Comparing Organization of Politics - Term Paper Example

 The Comparison of Organization of Politics The best approach to determine the level of participation of citizens in a political dispensation is by considering the differences in the organization of politics in the concerned location, bearing in mind that pluralism and hyper pluralism dictate the level of citizens’ participation in aggregate or discriminative model of politics. Pluralism can be defined as a kind of political theory which states that power statutorily resides with the central government, but non-governmental and independent organizations like lobbyists also exert significant influence on the final decision-making outcomes. Political pluralism is largely practiced in the United States where special-interest organizations hold some influence mainly on the members of Senate and House of Representatives whom they had financially helped during their campaign periods. In the same vein, hyper pluralism is a more dangerous situation whereby the special-interest groups and lobbyists have become quite too powerful for the central government to handle or control. This can occur in a country where corruption is endemic and the executive arm of the government has been bought by the rich and mighty in the country. Hence, it has been discovered that both pluralism and hyper pluralism in political organization within a country also have a far-reaching effect on the citizen participation in the entire political processes of the country (Johnson 251). There are distinct differences in the regimes where pluralism and hyper pluralism political systems are in operation. However, the main similarity of these two forms of political organization is that citizens would be robbed of their rights to actually influence the governance of their country because the kind of politicians sent to the Congress (for example in America) are not the group of people that believe in their simple interests of the commoners, but they are there to satisfy the desires of their influential sponsors. Talking about a pluralistic regime, the central government’s control on the governance is still substantial. Take for instance, the current President of the United States, Barack Obama made the special-interest organizations and lobbyists the target of his presidential campaign, having realized that their interests in commerce and governmental affairs supersede that of the public; and even though they are small in number, their interests appear to weigh in as burdens over that of ordinary Americans. These independent or non-government groups often use their money to campaign for Congress members of their choice. They would do everything in their power to make sure that their candidates win the elections. And once these Congress members resume their legislative duties, the special-interest, non-governmental organizations rise up to demand for laws that would safeguard their business, ideology or political interests. Some of these lobbyists are multinational companies, non-government organizations, trade and commerce groups or associations. Since the special-interest organizations are responsible for dictating the kind of laws to be passed in the Congress, they inadvertently reduce the participation of the ordinary people in the governance process. This means that other citizens in the affected country are under their machinations, since the members of Congress or the legislative arm are only answerable to their demands, and not that of the ordinary people in the country (Johnson 163). As indicated above, the executive arm of the regime can still function properly, if the president is a person who thinks about the masses in the country—this means that the president is not aloof from people’s needs and relate with them on a personal level through his or her organized method of communication. Nowadays, presidents can chat with their citizens online or even receive comments on their online profiles. This creates an opportunity for the poor people in a pluralistic regime to have a channel with which they could get their demands to the president’s table. Even though some of members of the Congress have been bought by the all-powerful special-interest groups, the president—if he or she is on the side of ordinary people—can veto the laws or bills and request for reconsideration. However, the situation is more severe in hyper pluralistic regime. The citizens have apparently no participation in the governance system because the elections are rigged, and the election winners would only be politicians that support the special interests of the lobbyists. Unlike pluralistic regime where not all of the Congress members are corrupt or had been assisted by the lobbyists to win elections, most politicians in the hyper pluralistic regime are cronies and supporters of the lobbyist agendas. In this case, they were not elected by the common people, but are sent to the government by corrupt and demanding special-interest groups who would mobilize their actions in the Congress so as to turn the rest citizens in the country into a state of “slavery”, economically and politically (Johnson 163). The most discouraging effect of the hyper pluralism is that not only the Congress members have been bought by the all-mighty lobbyists; the executive as well as the judicial have been corrupt by huge political donations and bribes. This will weaken the power of the central government to come to the aid of ordinary people whenever certain laws and bills are enacted. The judiciary that has been known for ages as the last hope of common people will now turn against the people by giving judgments in favor of the special-interest groups (Johnson 167). The circumstances under a hyper pluralistic regime are so uncomfortable; they sometimes lead to massive poverty, hopelessness and despair among the people. This is because the ordinary citizens in the country apparently has no participation in the governance of their country, unlike in pluralistic regime where they could still enjoy protection from some Congress members, president and the judiciary. While pluralistic form of government exists even in modern-day America, there are several examples of hyper pluralistic regimes in Asian and African countries where powerful business persons, politicians and military personnel wield uncommon authority on all sections of the central government. Most countries that operate hyper pluralism often end up as failed states since human greed and unbridled power always break the natural code of harmony, liberty and human peace granted by God (Johnson 177). As a matter of fact, a failed state lacks all the social infrastructures that are needed to facilitate peaceful governance of a country. As the case is, ordinary people in these failed countries often end up in many problems—health, social, psychological and political. A typical example of a country that was ruined by hyper pluralism is Haiti, which is still struggling to get up from its political logjam and other socio-economic problems. While it is possible to eradicate or frustrate the influence of special-interest groups or lobbyists in a pluralistic regime, as President Obama is purportedly doing, it is almost impossible to rectify the destruction hyper pluralism has caused in many countries. The simple reason for this is that hyper pluralism completely kills the participation or interest of the citizens in their country’s governance by totally destroying the social infrastructures like the electoral body, political machines and other avenues that tend to grant citizens their rights to be part of their country’s governance. It is sad to discover that both pluralistic and hyper pluralistic regimes