Pluralism can be defined ‘as a system of interest representation in which the constituent units are non hierarchically organised and do not exercise the monopoly of representational activity within their respective catagories’ (Dunleavy, P 1987,19). This can be seen in the US structure of the government and the system of staggered elections preventing a single group taking possession of all three institutions at the same time. ‘Such a system is designed to prevent a populist group gaining the upper hand in all three institutions on one election day’ (Williams, A 1998, 34). This differs from the UK in which the PM is on both the executive and the legislature and also appoints judges. Thus there is a populist/ elitist group in power.
‘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’ (). The federal nature of the US constitution means that the authority of the American government is shared between the national government in Washington and the governments of the 50 individual states .This demonstrates a plurality of people sharing the power, all of which have constituently guaranteed powers.‘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’ (, 14th march, 23.38). There is a tri-partite division of powers and functions between the Executive, to make decisions and put laws in to effect; the Legislature, to create and pass laws; and the Judiciary, to adjudicate in cases of dispute or to determine whether the law has been broken. The three branches of government ensures that no single group or person monopolises power. This dispersed (pluralist) US governmental power has had the effect of
‘in the USA the political system is such that no single institution holds sovereign power’ (), they are all independent and interdependent.
The president of the US has many specific powers, which are all checked by the Congress and Supreme Court. ‘Congress has perhaps the most power but it, too, is checked by the Supreme Court and the President’ (Williams, A 1998,32). The US has a ‘system of institutional checks and balances between Congress, the Presidency, the Supreme Court and the state government and legislatures to provide for majority rule but with safeguards for minority interests against a tyranny of the majority’ (Dunleavy, P 1987,24). Thus, a plurality of views can be represented through this system.
This plurality of power sharing is very different to the UK who demonstrates a more elitist approach to power in which it is both centralised and concentrated with one group, Parliament. ‘The British constitution is parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament holds the supreme power within the British political system and all other institutions of government are subservient to it’ (Williams, A 1998,33). Parliament can make or unmake any law due to the power monopolisation it holds.
‘The President is elected on a state-by-state basis; Senate made up of two elected representatives from each state; House of Representatives composed of groups of members of Congress elected from individual states’ (Williams, A 1998,32). This system helps to ensure that when amending the constitution, a plurality of peoples opinions are being put forward and not just one single group. A super majority of 75% is required to both propose and ratify constitutional amendments, which ensures a majority (a plurality of people) is on favour of the decision. This is in comparison to the UK where Parliament holds the supreme power. This is because ultimate authority is said to lie with the ‘Crown in Parliament’, which means only when Parliament passes a piece of legislation and that legislation received Royal Assent it overrides any authority. This results in constitutions being easily amended, however unrepresentative of the popular public view. The UK only needs an ordinary legislation to change a law and pass it from the House of Commons to law.
Although there have been relatively few amendments made to the US constitution, interpretation of what the constitution means (what it permits, prohibits and requires) has changed substantially over time. This means the possibility of different interpretations makes the US constitution much more flexible than might appear to be the case. This also demonstrates its Pluralist approach in which many people’s views can be represented, depending on whom is interpreting it. The constitution just creates a decision making process rather than specifying what the government should actually do. This has meant that the US government has been able to adapt to the political demands generated by the huge economic, social and political changes that have occurred.
In conclusion the UK does appear to be less pluralist than the US, however, ‘the expanding scope of the EU’s agenda means that UK political elites-including the judiciary have to be more aware of, and open to, different styles of policy making as well as increasingly sceptical claims about national sovereignty’ (Dunleavy, P etal 2002,70). This is an example of how the UK is moving away from elitism and towards pluralism in which different styles of policy making are being addressed. The US can also be considered to have an elitist constitution due to the fact that a lot of money goes into US politics. This has resulted in high campaign costs, thus limiting who is able to run for election to an economic elite. Although there is a layered US government all sharing power, they all may be from the same upper class sharing an elitist view and not considering the popular public opinion. Although the US does have some elitist qualities, it does appear to be more pluralist than the UK mainly due to the complex layered strucrure of the American government incluing any number of points of access where diversity assumes various ways for interest groups to particiapte in the formation of policy’ (Singh,R 2003,232). The constitution is a representative of the peoples choice and a plurality of opinions. This is compared to the UK who often appear more elitist as Patrick Dunleavy describes ‘The British left had a long-standing suspicion of the judiciary…drawn from a narrow social class; politically biased towards the Conservative party and isolated from the mainstream of British life’ (Dunleavy, P etal 2002,70). Parliament who has supreme power is an elitist group who are most likely to share similar views on some issues that for example a lower class would not. A plurality of opinions is not shared.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
- Dunleavy, Patrick, Theories of the State, London: The Macmillan Press LTD,1987
- Jones, Bill, Politics UK, Essex: Pearson Education Limited,2001
-
Schwarzmantel, J.J, Structures of Power: An Introduction to Politics, Brighton : Wheatsheaf, 1987
- Singh, Robert, Governing America, New York: Oxford University Press Inc,2003
- Watts, Duncan, Understanding American government and politics, Manchester: Manchester University Press,2002
- Williams, Andy, US Government and Politics, Oxford: Heineman Educational Publishers,1998
