It is the ideas of monism and absolutism that gave rise to the concept of pluralism in Europe. The reason for the development and rise of pluralism in the United States was attributed to the need and desired to limit the power of the state as ascribed in the new constitution. The early forms of pluralism did not agree with the Hegelian idealism. According to some pluralists such as G.H. Cole, and H. Laski, the concept of pluralism was a normative idea which involved the organization of society in a manner that would enable the achievement of justice, liberalism and socialism within the society. In the same line, the concept of pluralism also embeds the fundamental aspect of diversity as a form of social good with regards to preventing the dominance of one specific idea. As such, it is the need for pluralists to distribute power and never allow it to accumulate centrally in the state (Hay et al., 2007).
The primary element of pluralism is a derivation of the liberal ideal which means that the significant of liberty and a lack of trust in the state is a manifestation of the desire to limit the power of the state. On the other hand, early English pluralists did not agree with the individualism that came together with liberalism due to the fact that they perceived the formation of groups as the single element that constitutes the society. According to some pluralists, the idea is that individuals do not exhibit a form of independence with regards to their existence but only through groups which represent a critical aspect of the political framework.
According to both English and American pluralists, the constitutions of politics and the state comprise the aspect of groups. However, most of the pluralist narrative is born from the inability to identify the problem of either the state of the relations between the civil societies. Accordingly, Hay et al., (2007) further reiterate that the fundamental building block of pluralism is rooted in the fact that the state and the civil society have a clear distinction and did not have an antagonistic element to it. As such, the writings of pluralists did not perceive the government as a problematic element but a significant requirement with no clear delineation between the public and private.
Furthermore, it is the English poets who had a two-pronged idea of the elements when it involved their understanding of the state, the idea of sovereignty and the aspect of the role of groups. Since a majority of pluralists rejected the idea of monism, they extended this opposition to the aspect of the state being a single and non-divisible sovereign body (Hay et al., 2007). Pluralists held the same view as liberals in that the state had to be limited through the employment of a distributed social organization by utilizing numerous groups and associations.
Some British writers also formulated modified ideas of American pluralism. An example includes Richardson and Jordan who retained most of the presumptions that were associated with the pluralist position (Hay et al., 2007). According to these two writers, groups were a critical component of the process of formulating policy with the relationship between the state and the group being a hindrance to the parliamentary system. Another idea was the power should be dispersed and split across a wide span of policy areas where no single interest could dominate within the set of policy communities (Hay et al., 2007).
Another aspect is that they introduced the style of dominant policy in Britain and presented it as a form on negotiations. The suggestions of these pluralist writers was that civil servants were driven by the need to have consultations with many groups and also take into consideration the views and opinions of these various groups (Hay et al., 2007). As such, the concept of policymaking involved the aspect of cooperation and consensus. Another point to note is that pluralists believed that the process of making policy was relatively accessible to reasonable groups.
In this case, the idea of pluralism is not an idea that grew out of recent debates on the within the sphere of American political science. On the contrary, it is a product of a much older concept which involved the distribution of power as a means to control it and as a buffer against its abuse. As such, the pluralists view on the distribution of power can take various forms. One of this arguments is that no single group has the ability to exercise systematic and widespread control over more than one single issue. Under this idea, pluralists argued for the domination of a group in only area with its influence being constrained to that specific area. With the existence of a variety of pressure groups, they therefore have the clout to influence the decisions of the state and persons in positions of power. Examples of such groups include trade unions, industry confederates, or representatives of particular branches of the modern economy. Since the pluralist view ensures there is a diverse proliferation of groups and political parties, the concentration of power is very limited (Schwarzmantel, 1987).
Another argument is that there is a balance between the most critical producer groups in an economy, those wielding capital and labour. Even though the idea of power being tied to issues still prevails amongst pluralists, the aspect of countervailing power also persists. Under this concept, pluralists agree that an advanced economy has to consider the producer groups as an important part of the ecosystem (Schwarzmantel, 1987). On the other hand, pluralists still hold the view that there exists a balance between those who hold capital and labour. Therefore, countervailing power ensures that an action of one group demands a reaction from the other and the imperfect competition between these groups is that none is dominant but still retain the ability to influence the decisions of the government through strikes (Schwarzmantel, 1987).
Pluralists also hold the view that there is a separation between the aspects of economic and political power. In this regard, pluralists argue that the relationship between political power and the economic interests are non-existent. They further contend that the emergence of universal suffrage, the rise of the working class within political parties, and the establishment of trade unions broke the link between economic and political power (Schwarzmantel, 1987). In this line, it is the perception of pluralists that the government will be forced to become responsive to the needs and wishes of the citizenry if they desire to have a return to power. The fact that there is the added pressure from interest groups and parties will ensure the government caters to the citizens. It therefore creates a situation where the government is constantly anticipating the needs of its people thus the interests of a few property owners does not hold much sway in decision-making (Schwarzmantel, 1987).
There is also the aspect of the neutrality of the state. In this instance, pluralists hold the view that the state should act as a neutral arbiter in solving conflicts that may arise between classes and other social communities (Schwarzmantel, 1987). The state takes on this role without undue favouritism on either side of the conflict. In the case where the state has not been captured by the ruling class, it can then function as an agent of change. The way this situation can become a reality is through the action of the working class and socialist parties taking charge of government to ensure there are widespread socioeconomic changes in society. As such, this view is perceived as a reformist type of pluralism (Schwarzmantel, 1987).
The pluralistic view of power distribution is also seen through the aspect of pluralism of ideas where no one ideology dominates. Pluralists believe that in a liberal and democratic system, there is no single dominant ideology. In this case, the perceived diversity is seen through expression via different channels, a contrast to a totalitarian system. The diversity in opinions is thus described as a society of publics where individuals raise issues for discussion and decision-making free of any influence (Schwarzmantel, 1987). As such, it is this conception of a society of publics, which contrasts a controlled society referred to as mass society that exists as another tenet of liberal-democratic societies. Pluralists claim that such societies have diverse ideas which conglomerate into public opinion that result in a strong social force.
Within the political sphere, pluralists have considered that plurality of political parties, institutions and mechanisms as a means of controlling and limiting the power of the state. It is this form of political power redistribution that has led to the rise of political parties which ideally surmise the tradition of pluralism (Schwarzmantel, 1987). Under this concept, the existence of two or more parties necessitates the competition for political power with the winning entity having the chance to form government using its selected personnel. It is thus an effective method of distributing and controlling power since the struggle between parties and the existence of an opposition party keeps the state in check. As such, citizens are given a variety of choices from the differing ideologies from these parties and in the case the incumbent party in power does not satisfy the needs of the electorate, they can then be turned out through the mechanism of the elections (Schwarzmantel, 1987).
References
Gamble, A. (2007). THE STATE: THEORIES AND ISSUES‐Edited by Colin Hay, Michael Lister and David Marsh. Public Administration, 85(3), 862-863.
Schwarzmantel, J. J. (1987). Structures of power. Wheatsheaf books.
