Pluralism and Dahl Lecture Revised 2016

8/18/2019 Pluralism and Dahl Lecture Revised 2016

1/11

PLURALISM AND DAHL

The second lecture today is on the idea of pluralist democracy. Ill try and

!eep this lecture under the hour and ma!e it a little more interacti"e thanthe last. #ust as an initial point of interest$ the main theorist that %ell

loo! at in this lecture$ Ro&ert Dahl ' a (iant of )*th century American

democratic theory and political science + died ) years a(o pretty much to

the day.

This second lecture %ill co"er t%o notions of democratic pluralism. ,hat

Da"id Held calls classical democratic pluralism and neo+pluralism.

#ust &y %ay of some conte-t$ the reason %e are loo!in( at pluralism as a

!ey model of democracy is as a !ind of interestin( counter and correction

to ,e&er and Schumpeters focus on democracy as the circulation of

elites. Ha"in( said that &oth ,e&er and Schumpeter pro"ide the !ey

umpin( o/ points for many of the core ideas of democratic pluralism.

,ho here a(rees %ith Schumpeter that in the U0 it is &asically

professional politicians that set the political a(enda1 Does anyone

disa(ree1

,ell$ pluralists$ li!e Dahl$ held that the modern democratic state has o"er

time de"eloped to incorporate a ran(e of institutional$ cultural and social

mechanisms and forces that constrain politicians and limit and delimit the

political a(enda. The upshot of this$ says Dahl$ is that politicians or the

political class$ cannot really ust set the a(enda as they li!e. The modern

politician must ta!e heed of social pressures$ the media$ the electorates

e"eryday realities and concerns and the demands and perspecti"es of a

ran(e of$ often competin( and o"erlappin( interest and (roups. This$ say

the pluralists$ is the conte-t in %hich the o2cial &usiness of democratic

politics ta!e place$ and accordin( to pluralists$ this conte-t chan(es

e"erythin( a&out the politics.

3


2/11

An important component part of this process can &e seen "ery clearly in

one of Dahls early characterisations on the nature of competiti"e

elections. Interestin(ly$ Dahl echoes Schumpeter in reco(nisin( thatpoliticians must persuade the electorate to "ote for them and that$

therefore$

SLID4

5In a rou(h sense$ the essence of all competiti"e politics is &ri&ery of the

electorate &y politicians6 The farmer6 supports a candidate committed

to hi(h price supports$ the &usinessman6supports an ad"ocate of lo%

corporation ta-es6 the consumer6"otes for candidates opposed to a

sale ta-7

I thin! %e all reco(ni8e this picture. Thin! of the %ay mar!etin(

techni9ues and PR is no% u&i9uitous in political campai(ns and policy

ma!in( ' sur"eys$ focus (roups$ media trainin(. Some of this$ as

Schumpeter sa%$ is clearly a !ind of manipulation of the electorate and

manufacturin( of the a(enda$ &ut some of it$ li!e :ndin( out a&out

peoples immediate pro&lems$ "alues$ &ac!(rounds and life (oals '

seein( %hat people thin! a&out potential policies in focus (roup ' ;or

throu(h


3/11

This idea is also nicely captured &y >ermanys ?hancellor ' An(ela

Mer!el$ %ho in an inter"ie% e-pressed the re9uirement for a !ind of

pluralist outloo! li!e this.

