Pluralism - A State Theory

Pluralists believe that social heterogeneity prevents any single group from gaining dominance. In their view, politics is essentially a matter of aggregating preferences. This means that coalitions are inherently unstable (Polsby, 1980), hence competition is easily preserved.

1. P l u r a l i s m A S TA T E THE O RY AMPER, CUA, DELOSO, GEROY, GUMANID, HEMOROZ, JAVIER, LEGASPI

2. P l u r a l i s m It is defined as a society where multiple people, groups, or entities share political power Influenced the nature of the relationship between the government and civil society I s s u e s a g a i n s t P l u r a l i s m : 1. No agreement on what constitutes pluralism 2. Pluralism pays little attention to the nature of the state and even less to state theory. 3. The epistemological foundation of pluralism is an opposition to monism and the view that there can be a single unified and universal body of knowledge. Liberal Democracies More Pluralistic Authoritarian Regimes Less Pluralistic

3. R oots of Pluralism E U R O P E began as a reaction to monism and absolutist state U N I T E D S T A T E S developed as a response to limit state power in the new constitution E n g l i s h P l u r a l i s t Pluralism is a normative theory F u n d a m e n t a l P r i n c i p l e o f P l u r a l i s t s Diversity is good that prevents the dominance of one particular idea The importance of liberty and distrust to the state E n g l i s h P l u r a l i s t s w e r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e t w o e l e m e n t s i n t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e s t a t e Notion of the state Role/relationship of groups

4. R oots of Pluralism U n i t e d S t a t e s Individuals exist through groups Power of the state must be limited to avoid groups being crushed They also believe that centralized state had to be replaced by new institutional order M i d d l e m a s ( 1 9 7 9 ) e m p h a s i z e s b i a s i n B r i t i s h s t a t e The role of groups was always mediate through sovereign core executive Highly limited in the influence on policy

5. T h e R i s e O f A m e r i c a n P l u r a l i s m It developed as both an empirical and normative political theory; a mechanism for understanding US politics and a framework of what politics should be. There is an assumption in the literature on pluralism of a break between the pluralism of the early twentieth century theorists and the post- war empirical political pluralism. The founder of modern American pluralism, Arthur Bentley, there is a direct link to John Dewey (Ratner and Altman 1964). From Bentley, modern pluralists have adapted the classical pluralist emphasis on the role of groups in politics and the need to contain the power and competence of the state. As pluralist theory developed, however, it transformed from a normative theory – this is how things should be – to an empirical theory – analysing how power is distributed. ‘That is, they support the claims American political leaders typically make to justify their power’. - Pluralist theorist in post-war America confused normative claims with empirical reality. Pluralists desired a state limited by multiple power centres and the influence of groups and this was their perception of politics in post-war America. K e y e l e m e n t s o f P l u r a l i s t s t a t e t h e o r y ( D a h l ) Important government policies would be arrived at through negotiation, bargaining, persuasion and pressure at a considerable number of different sites in the political system – the Whitehouse, the bureaucracies, the labyrinth of committees in Congress, the federal and state courts, the state legislatures and the executives, the local governments. No single organized political interest, party, class, region or ethnic groups would control all of these sites.

6. T h e R i s e O f A m e r i c a n P l u r a l i s m -For pluralists the fundamental features of US politics are agreed. Political conflicts are not about the boundaries of the system, they are usually about the distribution of resources within the system - During the 1960s and 1970s pluralism was subject to both an empirical and academic critique. Empirically many of the assumptions concerning pluralism were challenged by the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam war movements of the 1960s. The civil rights movement illustrated that a group with a forceful grievance was excluded from the political protest. - In many ways the Vietnam War was a greater challenge to pluralism. It undermined any claim that American politics was based on consensus. The anti-war protest refuted the idea of a shared sense of US politics and society-wide agreement over the form of the political system. The collapse of the consensus fed into a number of academic critiques of pluralism -what pluralism was presenting was a Cold War inspired view of the American system. The picture of a perfect functioning democracy, differentiating power and open to all interests was hiding a process of manipulation, exclusion and elite dominance. This was Merelman’s legitimizing discourse, intent on demonstrating the superiority of the American system. Second, the Vietnam War and civil rights movement, and the more radical women’s and gay movements that followed, undermined the notion there was a general acceptance of values in society ( Lockwood 1964). Indeed, the period since the 1960s has seen a considerable bifurcation of beliefs in the US between say those who support notion of gay marriage and the fundamentalist Christian Right. Pluralism was based on observable power not the way hidden structures and ideas shape the political agenda (Polsby 1980: 4; Polsby 1960: 477).

7. T h e R e f o r m u l a t i o n Developed from critiques of American democracy (Lowi and McConell) and the rethinking of the nature of pluralism (Dahl and Lindblom). Follows the idea of early pluralists about the role of groups in policy-making process but also recognize that some groups are powerful compared to others like business groups. The state is fragmented. And business in this kind of state has a privileged position. Challenge it faced: Manley’s criticism to neo-pluralists’ seeing state as neutral and failing to problematize the state. (Failed to see the state as an independent source of political power.) A response to the events of 1960s 1970s . o f P l u r a l i s m Developed into two different forms (in the United States and Britain). The distinct notion of neo-pluralism in America .

