Overview of Political Theories - Essay Example

Political Theories Every society is made up of groups of individuals that have certain hopes and aspirations; every is made of people that wantto find a way to find solutions for their growing needs and desires to achieve things and make a living for themselves as well as to support their families. This however sometimes is at the cost of others and thus a proper political, social as well as economic structure needs to be set in place in order to avoid conflicts among people. A certain amount of competition and conflict is allowed because it only helps to push the psychology of a human being and help him find unique ways to do things in a better manner; however, if stretched, this can lead to the existence of a majority group that begins to gain all the benefits of resources and services. Individuals often know what is best for them and thus they come together in order to make decisions which they feel would be fit for everyone else. They think for others and often try to come up with ideas that would suit the lifestyle of most people within that particular society. This refers to rule or policy formulation on a political basis and gaining power for a purpose; in order to serve the needs of the people. However, this power sometimes may not be distributed in an even manner; causing problems within that society and having a certain section impose its influence upon the others because of the excess of power. Since the inception of the idea of democracy within a state, various theories have been developed in order to find out the best possible manner in which democracy is to be executed among the people. Some societies try their best to establish a clean political scenario within which people can live peacefully with each other, sharing resources and producing goods and services in a very harmonised manner. However, within some societies, this distribution may become haywire and concentrated within the hands of a few individuals. This obviously might not be good for the general benefit of the entire state, however might help a few individuals gain a lot, thus leading to an overall growth in the entire income structure of the state. The economy is thus divided on the basis of both sociological as well as political perspectives in order to counter these issues and move towards prosperity. Political life can be measured through sociological variables and this helps to understand the class model of the society very easily. There have been a number of philosophers and thinkers who have been able to base their theories on class and model structures within a political economy. Nonetheless, the Marxian philosophy or theory of class structure of state has had the greatest impact on political sociology and his most dynamic work may be found in economics. Every political system is made up of individuals who react to their sociological surroundings and determine the political life. In the present day, three theories have been used greatly – the Marxist, Pluralist and the Elitist theories that deal with different (as well as similar) ideas of democracy. This paper helps to analyse the similarities as well as the differences among these three ideas, as well as the path that led up to their establishment in the modern day and age. It also aims to focus on the political system that prevails in the United Kingdom and the course that the same took over time in order to become what it is today. According to Karl Marx, people entered into social relationships with one another; their conduct was largely determined by the way they behaved around each other as well as the reactions to the actions of other people in their surroundings. People moulded their beliefs and ideas according to the needs and wants of the people within their external environment and thus the political system was loosely based on the economic scenario of demand and supply. Marx’s theory talked considerably about competition and conflict that was created due to economic production; he said that men and women could only be free within a society that was highly advanced in technology as well as production. (Heywood, Andrew ) However, the present society at the time was far from this idea; society consisted of the higher strata of society that often oppressed the lower weaker sections in order to get their work done and get whatever they wanted as well as needed. Thus, conflict formed a very crucial aspect of political life and led to class struggle as the weaker sections tried to remove the barriers and obstructions and rise against the elite. He thus mainly was concerned about the growing levels of capitalism within the state and wanted to put an end to the same by informing and educating lower level craftsmen, factory workers as well as labourers about the harms of going along with the whims and fancies of the higher classes. Marxist theory differs on a very basic level from sociological theories - such as functionalism - which consider social order to be self-sustaining and disorder to be unusual and undesirable. Marxist theory expects tension, conflict, and change as necessary for human progress. Conflict between social classes, in particular, is viewed by the Marxist as the basic source of social evolution. Marx viewed political life as a reflection of the class struggle. When he analyzed political struggles, he viewed each of the participating parties and leaders as representatives of social classes, and he explained their behaviour as resulting from their class interests. In its basic form Marxist theory has an elegant simplicity and grandeur, similar to many religious doctrines. It can be readily understood by people who are not professional social scientists. The Elitist theory of democracy on the other hand was a direct response to the ideas presented forth in Marxism. It aimed to explain the power relationships within contemporary society through the actions of a small minority that consisted of the elite members within society, who would make all the policy formulations and hold the central power of the state’s election process. They were mainly the regulators of every aspect of the state, controlling the economic, social, as well as the political dimensions, by holding a strong influence over the people. Elitist theory is thus based on two main ideas; 1. Power lies in position of authority in key economic and political institutions 2. The psychological difference that sets Elites apart is that they have personal resources, for instance intelligence and skills, and a vested interest in the government; while the rest are incompetent and do not have the capabilities of governing themselves, the elite are resourceful and will strive to make the government work. For in reality, the elite have the most to lose in a failed government. (Schattschneider, E.E.) The entire theory however goes against the theory of pluralism in dealing with democracy. This is because according to the elitist theory, democracy is said to have a Utopian structure standing in opposition to the state autonomy theory. The idea of pluralism takes root in the idea that the politics and decision making process within a state are handled by majority of the people through representation within the central government. A number