• 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 ...

    Having this sort of connection in government will always be a good thing, and this allows pressure groups in the USA to have greater success. 'Iron triangles' also give US pressure groups greater power and significance. These 'alliances' between pressure groups, the relevant congressional committees and the relevant government department or agency.

  1. 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.

  2. Compare and Contrast the types of military Government experienced in Egypt, Spain and Brazil ...

    frequent changes to the political rules and periodic purging of potential leaders produced by popular movements so as to maintain military control. The role of president was rotated every five years but this largely created a crisis of succession and a power struggle with different groups with armed forces vied for power.

  1. Sovereignty, opinion and revolution in Edmund Burke.

    141].9 R. Bourke / History of European Ideas 25 (1999) 99}120 107 It is clear that Hobbes's dramatic presentation here is designed to convince us that rhetoric without reason condemns us to error and that, as a political corollary to this, eloquence without judgement may enjoin us to treason.

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

    proved an unsettling mixture for the British right.30 "Modernity has meant in significant part," wrote Craig Calhoun, "the breakup--or the reduction to near-irrelevance--of most all-encompassing identity schemes."31 With conventional remedies unable to effectively attack unemployment, which continued to hover around ten percent for much of the nineteen-twenties, and the language

  1. The Deliberative Agency: Opportunities to Deepen Public Participation.

    that stresses the one-way dissemination of information to publics, without giving much thought to feedback or symmetry."8 Any "public comments" rendered at such forums are necessarily constrained by time and information as much as by design: there is generally insufficient opportunity to come to an understanding of the range of

  2. Discuss whether today there are many legal, moral or political constraints on the power ...

    The House of Lords Held, that the court's function was to consider and apply acts of Parliament. It was not open to a litigant to impugn the validity of statute by seeking to establish that Parliament had been misled. Nor, if Parliament had been misled, would that enable a litigant to establish a claim in equity against the other party.

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