SLID4

‘ The pro&lem is$ of course$ that these interest (roups are all as!in(

for chan(es$ &ut their enthusiasm for chan(e rapidly disappears

%hen it a/ects the core of their o%n interests. 4"eryone %ants a

more simple ta- system. @ut if this means that certain ta- &rea!s

ha"e to &e cut$ people are no lon(er so enthusiastic. That is %hy

e"eryone in politics$ and %e do it$ must ma!e sure that they do not

depend on one sin(le interest (roup. A (ood compromise is one

%here e"ery&ody ma!es a contri&ution. <

,ell loo! at the pluralists theory of democracy in a little more detail in

%hat follo%s &ut I %anted to as! you a 9uestion &efore %e press on. #ust

thin!in( a&out the account I"e (i"e you so far and the 9uotation from

Mer!el + %ho thin!s this (oes some%ay to meetin( the core ideals of

democracy1 Do you thin! that a politician %ho (ains peoples "otes &y

tryin( to &alance and compromise &et%een the interests of loads of

indi"iduals and (roups results in a !ind of maority rule1 Do you thin! it

facilitates indi"idual li&erty or freedom1

In 3B3$ Dahl %rote a hu(ely inCuential &oo! entitled$ who governs? Its

&asically a case study of political po%er and representation in Ne%

Ha"en$ ?onnecticut in the US. ,ell$ Dahl :nds that modern democratic

practice is comple- and notes that the classical story of democracy a&out

the relationship &et%een the maority and the elites + or a minority '

doesnt really do ustice to %hat actually happens.

The practice of democracy in the modern %orld$ says Dahl$ is typically

characterised &y a comple- and untidy interaction of interrelated &ut

di"erse and %idely distri&uted interest (roups and coalitions %hose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven,_Connecticuthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven,_Connecticuthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticuthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticuthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven,_Connecticuthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven,_Connecticut


4/11

"oices$ perspecti"es$ access to resources + ultimately their po%er + mean

that in di/erent %ays and to (reater and lesser e-tents they do in fact

ha"e an input in to political decision ma!in( and political processes. The

upshot of this$ says Dahl$ is that e"en in a relati"ely small community inNe% Ha"en Dahl :nd that the citys policy ma!in( arenas are simply too

fra(mented for any sin(le (roup to dominate entirely. No% Dahl notes

that there are si(ni:cant po%er im&alances ' yes$ some (roups do ha"e

more s%ay ' &usiness "oices$ for e-ample$ may$ in e/ect ha"e more

political po%er. And this does mean that po%er$ resources and policy is

not e"enly distri&uted$ &ut$ e"en then$ says Dahl$ &ecause e"ery (roup

and coalition in the city has possession of some resources and po%er

they in"aria&ly had some de(ree of inCuence.

Dahl :nds in this reality a !ind happy conse9uence of the increasin(

comple-ity and scale of modern representati"e democratic societies. The

upshot of the messy de"elopment of political institutions and po%er

relations that ha"e emer(ed in lar(e$ modern$ comple- democracies has

&een a practical solution to %hat$ says Dahl$ is the thorniest pro&lem in

democratic theory.

Heres the pro&lem.

Democracy is premised upon political e9uality %hich$ accordin( to Dahl$

implies that it is the maority that should rule. En the other hand$

democratic thin!ers in the li&eral democratic tradition ' from Loc!e and

Mill$ to Maddison and To9u"ille + %orried a&out protectin( minorities and

indi"iduals from &ein( a&used &y the maority in a democracy$ or %orse

the rise of a tyranny of the maority. In other %ords$ their focus %as

indi"idual freedom$ in li&erty. This pro&lem is$ of course$ a certain "ersion

of the old tension &et%een li&erty and e9uality in democratic thou(ht.

Accordin( to Dahl$ the reason %e (enerally dont :nd one monopolistic

centre of po%er controllin( e"erythin( and e"eryone in modern li&eral

F


5/11

democratic societies ' %hether a monolithic state$ the capitalist class$ or

political elites or parties oc!eyin( for total domination ' is simply

&ecause it %ouldnt %or!. Accordin( to Dahl and the pluralists$ the

relati"e success of modern li&eral democratic and social democraticstates + their sta&ility$ %ealth and freedoms + emanates from the

re9uirement to &alance the plurality of competin( interest (roups %ho

hold di/erent sorts of po%er at all sorts of di/erent le"els in society.

,hats more$ says Dahl$ this sort of arran(ement actually comes closest

to the practical reali8ation of the ideals of democracy %ithout fallin( foul

of the tension &et%een maority and minority rule. Gor pluralists$ the

dispersal of po%er %ithin modern democratic societies means that

politics &ecomes a Cuid$ dynamic process of competition$ &ar(ainin( and

compromise amon( a multitude of interest (roups or minorities all "iein(

for the re%ards distri&uted &y the political system. And the upshot of this$

accordin( to pluralists$ is that modern democratic states end up reali8in(

' or (ettin( close to the reali8ation of ' at least some of the core ideals of

democracy. Ho%e"er$ precisely &ecause po%er is dispersed in to minority

(roups$ Dahl thin!s that a more accurate term for modern democratic

politics is actually polyarchy.

