Pluralism and Democracy - Essay Example

Pluralism and Democracy In this paper I will investigate the notion of pluralism and its influence on liberal democracies. This is not an east question to research, greatly due to the fact that pluralism is a very multi-faceted concept. It incorporates many meanings, which should be briefly discussed for the better understanding of application of pluralism to democratic decision-making. Among the main types of pluralism are the following ones: Value Pluralism, which originates from the existence of a number of competing value systems (Littunen, 1964). The other researcher - Feit gives the characteristic of the societies without value pluralism as the ones with “ideational consensus-this implies acceptance of a common symbol structure, that is, agreement not only on broad principles but also on the terms in which these principles will be expressed” (Feit, 1964). The other type of pluralism is cultural one, which can be defined as the existence of several cultural groups in the definite society. Lipset differentiates among societies according to the type of factors, they are based on, which can be either cultural or economic or status (Lipset, 1964). According to Haug “existence of pluralism in a society is more likely to take place in societies that are young nations, covering large sparsely populated areas, engaged chiefly in agriculture and poor; their governmental functions are still shaky and unstable, as literacy rates are low and various interest groups struggle confusedly for dominance. These characteristics tend to increase in intensity the more plural the polity .. . “ (Haug, 1967). One more type of pluralism is structural, which is primarily concerned with the structure of government. This type of pluralism is used in the political system, where there is a large number of possibilities raise and resolves. This type of pluralism overlaps with the domain of decentralized decisionmaking (Barber, 1963) Finally, there is one more type of pluralism is social pluralism, which was defined by Lipset and Kornhauser in terms of “diversity arising from modernization” (Kornhauser, 1959). The main characteristic feature of the socially pluralistic societies is wide variety of interests. This last type of pluralism is of main interest and relevance to our research as it is more closely connected with the notion of democracy. In fact, it should be mentioned that this relation is not so simple. There are many researches, which aim to explore the topic of pluralism-democracy relations. In these researches the main aspects of investigation are the following: the process of socialization of people to democratic norms through social pluralism; increased participation and exposure of citizens to political questions due to social pluralism; provision of alternative leaders for democratic societies through social pluralism and finally provision of alternative policies for democracies due to social pluralism (Conn, 1973). Many critics consider that the role of the social pluralism in the democratic regime can not be overestimated. Social pluralism is regarded by many scholars as the main means of promotion of democratic norms. This is done thorough development of the tolerance and education of people about democratic processes and possible ways of peaceful resolution of various conflicts through compromise. It was stated that within the society there exist a number of different organizations, which members are closely connected and cooperate with each other. In the result of this citizens of the society become aware of different conflict situation and acquire necessary knowledge how to cope with them (Conn, 1973). Thus, we can say that due to the pluralism the person receives more elaborated knowledge about various social and political systems and thus, becomes for tolerate to other members. According to Lipset “politics of the socially society will be moderate, as political extremism often is a function of isolated individuals who are sheltered from alternative sources of information and points of view” (Lipset, 1964). So, we can say that the notion of social pluralism presupposes that all individuals are divided into different groups within society according to their interests. Due to this the dissatisfaction within society if any does not cumulate and rise to the high degree. On the other hand people of socially pluralistic societies often find themselves pressed with various conflict situations. This leads to the personal conflict between politically relevant and opposite ideas, that can be explained by the satisfaction of the person with one particular aspect of social life and dissatisfaction with the other. Person begins to analyze and accept different social positions, which generates person’s tolerance and reduces the degree of “rigid ideological thinking” (Conn, 1973). The scholars consider that social pluralism is extremely valuable for any society and its democratic development t is claimed that the presence of social pluralism increases the frequency of interpersonal communication and this exposes the person greater variety of different views. Let’s take for example election process. Pluralism is of great importance for this process. Pluralism makes people think and encourage them to participate in the process of elections, which is by the way of the main processes for establishment and support of the democratic regime (Conn, 1973). So, the supporters of the pluralism state that due to the social pluralism citizens of the society receive more information from various sources, which is the guarantee of the more differentiated information, which the citizen is be to analyze and process and build his own position. In fact this is the main cornerstone of the contemporary democracy. As far as pluralism stimulates the person to participate in various voluntary organizations, its helps them to acquire many skills, which are valuable for participation in democratic systems (Conn, 1973). The other advantage of social pluralism is the natural competition among the numerous organizations for acquiring of social benefits. This is a natural source of diversity of political leaders, which present different leadership tactics and political skills. Thus, due to this great variety there appear great many alternative leaders. This is a nice promotion of the democracy due to the fact that one political leader is at the helm and the other strive to reach this position and to replace the existing political leader (Lipset, 1964). In this position, when the existing political leaders feel the threat from the alternative ones, they behave within the legal norms and don’t abuse their position and power. The other positive side of this problem is that while competing for political and social benefits alternative leaders will make the emphasis on the new problems and develop their own alternative programs (Conn, 1973). Due to the constant conflict among the demands of various social organizations, the socially pluralist society will promote the activity of those leaders, who will be able to create coalitions and lead negotiats to resolve the existing conflicts (Dahl, and Lindblom, 1953). However, not only social pluralism is important for the development of the democratic decision-making. Many scholars argue the importance of the cultural pluralism as well. Deveaux sates that for the democratic growth and development the government should promote cultural tolerance and the policy of “deliberative liberalism”. Such liberal regimes according to Deveaux posses a number of features the most important among which is the recognition of “the importance of citizens cultural identities and memberships to political life and acknowledge the need for some special arrangements and rights for such citizens” (Deveaux, 2000). In order to achieve this, the citizens have to be tolerable to diversities within their society and not only social but cultural as well. Then people will be able to treat the group rights with more respect, which is very important for the establishment of the cultural pluralism. As Deveaux states in order to be able to provide these changes the government of the liberal democracies should on the contrary to support differences between private and public peculiarities of people (Deveaux, 2000). So, as we can see the existence of pluralism, actually in all its forms, does not present the threat to the society. On the contrary, the more diverse and pluralistic is the society, the greater is the possibility of the establishment of the democratic regime, which will be beneficial for the greater part of the population of the given state. References Barber, J. (1963). Some Consequences of Pluralization in Government, unpublished paper, mimeo. Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man. New York: Doubleday. Conn, P. (1973). Social Pluralism and Democracy. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 17, No. 2. Dahl, R. and Lindblom, Ch. (1953). Politics, Economics, and Welfare.New York: Harper and Row. Deveaux., M. (2000). Cultural Pluralism and Dilemmas of Justice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Feit, E. (1964). Political Groups Under Severe Pressure: A Comparative Study Based on the Communication Control Model, General Systems Yearbook, 9 Haug, M. (1967). Social and Cultural Pluralism as a Concept in Social System Analysis, American Journal of Sociology, 73. Kornhauser, W. (1959). The Politics of Mass Society. New York: Free Press. Littunen, Y. (1964). Social Restraints and Ideological Pluralism, in Erik Allardt and Yrjo Littunen, “Cleavages, ideologies and Party Systems”, Helsinki: Westermarck Society. Lipset, S. Political Cleavages in “Developed” and “Emerging “ Polities," in Erik Allardt and Yrjo Littunen, “Cleavages, ideologies and Party Systems”, Helsinki: Westermarck Society. Read More