A fundamental characteristic of pluralism is the protection of individual rights. Like the principal concepts of liberal democracy, totalitarianism and absolutism are completely undesirable and must be avoided. This is undisputable and most easily achieved by the protection of individual rights, in the case of pluralism, by a collective contribution to the policy making process. In the same way, a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ are also key to the pluralistic protection of the individual. However, critically this could lead to the fragmentation of power as seen in the US where the President has continually been unable to implement election policy due to contest from congress. However, principally there is a diverse range of overlapping interest groups within a pluralist state, all seeking political influence. While this accounts for all individual opinion through a variety of channels there are many disadvantages. Actions by the government are generated independent of the legislature and are often influenced by pressure groups. This seems illegitimate and undemocratic; normally the government has a function of promoting interests according to the demands of the people. According to Harrington (Kelso p.3) pluralism caters more for pressure groups than the individual; the welfare of the larger public will therefore suffer as a result. Similarly there is a large risk that the pressure group itself is undemocratic, exerting its pluralistic power according to a system that does not take account of the majority of its members. Wolff, among others, has insisted that the disparity in power and resources between established and marginal groups is so great in a pluralistic system that there is little genuine possibility for initiating reform from below (Kelso p.3). Finally, a competitive voting system is another key characteristic of pluralism. According to this, the most popular policies, and therefore interest group, will be accounted for by the majority of the population. This will similarly counteract any government from becoming too protected and enshrined within the pluralist state.
Looking at pluralism in a wider extent there are three main areas that critics have identified. Firstly many detractors of pluralism such as Hamilton and Wolff claim it is ironic that a doctrine that defines the public in terms of issue publics ignores two main facts: many people do not belong to any groups at all, and marginal groups often have difficulty making themselves heard in the determination of public policy. (Kelso p.90) Similarly, the importance, and therefore continual use, of interest groups may result in high levels of voter fatigue. If citizens do not participate in the group system the theory of pluralism is made completely redundant. Other commentators such as Bachrach and Baratz (p.70) also criticize pluralism for ignoring the fact that many interest groups have difficulty in gaining access to important centres of decision making. Pluralism can be seen in this way as an inequitable form of democracy.
Another common criticism of pluralist theory is that groups are dominated by small elites or oligarchies. Disagreeing with Truman’s main ideas, that interest groups serve to protect the interests of their members, many observers argue that private associations often aim to enhance the well being of their officials rather than the majority. If private associations, according to McConnell (p.120), are to play an important role in politics, we need to ask how they have governed themselves and ‘they have not governed themselves well at all.’ Marxist writers have also criticised pluralism in this way, Ralph Miliband (The State in Capitalist Society) has argued that in order to be politically effective, the state must be able to separate itself routinely from ruling-class factions. (Held p.220) As Poulantzas wrote: ‘the direct participation of members of the capitalist class in the state apparatus and in government, even where it exists, is not the important side of the matter (p.245). In relation to class power, the state is no longer neutral.
Finally, many feminists have argued that pluralism results in an inequality of power according to gender. The organisation of interest groups favours a system of officials, which are most commonly male. In this system of democracy, with such power influenced by these interest groups, the female citizens will suffer an inequality of power.
Key to the ideas of pluralism is the notion of competitive elections. With so many political parties, interest groups and pressure groups to be considered it could be argues that one of the main dilemmas of a pluralist democracy is the organisation needed. Similarly like we have seen in many European countries that have proportional representation with many political parties, a coalition government is often the result. This results in weak, unstable governments that spent more time negotiating policy than actually passing it. This would also be common in a pluralist system. Looking, as I have done, at the prospect of elitism, it could be argues that a pluralist system could result in the very thing that it seeks to avoid, totalitarianism and the majority rule of one particular system of government. If a political pressure group, or indeed party, becomes very popular with a large a large following, a majority rule one or two party system (as seen in the US and increasingly in the UK), may become entrenched in the political system due to its own success. This unequal and minority groups stand to suffer. A final point to examine, is the pluralist system of checks and balances. In my opinion, modern politics in the US has now begun to undermine this system particularly in the case of the US Supreme Court, the American President is still able to exert an extraordinary amount of influence on the judge appointment process. This highlights a major weakness in the constitutional system of separation of powers, integral to the pluralist system. As we have seen the main dilemmas of pluralist democracy is the theory itself. In my opinion, it is impractical and has left many ‘holes’, which those seeking to gain power, can find.
1321
Bibliography
Bachrach P and Baratz M, Power and Poverty, 1970 Oxford University Press NY.
Held D, Models of Democracy, 2005 Polity Press Oxford
Heywood A, Politics, 2002 Palgrave Ltd
Kelso W, American Democratic Theory: Pluralism and its critics, 1978 Greenwood Press, Connecticut
McConnell G, The decline of Agarian Democracy 1953 University of California Press
Poulantzas, Classes in Contemporary Capitalism, 1975 New Left Books, London Schwarzmantel J, The State in Contemporary Society, 1994 T.J Press Ltd.