8. D e v e l o p m e n t s in B r i t i s h Pluralism The work of Richardson & Jordan did much of the inclusion of a pluralist conception of decision-making into contemporary British Political Science Richardson & Jordan’s work drew explicitly on the work of American Political Scientists in the pluralist tradition such as Bentley. They argued that “The interplay of interest groups is the dominating feature of the policy process in Western Europe” & that the adoption of policies is the “reflection of the strength of particular groups at any one time.” Richardson and Jordan tried to develop the pluralist tradition by drawing on the works of later American group theorists who saw the political system as fragmented into distinct policy domains. pluralism did not develop dominance in Britain like it did in the United States due to Britain’s elitist and insular system Despite unpopularity, pressure group studies developed in Britain in the 60s Richardson and Jordan used the term policy community to describe the way that the British state fragmented into a number of policy domains within which particular interests may predominate Richardson and Jordan maintained most of the presumptions of the pluralist position despite their modifications to American pluralism Their framework was undermined by the fact that the Thatcher government was anything but consensual in terms of most pressure groups and by their failure to recognize that many groups were excluded from open policy domains They made three fundamental errors, namely: plurality for pluralism, the assumption that groups had influence because they were on the consultation lists of officials, and they saw networks as essentially agency-based.

9. D e v e l o pm e n t s in C o n t e m p o r a r y Pluralism Despite almost a century of empirical and theoretical critiques of Pluralism, Pluralist traditions remain strong. Critics of Pluralism: Marxism and Elitism Pluralism’s strength derives from its normative appeal and the fact that much of it accords with our intuitive sense of liberal democracy. 4 main ways that Pluralism has developed in contemporary political science

10. G o v e r n a n c e Governance is a term used to describe the making of public policy and the delivery of public goods in modern states following the rise of the new right, the development of new public management public sector reform and globalization. New way of understanding the state and its relationship with civil society. The fundamental premise of the governance position is that the central state is no longer the dominant force in determining public policy. We now live in a centerless society. Rosenau (1992) Main contention: Competing states where one power is centered among many. For Rhodes (1997) it is governing without government and hence the development of a differentiated polity where no single interest is able to dominate the policy process. One important development has been the notion of multi-level governance (MLG). The key premise of MLG is that authority has dispersed away from centralized nation states, and that there are multiple sites of decision-making each involving different actors and interests. The continuance of the pluralist of not problematizing the state has been seen as a benign force that has weakened significantly and is now challenged by multiple power centers.

11. Civil Society and Social Capital A strong civil society, community organization, and citizen activism are important both as bulwarks against the state and as mechanisms for delivering public goods. Dewey and Follet, early American pluralists, emphasized that individual identity was essential both to protect individual freedom and to limit the power of the state. The group was the building block of a healthy and democratic polity. For pluralists, the dependence on the state for collective provision of goods results in an overbearing state and the loss of individual liberty. For Putnam, membership of associations builds trust and this social capital is essential for economic development: Social capital is coming to be seen as a crucial ingredient in economic development around the world. Putnam (1993) Like other pluralist, Putnam sees a simple voluntarist solution to deep-seated structural problems and ignores the constraints that may exist on group organization. What this perspective leads to is a limited role for the state. Why? The state has to develop social linkages rather develop large-scale welfare and economic programs to tackle social inequality and economic development.

12. Radical Democracy and Association Civil society and the importance of social movements as a mechanism for controlling and circumventing the monopolizing tendencies of the state Like traditional pluralists, radical democrats see social movements as crucial elements in society. Civil society is complex and pluralist, with individuals belonging to an array of social groups. These groups do not have preordained existence or identify but develop as a consequence of struggle and social interaction (McClure 1992: 115) Political transformation is vested in social groups

13. Mu lt i cu l tu r a lism and Plural Society is based on the idea that no single set or norms or values should dominate a society and that the role of the state should be about reconciling different interests rather than ensuring the dominance of a particular group. M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m Multiculturalism is based on the notion of group identities. Multiculturalists are opposed to the notion that a single group (and in particular the majority group) can dominate other groups. R o l e s o f t h e S t a t e To provide equal treatment and to balance conflicting group interests

14. Conclusion Four assumptions by most pluralists 1. Groups rather than individuals are crucial to understand politics 2. The role of the state needs to be limited Critic/s against Pluralists Groups can be alternative to the state In liberal societies, power is distributed, and economic and political power is separated between different spheres of government - Th e failure t o proble m a t ize th e s t a te - T heir fo c us o n g r ou ps - Failure to tackle the issue of state power Pluralism deemed remarkable A normative theory that significantly appeals to liberals, radicals, and conservatives The capability and willingness to respond to critics and change