Compare and Contrast Pluralist and Marxist accounts of Political Power in the US and UK.

In a system such as democracy, the social is controlled by the political, and the political by the economic, according to Marxists, and so therefore what is powerful in economics, namely capital, is also powerful in society and politics. The theory of surplus value creation  is the method by which the bourgeoisie concentrate the means of production and capital into fewer and fewer hands, and continue to exploit the working class. The growing power and domination of corporations, more evident in the US and UK than anywhere else, are evidence of this theory in motion. Countless examples can be found of economic powers becoming political ones, such as the trade union links with governments, the fact each of President Bush’s private office staff sit as chair of at least one corporation and the massive arms and redevelopment business which thrives as a product of war (it is interesting to note that these corporations often ‘sponsor’ candidates financially throughout election campaigns). Instrumental Marxists recognise that capitalist class do not themselves govern, but content themselves with ruling successive governments which they can manipulate, to cite another example; the high frequency of state intervention to supporting domestic capital against foreign competition5+7, such as  the web of agencies which surround both Tony Blair and George Bush and have great influence in key foreign and defence decisions. Marxist analysis of a political systems looks not, therefore, at detailed institutional organisation of the democratic state, rather they view any parliamentary process as a meaningless charade, serving only as a means of maintaining key ideological illusions. Even the key pluralist features of vertical and horizontal separation of powers, federal decentralisation of domestic policy responsibilities to regional governments is mere ‘window dressing’ in the eyes of the Marxist.  In the communist manifesto, Marx writes ‘ The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the state of affairs of the whole bourgeoisie6’. The seemingly pluralistic debate within the institutions of representative government mask the internal and technical disagreements among the capitalists, and also organising new methods of controlling the discontented subordinate classes7.

The neo-pluralist theory as presented by Dahl8 accepts this view that capitalism has great influence over the government systems, but believes not, that it oppresses the people, but that the pluralist and democratic political system entails that if the voters chose, they could simply re-order the existing economic system to run along different lines. Neo-pluralists acknowledge the separate but interdependent development of economic and political systems, and also state that there can be no dominant elite in a galaxy of influentials. Industrialisation continuously increases the complexity of the economic, social and technical environments with which decision makers must cope9, this can be seen in the mass of property and business legislation passed in both the UK and the US.  The emphasis, in a pluralist account of political power, is on the voters ‘right to chose’, and though the capitalists have the financial strength, what the people lack, in that respect, they make up for in numbers, and in the vast diversity of possible choices. We shall look in more detail now, at the government structure and the ways in which pluralism is institutionalised within the democratic systems in place in both the UK and the US. As we found in our pluralistic analysis of the social climate of the US in comparison to the UK, the levels of pluralism are far more evident in America. Pluralisms’ most influential 18th century thinker, Alexis de Tocqueville favoured a pluralist social and political climate as an alternative to the vulnerability to tyranny of monoism, namely that of George III. It was on these fundamental beliefs that the founding fathers based the US constitution, institutionalising the pluralist values as both a protective and developmental function. The seven recognised features of a pluralist democracy are as follows; free and fair elections, elected officials, inclusive sufferage, the right to run for office, free speech, associational autonomy and the guarantee of alternative sources of information, all of which are embodied within the American Constitution. According to pluralists, this fact ensures that political power is effectively in the hands of the people. Within the Constitution there is also the doctrine of ‘separation of powers’, a vital ingredient in a pluralistic political system. This takes place through both vertical separation, embodied in the federalist system of the US- states are vested the devolved power to produce legislation specific to their state, there are also federal courts where common crimes are tried. The fundamental pluralist doctrine of ‘fragmented and dispersed’ is embodied in the horizontal separation of power and the system of checks and balances in place in the US constitution.  The sharing of power between the three branches of government, executive, legislature and judiciary, ensure no single group or person monopolizes power: ‘The crazy quilt of institutions, ideologies, educational and socialising element, each communicating a piece of the whole of political ideas9’ (referring to both political and social pluralism). The system of checks and balances encoded in the constitution ensures this pluralist ideal in the US. Much the same as within the social structure of the UK, pluralism is not as valued nor quite as recognisable within the constitution, however, pluralist values are advocated through the devolvement of power from Parliament, through the EU, Scottish and Welsh assemblies, and local government, there is also talk of further devolution into regional assemblies, much the same as the American federal system.