So instead of tal!in( a&out democracies$ Dahl typically uses the term

polyarchy. ,hat do %e thin! polyarchy means1

Heres a couple of Dahls many characteri8ations of democratic polyarchy.

SLID4

5instead of a sin(le center of so"erei(n po%er there must &e

multiple centers of po%er$ none of %hich is or can &e %holly

so"erei(n. Althou(h

the only le(itimate so"erei(n is the people... e"en the people ou(ht

ne"er to &e an a&solute so"erei(n

5Pluralists ... see American society as fractured in to con(eries of

hundreds of small special interest (roups$ %ith incompletely


6/11

o"erlappin( mem&erships$ %idely di/erin( po%er &ases$ and

multitude of techni9ues for e-ercisin( inCuence on decisions salient

to them...7

#ust to Cesh this out a little &it so %e all understand the notion of

polyarchy. A (ood polyarchy$ says Dahl$ is one characteri8ed &y loads of

minority (roups at all sorts of le"els in society %ieldin( lots of po%er and

resources %hich all input into the political landscape and process.

?an anyone thin! of the !inds of (roups in society that mi(ht constitute

po%er (roups1 No%$ clearly there are thin(s li!e political parties$ MPs$

local (o"ernments etc$ etc$ &ut %hat a&out the interest (roups that ma!e

up %hat is often called roups$ Pressure >roups$ Social Mo"ements$ ?harities$

education$ @usinesses$ Reli(ious (roups$ &usiness interest$ unions$

Somethin( li!e coalition (o"ernment (i"es you a sense of this &ut its

&roader.

As I said$ Dahl %ants to su((est that today polyarchy is the only realistic

instantiation of democratic ideals in modern states. To ma!e his point

Dahl lists a "ariety of formal conditions %hich if ma-imally reali8ed %ould$

he &elie"es$ form an ideal or utopian democratic situation. Heres are the

conditions

SLID4

3. Efective participation

?iti8ens must ha"e ade9uate and e9ual opportunities to form their

preference and place 9uestions on the pu&lic a(enda and e-press

reasons for one outcome o"er the other.

B


7/11

). Voting equality at the decisive stage

4ach citi8en must &e assured his or her ud(ments %ill &e counted

as e9ual in %ei(hts to the ud(ments of others.

. Enlightened understanding?iti8ens must enoy ample and e9ual opportunities for disco"erin(

and a2rmin( %hat choice %ould &est ser"e their interests.

F. Control o the agenda

Demos or people must ha"e the opportunity to decide %hat political

matters actually are and %hat should &e &rou(ht up for

deli&eration.

. Inclusiveness

49uality must e-tend to all citi8ens %ithin the state. 4"eryone has

le(itimate sta!e %ithin the political process.

>i"en that these conditions are ne"er fully reali8a&le$ says Dahl$ the &est

%e"e (ot is the messy &usiness of polyarchy and the more poly the

archy ' i.e.$ the more po%erful minority (roups there are + the more

democratic. This is %hy I emphasi8ed the plurality of minorities.

,hy is it$ do you thin!$ that for Dahl democracy is not fully reali8a&le in a

modern state1 ,hat is it a&out modern states1

Is Dahl ri(ht a&out this1

I %ant to ma!e one more point a&out Dahls classic pluralism &efore

mo"in( on to a criti9ue.

Dahl notes that &eyond these formal democratic conditions$ any possi&le

democratic polis must &e underpinned &y a &asic shared frame%or! or

culture that functions as a !ind of underlyin( consensus. Ho%e"er

di"er(ent the interests and perspecti"es that underpin political life in a

society$ for Dahl there is a !ind of &ac!(round set of "alues or

%orld"ie%s$ %hich anchor the political frame%or! and$ there&y$ delimit

J

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)


8/11

de&ates and possi&ilities and in so doin( represents an o&stacle to

oppressi"e rule and tyranny.

