Pluralist Theory of State

• Pluralist theory is a perspective in political science that emphasizes the distribution of power among various groups in society.
• It suggests that power is not concentrated in the hands of a single elite group, but rather dispersed among multiple competing interest groups.

Pluralist View of State

• The Pluralist view of the state is distinct from the perspective of Marxist. The Pluralist does not hold that the state is essentially contradictory in nature, as the Marxist and the Elitist schools of thought consider.
• Instead, the Pluralist view of the state that it is neutral in nature. It is also supposed that the state is vulnerable to numerous influences from various groups in the society.
• The modern state is not only dominated by one class, that is the capitalist or the bourgeoisie class, which dominates the political power, as believed by the Marxist philosophy. The modern state is a type of framework wherein interests of the society can be reunited.
• In simple term, Pluralism is an influential protest against the monistic theory of sovereignty which endows the state with supreme and unlimited power. Pluralist theories indicate that political power should be regarded as analytically distinct from economic power and, in contrast to elitists, power is not concentrated in the hands of a single group, but widely dispersed among a variety of groups and actors.
• Pluralists stated that sovereignty resides not with the state but it resides with many other institutions. There exist many social, political, cultural and economic institutions in society and many of these institutions are prior to the State. For example, Family and Church are prior to the State.
• According to the Pluralist view, the notion of the state is that there can be various sources of political power. Therefore, a single group do not have monopoly of political power. Although the capitalist class can have a very strong position in the society, they cannot however have complete dominance over the working class, as anticipated by the Marxists. The proletariats can extend their power through labour unions or trade unions. According to the Pluralists, since the capitalist class cannot do without the labour class, the working class also exerts a strong influence on the capitalist class. The modern state is not actually a tool by which one class can control over the other class. It is rather a framework which helps in the reconciliation of diverse society interests (Schwarzmantel, 1994).
• The central position of pluralist power is that all inhabitants have a chance to become politically active through either individual or group action. Views are signified in policy making not only through representative elections but also through the participatory mechanism of group politics. The process of decision making is just the outcome between different groups, with government institutions acting as a mediator. This philosophy represent that no group tends to dominate this process because of the plurality of political resources. The diverse base of group power means that if a group has little money, it may call on public opinion to sustain its views in the decision making process. The electoral mechanism assumes that government doesn’t persistently favour one group as bias alienates the government from the rest.
• Pluralists detailed that the State is not only the highest institution. On the contrary, like other institutions, the State is also one of the institutions of society. There the State does not reserve the authority to exercise autonomy according to his will. Sovereignty is not his private property. The Pluralistic state is “simply a state in which there exists no single source of authority”. According to Pluralists, sovereignty is not indivisible and exclusive”. One the opposing statement is that it is a diversity in its essence and manifestation, it is separable in two parts and should be divided”.
• A.D. Lindsay has very pertinently remarked in this connection. “If we look at the facts it is clear enough that the theory of sovereign state has broken down”. Professor Laski believed that “it is impossible to make the legal theory of sovereignty valid for political philosophy”. He thought that “it would be lasting benefit to political science if the whole concept of sovereign was surrendered”. Krabbe indicated that the “notion of sovereignty must be expunged from political theory”. Although Barker stated that “We see the State less as an association of individuals in a common life; we see it more as an association of individuals, already united in various groups for a further and more embracing common purpose”. These associations have an inner life which is at least as autonomous as that of the state.
• The central position of pluralist power is that all inhabitants have a chance to become politically active through either individual or group action. Views are signified in policy making not only through representative elections but also through the participatory mechanism of group politics. The process of decision making is just the outcome between different groups, with government institutions acting as a mediator. This philosophy represent that no group tends to dominate this process because of the plurality of political resources. The diverse base of group power means that if a group has little money, it may call on public opinion to sustain its views in the decision making process. The electoral mechanism assumes that government doesn’t persistently favour one group as bias alienates the government from the rest.
• Pluralists detailed that the State is not only the highest institution. On the contrary, like other institutions, the State is also one of the institutions of society. There the State does not reserve the authority to exercise autonomy according to his will. Sovereignty is not his private property. The Pluralistic state is “simply a state in which there exists no single source of authority”. According to Pluralists, sovereignty is not indivisible and exclusive”. One the opposing statement is that it is a diversity in its essence and manifestation, it is separable in two parts and should be divided”.
• Consequently, the pluralists enthusiastically supported the freedom of profession, political, religious, economic, social and educational associations. Gettell has dominantly summarized the idea of pluralism as “The pluralists deny that the state is a unique organisation, they hold that other associations are equally important and natural, they argue that such associations for their purpose are as sovereign as the state is for its purpose. They emphasise the inability of the state to enforce its will in practice against the opposition of certain groups within it. They deny that possession of force by the state gives it any superior right. They insist on the equal rights of all groups that command the allegiance of their members and that perform valuable functions in society. Hence, sovereignty is possessed by many associations. It is not indivisible unit; the state is not supreme or unlimited”.