of nongovernmental organisations also have the liberty to exist freely within such a society and all of this thus helps to regulate and mark the spread of power as well as influence in a free and fair manner within a democracy. In much the same manner, elitist theories also go against Marxism because Marxist theory essentially deals with fighting the higher classes of society. Marxism is a complete opposition to the elitist theory because it aims to preach the lower and weaker sections about the oppression that they are being caused by the powerful and how the resources that they are entitled to as well are being siphoned off by the higher classes. (Mills, C. Wright) Marxism thus divides society according to class structure, dividing the haves from the have-nots. Long-term changes in class systems do generally reflect economic changes; but at a detailed level, and at a specific point in time, it is necessary to consider many aspects of social inequality which cannot be immediately reduced to their economic origins. Pluralism, it may be said, is an enhanced version of Marxism; where Marxism speaks of oppressed people coming together in order to rise against the elite groups of society and voice their opinions, pluralism talks about how people should come together in general to form policies for the general good of the entire state. Groups of individuals try to maximise their interests in a collective manner according to both the theories, despite there being a certain amount of conflict, however shifting in nature it might be. Changes take place within these two aspects of democracy, but they are slow in nature and may not be incremental with time. As opposed to this, the elitist system hardly ever witnesses a change with respect to the wishes of the general public. This form of political governance leaves power to rest within the hands of the elite people without any relevance given to the public. The higher strata is said to make decisions which they deem may be fit for the rest of the state, without actually asking the people what they want. Marxism flourished mainly during the industrial period; the 60s and the 70s focused on the conflicts that took place among the owners of industries and factories as well as the workers that were employed within those units. Marx thus emphasised on how the capitalists evolved with time and soon began to be mixed with aspects of pluralism. Many political issues were fought and discussed because of not only the strong hold that the oppressing sections of society had on the weaker parts but also because of the majority that these weaker sections were not being able to form with an aim to change their lifestyle. Thus, the class system tried to take on the prowess of ideas of pluralism and gather people together in order to discuss solutions for a more dominant position within society for those that deserved to have their voices heard. In the 60s, this revolution took many forms including fighting for women’s rights, youth movements as well as facing environmental crises. The only similarity that Marxism and Pluralism held within this sphere was contrasting against the elitist sections of society and going against the elitist theory of democracy. (Marxist Media Theory) Studying the elite and high powered sections of society has been accepted within political sociology as an integral part of the subject altogether and debate has focused on more empirical questions such as the nature, composition, and behaviour of elites. Furthermore, understanding a class structure or analysing a class composition has also been accepted however there still remain several differences regarding the origins of and the necessity for class inequality. Pluralism has lost most of its claim to being adequate as a portrayal of contemporary American society (and it never claimed to be an explanation of most other societies), but much of the empirical work done by pluralists is increasingly appreciated by people whose understanding of the larger system is different. The primary ethical and philosophical values that form the base of many of the differences have not, of course, been resolved under the purview of this theory of democracy. As the time of the European ascendancy of neo-Marxism in media theory (primarily in the 1970s and early 1980s), the main non-Marxist tradition was that of liberal pluralism (which had been the dominant perspective in the United States since the 1940s). The socialist assumption that human nature can be improved cannot be reconciled with a conservative belief that it is innately determined. The liberal belief that the only function of a political institution should be to limit itself to mediating disputes between existing interest groups cannot be reconciled with a radical desire to use political power to redistribute wealth and fundamentally reorganize society. But on the more mundane level of social research, the three perspectives can often be effectively combined in order to hope for the welfare and betterment of society. (Theoretical Models in Political Sociology) Therefore, democratic equilibrium is only seen in pluralism and Marxism but not in the elitist theory. The political system within the United Kingdom is largely formed on the basis of a pluralist form of democracy. This is because there are various constituencies within the country where representatives are elected on a systematic and annual basis by the people, for the purpose of making decisions at the central level for the welfare of the entire country, and not a single aspect of the economy. A heavy transition may be seen within the political economy of the UK as it has shifted from a Marxist class struggle in the earlier days to a more Pluralist form of government in the present day and age. (Rightwing politics is inherently pluralistic..) As per research and understanding, the past of the English depended heavily on industries and factories within which working class society was exploited and oppressed by the higher strata. This today has moved into a more organized form of political thinking in the form of a proper pluralist structure and political system within which the economy has been flourishing with one of the richest currencies in the world today. References Schattschneider, E.E. (1960) The Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Mills, C. Wright (1956) The Power Elite. Dye, T. R. (2000) Top Down Policymaking New York: Chatham House Publishers. Heywood, Andrew. (2007) Politics. 3rd Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. Theoretical Models in Political Sociology. 2012. Theoretical Models in Political Sociology. [ONLINE] Available at:http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/polsoctheories.htm. [Accessed 09 January 2012]. Marxist Media Theory. 2012. Marxist Media Theory. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/marxism/marxism01.html. [Accessed 09 January 2012].  Rightwing politics is inherently pluralistic – the left needs to be too | John Harris | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk . 2012. Rightwing politics is inherently pluralistic – the left needs to be too | John Harris | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/03/compass-left-politics-pluralistic. [Accessed 09 January 2012]. Read More