Democracy: The Pluralist Perspective

This paper offers an analysis of one side of the debate over how one political system, that of the United States, truly operates in its representation of the people. By analyzing the variety of factions and socio-political groups that comprise the American political system, the reader is given an understanding of the pluralist perspective and how it applies to the modern democratic system.

Keywords Grassroots; Ideology; Interest Group; Oligarchy; Pluralist; Polyarchy

Sociology > Politics & Government > Democracy: The Pluralist Perspective

Overview

In 1787, James Madison, writing "Federalist #10," said that a well-constructed Union would be an exceptional asset in the cessation of inter-factional conflict. Factionalism, in the minds of Madison and his contemporaries, was an element that often tears apart a nation. However, he acknowledged that the development of a diverse state, particularly one that welcomes and encourages public input from the countless social groups, creates avenues for intra-state factions to form. Madison understood that these groups, which more often than not seek to serve the public good by way of their own agendas, will inevitably come into conflict with one another. It is in vain that leaders can presume to control these competing interests, he said, or claim to have the ability to redirect such conflict in a positive manner toward the collective good of the society.

The alternative, Madison said, was therefore not to control the causes of factional development, but instead to target the effects of inter-factional conflict. If, for example, a group represents a minority interest within the whole society, the people should be able, through the electoral process, to address the needs of that group or quell their agenda (should that platform work against a strong, unified nation). On the other hand, if a group represents a majority and initiates endeavors that are adverse to the minority, safeguards should already be in place within the nation's constitution that protects the individual rights of the minority. If a significant threat of inter-factional violence and conflict exists, Madison concluded, a republic that represents the interests of the entire society "promises the cure … which we are seeking" (Constitution Society, 2008).

A myriad of diverse, active participants is arguably the heart of a representative democracy. Under ideal circumstances, such government systems are as President Abraham Lincoln proffered in his Gettysburg Address: "of the people, by the people, for the people." Within this ideal framework, legislators and executives are selected to represent the people via a mandate from the voters, and if those elected officials fail to follow that mandate, others will be selected to replace them.

Of course, in a practical setting, such ideals are not as easily applied. The Founding Fathers, for example, established the Electoral College instead of creating a "one person, one vote" presidential election system not because of a distrust of the people but to accommodate the diverse geographic populations of the new nation. In another example, the very factions that Madison simultaneously acknowledged and criticized, which became manifest in political parties, have also muddled this ideal by creating slates of party platform-adherent candidates rather than individual aspirants.

With such complexities built into the modern democratic system, questions arise as to whether variations of this model are representative of the interests of the society they govern and, if so, how that governance takes shape. This paper will offer an analysis of one side of the debate over how one political system, that of the United States, truly operates in its representation of the people. By analyzing the variety of factions and socio-political groups that comprise the American political system, the reader will glean an understanding of the pluralist perspective and how it applies in the modern democratic system.

David Truman, Robert Dahl & the Pluralist Perspective

As suggested earlier, James Madison viewed the formation and interaction of interest-oriented political groups as a natural result of the democratic system. David Truman certainly shared this view. In 1951, Truman authored his seminal work "The Governmental Process," in which he would proffer the notion that politics can only be understood by studying the interaction of the myriad of social and political interest groups that surface as part of the institution. In fact, Truman argued, a political man is a product of group influences (Kansas State University, 2008). These elements rest at the heart of what is known as "the pluralist perspective."

A delicate line is thus drawn between the concerns of Madison and the reality of democratic institutions (at least as seen by loyalists or this framework). Madison expressed concern that the interest groups that would form as a natural byproduct of democracy, absent of protections and checks built into the constitutional system, would not find common ground and therefore place strains on the fabric of the nation.

Following Truman's thesis was the framework introduced by Robert Dahl. Whereas Truman focused his attention within the pluralist model on the interaction (and often competition) of various interest groups, Dahl asked a more pointed question about leadership within the democratic system that contains pluralist ideals. In his most compelling work on the subject, "Who Governs," Dahl asks who, in a society in which every person is able to vote even though his or her personal and political resources are unevenly distributed, assumes the mantle of leadership.