Development of the Pluralistic Theory:

• The pluralistic theory devised by Otto V. Gierke through his writings. According to Professor R.N. Gilchrist, “The germ of Pluralism is to be found in the work of the German Jurist, Von Gierke (1844-1921) whose immense work on the legal theory of corporation, part of which was interpreted, with a sympathetic introduction, by the English Jurist, F.W. Maitland, in his “Political Theories of Middle Ages” (1900). It gave an incentive to the idea of companies as legal entities, with a life of their own independent government”
• Many thinkers opined that the theory of pluralism devised in the last quarters of the nineteenth century and developed in the start of the twentieth century, yet its background can be traced in the Medieval Age. In Medieval Age, the organisation of the State in Europe was loose and the church, vocational associations and Guilds had vital role in society. In sixteenth and seventeenth century, national sentiment gathered force in Europe and as a consequence national states developed. These national states became influential and all the powers, in these states, were centred with the ruler. In due course of time, these national states faced rebellion and public-movements and the result was the birth of democracy.
• In Democracy, the authority of the ruler was limited, the cabinet became more powerful but the state remained sovereign and supreme. With the arrival of the Welfare State, there was rapid increase in the functions of the State and there remained no sphere of life with which the State did not interfere, the sovereign and the supreme state also faced revolt and reaction. This reaction against the sovereign and supreme state resulted into the emergence of pluralism.

Applicability or Contemporary relevance

• The reservation policy in India, which aims to provide affirmative action for historically disadvantaged groups, exemplifies the pluralist theory’s relevance in protecting minority rights and ensuring social justice.
• The formation and influence of various interest groups, such as farmers’ unions and environmental organizations, in shaping agricultural and environmental policies demonstrate the applicability of pluralism in understanding policy-making processes.
• The decentralization of power through the Panchayati Raj system, which empowers local self-governance institutions, reflects the pluralist theory’s relevance in distributing power and promoting grassroots democracy.
• The influence of interest groups, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), in shaping gun control policies showcases the pluralist theory’s applicability in understanding the role of interest groups in policy-making.
• The civil rights movement, which fought for equal rights for African Americans, exemplifies the pluralist theory’s relevance in advocating for minority rights and challenging systemic discrimination.
• The decision-making process within the European Union, involving negotiations and compromises among member states, demonstrates the pluralist theory’s applicability in understanding the complex power dynamics in supranational organizations.

Alternative Theories

Berlin’s notion of value pluralism

• Value pluralism, proposed by philosopher Isaiah Berlin, suggests that there are multiple, irreducible values or goods that individuals may pursue, and these values can sometimes conflict with each other.
• Incommensurable values: Berlin argues that different values, such as liberty, equality, and justice, cannot be easily compared or ranked against each other. They are distinct and may require trade-offs in certain situations.
• Moral complexity: Value pluralism recognizes the complexity of moral and political decision-making, as individuals and societies must navigate between competing values and make choices based on context and circumstances.
• Tolerance and diversity: Berlin’s notion of value pluralism emphasizes the importance of tolerance and respect for diverse perspectives and values. It acknowledges that different individuals and cultures may prioritize different values, and no single value should be imposed universally.
• Criticisms: Critics argue that value pluralism can lead to moral relativism or a lack of clear ethical standards. They contend that some values, such as human rights, should be considered universal and non-negotiable.