SLID4


9/11

,ell$ later in Dahls %or! he comes to reco(ni8e this issue &ut %hats

interestin( a&out the %ay in %hich Dahl formulates his reCection is that it

hi(hli(hts that e9uality in a society is not a precondition for polyarchy.Rather$ for Dahl$ polyarchy is chieCy a&out the dispersal of po%er$ %hich

is %hy he points out that

5In the t%entieth century$ the e-istence of a mar!et oriented capitalist

economy in a country has &een fa"oura&le to democrati8ation up to the

le"el of polyarchy &ut it is unfa"oura&le to democrati8ation &eyond the

le"el of polyarchy7 ;Dahl 3B p BFB=

This$ I thin! is the (erm of neo+pluralism.

Gor neo+pluralism$ the analysis of modern li&eral or social democratic

states demonstrates that althou(h there may &e no sin(le po%er that

dominates o"erall ' ;so they are not Mar-ists= if there are at least ) or

more centres of po%er ' %hate"er they are ' then %e ha"e polyarchy. @ut

of course$ not all polyarchys are the same. ,hat many of the pluralists

came to see %as that their models missed the po%er of capitalism and

corporate capitalism in particular.

This is %hy in his later %or! %hich focuses on democracy in relationship

to the economy$ Dahl is e-plicit that corporate o%nership and the modern

system of property produces ine9uality and so undermines li&erty and

democracy.

Heres %hat he says. Its %orth 9uotin( at len(th I thin!.

SLID4


10/11

access to political leaders$ and$ on the a"era(e$ predicta&le life chances$

not only for mature adults &ut also for the un&orn$ infants$ and children.

After all due 9uali:cations ha"e &een made$ di/erences li!e these help in

turn to (enerate si(ni:cant ine9ualities amon( citi8ens in their capacitiesand opportunities for participatin( as political e9uals in (o"ernin( the

state.

Second$ and e"en more o&"ious$ %ith "ery fe% e-ceptions the internal

(o"ernments of economic enterprises are Catly undemocratic &oth de

jure and de facto. Indeed$ (enuine political e9uality has &een reected &y

Americans as a proper principle of authority %ithin :rms. Hence the

o%nership and control of enterprises creates enormous ine9ualities

amon( citi8ens in their capacities and opportunities for participation

in governing economic enterprises.7

,hat Dahl and other neo+pluralist theorists came to see %as that modern

democracies are underpinned &y a particular socioeconomic system that

is &iased to%ards or (rants a pri"ile(ed position to the interests of

corporate &usiness interests. And for Dahl$ %hat this entails is that the

only %ay our society can &ecome more democratic is to transform the

po%er of modern capitalist corporations. To do this$ says Dahl$ %ould

mean the e-tension of democratic practices in to the %or!places.

The !ey point to stress here$ is that$ as Da"id Held nicely puts it$

SLID4


11/11

Its for reasons li!e these that althou(h later pluralist thou(ht retains

some of the thin!in( on the comple- interacti"ity of "arious po%er (roups

%ithin society it &e(ins to ta!e increasin( notice of

+the &ias of the political a(enda$+the sectional interests that can emer(e %ithin the state$

+the fact that our li"es are fundamentally mar!ed &y di"erse political

cultures and ine9uality

+ ?ontestation for po%er

+ the &arriers to political participation

+ ine9uality of opportunity for indi"iduals and political (roups

+ the secrecy of (o"ernment

+ the e-tent to %hich the (lo&al order + its socioeconomic ma!eup '

pro&lemati8es the democratic character of the nation state.

In other %ords$ althou(h their focus on comple-ity and careful empirical

analysis remains$ the neopluralists &e(in increasin(ly to stress the

failures of$ and limits to$ democracy in modern$ so+called$ democratic

states.

33

Pluralism and Dahl Lecture Revised 2016

Documents

Transcript of Pluralism and Dahl Lecture Revised 2016