The key to Dahl's pursuit of the answer is in the distribution of power. In his view, an effective polyarchy (a government ruled by a coalition of varying parties) as well as an effective pluralist society depends not on how the parties interact, but how the resources themselves are distributed. Without reasonable distribution of such resources, what is currently a pluralist society could be turned into a system by which political power is held by a singular group (Jordan, 1990).

Group Interaction

At the core of this discussion is the interest group. In the minds of political scientists and sociologists, interest groups are borne of the aggregate of individual interests. In other words, an interest affecting one area of political representation or social demographics attracts individuals who sympathize with the cause. The group in question next seeks representation by political candidates or elected officials to act as the vessels of their cause. As the cause attracts more and more interested individual members, the interest group becomes more and more powerful and influential in the political process.

Collaboration, Competition & Success

There remains a two-sided concern for interest groups in terms of the goals and methodologies they employ. In one hand, interest groups, all of whom remained focused on pursuing the common good (even if tactics and ideology separates them politically), are concerned that a lack of communication or coalition-building might drive wedges between interest groups, diverting attention away from a collective fear that such divisions might give rise to an oligarchical system that forces its own brand of political management (Alford & Friedland, 1985).

On the other side, interest groups that move toward their goals without forging alliances or who are otherwise in direct competition with other groups may end up experiencing very little success in seizing control of the political system they seek to change, whereas groups that are able to jell and forge cooperative networks may climb closer to power. As one expert succinctly states: "Nothing categorical can be said about power … If anything, there seems to be an unspoken notion among pluralist researchers that at bottom nobody dominates" (Luger, 1999).

It is in this arena that individuals like James Madison offered cautionary words about the dangers of inter-factionary fighting and competition. Indeed, as is the case for other socio-political groups, unilateral (or at least minority) pursuit of power may offer validation of Madison's fears. Then again, the positive gains that can be seen by the successful interconnectivity and partnership between groups can and often does bode well for the system as a whole.

In studying the various forms of interest groups, a better understanding of the democratic system itself is gleaned. This paper next looks at the abundant examples of interest groups and parties in the system that has long served as the inspiration for other nations seeking to create for themselves a democratic form of government: the United States.

Political Parties

A Two Party System

It may be said that political opinions are, more often than not, generated from ideology and, in many cases, partisan leanings. In the United States, the two-party system has led the vast majority of those interested in being involved in government to choose one platform or another. This characteristic of American political activity dates back to the very earliest days of the United States, as Federalists and Anti-Federalists sparred over the creation of the Bill of Rights.

In fact, in many circumstances, it is difficult to separate individuals from the parties with which they are affiliated when it comes to matters of opinion. Then again, in light of this fact, it is rather easy to determine from whence political rhetoric comes when one determines party membership. In 1936, for example, 83 percent of Republicans believed that then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's policies were leading the United States down the wrong path, and nine percent of Democrats shared that view.

History

Political parties may have evolved since the 1787 Constitutional Congress, but the changes have largely remained semantic. The issues at the dawn of the United States of America were civil rights and protections, government control (and limits thereto), state power, and the continuation of a free and open democratic system. With the exceptions of the war on terrorism and concerns about global climate change, more than two centuries have passed with few changes to this issue docket. As was the case in 1787, there are but two major parties to address them, a characteristic which is unusual when compared to other democratic countries, but which remains unchanged by the will of the voters.

Of course, there has not always been consensus on the need for political parties in the United States. In fact, during the late 19th century, public disapproval of political parties, which had grown considerably stronger since the birth of the nation, led to a movement for the dismantlement of the patronage system that accompanied party rule. However, the idea of doing away with political parties, the movement's advocates learned, would also disenfranchise citizens from the political process and the country's government institutions — the movement would soon fizzle in the absence of a viable alternative to the party system (Courser, 2007).

Contemporary Partisanship

In truth, although the American political system has only allowed two parties to grow and thrive within its machinations, the public has consistently embraced political parties, even in the face of what many consider partisan bickering and polarization. In fact, in a number of situations when partisanship reached a fever pitch, moderates from within the parties have acted as mitigating factors, drawing the platform back to the center where voters are more comfortable.