encourage discriminative model of politics and discourage aggregate model of politics. Simply, aggregate model of politics refers to a circumstance whereby a regime recognizes the needs of the general population and work towards satisfying their aggregative socio-political or economical needs. On the other hand, discriminatory political agenda aims at satisfying a group of people (lobbyists and so on) while neglecting the socio-political or economic needs of other people. Every country has its share of the problem of discriminative politics; the United States has been accused of laws and regulations that would support businesses and interests of the White America, while other minorities, including Black Americans receive little governmental supports. This issue also occurs all over the world as governments try to favor one group of people over the other. One surprising discovery is that discriminative politics is always institutional—that is, the regimes accused of this crime often establish a network of governmental facilities or infrastructural that would make sure one group is underrated and un-cared for while the other continue to benefit immensely from the same governmental programs. A good way to illustrate the bad effects of discriminative model of politics is to look at the book written by Diane Wilson titled, “An Unreasonable Woman: A True Story of Shrimpers, Politicos, Polluters, and the Fight for Seadrift, Texas”. This interesting book reveals how discriminative model of politics has affected the activities of shrimpers, politicos, polluters and people’s fight for seadrift in Texas. The book critically analyzes the position discriminative politicians play in affecting the lives of common people that are struggling to do their jobs, take care of their families and enjoy their lives with the limited resources available for them. Referring to the plights of the shrimpers and fishers who constantly go out to the seas to fish, Wilson and Ausubel write: “Most shrimpers will admit that they go to sea as much for the silence as for the catching of the shrimp. At least in the beginning they do. The shrimping was incidental and wasn’t what they were really on water for. If they were lucky they remembered, but if not then they never escaped what years of toiling with nets and poverty and bad weather could exact on a fisherman, “ (Wilson and Ausubel 15). This quotation demonstrates the daily hapless life of the fishers. The reason why they are not always hopeful to get some great catch is because some parts of the seas where they go for the trade has been polluted by chemicals from the chemical plants nearby. Even though they had voiced their concerns about this major problem that seems to threaten their source of livelihood, they had not been able to get some tangible help from the central or regional government due to discriminative politics. The governments are afraid to challenge the owners of such chemical plants because they are the rich and influential members of the society that sponsored their political ambitions and helped them win elections. This is a sad development because while one group of people in the same country is allowed to flourish at the expense of the other, the governments look away as if nothing serious had truly occurred. Hence, the discrepancy in this form may discourage fishers and shrimpers, in particular, to avoid participating in electoral processes since past governments have failed to find a lasting solution to their problems. Concerning the safety of the fishers and shrimpers at work, the book states that, “Most workers just wanted to pass on information. They didn’t trust the company to fix it, and didn’t trust OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) to protect them. Every worker that walked in the fish-house snorted when I mentioned OSHA,” (Wilson and Ausubel 187). This expression shows the level of distrust that has come up between ordinary citizens like fishers and governmental organization like OSHA. The common people believe that the government does not put their concerns into consideration. Hence, they become disillusioned that they could not even show any amount of trust in governmental agencies to give them maximum protection. This shows the danger of discriminative model of politics; and it is dangerous because citizens can begin to avoid or show some disrespect to the governmental functionaries, an issue that could lead to revolution and unexpected bloodshed. Even though politicians seem to offer sweet promises and bombastic words like the words of the Mayor in the book, who says “What is it that you are afraid of? Is it death? Is that the thing that stops you? I have seen death, and it far better than living forever on our knees, “(Wilson and Ausubel 346), but they do not always back their motivational speech with physical action. They often leave the poor people to suffer in poverty and hopelessness that sometimes discourage them from continuing to live. What the politicians and the central or local government often do is contrary to the voluble speech they always give on their campaign trails. For example, the book states that “Another disaster! So to check this helter-skelter pattern of economic development that was erupting, the government enacted zoning—token, you can believe—legislation barring firms from setting up in agricultural fields. But as expected, that legislation remains largely unenforced, so by the mid-eighties 40 percent of the new firms were located in the wrong zone,” (Wilson and Ausubel 339). This incident is a typical example of what can happen in a pluralistic regime where the president or some Congress members still support the idea of helping the common people by making some laws to protect their interests. However, the most discouraging aspect of this regime is that the laws will only be enacted but not strictly enforced to stop the rich and the special-interest groups (mostly the owners of the firms) from establishing dangerous chemical companies in the vicinity of the fishers or other agricultural firms. Looking critically at the points raised in the foregoing, pluralistic and hyper pluralistic models of governance often create a safe haven for the powerful lobbyists that practically influence the actions of the central or local governments. This is a serious political failure because it would leave poor citizens in the country always in the hands of the rich people who have got plenty of money to support politicians and tell them what kind of laws to enact or enforce when they resume. Since these actions are likely going to discourage poor citizens from participating in the political processes of their countries, it will also make them realize that there is no suggestion they could make to improve the governance in their homelands, in as much as the powerful lobbyists would not reduce their grip on the political class. Although the United Nations has been working hard to reduce the effect of this political imbalance in countries, it is disheartening to realize that it is not a battle that could be easily won since hierarchy and political favoritism have been engrained into our social class. So, when some groups of people are happy because they can manipulate their governments, some other groups would be sad because they have become perpetually become the victims of such political discrimination! Works Cited Johnson, Kristen. Theology, Political Theory, and Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print. Wilson, Diane and Ausubel, Kenny. An Unreasonable Woman: A True Story of Shrimpers, Politicos, Polluters, and the Fight for Seadrift, Texas. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2006. Print. Read More