J. Schwarzmantel also describes it in Structures of Power as ‘in a political system there should be a plurality of different centres of power, political and social…power should be diffused…in a system where there are competing powers, a network of pressure groups’. A pluralist political system needs social and political pluralism. Social pluralism refers to a variety of groups, all having different interests which they wish to be represented. In the UK there are many different groups possessing different interests such as the media, lobby groups and trade unions. Such social pluralism is possible, but not inevitable. It is a necessary condition for political pluralism. In addition to social pluralism, political pluralism requires the 7 Institutional Features; free and fair elections, elected officials, inclusive suffrage, right to run for office, free speech, associational autonomy and alternative sources of information. Today, there is a strong pluralist influence in UK politics, through multiple interest groups and trade unions. The media and newspapers represent a number of varying viewpoints in the UK, both of which have great influence over the countrys’ thinking, The US is can also be seen to be pluralist in which the complex layered structure of the American government included any number of ‘points of access whose diversity assumes various ways for interest groups to participate in the formation of policy and this diversity is a flexible stabilising element’. (Governing America). The president cannot serve for more than eight years, once more demonstrating pluralist features in which there can never be a continuous ruling elite.
Elitism is closely linked to three social scientists one of which was Mosca, who believed that political inequality is universal and inevitable. A political formula is needed and once achieved, power can pass from one group to another. Pareto thought skill determines who gets into the elites. He argued that an intellectual elite should govern. Michel’s was the third and discussed the fact that democracy is a process/decision making procedure and is not about the people. He formulated his Iron Law of Oligarchy which J. Schwarzmantel describes as ‘democracy in its core meaning of the exercise of popular power and of popular participation in the running of societies affairs can never be realised…Power is and remains the privilege of a dominating minority’. All organisations, even if they aspire to be democratic, inevitably degenerate into oligarchy (rule by a few).
Ruling elite refers to a minority which governs in its own interest and which is not accountable to the majority. It is defined by the possession of three characteristics: consciousness, coherence and conspiracy. Consciousness refers to the awareness of common interests, coherence means that it shares a common interest and conspiracy describes the capacity to act collectively. The UK can be described as being ruling elite due to one small government being in control and where power essentially lies with the Prime Minister. With parliamentary majority, the cabinet can make any decisions they want which was recently demonstrated with issue of the war in Iraq. Many pressure groups opposed and campaigned against Blair’s decision to go to war, which in the end had no lasting effect as he made the decision regardless of many peoples opinions. The US can also be considered as an elitist country due the fact that a lot of money goes into US politics compared with the UK. This has resulted in the high campaigning costs, thus limiting who is able to run for election.
When comparing pluralism and elitism, many differences between the two are apparent. Essentially the pluralist view ‘emphasises the diffusion of power in society and the diffusion of political influence among competing centres of power’ (J. Schwarzmantel). Pluralists argue when we examine major UK and US decisions, key features occur one of which being that no single group dominates all-important decisions. There are many groups exercising power, thus a plurality of interests are being represented which leads to a democratic conception of politics implying popular participation. Secondly, to exercise power requires resources. There are numerous potential resources (a plurality of power resources) and no single group is able to monopolise those resources. The elitist view is very different in which the concentration of power is focused on and not the multiple power centres. Political power is concentrated in the hands of a comparatively small group, an elite. This elite leads to political inequality, which is thought to be universal and inevitable. Elitists do not believe many interests are represented as political institutions rarely serve their formally stated purposes and instead represent whom they wish.
Elitists in their relationships to the masses use force and manipulation to different degrees, varying blends of consent and coercion (Schwarzmantel). The elite view is hierarchical in which there is a progression to the top, which is sometimes considered to be undemocratic. The masses represent the majority, a smaller percentage of people are considered to be secondary elites for example people working in banks or bench MPs, and a ruling elite is the smallest percentage in society and decides who will become a member. A circulation of elites is created in which one elite is replaced by another. In comparison, a pluralist account states that the mass does not remain static, people organise into many groups and parties. Pluralist power in non-hierarchical and competitively arranged. There are many different groups representing a variety of interests and their composition and concerns can change as a result of social forces. Unlike the elitist account only allowing certain people to the top, a pluralist view has the opinion that it is a persons formal right to run for election and is not decided by anyone but the public if he/she should succeed in becoming a representative.
Although there are many contrasting factors related to pluralism and elitism, there are some similarities between the two. The elite theory has influenced some of the main pluralist theorists discussed in a previous paragraph (Mosca, Pareto and Michel). In particular with the term polyarchy which is a more accurate description in which we are ruled by many elites (a plurality of elites). These elites are forced to compete for the support of the mass population. In order to appeal to ordinary voters, ruling elites must serve the public and cannot imply follow their own interests. Pluralism is very similar in which many views are represented and served. Theories of polyarchy (democratic elitism) accept that most citizens do not take part in politics. Other theories of democratic elitism discuss the fact that there are elites within specific fields, for example in health and military, once again a plurality of elites.
In conclusion it can be seen that the UK and US share many characteristics, which can be seen as being both pluralist and elitist. However the US is essentially more pluralist with dispersed points of access with fragmented state power. The government has sub-ordinates and sub-governments, which are very different to the UK where power is more concentrated with one person, the Prime Minister. There are many differences between the two theories; however, some similarities can be seen, linking the two. Dahl argued that most people are not interested in participating much in politics, thus only a small group of individuals is involved who have to compete to win elections by appealing for popular support. Schumpter and Dahl renamed the theory as pluralist elitism, in which politics in countries like the UK and US is polyarchy, rule by many elites (a plurality of elites).
Bibliography
- Theories of the State - Patrick Dunleavy and Brenden O’Leary
- Structures of Power – John Schwarzmantel
- Models of Democracy – David Held
- Governing America – Robert Singh