Pluralism

                It is in the nature of political discourse that a number of contesting theoretical perspectives exist that seek to cast insight upon our understanding. In the context of pressure groups, there are several theories to consider. Of these, perhaps the most salient in regards to the United States is that of pluralism. As with all theoretical models, the pluralist perspective makes a set of assumptions about the role and significance of the subject matter in question.

Firstly, the political process within the states offers numerous access points for pressure groups. In doing so, pressure groups have several opportunities to influence decision-makers. Given the federalist structure of the US, pressure groups can readily identify those who have the greatest influence and target their audience accordingly. In blunt terms, pressure groups gravitate towards those who have power. Moreover, if a pressure group fails to influence one level of governance they can quite easily transfer towards another. Given the legalistic character of American society, and the importance of the judicial branch of government; pressure groups have a strong incentive towards contacting members of the judiciary. This may entail filing an amicus curiae brief (meaning ‘friend of the court’) or bringing a test case to the court’s attention. Winning a test case can represent a significant victory for their particular cause. Indeed, the judicial route has often proved as beneficial to the civil rights movement as the legislative route. Pressure groups may also contribute to congressional committees, a presidential task-force and so on.

                There is much evidence to suggest that the pluralist perspective offers an insightful depiction of pressure group activity in the states. For one, the various institutions of governance adopt a relatively welcome attitude towards insider groups. Secondly, the federalist system facilitates numerous points of access. In a union of 50 states, each with their own particular way of doing things; there are a wide number of opportunities available for groups to exert pressure upon decision-makers. The most successful pressure groups actually organize their resources on the basis of a federalist structure. As such, they will have offices at both the national and state level. Power is also dispersed within the states, which again reflects a pluralist approach.

In terms of the pluralist perspective, a significant academic study was undertaken by Robert Dahl (1961) in New Haven, Massachusetts. He found that competitive elections in the states prevent any permanent elite from emerging. Competitive elections also ensure open access to the political process, in contrast to closed societies based upon an autocratic ideology. Dahl also found that widely differing groups of ordinary citizens were both active and influential within the political process. This could be categorized into three areas; party nominations, urban redevelopment and public education. Furthermore, Dahl claimed that the average voter held the same power that he or she would within a marketplace. He believed that this particular system ensured that the needs of the people were heard. In the contemporary era, the existence of democratic overload seems to add further weight to Dahl’s pluralist argument.

The pluralist perspective claims that pressure groups enhance the democratic process. Those who seek to emphasize the democratic impact of pressure groups often take a pluralist perspective; regardless of whether or not they explicitly recognize it. Pluralists however acknowledge that the proportion of those who contest the political process is relatively small, and that the public may well act as bystanders with little direct influence upon the decision-making process. This might still be considered democratic because those who contest the political process do ultimately represent the public. It might also be noted that the average American lacks the knowledge and expertise required to reach a sensible and workable arrangement on every single political issue.

There are a number of sub-sections to consider in relation to the pluralist perspective. Of these, classical pluralism is the most significant. It states that the decision-making process is located mostly within the framework of government. Pressure groups are thereby assumed to be rational actors who merely seek to maximize their influence. Classical pluralism also views the political process as one with various lines of conflict, and with an ever-shifting balance of power. Another variation to consider here is neo-pluralism. This branch of pluralist thought emerged during the 1960s in response to the criticism that classical pluralism was too simplistic. Neo-pluralists such as Charles Lindblom (1992) argue that a bias exists towards corporate power, despite the fact that multiple groups compete for political influence. The state is not a neutral arbiter as is commonly assumed by classical pluralism, although the central tenants of pluralism can still be applied to an understanding of the decision-making process. Instead, the state should be viewed in a compartmentalized manner in which different sections seek out a relationship that suits their own particular interests.