Theories of Democracy: Part III

When the idea of democracy was embraced during the Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it was firmly entrenched in the ideals of classical liberalism. As both have grown in acceptance the world over, they have, in the opinion of many, come to be inseparable. Thus the theory of democracy as government of and by the people may be centered not around the principle of majority rule or even proportional representation, but around the principle of the welfare of the people. In his political writings, Englishman John Locke emphasized the idea of individual rights, particularly life, liberty, and property. According to Locke, government is established with the primary objective of preserving these rights (Bulliet, et al, 582). Thus, the American republic was founded, not on the idea of majority rule, but with the aim to secure these “inalienable rights”. It is in this idea that the seeds of the theory of pluralism are to be found.

A pluralistic representative democracy should not to be viewed so much as a stark alternative to the majoritarian model; it incorporates the idea of majority rule on many levels. Rather, pluralism is a revised form of the classical system. The term “pluralism”appeared in American politics in the 1950s and 1960s as a theory which defines modern democracy in terms of power elites and competing interest groups (Kelso, 3). These interest groups represent various groups in society, made up of individuals who have a common interest (Janda, et al 44). The leaders of these interest groups speak on their respective individuals' behalf at the government level. In this way, minorities may have a proportionally strong voice in government, depending on the strength of their interest group. Consequently, this model of democracy does not require much active participation on the part of the people at large, a marked difference from majoritarianism and proportionalism. Also in contrast to those models, pluralism is benefitted by a decentralized system, as exemplified by federalism in the U.S., in which officials and vehicles of government are accessible to the interest groups of the public (Janda, et al, 128).

Proponents of pluralism claim that it is the superior method of democratic government for a number of reasons. As noted above, the interest groups should provide minorities with an effective barrier against abuse by a potentially hostile majority. Along the same lines, the competing interest groups work in such a way as to restrain monopolies, both in government and the public sphere. In this way, pluralism bears resemblance to the economic theory of free-market capitalism, which is seen by many as an important aspect of democratic development (Kelso, 6). Adherents of pluralistic theory also note the bargaining process that is a hallmark of the system's decision-making process (as opposed to majoritarianism's clearly defined winners and losers) as a great strength (Kelso, 77). Compromise, as already noted, is an integral part of successful democratic process. Here, then, pluralism exemplifies traits in common with proportionalism.

The majoritarian would again counter that this is simply a sugarcoated theory of indecisiveness and inefficiency, and therefore, adverse to good government. But, in fact, pluralism, owing probably to its competitive nature, is not generally an inactive system; quite the opposite. However, majoritarians and proportionalists would join together in criticizing pluralism's nature of granting the people a more passive role in politics. Another seeming fault of pluralism is its dependence upon the leaders, or lobbyists, of interest groups. Since these leaders are paid professionals, not elected officials, pluralism may allow an unfair amount of influence to be wielded by a particular group, simply because its constituents are wealthy (Janda, et al, 48).