Compare and contrast pluralist and Ruling Elite accounts of political power

Compare and contrast Pluralist and Ruling Elite accounts of political power

INTRO

J. Schwarzmantel writes that pluralists “emphasise the diffusion of power in society and the diffusion of political influence among competing centres of power.” In a pluralist political system it is impossible for any one group to dominate the government. The government is responsible for a plurality of groups which represent a diversity of interests and control various political resources. This diversity fragments society into a multitude of different segments. If there was a coherent, unified majority they could use the state to rule over the minority, however, diversity in the coalitions ensure that there are continuous changes and this creates cross cutting cleavages. Pluralism ensures that a coalition never becomes too powerful as they never have a permanent ally due to the moderate political disagreements over their diversity of interests. If we examine US and UK decisions no single group is allowed to dominate. There are many groups exercising power, therefore a plurality of interests are represented which leads to a democratic conception of politics implying popular participation. For example The United States has a codified, federal constitution which ensures that government power is dispersed and fragmented between the government in Washington and the fifty individual states. The separate institutions sharing powers means that at the level of the federal government there is tri- partite division of powers between congress, the President and departments of the federal government, and the Supreme Court. The decentralised state structure guarantees more points of contact and so disperses power.

Ruling Elite theory believes that the government is dominated by ruling elites. The theory can be defined by three characteristics; consciousness, the awareness that they are a distinct group that must act in unison, coherence, they are united by a common set of interests and goals and conspiracy, they have the will and capacity to combine for the purpose of common action. Vilfredo Pareto argues that the governing elite are leaders who directly or indirectly take a part in ruling society and that in every society there is always inequality and the elites in minority rule over the majority. They claim that it is unavoidable, inevitable and necessary. The US can be considered an elitist country as millions of dollars go in to US politics compared to the UK. This has resulted in high campaigning costs therefore, despite the constitution stating every American- born citizen is free to run for election, it limits who is able to.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The two political theories also vary greatly on how they recruit members. Members of the elite control who joins the party and so people are selected rather than elected from Secondary Elite. An individual’s access to elite positions depends on being “sponsored” by the existing ruling elite. This ensures the member will not challenge the existing ideas and theories of the party. Elitists use two recruitment methods; Automatic selection (inheritance of a leading role within the ruling elite and is done under the presumption that certain individuals are fit to lead due to family and background) and Quasi- Automatic Selection (Not based on birth but merit. The candidate is educated.) In contrast to this, in a pluralist society the people have the right to choose the government officials of their choice in elections and those chosen serve the people, not the interests of those who have the monetary means to bend the laws. This can be seen in the UK where a system of voting has been implemented so that the majority of people rule, either directly or indirectly through elected representatives.

The two theories disagree over the availability of information accessible by the general public. Ruling Elites believe in ideological indoctrination which argues that corporate organisations and wealthy individuals can use financial muscle to weaken electoral competition through their ownership and control of the mass media. The liberal theory of the press vests substantial discretionary power in private proprietors to campaign to change public perceptions of issues, or to foreclose discussion of threatening social topics. They effectively control the means of communication in a country. Ideological indoctrination also educates the masses into accepting Ruling elite theory and to believe their society is just and that there is no alternative. Ruling Elites create the illusion of democracy and pursued the masses that they are ruling in their interests.

Pluralism highlights the importance of there being alternative sources of political information under the seven institutional features of a pluralist society. In order for social pluralism to occur there must be extensive social diversity, the 7 institutional features, a developed economy, a large population and a large territory. The seven institutional features are inclusive suffrage, free and fair elections, elected officials, the right to run for office – this avoids ruling elite controlling choice of candidates, free speech- as it is important to recognise who disagrees/opposes, associational autonomy and alternative sources of political information. If the general public can access different source of information it prevents indoctrination and individuals can form their own values and opinions, rather than beliefs being imposed on them. This can be seen in the “freedom on information Act 2000” in the UK and in the US the “” signed by President in 1966.

The two theories also disagree over their interpretation of democracy. Elite theorists tried to formulate universal laws which applied to all political systems. An important element of the theory is Robert Michels Iron law of oligarchy. This is an empirical universal law based upon constant features of human psychology and the logic of organisation. He argues that Left Wing political parties which claim to be democratically run are in fact run by an oligarchy. His argument states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably devolop tendencies, thus making true practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations. This occurs because of technical reasons. Delegation is necessary in any organization. This delegation leads to the development of bases of knowledge, skills, and resources among a leadership, which serves to enhance their own interests. It also occurs because of psychological reasons. Michel’s argues that the mass of people want to be ruled by the elite. They have a psychological need to identify leaders and follow them. Abdicate responsibility and difficult decisions to others.

Ruling Elites argue democracy is impossible and illusion. Democratic institutions and practices are a disguise erected to deceive citizens and to allow the ruling elite to manipulate the population. Mills argues that if RE was exposed it would be overthrown and democracy reinstated. They recognise that it is better to manipulate society than to try and maintain their position through violence, courts and the police which are hugely expensive and ineffective.

PLUARLIST VIEW OF DEMOCRACY

The similarities between the two theories are highlighted in the theory of democratic elitism, a combination of Ruling Elite theory and Pluralist theory, developed by Joseph Schumpeter. The theory argues that there are a multitude of groups in society and so a pluralism of elites is created, all competing with each other to be in office and for support of the population. As there is competition there is no one single ruling elite as Their need to create votes fragments them and the creation of one unified elite is prevented. Because the parties need to appeal to the masses they must serve the public and not simply their own interests which ensures the state responds to ordinary citizens. Elites can exist whiled democracy is still practiced. Schumpeter argues that most citizens not fit to take part continuously in government.

Key to democracy does not lie in popular participation in decision making but in the existence of a mechanism which forces elites to compete for the support of people.

Periodic free elections in which political parties compete for votes of citizens provide this mechanism.

Democracy means regular elections where voters are free to choose between competing parties.

Dahl developed his work:

People not interested in participating in politics. In most organisations and important decisions there are only a small group of individuals involved.

It is a different small group of individuals in different cases.

elites to fight and win popular support.

Therefore in terms of the US and UK politics- not democratic in original Greek sense

Neither is it Oligarchy

Polyarchy- democracy ruled by elites.

CONCLUSION

Bibliography

J. Schwarzmantel, an introduction to politics.