Pluralist theory of Sovereignty

• The pluralist theory of sovereignty challenges the traditional notion of sovereignty as a single, indivisible authority residing in the state. It suggests that sovereignty is shared and fragmented among various actors and institutions.
• Supranational organizations: Pluralists argue that the rise of supranational organizations, such as the European Union, has eroded the exclusive sovereignty of nation-states. These organizations have the power to make decisions that affect member states, limiting their sovereignty in certain areas.
• Global governance: Pluralists also highlight the increasing importance of global governance mechanisms, such as international treaties and organizations, in shaping national policies. They argue that these mechanisms create a shared sovereignty among states.
• Regional integration: Pluralists examine the impact of regional integration on sovereignty. They argue that regional organizations, like the African Union or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, involve the pooling of sovereignty among member states to address common challenges.
• Subnational actors: Pluralists recognize the influence of subnational actors, such as local governments or non-state entities, in decision-making processes. They argue that these actors can exert significant power and influence, challenging the traditional understanding of sovereignty.
• Criticisms: Critics of the pluralist theory of sovereignty argue that it undermines the authority and autonomy of nation-states. They contend that shared sovereignty can lead to a lack of accountability and confusion in decision-making processes.

Laski’s views

• Critique of absolute sovereignty: Laski, a political theorist, criticized the concept of absolute sovereignty, which suggests that power is concentrated in the hands of a single ruler or governing body. He argued that this concentration of power can lead to authoritarianism and the suppression of individual liberties.
• Pluralist perspective on sovereignty: Laski embraced the pluralist theory of sovereignty, which suggests that power should be dispersed among various groups and individuals. He believed that this distribution of power would prevent the abuse of authority and ensure the protection of individual rights.
• Importance of group representation: Laski emphasized the significance of group representation in a pluralist system. He argued that different interest groups should have the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes, ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered.
• Role of political parties: Laski recognized the role of political parties in a pluralist system. He believed that parties act as mediators between different interest groups, representing their interests and facilitating the negotiation and compromise necessary for democratic governance.
• Protection of minority rights: Laski stressed the importance of protecting the rights of minority groups within a pluralist framework. He argued that minority voices should be heard and respected, preventing the dominance of the majority and ensuring a fair and inclusive society.
• Limitations of pluralism: While Laski supported the pluralist theory, he also acknowledged its limitations. He recognized that certain groups may have more resources and influence, leading to unequal power dynamics. He advocated for measures to address these inequalities and promote a more equitable distribution of power.
• Democratic accountability: Laski believed that a pluralist system promotes democratic accountability.
• Evolution of sovereignty: Laski argued that sovereignty is not a fixed concept but evolves over time.