The next element to consider is the relative influence of party politics in relation to the pluralist account of power. The party disciplines in the UK are much more tightly bound than in the UK, and party line voting and whips lower the level of pluralism by effectively lowering the number of choices from which the people have to choose for their government, lowering the level of pluralism. The relative weakness of parties in the US certifies the variation available, and though ideologically they are weak, American pluralists argue that party identities are real, but overlaid by a multiplicity of other group identities, built on ethnic, religious, racial, territorial, economic and social lines10 again strengthening the pluralist doctrine within US politics. The existence of organised and influential interest groups in both the UK and US suggest further direct participation and pluralism, however, it can be criticised as being peopled mostly by those who have the time and resources to make their voice heard ‘the flow in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent11’ The points of access and influence are multiplied to the activist with resources to invest in their chosen cause, pluralism assumes that entry barriers for influence over political power is low and mobilization easy, in reality however, only the upper classes can spare the resources to have an influence, leaving key groups powerless, such as the unemployed, homeless and the elderly. Groups formed in the past may have accumulated resources (finances, reputation) which allow them to continue to exert and influence disproportionate to their contempory importance12 this can be seen in both the US and the UK with the existence of pressure groups who’s ideals are outdated and bigoted, such as pro-life and pro-capital punishment groups which most certainly have a disproportionate influence in relation to the general will of the people. This is in line with Marxist analysis of political power.

In conclusion, the neo-pluralist account of political power in both the UK and the US accepts that for most citizens, politics is a peripheral activity, the apathy apparent bespeaks indifference and implies at the very least that the government are not getting on the people’s nerves. Policy and legislation is decided upon by different sets of organised groups, generally impenetrable by unrecognised groups and the general public13, this is evident in the private offices of both the President and Prime Minister. The Pluralist account of political power is not applicable to the UK and US in the traditional sense of direct power and control by the people because of the pluralist measures and doctrines within the government systems, but that there is a balance between the two interdependent systems of government sovereignty and direct democracy; that institutional separation of the legislature and executive breeds pluralism and potential policy fragmentation, but also that an autonomous executive has the capacity to aid policy innovation and to built political support; resulting in higher levels of political participation, increasing the pluralistic influence of the people. The Marxist analysis is fully applicable to the US and UK systems, and as with the nature of Marxism, makes no exceptions or excuses as the pluralist model allows, the base of political power is concentrated in the hands of the few capitalists, and economics is the main controlling element, not democracy or the will of the people. The conscious indoctrination of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie perpetuate and ensure the dominance of capitalism, thus democracy, and therefore ensuring political power stays in the hands of the capitalists.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Almond and Powell,cited by Dunleavy et al  Theories of the State, London:Macmillan, 1987

• E. Banfield, Political Influence, New York: Free Press, 1961

• Dunleavy et al  Theories of the State, London:Macmillan, 1987

• R.Dahl, Business and Politics: a critical appraisal of political science, New York: Columbia University Press, 1959

• R Dahl and Charles Lindblom, Politics,Economics and Welfare, New York: Harper Brothers, 1976

• Barbara Goodwin, Using Political Ideas, Chichester: Wiley, V3, 1993

• Wyn Grant, Pressure Groups, Politics and Democracy in Britain, Worchester: Allen Grant, 1989.

• H.Hyman, Political Socialisation, Illinois: Free Press, 1959

• Karl Marx, Capital, Volumes I-II

• Karl Marx, Grundrisse

• Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

• J Richardson, Governing under pressure: The policy process in a post-parliamentary democracy, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1979.

• E. Schattshneider, The Semi-Sovereign people, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1960

 

---