Special Interest Groups

As stated earlier, while many of the Founding Fathers did express reservations about factions jelling during development of the Constitution, they also acknowledged that groups would form nonetheless. As is the case with a diverse society, an equally diverse electorate would naturally settle into groups who view as important to their way of life an issue or set thereof. Many such factions become political parties, unions, and even states. In a great many cases, however, the group is far smaller, more focused, and much more myopic in terms of their pursuits.

Characteristics

Interest groups, as these organizations are known, often elude the gauging abilities of political scientists hoping to better understand their composition. Focused on an issue rather than a political philosophy, interest groups are often part of a political party, union, or even a state or nation — in fact, they may become entangled in many different, larger political organizations, and these organizations may be in direct competition with one another. This apparent paradoxical situation is again a testament to the fact that interest groups may be easily identified but their specific ideologies are more difficult to assess (McKay, 2008).

Issue Specificity

One of the mitigating factors is the specificity of the issues that drive interest groups. Whereas political parties gather their numbers through institutional organization, caucuses, and broad political recruitment methodologies, interest groups operate on a much more localized, "grassroots" level. Their compositional numbers may be considerably smaller than a larger trade association, union, or political party, but their knowledge of (and most often, personal experience with) relevant issues gives their members considerable importance in policymaking circles.

Experience & Expertise

It is the fact that interest groups demonstrate a proven experience in a given issue area that makes them relevant in political institutions such as legislatures and executive agencies. The sheer number of interest groups in the United States is testimony both to their value as a political contributor and as a vehicle to foster political involvement in the nation.

Composition

The compositions of these individual groups are as multifarious as the issues on which they are focused. Some are social in nature, seeking equal rights and protections under the law, such as the National Organization of Women or the Human Rights Campaign. Others might be focused on issues such as the environment, taxation, or health care. Organized religion, charities, health care providers, and community activists are all among the multitude of groups that have jelled to form interest groups.

Influence

Some of the most powerful entities in the US Capitol come from outside of the building — the American Association of Retired Persons, the National Rifle Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers are among these groups. Like more comprehensive political organizations such as political parties, unions, and trade associations, interest groups occupy a much smaller space but their local, grassroots activity suggests a viability which allows these groups to use their relative individual obscurity to their advantage. Furthermore, like these larger political organizations, interest groups also lend credence to the pluralist ideals championed by such political scientists as Truman.

Conclusion

American history features something of a paradox. At its beginning, many Founding Fathers, cautioned about the prevalence of various factions that could tear at the fabric of the new Union. In his farewell address, George Washington warned that factions representing the interests of a variety of individuals should not become as powerful as the government under which they formed (Archiving Early America, 2008). At the same time, however, the same leaders saw the formation of groups as a natural result of a democratic environment. The same voices that spoke out against subnational organizations also understood (and did not stand against) the natural development of such coalitions.

There is a wide range of such "factions," most of which have avoided working to undermine the government and instead have become invaluable contributors to the American political system. This paper provides examples of two such organizations — political parties and interest groups. Both types of group, rather than tear apart the country, have worked to strengthen it by providing the people with a number of options to become involved in the political process. On one hand, political parties have successfully worked to conjoin subgroups and individuals amenable to their own ideologies and collective legislative pursuits. On another front, interest groups have demonstrated great facility and connectivity by giving individuals concerned with a singular issue a chance to work towards its resolution on a number of fronts. Such groups seem counter to the warnings of many of the Founding Fathers. In fact, political parties and interest groups do play a role in connecting the private citizenry with the government.

The apparent paradox stems from a positive or negative view of the nature of social and political groups. The perspective of those who are adverse to the notion of a powerful plurality arises from the belief that such groups will consistently vie for power and, in the process, tear apart government institutions by asserting themselves above and beyond all others (who in turn compete for the same power). On the positive side, advocates of plurality see great potential for political inclusion and more productivity in the pursuit of political, economic and social equity.

The missing link between the two poles described above is how political parties and interest groups interact. The pluralist perspective, as discussed in this paper, endeavors to study the relationships between sub-national groups such as parties and special interests. David Truman laid the groundwork for modern applications of this theory, suggesting that there is relevance to how groups of similar and counteractive ideologies and agendas work in relation to one another and within the political system.