Legal Sovereignty

• Laski’s pluralist theory of legal sovereignty emphasizes the distribution of power among various groups and institutions within a society. According to Laski, legal sovereignty is not concentrated in a single entity, such as the state or the ruling elite, but is dispersed among multiple actors.
• Power diffusion: Laski argues that power is not solely held by the state or government, but is also exercised by other social and economic groups. These groups, such as trade unions, corporations, and interest groups, have the ability to influence decision-making processes and shape public policy.
• Protection of individual rights: Laski believes that the dispersion of power is essential for the protection of individual rights and liberties. By having multiple centers of power, no single group or institution can dominate and suppress the rights of others.
• Pluralism as a safeguard against tyranny: Laski sees pluralism as a safeguard against the concentration of power and the potential for tyranny. By having multiple competing groups, each with their own interests and agendas, no single group can monopolize power and oppress others.
• Representation of diverse interests: According to Laski, pluralism allows for the representation of diverse interests within society. Different groups can advocate for their specific concerns and needs, leading to a more inclusive and democratic decision-making process.
• Checks and balances: Laski argues that the dispersion of power among various groups and institutions creates a system of checks and balances. No single group can have unchecked authority, as other groups can challenge and counterbalance their actions.
• Conflict and compromise: Laski recognizes that pluralism inevitably leads to conflicts of interest among different groups. However, he believes that these conflicts can be resolved through negotiation and compromise, leading to more stable and equitable outcomes.
• Limitations: Laski’s pluralist theory has been criticized for its idealistic assumptions about the equal distribution of power among groups. Critics argue that certain groups, such as the wealthy or politically influential, may have disproportionate power and influence, undermining the notion of true pluralism. Additionally, some argue that Laski’s theory overlooks the role of structural inequalities and systemic barriers that limit the ability of certain groups to effectively participate in the political process.

Polyarchy

• Polyarchy, as proposed by political scientist Robert Dahl, refers to a form of democracy characterized by the existence of multiple competing groups and the inclusion of a wide range of citizens in the political process. It is based on the principles of political equality and majority rule.
• Competitive elections: Polyarchy emphasizes the importance of competitive elections as a mechanism for selecting political leaders and holding them accountable. It ensures that citizens have the opportunity to choose among different candidates and parties, promoting political pluralism.
• Civil liberties: Polyarchy recognizes the significance of civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and association, in enabling citizens to participate in the political process. These liberties protect individuals’ rights to express their opinions and organize themselves politically.
• Inclusive decision-making: Polyarchy promotes the inclusion of diverse groups and individuals in decision-making processes. It aims to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a few and encourages the participation of marginalized or disadvantaged groups.
• Limited government: Polyarchy advocates for a government that is limited in its powers and subject to checks and balances. It seeks to prevent the abuse of power and protect individual rights and freedoms.
• Criticisms: Critics argue that polyarchy may not fully address issues of economic inequality and social justice. They argue that the emphasis on competitive elections and majority rule may lead to the marginalization of minority groups and the perpetuation of existing power structures.

Robert Dahl’s Deformed Polyarchy

1. Definition of Polyarchy: Polyarchy is a term coined by political scientist Robert Dahl to describe a form of government characterized by competitive elections and political participation.
2. Competitive Elections: In a polyarchy, elections are held regularly, and multiple political parties have the opportunity to compete for power. This ensures that citizens have a choice and can hold their leaders accountable through voting.
3. Political Participation: Polyarchy emphasizes the importance of citizen participation beyond just voting. It encourages individuals to engage in political activities, such as joining interest groups, attending public meetings, and expressing their opinions.
4. Deformed Polyarchy: Dahl introduced the concept of “deformed polyarchy” to highlight the limitations and shortcomings of real-world democracies. He argued that many so-called democracies fall short of the ideal polyarchy due to factors like inequality, limited political freedoms, and the influence of powerful elites.
5. Elite Influence: Dahl’s deformed polyarchy theory acknowledges that certain elites, such as economic elites or influential interest groups, may have disproportionate power and influence in political decision-making. This challenges the notion of equal participation and highlights the potential for elite capture of the democratic process.
6. Importance of Institutions: Dahl emphasized the role of institutions in maintaining and promoting polyarchy. Strong institutions, such as an independent judiciary and a free press, are necessary to safeguard democratic principles and prevent the erosion of polyarchy.
7. Democratic Consolidation: Dahl argued that polyarchy is not a static concept but rather a process of democratic consolidation.

Criticisms of Deformed Polyarchy:

• Critics argue that Dahl’s deformed polyarchy theory does not adequately address issues of economic inequality and the influence of money in politics.
• They claim that the concept of polyarchy may still perpetuate the dominance of elites and fail to address the needs and interests of marginalized groups.

