In this essay, I shall critically examine the pluralist theory of the state by focussing on its weaknesses and strengths by looking at how although the theory might be beneficial for society in some ways, the pluralist theory of the state can contradict itself. Pluralism, the dominant political science approach in America during the 1950’s, can be defined in a way such that it is about acceptance, and believing that all of us are different, not just in the way we live or learn, but also how power is dispersed in society through representation (Dryzek and Dunleavy, 2009, p. 35). In a pluralistic society, power is widely spread amongst the people. Not only is it just held in the hands of the elites, but also in the hands of everyone else. Normatively, pluralism emphasises the importance of presence of diversity in society, so people coming from different cultures, ethnicity, religion and such would be able to have a say of their personal views on certain political issues. Though pluralism sounds quite similar to democracy, pluralism is an ideology and not a form of government. Robert Dahl (1961) describes pluralism as a form of ‘polyarchy’ – meaning ruled by the many. In this case, ‘the many’ are the different groups of minorities; and in a pluralistic society, the minorities are the one that rules, whereas in a democracy, the majority rules.
Pluralists believe that everyone has a chance to get what they want, and even if they do not, they will get at least something (Garner et al, 2016, p. 30); that groups all have an equal opportunity to voice out certain issues and win their cases. However, this is not always the case. There are some instances where one group is more dominant than the others, which contradicts the pluralist theory itself, making it a weakness. For example, business lobbyists have a higher chance of getting what they want as opposed to small groups. This is because they have more resources that they can use, such as money, and they also have a stronger influence on the government, so they can easily get what they wish for. Compared to small interest groups, elites are much more politically aware of their surroundings and more educated about the world. In reality, governments would therefore be biased towards the elites and would prioritise their cases over others. Joseph Schumpeter argues that only political elites generate ideas, and the government is in favour of the elites (Dryzek and Dunleavy, 2009, p. 44). Haywood (2004, p. 81) says that “The electorates can decide which elite rules but cannot change the fact the power is always exercised by an elite.” Pluralists sometimes use the decision-making approach to empirically prove their thoughts and ideas, but it may lead to non-pluralist conclusions (Garner et al, 2016, p. 55). For instance, group A is a group of political elites requesting for the implementation of taxes, while group B is an interest group advocating for the environment. Since the government is biased in this case, group A would be more successful in its influence, so not everyone gets an equal opportunity.
While people in interest groups are represented, elites still have the upper hand. This creates a ‘political marginal’ which is ignored by Dahl’s theory of polyarchy – that poor people may not belong to any interest groups and therefore they will not be represented due to them having little to no resources to utilise (Goodwin, 2014, p. 313). There is a wide inequality gap between the rich and the poor, where the elites are able to get whatever they desire. Money, especially, can play a big role in the succession of influencing government policy. Elites can use money to buy their way through the process, easily gaining the support of people. They can make any kind of promises to the public, make big donations to charities, contribute a large sum of money to support governmental projects or even make the media show people the good things elitists do for the public to see; they would do whatever they can to win. This is unfair to small interest groups that lack resources, and more importantly, this is unfair to the poor. It is assumed that all issue areas are just as equally important as others, but these issues can be weighted out according to what the government thinks is important (Hague et al, 2016, p. 308). While there is a very slim chance of the small groups even winning, it could be the case that these small groups could be presenting something important and probably improve the state and the well-being of the people; they could be trying to voice out their concerns and help the poor. However, due to the law of anticipated reactions, these associations do not bother to present their cases at all. This is because they know what they present may or may not be considered or even heard at all because of the political elites are already winning.
On the contrary, one strength of the pluralist theory of the state is that there is a rough equality across groups (Haywood, 2015, p. 71). Anyone and everyone coming from different kinds of ethnicity, religion, background and so on are not and cannot be exempted from forming groups of their interest, unions or associations. There is a coalition amongst members in society to form such classes. One group could be advocating for the environment, i.e. banning the use of plastic to stop further pollution, while the other could be fighting for gun control. Although not everyone in society may necessarily want to include themselves, there is at least some form of representation asserted through their respective class. This allows their voices for certain issues to be heard as they now have a platform to do so. These groups are also independent, and the government only merely acts as a mediator between the groups (Garner et al, 2016, p. 30), making sure none of them do things that step out of jurisdiction. In turn, groups just have to abide by the rules of the game and have a consensus for their survival as a whole. This makes the system fair, as people can do whatever they want with their voices, as long as they obey the rules of the state.
As mentioned earlier, power in a pluralistic society is widely spread. Power may be fragmented, but it is not equally shared (Garner et al, 2016, p. 30). However, it does not just come from one dominant source, which is a good thing for society as a whole. For example, governmental positions can be filled not only by elites, but by different people, those of who might perhaps be representing their own respective groups. The belief of pluralists here that there is diversity amongst the power structures is justified. Everyone has an equal chance of getting something of what they want, and even if they do not, they will get at least a little bit of something – nobody will get nothing. Due to the scarcity of resources, groups would have to compete against each other for a spot, which brings about a countervailing influence (Garner et al, 2016, p. 31). Groups therefore challenge each to be better than others and fight for what they think is right for their problems to be heard and issues to be won. These groups would provide some sort of influence rather than to seek control of situations. Power that is established should not be and should not ought to be revolved around only one main dominant source, but extensively throughout different groups and associations. The fact that power does not just rest in the hands of elites but to everyone is society, the pluralist theory of the state would make society a bit better due to the portrayal of different groups in societies with the presentation of their issues, and these issues are not just focussed in one specific area.
In conclusion, though the pluralist theory of the state has its weaknesses, as there could be instances where one group is more dominating than others when it should not, followed by the creation of ‘political marginals’ due to political elites having more resources compared to small groups, allowing them to buy the support of the public, there are also good things about the theory. Pluralism emphasises the equality across groups, making sure there is consensus and coalition amongst them. Power in society is not just concentrated within the political elites, but also with everyone else. The diversity of the groups allows different kinds of issues to be heard and therefore gives everyone an equal chance. After looking at how the pluralist theory may be beneficial for society to a certain extent, it still contradicts itself, with the theory arguably leaving some people sitting on the fence.