Compare and Contrast pluralist and ruling elites accounts of political power

There are several major differences between the 2 approaches. To begin with, pluralists insist that “large size does not prevent modern nation states from being effective polyarchies”, they believe that no group can dominate because the modern world actually “allows competitive relations and the diversity of interests to appear (http://econwpa.wustl.   edu:8089/eps/othr/papers/0004/0004009.pdf)  Elitism however suggests “in the modern world there is little scope for the reduction of domination” of ruling elites (http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/APGOV_Power_Elite.htm) . Because Pluralists think there is a diversity of interests “no one is all-powerful” (   /APGOV_Pluralism.htm) as each group is too small to bear more influence than another so all groups are equal. Therefore elitists think that modern politics emphasises inequality and dominance whereas pluralists believes it protects it through diversity.  

IF we look at membership to these groups we can see that pluralism aims to “ maximise the freedom and the power of all social groups” (Jones, Bill; Kavanagh, Denis; Moran, Micheal; Norton, Phillip,: 2001). Which is in complete contrast to the elitists are only concerned with their group and its preservation. A ruling elite can only be replaced with another elite so we get the “circulation of elites” Paerto. As pluralists emphasize that “power is not a physical entity which individuals either have or not” (   /APGOV_Pluralism.htm it means leaders are chosen and created, they can be anybody. Elite members are broadly   “born into prominent families” (   /APGOV_Power_Elite.htm so membership is broadly closed . So while pluralist groups are constantly changing and are open, the elites believe that it is only the elites and new elites who will be able to demonstrate power and be in the influential minority.  

Elitists pay particular attention to the state as this is the highest “elite” there is, where a  pluralists  avoid talking about that it exists and think that citizens have no obligation or tie to follow what the state says. They figure that the “mass public controls its governments,  and politics have less to do with Parliaments…….and more to do with election, party competition and interest group activity” (   /APGOV_Pluralism.htm which introduces an important topic; Collaboration vs. competition. The elites deem that elite power “comes from control of the highest positions in the political and business hierarchy” and that this power has been enhanced “by the close collaboration of political industrial and military organizations” (both, (   /APGOV_Power_Elite.htm)  their basic thesis is that power is controlled and derived through collaboration amongst themselves. Opposingly pluralists deem that competition allows democracy as previously mentioned. Pluralists also cannot comprehend that people will not express their opinions, so will become members of interest groups which thus lets equality flourish. Dunleavy and O’leary (1987) state that “Individuals always express interests” elitists however find fault with this theory and describe the problem of the “free rider” where by just because someone has an interest does not mean they will join an interest group as the costs of joining may outweigh the benefits and thus different interest groups do not necessarily demonstrate the same power. Early pluralist theory also argued that all interest groups in society are equal and influential where as the elite theory “deny that there can be any real sense of government by the people, which is what pluralists aim towards, pluralists also came under heavy criticism for claiming “that power is equally dispersed” (Dunleavy and O’leary: 1987)

On first glance pluralists and elitists seem to take a very different stance on their views of political power, however they can be similar, particularly with the emergence of “neo pluralism” For example Pluralists have come to the concept of a representative democracy in large nations. Neo pluralists realized that in large nation states everybody could not have a say and that it would be “impractical” for everyone to take part (Dunleavy and O’leary: 1987:19). Although  a representative is elected, and pluralists believe the competition to win an election will mean governments follow wishes of the masses, it does mean that one group of people exercise more power than others as they are the ones who make the rules, set the laws and allocate the resources. This in sense creates a ruling elite, although pluralist may claim that power is equal between groups influencing the representative by creating a representative democracy it gives the representative “power” which others do not have. The representative will have been elected but he or she ultimately holds the power of the countries actions despite the feeling of the general public. Which is exactly what the elite theory claims that a “single elite……decides the life – and – death issues for the nation” (   /APGOV_Power_Elite.htm And thus democracy is impossible. Both theories also recognizes groups in society however individuals are not recognized. Neo pluralism is also more similar to the elitists principles in that it recognizes power is not equally dispersed at all. Pluralists later realized that citizens do not and cannot directly control policy making in polyarchies, they also state that “many people are neither active nor very interest in politics” which agrees with Dahls quote “man is not a political animal” (both Dunleavy and O’leary: 1987) state that Pluralists often accept sociological functionalist views such as the idea that “societies are becoming increasingly complex…..so….social rules and institutions are progressively more specialised” (   /APGOV_Pluralism.htm.) Surely if there is an increased specialisation in areas in society this is a form of elitism. Not everyone in any given area will be specialist so some have more knowledge or power than others and thus there is an elite, as those with knowledge have power so we are “dominated” () in some form. The ultimate similarity however is that neo pluralism accepted that there was a “stronger role for government….and [showed an] explicit recognition of the disproportionate power of some groups” (Jones, Bill; Kavanagh, Denis; Moran, Micheal; Norton, Phillip: 2001). Finally Pluralism is closer to the elite way of thinking  than first emerges, as “Schumpeter and Dahl [key players in Pluralism]…refashioned pluralism into a theory of elitist democracy” (Dr. Douglas Jaenicke and Prof Michael Moran:2005-2006:Study Sheets). Which synthesizes parts of the 2 approaches to create the term “pluralist elitism”.

Bibliography:

.

Dunleavy, Patrick & O’leary Brendan, (1987), Theories of the State, The Macmillian Press Ltd: London,  UK

Jones, Bill; Kavanagh, Denis; Moran, Micheal; Norton, Phillip, (2001), Politics UK, Pearson Education Limited: Essex, UK

The Ruling Class Mosca, G. (1959) Ruling Class, McGraw-Hill:

Dr. Douglas Jaenicke and Prof Michael Moran : 2005-2006; Study Sheets, University of Manchester

*I used a book called “Ruling Elites” but accidentally took it back to the library before I took the referencing details, obviously I would not do this in an assessed essay.