What are the major weaknesses of the pluralist theory of the state?

Within the pluralist theory of state the government is seen to be a mediator between a number of agents in which ‘numerous competing interest groups exert strong influence over a responsive government’[1] These interest groups consist of businesses, trade unions, charities, churches or any other representative body. This essay will examine the major weaknesses of this theory.

In many ways the pluralist theory of state holds much in common with the theory of democratic elitism, whereby “the best interest of a free people, of civilization itself, depends upon the ability of the gifted to command the deference of the many for the well-being of all”[2].

Both theories seek the more efficient route of democracy, through giving the elite power or by granting agents the ability to influence government policy. In contrast, classical democracy, by which every member of society is treated as a political equal regardless of whether they have the knowledge or skill necessary, is not achieved. However having a number of organisations/pressure groups (pluralism) does not transcend into total participation of citizens, ordinary people become isolated from the political process as it is left to only those who can effectively organize themselves, perhaps leading to a loss of faith in government.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified writer

Proficient in: Democracy

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Indeed, for Mosca and Michels it is the ability of interest groups (agents) to organize themselves effectively that separates the elite from the masses, thus giving them control of society. This loss of confidence can be interpreted via voter turnout at elections, with only 61% of the electorate voting in the 2005 General Election[3] Whilst this is a weakness of the pluralist theory, it can be argued that this approach to democracy is unsuitable within the context of modern society, where populations have grown too large, rendering regular voting on issues an inefficient means of legislating.

It seems stronger weaknesses lie within the way government is influenced by the agents.

The term ‘interest group’ suggests an agenda is being actively fought for, but it is not necessarily clear whether this interest is for the benefit of society or for the sole benefit of the individuals involved. Labour MP John McDonnell describes how the British Airport Authority influenced decisions to aid in the campaign for a third runway at Heathrow, as well as gaining tax exemptions from fuel and climate change impacts.

“The Heathrow campaign is increasingly exposing the existence in Britain of a corporate political complex. The interests of big corporations have so permeated government that its major decisions are indistinguishable from the boardroom demands of the leading companies in each commercial sector.”[4]

This shows how a private business can influence government towards creating or changing policies which benefit them only, and even suggests that interest groups apart from business have little impact, something which I will look at in greater detail shortly.

Although within the UK lobbying is an established regulated function of government it has suffered from much scandal in recent years. In March 2010 The Independent reported that “Three Labour former cabinet ministers face a sleaze investigation after being filmed offering to exploit their government connections for money”[5]. MP’s hold a considerable amount of power in being able to vote for and against new legislation, offering their influence to others is likely to bring in only certain beneficiaries, most likely corporations with large funds rather than smaller interest groups. Pluralists believe that having a number of agents holding a variety of views creates a balance of power as they all compete for their interests; equilibrium of power is attained. It therefore seems in a number of circumstances this has not been the case.

This suggests an even greater weakness of the pluralist theory; some agents within the system have far greater influence than others. For example private business corporations have far greater resources to utilize, such as money (power) and knowledge of the system itself through lawyers. In fact, the Guardian reported that “Parliaments 2010 intake shows a swing towards the private sector”[6], perhaps causing some MP’s to have inclinations other than the public good. This is opposed to smaller interest groups such as charities which will not possess the resources or knowledge needed to effectively influence government; this displays the imbalance within the system, creating constant monopoly power of corporations who seek policy outcomes to purely maximise profits. M.J. Smith commented upon this stating “variations in resources lead to one group having greater influence than another”.[7]

An assumption of pluralism is that all issues are of equal value; in reality elite agents may allow other groups to succeed in influencing some government policy to give the illusion that power is fairly distributed amongst all agents, but in reality the elite manage to influence policy on issues which are of the most importance to them[8]. It is clear that the involvement of money and elitist agents (businesses) undermines the pluralist theory of state and is perhaps one of its greatest weaknesses. This view is support by Mosca believed that society is governed “irrespective of its political form, for the interest of the minority by means of manipulation and violence”.

Even David Truman, an influential writer on pluralism, stated that the developed relationship between government and agents “prevent outside groups having access to the policy process”[9]. The barriers to entry for new interest groups is high, this could lead to only several established groups at anytime with the consequences being a narrow range of opinions influencing government decisions; this directly contests the definition of pluralism whereby diversity is tolerated.

So far I have examined the weaknesses of pluralism in terms of the way agents influence the government, but this is not a linear relationship – the government also has the ability to influence agents. The theory assumes that the government is a neutral mediator with no particular bias toward any agent in the interests of displaying fair democracy to its citizens. However the government may decide which groups to assemble, and even encourage the formation of certain groups in favoured areas – influencing the interest group landscape itself to benefit their own policy success[10]. This was evident in the 1980’s where the Thatcher-led conservative government sought to privatise many industries, in the process this required the threat of trade unions to be dealt with and dispersed. Although whilst this was done for supposed economical purposes, it did result in the reduction of trade unions and as such a narrower interest group field, allowing further legislation to be unopposed and successful – thus showing how government has the power to influence the agents and to be more than just a mere umpire. C. Wright Mills remarked on the control of the elite (government) by describing the central condition of “the rise of an elite of powerful men who are in control of the means of death, production, and political power”[11]. Another major weakness of pluralism thereby being their ability to exploit what is seen as the ‘common view’ via influencing the formation of certain interest groups is what allows them to stay in power.

There is a more fundamental weakness of pluralism that seems to be merging. The House of Commons is seen to be an important institution within the UK; however Ralph Miliband commented upon this believing “its contribution to making policy is generally quite modest, and its control of the executive is on the whole rather weak”[12]. A further example of this is the House of Commons giving greater power and control to the European Union through signing the Lisbon treaty. For citizens the House of Commons is the mediator between interest groups, allowing only the most relevant interests to enter discussion and result in progressive policy. If the House of Commons have little control over mediating interest groups then the whole system becomes one-sided leading to inevitable corruption driven by the self-interest of the profit motive.

In conclusion there are a number of major weaknesses within the pluralist theory of state. It is questionable whether true democracy for citizens is achieved; instead pluralism allows just several major groups to have this role whilst maintaining the image of true democracy. However the numerous problems with this theory of state stem from the relationships between the agents and government. Pluralism assumes this relationship is legitimate and that interest groups are all of equal standing, although in reality perhaps the interest groups and government are both controlled by the elite for their own ends.