IMPLICATIONS OF PLURALISM AND THE DISPERSAL OF POWER IN THE UNITED STATES - Essay Example

IMPLICATIONS OF PLURALISM AND THE DISPERSAL OF POWER IN THE UNITED S Table of Contents 0 Introduction 3 2.0 Intellectual and Historical Backgrounds of Pluralism 3 3.0 The Dispersal of Power among Groups 5 4.0 The Relevance of Groups in Politics and Power Relations 7 5.0 Classical Pluralism versus Neo Pluralism 8 1.0 Introduction Pluralism is the view that “in liberal democracies power is dispersed among a variety of economic and ideological pressure groups and is not held by a single elite or group of elites. Pluralism assumes that diversity is beneficial to society and that autonomy should be enjoyed by disparate functional or cultural groups within a society, including religious groups, trade unions, professional organizations, and ethnic minorities” (Encyclopædia Britannica 2011). This give rise to numerous objections from rivals who believe otherwise; and can be attributed to certain philosophies that do not harmonize with the equal dispersion of power that pluralism overtly implicates. With the practice of democracy in the United States as the principal basis of such a claim by pluralists, is it safe to say that equality under the law is enforced in the face of political, social, and religious diversity among men, and the conflicting interests of their representatives? 2.0 Intellectual and Historical Backgrounds of Pluralism Common sense, defined by Cambridge Dictionaries, as the “basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way” is deemed the starting point of pluralism. As our forefathers labored their way towards civilization, they became conscious of the diversity among men in terms of philosophical and religious concepts, and learned the ways to make use of such reality in the acquisition of their basic needs and protection from the forces that they had no control over (Chaurasia 2001). With the assortment of interests taken into consideration, they began to acknowledge the role of each group representing those interests, and endeavored to pursue a common good. Religion is one aspect that confirmed the separate inclinations of men, and in fact a subject of many confrontations among races today. Although it introduces the supremacy of one God, Protestantism encompasses several denominations as a result of variations in the method its followers demonstrate the faith. Even Islam of the Arab communities, although practiced in almost uniformed way by the devotees, encompasses doctrines that are somehow construed inconsistently. However, even before their advent, pluralism of the deities has been prevalent amongst the indigenous population of the American territory. Professor Catherine Albanese of the University of California asserts that “the colonial period in U.S. history was marked by religious pluralism, as Native Americans, African slaves, and European settlers practiced their own diverse forms of religion” (2008). Pluralism has roots in James Madison’s conception of American democracy (Walzer 2007). A number of philosophers, in their struggle for social reform, embraced democracy as a fundamental instrument for the attainment of progress and development, equality of humans, and individual liberty. In result, they turned out to be advocates of pluralism themselves. John Locke contributed the theory of checks and balances, as well as the separation of power to three branches. Immanuel Kant, propagated that “both revolution and reform” could be tantamount to “retrogression” and, with this found a special position in the American democracy (Chaurasia 2001). Pierre-Joseph Proudhon also retained pluralism despite his argument that “individuals had no relation to each other, and all relations such as government, marriage, private property, religion, etc. were considered compulsory” (Chaurasia 2001). According to David Held, the “intellectual ancestry of pluralism” has not been absolutely outlined; although, a number of strands of influence can readily be detected (2006). He asserts that economist Joseph Alois Schumpeter’s “critique of the unreality of both classic democratic ideals and the conception of representative government found in the writings of nineteenth-century liberals like John Stuart Mill had a decisive impact”. Pluralists accepted Schumpeter’s broad view that what separate democracies from non-democracies are the methods by which government officials are elected. Democracy, in the United States of America, is generally regarded as synonymous to political pluralism despite the rise of scholarly notions that say otherwise. The notion of separation of power in the modern age was pioneered by Montesquieu. He made a huge impact on the most recent theories of political pluralism although he drew a distinction between the “plurality of the political good and the unity of the religious good” (Kingston 2009). He said that “the good can have another object because there are several goods, but the best is one alone and can, therefore, never change” (1989). It is a common fact until this time, that debates regarding religion are far from being resolved, but his upholding in terms of pluralism in politics is questioned in view of the aforementioned statement. Campaigners of the monism theory stand out against pluralists in many issues that include sovereignty. For a period of time, their contention that the state is the most powerful association was accepted true by the society. Yet, idealist thinkers challenged the theory of sovereignty and pointed out that its power is not superior and is not entirely valid in the modern age. As a matter of fact, the presumed authority of the state has diminished with the establishment of the United Nations Organization (Gandchi 2003). Also, Pluralists agree that the “state is an association of associations. Its sovereign is limited and divisible and is based on the social, moral and natural rules, customs, religion and traditions” (Bhatt 2005). 