How does interest articulation differ in Statist versus Pluralist systems of government? Consider at least one BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and one non-BRIC case.

This system is used in the USA. The way their system is set up makes the executive cut off from the legislature. This means that Congress will also be powerful in terms of decision making. As a result they are targeted by lobbyists in a bid to get their voices heard.  The American system is also broken up in to many different levels so this provides more windows of opportunity for lobbyists to pressurise government officials. These opportunities arise at local, state and federal levels.  Perhaps the key method to give them any chance of success is to “cultivate long term relationships…based on mutual respect” (Schmidt 2009: 267). Only those groups that are seen as professional by nature will be considered by the government.  An example of this, which also indicates the benefits of a pluralist system, was in the USA during the civil rights movement. There was an isolated group that was known as the “Black Power separatists” (Neack 2003: 113). It was not until they decided to integrate themselves with the same values as everyone else and committing to “pluralism…increasing the likelihood of cross-group coalitions” (Neack 2003: 114) that they achieved their goals. This was all made possible when the leaders of this movement acknowledged that it was much more beneficial to be within the constraints of the electoral system. This is in contrast with other types of groups, like Fathers4Justice in the UK. Their methods of being heard are through disruptive tactics. This includes one member climbing the Houses of Parliament (BBC 2005). It is very unlikely that even within the open playing field of a pluralist system that these types of groups will ever be acknowledged as they refuse to go about their ways in a professional, calm way.

The pluralist system used in the UK is different compared to the US system. The political system in the UK is dominated by the executive, with a strong bureaucratic input and strong party discipline. The lobbyists focus their attention on the bureaucrats, as the “control and implementation of policy in most states rests in the hands of bureaucratic agencies” (Bara & Pennington 2009: 263). This is the biggest institution and the easiest way to access officials. The bureaucracy spans across the board, concerning every public institution.

This idea of an open market also paves the way for interest groups in a pluralist system to have access to the media.  This is specifically helped through the opposition, who will assist the interest groups getting their voice heard through the media to pressurise the government. This use of media might enable groups to get their message heard but it is not necessarily effective. For example “Greenpeace have made a name for themselves by staging high-profile media stunts…such as invasion of corporate…offices” (Bara & Pennington 2009: 263). Their disruptive tactics will make a lot of noise but in terms of effectiveness, they would not be able to achieve a great deal as those who have the power to help them will not be willing to do so when they are accused of causing criminal damage (S.I.R.C 2012).

This system is not as perfect as it seems. At the end of the day it is the government who decides what issues get discussed in Parliament. In essence, that means it comes down to what the Prime Minister has in his manifesto when he comes into office. Those are the topics that he values of great importance. Any other topic will get side lined if the Prime Minister does not deem it worthy. It can be argued however, that even if this is the case, all interest groups in a pluralist system still have the opportunity to have their voices heard. Whether or not they are successful remains to be seen for each individual group. There is only so much they can do before it is taken out of their hands but pluralism is there to show that individuals and their groups also have a right to be heard.

In contrast to this, the statist system does not allow so much transparency. This system is understood to mean that “a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree” (Levy 2006: 469). This is the idea that there is state power residing over society, and it is this establishment that controls what happens. Whereas in the pluralist system there is a big emphasis on open markets and everyone having their own opinion and interests, this theory provides the state with a strong role to protect national interests over individual interests. The state is the number one key aspect of society. This is the understanding of the fact that “the state is considered an arena in which various interests compete” (Ishiyama 2012: 84). Similar to pluralist theory there is competition but its effects are limited. This competition can only work as long as there are the boundaries, set up by the state, firmly in place. As a result, interest groups will find it increasingly challenging to be recognised in this system. It is only a select few groups, chosen by the government itself that will have a chance to voice their opinions. Even with this opportunity, the decision still boils down to the state regulating who makes the cut.

This idea that the state is in complete control was matched by analysts from Western countries concerning communism. The impression was that this “totalitarian system was deemed to lie in the very totality of its political power, excluding…any area of autonomous behaviour by groups other than the state of the party” (Skilling 1973: 3).  The government in the USSR was particularly selective of who controlled power, only giving minor opportunities for outsiders to represent themselves. This fits in well with the structural theory that there is no room for individual views.  In communist Russia, on occasions that power was distributed away from the centre it was closely monitored and only given to the elite. Unlike in the pluralist system, the “key points of authority are not…open to easy access, except by the more powerful elements” (Skilling 1973: 40). The key theme would be to protect the national interests and as it is already challenging for any interest group to get recognised, those that are deemed not to have the national interests at heart will find themselves completely marginalised. Cultural theorists would look at any low participation in the countries that use this system and explain that it is down to the highest powers suppressing politics and the lack of devolved power. These methods do not provide much incentive for people to get involved with politics and interest groups. However, cultural theorists would not be too perturbed by this as they still view the norms of that society and their long standing values as more important than individuals.

 This essay has shown how interest groups in general aim to help those who are campaigning for specific issues that members do not feel are getting enough attention from the government and policy makers. The essay has highlighted that in different countries different systems are used. In conclusion, I believe that neither system is perfect, and however much one tries to avoid it, interest groups will always be marginalised by the government, since at the end of the day they are the ones who decide what to pass in Parliament. Having said that, the pluralist system allows for interest groups to have a voice and get their opinion heard and with enough pressure and public support it is possible that the government will feel obliged to act. As a result, I believe that in a pluralist system interest articulation is much higher than in a statist system.

Bibliography

Bara, J. & Pennington, M. (2009) Comparative Politics (Sage: London).

BBC, “Parliament protest father bailed”, BBC News, 28th September 2005, , accessed 5th March 2012.

Caramani, D. (2008) Comparative Politics (Oxford University Press: Oxford).

Ishiyama, J, T. (2012) Comparative Politics: Principles of Democracy and Democratization (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: London).

Levy, J. D. (2006) The State After Statism: New State Activities in the Age of Liberalization. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Neack, L. (2003) The New Foreign Policy: U.S. and Comparative Foreign Policy in the 21st Century (Rowman & Littlefields: Maryland).

 Nicholls, D (1975) The Pluralist State (Macmillan Ltd: London).

 Schmidt, S. W., Shelley, M. C., Bardes, A. (2009) American Government & Politics Today (Cengage Learning: Wadsworth).

 S.I.R.C , “The tide turns against Greenpeace” , 13th March 2012,

 Skilling, H. G., Griffiths, F. (1973) Interest Groups in Soviet Politics (Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey.