Compare and Contrast Pluralist and Marxist Accounts of Power in the UK and US.

       In pluralism, for example, the media is given a great deal of responsibility, as its role is seen as one of disseminating information to citizens in an unbiased, objective way; as it is logical to say that the more accurate information citizens have about the running of a country the better position they will be in to vote at elections. Dunleavy and O’Leary say: “Accurate and full information about politics is essential if [citizens] are to control politicians,” as if people know that a government is making decisions they disagree with. Pluralists may also say that even if the media ownership have set agendas, the need to maintain ratings or sales by providing news stories first is such that they compete to provide important discoveries first, thereby relaying information to voters. In Britain and America there are a large number of media outlets on both a local and a national scale, and whilst locally the ownership and allegiance to party politics is diversified; on a more national level there are only a few much larger companies able to provide a profitable service. Pluralism would tell us that while there is still a vibrant, diverse range of options for people when they are looking for a source of news, then local and national sources have power in watching and analysing the government’s policy and conveying their opinions and facts to the public.

         What is interesting is that both pluralism and Marxism accord some special status to the media in that both groups agree that the media has the power to change people’s attitudes. The differences arise when Marxists think that the media utilises this power to maintain the exploitation of the proletariat, whereas pluralists argue that with a diversified ownership and good self regulation then the media can prevent an elite being able to control the outlets, whilst still being able to accurately relay news. The power of the media has been displayed in recent times by the Watergate scandal, which has been described as: “the most spectacular illustration of the media acting as an informal check [on a government.]” Clearly there are dangers that a weak or manipulated media will alter the balance of power within the group[s in society, which makes the importance of a strong, independent media all the more important. Plainly pluralists accord a great deal of power to the media.

     Pluralists also accord a significant degree of influence and power to pressure and interest groups, primarily because there is a recognition that, “for most people politics is a remote, alien and unrewarding activity.”  This is partly due to the fact that elections are infrequent and that beyond them there is very little decisive action a citizen can take that will impact on government decisions. Pressure groups in America are generally assumed to be more influential than in Britain, partly due to the weaker party system to be found in America, but also partly because their constitution actively encourages the formation and existence of pressure groups. The decentralisation of the decision making process in America means that there are numerous points for pressure groups to lobby, be it their congressman or their governor. In Britain, pressure groups have less power as there is a greater degree of centralisation and a much stronger party system, so the legislature is able to grant access to the pressure groups it is interested in, such as corporate lobbyists, for example, whilst denying it to groups that are out of favour. Such a system is less in evidence in America. In both Britain and America, most of the power of pressure groups comes from the way that governments are able to analyse the cost, mobilisation and membership of such groups to gauge the strength of public feeling behind an issue, and logically they should act accordingly. It is, however, a common mistake to say that pluralists expect all the power brokers in society to have equal influence on policy makers.  This helpfully illustrates that pluralists see there to be a balance of power between the state, the media, pressure groups and other institutions such as the courts. That is not to say that they exercise the same amount of power, as it is a common mistake to say that pluralists expect all the power brokers in society to have equal influence on policy makers.   

          The Marxist approach to the distribution of power in the US and UK reveals a completely different, far more functionalist attitude. Whereas pluralists see power as distributed widely for the good of all, Marxists understand that power is held by particular institutions and groups for nobody’s good except the owner’s.

       Whereas pluralists see the media as a means to enlightenment in the US and UK, it creates what Engels called “a false consciousness” among the proletariat, as it is designed to maintain the status quo of what Marxists see as the oppression of the labouring, wage earning class by the capitalist owners of the means of production. The media, according to Engels justifies the oppression, and it limits the information about the ruling class so that the proletariat do not fully understand their own situation. The justification of oppression is also supposed to be carried out by other institutions such as the church. Whilst pluralists see power dispersal as a positive move to ensure that no single group can act in a tyrannous manner, Marxists believe that the act of dispersing power is meaningless, as the power is only ever dispersed within the ruling class (and therefore, one could argue, not dispersed at all.).

      In relation to pressure groups, classical Marxists would maintain that people from different classes could never work towards the same objective, so the only influential pressure groups would therefore be the groups with a ruling class membership. They would cite the way that arms manufacturers are able to gain access to the American president whilst trades unions have been loosing influence over governments in the UK for the past couple of decades. They could claim that the corporate/non-corporate divide in pressure group politics is evidence for a class related schism in the way in which the state treats different pressure groups.  Marxists would also expect the pressure groups relating to the ruling class to be markedly better funded than any group organised by the proletariat, so the ruling class groups can organise themselves better, have full time members and perhaps buy influence where such actions would be much harder for a group without substantial monetary resources. It must also be noted that in a recent study, by far the most lobbyists in Washington are there to lobby on behalf of corporations. Whilst this is not an indicator of actual influence, it is an indicator of the importance that corporations place on pressure group politics in America.

       Perhaps, though the most significant conflict between pluralist and Marxist accounts of power in the US and the UK is the way in which the two account for the power of the state. Classic pluralism tends to describe the state as a neutral broker, assessing the claims of the other power holders and working out a response accordingly. This would account for the use of focus groups, and the emphasis on making sure key parts of British society agree with the current government’s policy ideas. Marxists would see the state as complicit and a key part in the oppression of the proletariat. The way in which the governments in the US and the UK ignored calls for better working conditions for centuries, the fact that the minimum wage in Britain has only recently been introduced, the way in which America constantly uses protectionalist trade barriers to impact on foreign workers can possibly be seen as ways in which the states of those two countries have offered small concessions over time to the workers, whilst still maintaining policies which maintain low costs for capitalists at the expense of the workers. Many have argued however that moves such as the NHS and the minimum wage in Britain amount to far more than just concessions, and that the government are interested in worker’s welfare.  

        What is clear is that pluralists and Marxists agree in some small ways in their accounts of power in the US and the UK, but that mainly they place completely different emphasis on the role of class and dispersal of power, so their differences are always going to be significant.