3.0 The Dispersal of Power among Groups Pluralism gives stress on the role of interest groups in political agendas in the United States. They claim that power is dispersed among groups, while the government acts as liaison that complies with each demand if possible, or come to a decision that satisfies the majority. Pluralists agree that factions or interest groups at this point in time, are inevitable, but emphasizes that the dispersal of power that they correspond to and their continuous interface are a foundation of political stability (Zillman et. al. 2002). They further emphasize that politics is not the central decision-making of a united public acting through the state, but the result of continuous competition, bargaining, and exchange among groups representing different interests (Zillman et.al. 2002). On September 17, 1787 the Constitution of the United States of America was approved and instituted the following fundamental principles: (1) standard sovereignty, or control by the people, (2) a republican government in which the people select representatives to make decisions for them, (3) limited government with written laws, separation of powers, with checks and balances among branches to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power, and (4) a federal system that allows for states’ rights, because the states feared too much centralized control (Bardes, et. al., 2008). It can be established in view of the above propositions that the government has been pushing for the dispersal of power amongst its citizens, and that the idea of a single entity acting as superior to all is precluded. Unfortunately, there are studies that say the opposite to separation of powers. West’s Encyclopedia of American Law states that in the American setting, separation of powers is more a name than a description; that none of the three branches: legislative, executive, or judicial, of the national government are evidently detached from one another (2011). It cited as an example, the impeachment club of Congress manipulated to inspect the others, and stressed that the “presidents veto of power is plainly legislative in nature”. Further, the Anti‐Federalist charge that “the several departments of power are not separated but blended in such a manner as at once to destroy all symmetry and beauty of form, and to expose some of the essential parts of the edifice to the danger of being crushed by the disproportionate weight of other parts.” It was later explained by Madison that the pluralist position on separation of powers meant rather “that where the whole power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted (1788). 4.0 The Relevance of Groups in Politics and Power Relations It was mentioned earlier that in the American tradition, the executive power was checked by the dispersal of power among States in a federation, and deliberate separation of powers among the distinct and independent executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government. “It represented an explicit attempt to design a system of political authority that would limit the power of government and protect individual liberty without leaving government bereft of any capacity to defend the public realm against external enemies or to attend to the common good” (Nethercote, 2001). The concentration of both economic and political decision making in the hands of a central government bureaucracy is incompatible with democracy. Democracy requires limited government, individual freedom, and dispersal of power in society. In communist nations, the government exercises “virtually unlimited power over economic as well as political affairs, individual economic freedoms are curtailed and great power is accumulated by the government bureaucracy” (Harrison & Dye, 2008). In contrast, in capitalist nations, government intervention in the marketplace is limited, individuals are free to make their own economic decisions, and power is dispersed among many groups and institutions: governments, corporations, unions, press and television, churches, interest groups, and so forth (Harrison & Dye, 2008). Take for example, a proposed change in government health care policy. This area is of considerable interest to stakeholders such as the medical profession, pharmaceuticals, manufacturers, hospitals, medical equipment dealers, insurance companies, patients, the uninsured, and consumer groups. Others with a stake in health care policy include labor unions whose members are covered by company-paid health plans, stockholders of drug companies, allied health professionals employed by health care providers, and government agencies—such as the national Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and state and national health regulatory commissions-that have responsibilities affecting, and affected by, decisions on health care policy issues (Milakovich & Gordon 2009). 5.0 Classical Pluralism versus Neo Pluralism Classical pluralists accept that the majority of citizens in Western societies have little or no direct involvement in political decision making. This doesn’t mean though that these societies are undemocratic, they are seen as representative democracies where citizens elect political leaders who are charged with carrying out the wishes of those who elected them. For pluralists, the role of the state is to arbitrate between the various interest groups which seek to influence the decision making process. Pluralists see the involvement of groups representing all sections of society as essential for democracy. It enables the government to gauge the strength of support for different policies and gain feedback from interested parties on proposals which may affect them (CLC2, n.d.) Neo-pluralism, on the other hand, portrays the American political process as competition, bargaining and compromise among a multitude of interest groups that vie for the rewards distributed by the political. The pluralist realizes that the unorganized individual is no match for giant corporate bureaucracy, but he hopes that ‘countervailing’ centers of power will balance each other and thereby protect the individual from abuse. Groups become the means by which individuals gain access to the political system. The government is held responsible not by individuals but by organized groups and coalitions of groups. The essential value becomes participation in, and competition among, organized groups. Pluralism asserts that the dispersed pattern of power among many groups safeguards both individuals and groups against arbitrary and capricious actions of a dominant group. Pluralism contends that the American system is open and accessible to the extent that any interest held by a significant portion of the populace can find expression through one or more groups (Dye & Zeigler 1970). 