Robert Dahl took this idea one step farther by asking how interest groups share and refuse to share their common resources. His assumption was that the United States is a pluralist system governed not by an elite ruling class but by the various groups that comprise American society.

Indeed, while it has proven difficult to gauge the nature of the extensive range of interest groups in the United States, determining a common set of interest group resources, as Dahl suggests, does indeed provide a useful tool in understanding how such a diverse society as the US operates within the modern democratic system.

Terms & Concepts

Grassroots: Social or political activism on a local level.

Ideology: Individual or group political views and partisan leanings.

Interest Group: Organization dedicated to advancement of a political cause.

Oligarchy: Governing institution ruled by a small, elite ruling organization or cadre.

Pluralist: Political characteristic whereby groups are perceived as the driving force behind government leadership.

Polyarchy: Governing institution ruled by a wide range of individual interest groups.

Bibliography

Alford, R. R. & Friedland, R. (1985). Powers of theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://books.google.com/books?id=xtcRpF3cIFEC&printsec=frontcover

Bruno, G., Green, D., Palmquist, B., Sondergard, S.L. & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. Grand Rapids, MI: Yale University Press. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from http://books.google.com/books?id=HVY18n59ThgC&dq=partisan+politics+ history&pg=PP1&ots=cIuh5TRBrz&source=citation&sig=z-pjt XrxTQBwaUB2nSMspleIE9I&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search% 3Fq%3Dpartisan%2Bpolitics%2Bhistory%26sourceid%3Die7%26rls%3Dcom.micros oft:en-US%26ie%3Dutf8%26oe%3Dutf8&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result &cd=1&cad=bottom-3results#PPP1,M1

Courser, Z. (2007). Mugwumps and goo-goos. Conference Papers — Midwestern Political Science Association, 1. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26956919&site=ehost-live

George Washington's farewell address. (2008). Archiving Early America. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html

Jordan, G. (1990). The pluralism of pluralism: An anti-theory? Political Studies, 38, 286–301. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21482912&site=ehost-live

Keim, G.D. (1996). Strategic grassroots. Electric Perspectives, 21, 16–26. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=9603131654&site=ehost-live

Lijphart, A. (2011). Democratic quality in stable democracies. Society, 48, 17–18. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=56521837

Luger, S. (1999). Corporate power, American Democracy and the automobile industry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://books.google.com/books?id=I0usk4SxG9cC&printsec=frontcover

Madison, J. (1787). The Federalist Number 10. In Daily Advertiser. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from the Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

McKay, A. (2008). A simple way of estimating interest group ideology. Public Choice, 136(1/2), 69–86. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=32484728&site=ehost-live

Schumaker, P. (2013). Group involvements in city politics and pluralist theory. Urban Affairs Review, 49, 254–281. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85713192

Sutherland, K. (2011). The two sides of the representative coin. Studies in Social Justice, 5, 197–211. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=82824315

Swint, K. (2008). Madison's dilemma. Kansas State University. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~kswint/madisondilemma.ppt

Zuckerman, M. (1998). Revenge of the moderates. U.S. News and World Report, 125, 90–91. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1318041&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Breiner, P. (2003). Does democracy really require complex equality. Conference Papers — American Political Science Association, 1–33. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16023321&site=ehost-live

Graeber, D. (2011). Value, politics and democracy in the United States. Current Sociology, 59, 186–199. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=59196391

Jordan, G. (1990). The pluralism of pluralism: an anti-theory? Political Studies, 38, 286–301. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25443669&site=ehost-live

Kaltenthaler, K., & Miller, W. J. (2012). The polarized American: Views on humanity and the sources of hyper-partisanship. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 1718–1734. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=83226696

Lavelle, M. (2007). Lots of heat, little light. U.S. News and World Report, 142, 43–44. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=22&sid=b82ee69a -0990-4041-b291-abb034182e1d%40SRCSM2.

McFarland, A.S. (2007). Neopluralism. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 45–66. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25452691&site=ehost-live

Ware, A. (1981). The concept of political equality: A post-Dahl analysis. Political Studies, 29, 392–406. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14326681&site=ehost-live