The Pluralist Model: Types of Groups

• There are two types of groups within the pluralist model that include insider groups, which tend to be more powerful, and outsider groups.
• Insider groups
  • Insider groups are well established and are able to work diligently with the chosen officials in government because of their position within the community. The people in these groups tend to have similar views to the government in power, which may not always be a positive factor.
  • Insider groups include business groups that concentrate their efforts on issues directly affecting business interests (in the U.S., the American Petroleum Institute works on behalf of all oil companies, as an example.).
  • Insider groups also include labour groups that promote policies that benefit workers in general and union members in particular, Agricultural groups that consist of general and specialty farm associations, Professional groups that have lobbying associations to promote the interests of their members.
• Outsider groups
  • Outsider groups are observed as less dominant. Characteristically, members of outsider groups have less access to elected government officials. Their groups are more recently established, which could be a sign of weakness.
  • Outsider groups include grassroots activism that may hold marches and rallies to bring attention or action for their cause, political Action Committees (PACs) that filter money to support specific candidates for office.
• Although the pluralist model rotates around the theory that power is equally dispersed, criticizers are quick to indicate that this is not always the case. Many critics view the pluralist model as a form of the ‘good old boys’ network in which membership is based on class or ethnicity.
• Pluralists Dunleavy and O’Leary recognized the three main pluralist views of the state. They are as follows:
  • The Weathervane model: The states direction echoes public opinion and the demands of pressure groups. This means that state policy is based on the concerns and interests of society.
  • The neutral state model: The state is perceived as the neutral or impartial arbiter who acts in the public’s interests. This arbiter compromises between the demands of different pressure groups and makes sure that even the weakest groups are heard. These demands are then evaluated in terms of what is best for society. It is dissimilar from the Weathervane model because it is more active in that it listens to a range of different views then makes decisions in the public’s interest.
  • The broker state model: This model visualizes groups within the state as having their own interests and concerns. Although, state officials may negotiate with a number of interests groups and can develop compromises with conflicting demands, most policies tend to reflect the concerns of the state officials themselves.

Exponents of pluralist theory:

• The exponents of the pluralist theory include Leon DuguiT, Hugo Krabbe, Harold J. Laski, Ernest Barker, and A.D. Lindsay— English political thinkers, and Robert M. Maclver—an American sociologist. Of these, Laski and Maclver are the most outstanding.

Views of Laski

• The state should perform its coordinating function, but has no right to omnipotence. The power of the state should become coordinative instead of being hierarchical, and authority should become federal instead of being absolute and indivisible.
• Laski’s plea to make authority federal is the cornerstone of his pluralist doctrine. Its logical conclusion may be found in his concept of the democratization of power.

Robert M. Maclver:

• Maclver has developed his pluralistic theory in his two outstanding works: The Modern State and The Web of Government.
• Maclver takes a sociological view of the state and traces its evolution from primitive social structures to its modern form.
• Maclver, therefore, argues.
  • Law, in this sense, cannot be regarded as an expression of the will of the state. The state does not create law. Law exists prior to the state; the state only grasps it and gives it a definite expression in the form of its statutes.
  • The state, derives its authority from the will of the majority of the people, not in its own right.He argues that the state does not regulate the internal affairs of other associations; it does not and cannot determine their purposes or, for the most part, their methods. It does not treat them as its own agencies or instruments. The state comes into the picture only when the interests of one group encroach on another. In other words, the state acts only in order to resolve the conflicting interests of various associations in society. The state cannot impose its own will on human associations for the protection of the ‘common interest’.
  • There are, however, some dangers inherent in the pluralist theory. When interest groups become the centre of individual loyalty, so much so that some groups attract deeper loyalty than the state itself, there is a danger that some groups might become unduly powerful; they may dictate unjust terms on society because of this power. Under the circumstances, the responsibility for protecting the common interest devolves on the state.
  • The state should act as an agency for harmonizing the conflicting claims of different interest groups—because some groups might be unduly eloquent in advancing their claims while others might not be even conscious of their interests, not to speak of properly organizing and articulating their genuine interests. The state should, therefore, determine the requirements of the common interest in admitting the respective claims of the various interest groups.

