is believed that those who possess large quantities of it are more superior. This acts as a foundation for the elite theory which attempts to illustrate the ways in which power functions in contemporary society. Elite theory centres around a small minority, which often involves an exclusive group of people from a wealthy background. These elites can consist of an organised group who share a common interest or goals and form conspiratorial groups who work in order to gain power and monopolise it to control the masses.

There are many variations to the elite theory, one of the most popular being the classical elite theory. The classical elite theory is mostly concerned about aristocracy wherein personal resources, skills, family background and interest in governmental issues make the elites more legible to rule as opposed to the masses. According to Vilfredo Pareto “we get two strata in population: (1) a lower stratum, the non-élite, with whose possible influence on government we are not just here concerned; then (2) a higher stratum, the élite, which is divided into two: (a) governing élite, (b) non-governing élite,” “Elites and Their Circulation” (1423-24; italics in original). Gaetano Mosca explains that the elite minority rules over the regular majority population because according to him elites are more organised and are more intellectually superior and therefore he divides the world into two groups, the ruling class and the class that is ruled over. In addition, Robert Michaels developed the Iron Law of Oligarchy in his book “Political Parties” (1911) where he suggests that all organisations are run by powerful individuals or leaders in some form and emphasised on the division of labour.

C.Wright Mills then introduces the term power elites in his book titled similarly “The Power Elite” (1956) where he states that ordinary citizens are essentially ruled over or manipulated by elite organisations such as corporate bureaucracies, military or governments which at the top of the scheme are run by elites. In “Power, Politics and People” (1963) his points are further re-emphasised as he states that the elite’s decisions or lack of it thereof affect "the underlying populations of the world."(p.174).

In “A Critique of the Elitist Theory of Democracy” (1966) Jack. L Walker states that “At the heart of the elitist theory is a clear presumption of the average citizen's inadequacies.” (p.286) and adds that the elites presume that the ordinary citizen does not know what is beneficial for their own self-interest nor would they know how to govern themselves. He goes on to criticize the elite theory stating that the elite theory is discriminative and does not give actual power to the citizens stating that “The elitist theory allows the citizen only a passive role as an object of political activity; he exerts influence on policy making only by rendering judgements after the fact in national elections.” (p.288).

However, in the pluralist theory, power is distributed equally amongst all in terms of political and governing power and mostly falls under the category of liberal democracy. The pluralist theory argues that there should not be just one head or ruling system, as opposed to elitism. In classical pluralism, the decision-making is mostly done by the government. Nevertheless, checks and balances are created by nongovernmental organisations and social groups when they exert their influence to abolish or alter certain policies. The variety of these contrasting interest serves as the foundation for a democratic equilibrium. Robert A.Dahl uses the term polyarchy to describe the dispersion of power in a government where multiple people may hold different kinds of power. According to Dahl, the key democratic concept is the “continuing responsiveness of the government to the preferences of its citizens, considered as political equals.” (Polyarchy,1971, p.1) Thus illustrating the fact that power is scattered among ordinary citizens in the pluralist school of thought.

The key principles of the pluralist school are how resources and potential power are possibly available everywhere and to everyone, and therefore it is dispersed throughout society and that at any time the amount of potential power may surpass the amount of actual power. However, there are a few exceptions to the rules and thus the power holders may at times have limited influence or, in certain cases, may have more power than others and the equilibrium may become unbalanced. Lukes brings forth these exceptions by calling the Pluralist view of power “first dimensional” in “Power- A Radical View” (1974). He challenges Dahl's article “The Concept of Power” (1957) where Dhal claims that in certain situations, a

person or organisation may exert more power or influence on others to the point where they might get the weaker of the two to bend according to the stronger individual’s will and thus the latter would do things that they would not have done in other circumstances. “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.” (Dahl 1957, cited in Lukes 1974, p 11-12). Lukes also references Dahl’s other work “Who Governs: Democracy and Power in American City” (1961) as an example, where Dahl states that the person whose decision making prevails is the one with the power, thus illustrating that pluralists focus on the behavioural aspect of decision making. Elite pluralists echo the ideals of classical pluralists and agree that there is a “plurality” of power but they contradict that by stating that some groups have more power than others. For example, some may have more monetary resources than others and can manipulate the masses with money and so on.

In both pluralism and elite theory, the common ground is that an average citizen is incapable or at times reluctant to exert their influence on the governmental framework and require the intervention of a well-funded activist group or an interest group to work on their behalf. In addition, both theories study the behavioural and decision-making aspects of groups or individuals at an observable level. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the pluralist and elitist school are strikingly different in terms of their view on the distribution of power. The elitist theory believes that in a political system, an individual or group from a well off or privileged background should have their views taken into account with more importance in the higher echelons of government, often disregarding what the majority of the population might want. Power is often centralised and biased towards the elites of the population. Pluralism, however, is more inclusive in its dispersion of power and provides the average citizen a platform to voice out their opinions. This could be through social activists who may bring forth change by challenging the government’s policies or by allowing majority of the citizens to participate in governmental decision making through the means of referendums, for example, Brexit. Therefore, pluralist allow interest groups to participate on a level playing field against the government which creates a check and balance system where power can be evened out and also create a diversity of opinions, a feature that is missing in the elitist theory, where, in most cases, like-minded exclusive groups create policies to support their own agenda.

It should be noted that interest groups do exists in the elitist theory, however, they are mostly affluent individuals who use monetary resources to gain advantage and push their own agendas forward, this, for example, can be through expensive campaigns or advertisements. Therefore, I conclude, that the pluralist theory allows the average citizen more

opportunity to participate in governmental operations regardless of their background whereas the elitist theory supports a selective and highly exclusive minority population and is selective and discriminatory in its distribution of power in the modern states.

Bibliography o o

o o o o o

Dahl, Robert A. (1971). Polyarchy: participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press Mills, C. (1956). The power elite. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press Mills,C.(1963). Power, Politics and People, New York, Meisel, J. (1965). Pareto & Mosca. 1st ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall. S,Lukes. (1974). Power- A radical view. London: Macmillan. Vilfred Pareto,“Elites and Their Circulation”, cited in Structured Social Inequality (1969), ed C.S Heller, New York Macmillan. Walker, J. (1966). A Critique of the Elitist Theory of Democracy. American Political Science Review, 60(02), pp.285-295....