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

Compare and contrast pluralist and ruling elite accounts of political power in the UK and US.

Extracts from this document...


Compare and contrast pluralist and ruling elite accounts of political power in the UK and US The UK and US are essentially both democratic societies in which government is passed by the people, however, they cannot be fully democratic political systems as this would have to be characterised with political equality, which is obviously not the case as both countries have clear leaders possessing the majority of power. The size of both countries prevents everyone from taking part in the government and instead, a representative is chosen to govern on behalf of the people. There is a difference in opinion about how this representative governs; some believe a pluralist approach is taken in which the government is responsive to a plurality of groups which represent a plurality of interests and control diverse political resources. Others are sceptical of this approach and think an elitist approach occurs in which a minority rules over the majority in its own interest. This means they govern in a way, which is rarely responsive to the common public. Some people argue that the UK and US have very different political systems and are therefore governed in different ways. ...read more.


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. ...read more.


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). ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree UK Government & Parliamentary Studies 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 University Degree UK Government & Parliamentary Studies essays

  1. Compare and Contrast the changing roles and influence of Pressure Groups in the US ...

    Professional groups are made up of some of the top professionals in a certain line of work. These occupations are normally either very involved politically or economically, such as bankers, lawyers, or doctors. The difference here is that the experts help rather than hinder the US government.

  2. Analyse the ways in which US pressure groups are more significant then their UK ...

    groups in the US assume some of the functions parties in the UK undertake. Loyalties in congress do not depend on what party you represent, and this leads to pressure groups influencing congressmen's decisions. Funding candidates, through PAC's, is a method that they use to help influence their decision.

  1. Sovereignty, opinion and revolution in Edmund Burke.

    by its property was a combination of things, which the learned and ingenious speculator Harrington, who has tossed about society into all forms, never could imagine to be 114 R. Bourke / History of European Ideas 25 (1999) 99}120 19 &No civil or politic constitutions can be perfect or secure,

  2. 'Pluralists and Marxists provide fundamentally different accounts of the distribution of political power'. Discuss.

    political power and they use this to dominate and exploit the rest of society. The Marxist analysis of capitalism argues there are two primary classes: Capitalists, who own the means of production and employ the labour capacity of others and the Proletariat, who have to sell their capacity of work to an employer for a wage.

  1. Fascism, as a subject of historical inquiry in twentieth-century Britain, has heretofore been examined ...

    felt themselves threatened with decline into decadence and death and were determined to live, and live greatly.65 In general dynamics, this conception differs little from that of Italian fascism as it was laid out by Mussolini's chief theorist Alfredo Rocco.

  2. Is Representative Democracy An Effective Way to Distribute Political Power?

    These figures being accurate, they indicate a very low presence of women actively taking part in UK politics and Parliament. Women's issues are more liable to be under- addressed or inadequately represented and debated in parliament, if descriptive representation is not being successfully achieved.

  1. 'Many people feel completely alienated from Britain's political system'. Discuss.

    A rising tide of the cases in the 1990s, led to calls to streamline the system and in 1994 33 countries signed Protocol No.11 to the convention, under which it was decided that a single full-time Court would replace all previously established systems from 1st November 1998.

  2. Does the Media have too much political power in Britain?

    Shortly after the expenses scandal, another Media cry was when Gordon Brown referred to a voter in Rochdale as a "bigoted woman" during the 2010 election campaign his comments revealed a lot about his personality, his state of mind and its "emblematic significance for labours faltering campaign" (D. Wring, R.

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