Democratic Pluralism Concept - Essay Example

Power and Democracy: Democratic Pluralism (Pluralist Democracy)   Your name: Course name: Professors’ name: “According to Robert Dahl, David Truman, Walter Lippmann, Arthur F. Bentley, political pluralism can be defined as a system of indirect democracy which is characterized by people or group competition and a balance of power” (Dahl, 1961). Purportedly to be for the people, and overseen by the few elites. “Political pluralism in America has its roots in the works of Gaetano Mosco, Vilfredo Pareto and Roberto Michels” (Dahl, 1961), “their works emphasized on the importance of few elites in maintaining democracy in both political and economic” (Dahl, 2005). “According to political pluralists, people in America cannot be trusted to act rationally in decisions, but, instead they were seen as prone to conspiracy theories, authoritarian, and not committed to values of democracy” (Kingdon, 2002). Political pluralism has not been effective, for example, in Europe; it created totalitarian regimes of Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, which prevented mass activism. Thus for a quarter of a century democracy was redefined in those countries to mean not rule by the masses but rather rule by few elites. Racial and ethnic groups were also redefined as groups competing for an equal share of political and economic power within a system of capitalism. “These interest groups were ruled by experts” (Dahl, 2005), intellectuals and managerial class, and were seen to be both justified and rationalized. It is for these reasons why pluralism was criticized because it never represented the views of the masses. Likewise, “anti- pluralism seeks to change conceptions of political power and involvement of the people pluralism seeks to defend” (Kingdon, 2002). Political pluralism has raised many questions on the legality of political authority. On many occasions, people can agree to differ on many contentious issues; this is because decisions made by few elites are imposed on the people whether they agree or not with those decisions made by the elites. According to neo-pluralist, it is wrong to force masses to follow laws and practices which they don’t agree with. After all, what matter is respecting and accepting others irrespective of their color, race or beliefs, and what might be a reason for you may not be for them. For example, Catholics must allow the permissibility of abortion in terminating unwanted pregnancy because other religion or secular societies hold different views on the issue. In political pluralism, democracy is one of ways in which political decisions are being legitimized whatever those political decisions are. For example, let say Senators vote in Upper House to forbid using use coal in industries. Some people will not be happy about the outcome of the election. But a person can justify the decision made by Senators in the following terms: the decision passed was made in a fair way which it does protect every citizen. In economy, political pluralism helps to create unequal distribution of income. Hence, “majority of people cannot afford certain goods, and significant productions of the economy of a country will produce luxury goods which will be, dedicated for the elites” (Lindblom, 1980). In 19th century, economic development in most of Europeans countries was realized because of absence of political pluralism. In contrast, political pluralism in China was a major reason why the country experience backwardness in development during the 19th century. In China, all aspect of the government is dominated by few elites; from the military, to the government, to economic, to religious. “The private companies were kept in check by the government officials, and some of activities of these companies were used for the interest of either government officials or of the states “(Lindblom, 1980). This means government official protected any big commercial companies, and the result of this was a close community of interest that was their between the government official and the by companies operating in the country. In short, political pluralism failed to prosper in the country because private companies were never able to establish themselves outside the control of the state and their representatives in the bureaucracy. According to Allison (1999), “when the government is faced with a crisis, most of its leaders will look at that crisis as a whole” (p.23), but they will try as much as possible to solve the problem according to pre-established organizational lines. Most of these leaders will not evaluate all the options that are available in tackling the crisis to see which one will work best. Instead, our leaders will settle on options that address the problem. Simon called it “satisficing” (as cited in Allison, 1999), in other words, leaders will put emphasis on “short-term” solutions. In addition, government will try to follow set "repertoires" and procedure during a crisis. It is for this reason why President Kennedy and his advisors never wanted to use another option in preventing Cuba government from halting on its nuclear plans besides air strike or blockade. Initially, President Kennedy and his advisors unanimously agreed to strike the Cuba nuclear base, but they were uncertain it would disable the nuclear base. Prior to attack by the Japanese army at Pearl Harbor, Japanese civilians leaders and military, including those who are responsible in making military decisions, “they were aware that they lacked manpower and their military was not fully equipped to fight against the United States” (Allison, 1999). But they proceed in attacking the U.S. According to Allison, sometimes leaders make mistake, Japanese military leaders saw their action as a rational one but in reality, it was like “committing suicide”. On the other hand, the United State government prior to the attack had evidence that Japanese military were about to attack Pearl Harbor. Yet the United States military did not prepare to that threat. According to Allison (1999), intelligence people view that attack as a “threat of attack”, but United States military view it as a “threat of sabotage.” This was as a result of different viewpoints by the leaders, which allowed Japanese army to successful attacked Pearl Harbor. Likewise, political pluralism process model will confuse affairs of the country. According to Allison (1999), he point to the decision made by General MacArthur Douglas when he defies the orders during the Korean War and proceeded north. The reason why the general did that was because he was not agreeing with Harry Truman and other policymakers in the government. To the general, he considers the advice to be an unwise move because the masses the civil societies and the masses were against it. “Political events in the past have delivered a devastating message, that democracy in the country has been completely conquered by American capitalism” (Lowi, 1979). Government has been completely captured by private institutions and concentrated wealth. “The democratic rights that were conferred among the masses have been taken away by corporate and financial interests” (Lowi, 1979). Nowadays financial institutions have their arms around existing political parties, and they influence decisions made people representatives. “At the moment, a lot of Americans seem to know that political pluralism is not on their side, and when this choice comes down to capitalism or society, society all the time loses” (Lowi, 1979). References Allison, G. T. (1999). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Second Edition). New York: Longman Dahl, R. (1961). Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press. Dahl, R. (2005). Who Governs?: Democracy and Power in an American City. (Second Edition.) New Haven: Yale University Press. Kingdon, J. (2002). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. (Second Edition). New York: Longman. Chubb and Paul E. Lindblom, C. (1980). Chapter One. Politics and Markets. New York: Basic Books. Lindblom, C. The Science of Muddling Through,Public Administration Review, XIX (Spring 1959), 79-88. Lowi, T. (1979). The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States. 2nd edition.New York: W.W. Norton.. Read More