• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

What are the dilemmas of a pluralist democracy?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

What are the dilemmas of a pluralist democracy? Similar to the principal ideas of liberal democracy, pluralist ideas can be traced back to the early liberal political philosophy of Montesquieu and Locke. However the first systematic development of pluralism was by James Madison (The Federalist Papers) who feared 'the problem of factions'. Like most liberals, Madison also feared unchecked democratic rule that could lead to the destruction of individual rights (Heywood p. 78). Understood by Schwarzmantel (p.49) as a general theory, pluralism explains 'how democracy can be realised in complex modern societies.' He also argues that in such societies it is unrealistic to think of 'the people' in terms of one single solid block, sharing common interests and acting collectively to decide on common issues. Relating very closely to liberal democracy, pluralists view citizens as 'individuals', diverse and each concerned with a variety of interests. Because of this, popular power should be realised through group activity such as; political parties, pressure groups and interest groups, to represent the many ways in which society is split. Classical pluralists believe that it is the role of these different groups to conduct the policy making process with the Government acting only as an arbiter, adjudicating between demands. ...read more.

Middle

Wolff, among others, has insisted that the disparity in power and resources between established and marginal groups is so great in a pluralistic system that there is little genuine possibility for initiating reform from below (Kelso p.3). Finally, a competitive voting system is another key characteristic of pluralism. According to this, the most popular policies, and therefore interest group, will be accounted for by the majority of the population. This will similarly counteract any government from becoming too protected and enshrined within the pluralist state. Looking at pluralism in a wider extent there are three main areas that critics have identified. Firstly many detractors of pluralism such as Hamilton and Wolff claim it is ironic that a doctrine that defines the public in terms of issue publics ignores two main facts: many people do not belong to any groups at all, and marginal groups often have difficulty making themselves heard in the determination of public policy. (Kelso p.90) Similarly, the importance, and therefore continual use, of interest groups may result in high levels of voter fatigue. If citizens do not participate in the group system the theory of pluralism is made completely redundant. ...read more.

Conclusion

This results in weak, unstable governments that spent more time negotiating policy than actually passing it. This would also be common in a pluralist system. Looking, as I have done, at the prospect of elitism, it could be argues that a pluralist system could result in the very thing that it seeks to avoid, totalitarianism and the majority rule of one particular system of government. If a political pressure group, or indeed party, becomes very popular with a large a large following, a majority rule one or two party system (as seen in the US and increasingly in the UK), may become entrenched in the political system due to its own success. This unequal and minority groups stand to suffer. A final point to examine, is the pluralist system of checks and balances. In my opinion, modern politics in the US has now begun to undermine this system particularly in the case of the US Supreme Court, the American President is still able to exert an extraordinary amount of influence on the judge appointment process. This highlights a major weakness in the constitutional system of separation of powers, integral to the pluralist system. As we have seen the main dilemmas of pluralist democracy is the theory itself. In my opinion, it is impractical and has left many 'holes', which those seeking to gain power, can find. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. Compare and contrast the pluralist, elitist and Marxist theories of the state.

    Furthermore, it is also possible to form Interest groups or Pressure groups, which do not actually stand for office but merely attempt to influence the decision-making process. In "Who Governs?" 1961, Dahl makes an empirical study of his local city in New Haven, (then converted these into assumptions at a

  2. Evaluate pluralism as a theory of presentation and explain how the theory is significant ...

    However there are a number of criticisms of pluralism. These criticisms are concerned both with the methods pluralists use to measure power, and empirical evidence which seems to contradict their claim that power is dispersed in western democracies Max Weber defined power as 'the chance for man or a number

  1. How and why does Locke explain the creation, value and protection of property?

    Locke is very clear and concise on this premise. Locke then describes why it is just for individuals to claim parts of God's gift to all of "man in common" (135). Locke explains that the labor involved in removing things out of its state of nature "puts a distinction between them and common" (136).

  2. Compare and Contrast pluralist and ruling elites accounts of political power

    "People are powerful because they control various resources" (http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/APGOV_pluralism.htm) although the rich have their money, the mass have their numbers and their vote. So although the public do not directly govern pluralists believe that "their opinions are a resource that can be used by one organization against another" (http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/APGOV_pluralism.htm)

  1. Indonesia: Transition and Prospects for Democracy

    There is still debate as to whether Indonesia has completed its transition. Even so, we can look at Dahl's (1978) definition as given earlier on. Under Suharto's rule, there was no citizen participation, "meaningful elections, or civil liberties" (Neher & Marlay, 1995).

  2. Compare and contrast Pluralist and Ruling Elite accounts of political power.

    For pluralism, a minority rule is required, where there is a coalition of all the diverse minority interests in the socially diverse society. Social Diversity helps to create what are known as "Cross-cutting cleavages", which will reduce political conflict, as opponents in politics, will soon become allies, and allies become

  1. T difficult for export orientated economics to sustain the land owning elites much longer. ...

    fails to create new social or political structures, there is no emergence of new middle classes, the state remained under the influence of the land owning elites, no moves were made to generate new industry in agriculture which would improve the welfare of the peasantry in Brazil and the urban working class in Argentina.

  2. Can a plausible case be made for participatory democracy under modern conditions?

    Representation appears to be the obvious solution in modern society to the problem of a large-scale functioning democracy but we can ask to what extent direct participation can be accommodated under these conditions where representation appears widely necessary. If we take Rousseau's theory of a fully participatory democracy which he

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work