6.0 The Weaknesses of Focusing on Groups Pluralism has been criticized for the weaknesses of its hypotheses about the extent of the value consensus and “for its failure to understand how power may be distributed unequally in society”. It also fails to address how power can include the shaping of values and understanding of what are the proper issues for debate, “shaping the agenda”. It fails to inquire into the consequences if some interests have no resources to compete in the political arena, or why one group may have more influence than another (Zillman, Lucas & Pring 2002). “Wide dispersal of political power both constrains and creates opportunities for stakeholders—diverse interested individuals, groups, and institutions—to seek and acquire leverage in a policy arena”. The major problem facing any group or agency is that competition for influence in a particular subject area is usually fierce because, at the same time, many other groups and agencies are also seeking to have their preferences adopted as public policy (Robinson 1993). For instance, the fact that labor and business do not hold healthy relationship with each other is not at all appalling, taking into consideration their conflicting priorities. Business exists for profit and everything that contributes to it. Wages and benefits do not form part of it thus holds little importance to the former. In an employer’s perspective, it is but justifiable to limit the support granted to trade unions. With their efforts focused not only on core competencies but also on challenges posed by competitors, businesses hardly find time to attend to the increasing demands of their employees. Most corporations voted in favor of anti-labor legislations and the “right to work laws” as labor would when presented with regulations that coordinate with their interests. This misleads unions into thinking that their welfare is put in limbo and fair treatment is taken for granted. 7.0 Conclusion No single theory is free of flaws; thus allegations that pluralism is not in symmetry with democracy, and that power is not equally dispersed among groups are but typical. As we may observe, on every occasion that the government enacts a law or approves a social agenda, there will be left and right protests from groups whose proposals were not given final priority. The fact that different parties canvass different concerns can vouch for the likelihood that what will benefit one may hamper in the other’s welfare; and, for such reason, it is not possible to grant them all at the same time. Nevertheless, pluralism encourages standing up for a principle, and taking part in determining solutions that complement the common good. True, the highest power may have been bestowed upon the head of the state. The three branches of the government do not exhibit restricted authority of their own since the head may intervene, as demanded by the circumstances, in their decision making. But similar to a family—the simplest unit in a society, each member is assigned a particular undertaking in the household and privilege to voice out an opinion; nevertheless after deliberations, the head still gets the final say. Unless there is one body that rules over opposing parties, and nominates the ultimate decision, an issue will never come to an end. 8.0 Bibliography Albanese, Catherine 2008, Religious Diversity in Early America, In America.Gov. Retrieved from http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2008/August/20080819130107cmretrop0.2322962.html Chaurasia, Radhey Shyam 2001, History of Western Political Thought. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors Bardes, Barbara A., Mark C. Shelley, & Steffen W. Schmidt. 2008, American Government and Politics Today. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning Bhatt, Usha 2005, A Complete Course in Political Science, ISC Political Science, Volume I. New Delhi: Pitambar Publishing Company Pvt, Ltd. Classical Pluralism n.d., In CLC2 Universities. Retrieved from https://clc2.uniservity.com/GroupDownloadFile.asp?... - United Kingdom commonsense 2011, In Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Retrieved from http:/dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/commonsense Dye, Thomas R. & Harmon Zeigler 1970, The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning Ghandchi, Sam 2003, Pluralism in the Western Thought. Retrieved from http://www.ghandchi.com/301-PluralismEng.htm Harrison, B.C. & Dye, T.R. 2008, Power and Society: An Introduction to the Social Sciences, Eleventh Edition. New York: Thomson Wadsworth Held, David 2006, Models of Democracy, Third Edition. Massachusetts: Policy Press Horowitz, D.L. 1985, Ethnic Groups in Conflict. United States of America: University of California Press. Kingston, Rebecca 2009, Montesquieu and his Legacy, Albany: State University of New York Press Madison, James January 30, 1788, The Federalist No. 47, The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power among its Different Parts. New York Packet. Retrieved from http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa47.htm Milakovich, M.E. & Gordon, G.J. 2009, Public Administration in America, Tenth Edition. Massachussetts: Clark Baxter Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat (baron de), Anne M. Cohler, Carolyn Miller, and Harold Samuel Stone 1989, The Sprit of the Laws. New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge Nethercote, J.R. 2001, Liberalism and the Australian Federation. Sydney, The Federation Press Pluralism 2011, In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/465174/pluralism Pluralism and its Revisions 2006. In Abdn.Ac.uk Retrieved from www.abdn.ac.uk/pir/notes06/Level4/PI4043/pluralpg20062.2.doc Robinson, D. 1993, Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making: Environmental and Planning, L.J. 10(5): 320 - 340. separation of powers 2011, In West’s Encyclopedia of American Law. Retrieved from http://www.answers.com/topic/separation-of-powers Walzer, Michael Charles 2007, Pluralism and Democracy, In the Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/pluralism-and-democracy/6321/ Zillman, Donald, Alastair Lucas & George Pring 2002, Human Rights in Natural Resource Development. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Read More