Factors responsible for the development of Pluralism

• The individuals put emphasis on the lessening of the powers of the State. The Pluralists also followed suit. But the main point of difference between the individualists and pluralists is that the individualists laid emphasis on the rights and freedom of the individual whereas the pluralists laid emphasis on the rights and freedom of the associations of the individuals and guilds.
• Both the individualists and pluralists laid emphasis on the need of co­operation between the state and other associations for promoting the common welfare.
• In the modern age, all the states of the world are inter-dependent on one another in one way or the other and, therefore, the need of limiting the sovereignty of the state is felt these days.
• Many intellectuals like German Jurist Otto Von Gierke (1844-1921), F.W. Maitland, famous English Jurist, J.N. Figgis and others have debated that the Churches and Guilds possessed internal freedom and were party to sovereignty in the Medieval Age.
• Anarchism and Guild Socialism laid more emphasis on the confinement of the sovereignty of the state and this gave motivation to Pluralism.

The pluralist model can be simply described as employee organizations and trade unions. Since organizations and trade unions have the power over the government, the politicians, trade unions, businesses and the proletariat have a share in the state power. The Pluralist view affirmed that the power is distributed among the government, the organizations and the labour unions as well, proving once again that the neutrality of the state is also valid.

It is appraised that pluralists visualize the state as a mechanism which signifies all the interests of every member of the state and it works because it is not possible for the political process to directly represent the views of every single member of society, as modern societies are little complex. Therefore, a plurality of pressure groups acts as an evocative voice for all members of society.

Criticism of Pluralist

• Oversimplification: Critics argue that the pluralist theory oversimplifies the complexities of power dynamics in society by reducing it to a competition between interest groups. They argue that power is not evenly distributed and that certain groups have more influence than others.
• Elitist Bias: Critics argue that the pluralist theory fails to acknowledge the existence of an elite class that holds significant power and influence over decision-making processes. They argue that this elite class can manipulate the system to serve their own interests.
• Inadequate Representation: Critics argue that the pluralist theory assumes that interest groups adequately represent the diverse interests of society. However, they argue that certain marginalized groups may not have the resources or organization to effectively participate in the political process.
• Lack of Accountability: Critics argue that the pluralist theory does not adequately address the issue of accountability. They argue that interest groups may not be accountable to the general public and can pursue their own narrow interests without considering the broader societal implications.
• Influence of Money: Critics argue that the pluralist theory fails to adequately address the influence of money in politics. They argue that wealthy interest groups can have disproportionate influence due to their financial resources.
• Limited Scope: Critics argue that the pluralist theory focuses primarily on interest group politics and neglects other important factors such as ideology, culture, and historical context that shape political outcomes.
• Lack of Social Change: Critics argue that the pluralist theory does not adequately address the potential for social change. They argue that the theory assumes a stable and static society, ignoring the possibility of transformative movements that challenge existing power structures.
• Ignoring Structural Inequalities: Critics argue that the pluralist theory fails to address structural inequalities such as race, gender, and class. They argue that these inequalities can significantly impact the ability of certain groups to effectively participate in the political process.

Conclusion

• To summarize, pluralism theory is famous theoretical tradition used to analyse political actions in modern autonomous states. This theory is reliant upon a viewpoint that citizens are involved in political arenas through different interest groups, and that political power should be distributed to secure its own genuine interests and none of these groups will control the system (Miller, 1983).
• The theory is grounded in the concept that in a diverse society such as the United States, several interest groups exist to allow any one coherent group of elites to rule. Government decisions are made in the field of competing interests, all contending for influence and struggling to express for the people that they represent. Some pluralists have debated that the originators characterized different interests (such as rural vs. urban, or north vs. south), and that many points of view were actually represented. The model still works today, as pluralists argue, creating strong links between government officials and their popular base. This is currently the predominant theory of government.