Democracy and pluralism: concepts and interactions

Pluralists are people who support political communities which perceive power as being extensively spread out. Their school of thought has been labeled pluralism. The elitist viewpoint as regards power has been, and has the potential to be, criticized on numerous grounds, including its fundamental assumption that all human institutions have a systematic power structure that forms a central component and replica of organizational stratification. Pluralists strongly and rightly oppose this assumption claiming no definitive assumption may be made regarding power within a given community. Pluralists, in fact, apparently hold a tacit idea that there is no actual dominant force in a given community. Hence, their basic question won't be about who governs a given community; instead it will be along the lines of: "Is there anybody who governs the community? According to pluralists, power might be associated with long- or short-term issues, giving rise to alliances among concerned individuals and groups, ranging in length from temporary to long-lasting. Assuming that the series of community alliances at a particular time represents an eternally unchanging societal structural facet implies including logical impressions on how one represents societal realities (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962).

The ideal fulcrum for critiquing pluralism is Dahl's latest research into power within New Haven. Initially, one may feel the researcher hasn't tried to describe what "key political decisions" imply. In posing the question of whether or not New Haven's "Notables" play an explicitly or discreetly influential role in governmental decision-making, the author merely claims he will undertake an analysis of 3 distinct 'issue-areas' wherein key public decision-making occurs: local political party nominations, public education and urban improvements. His choices are justifiable given that nominations govern who holds public office". Further, the New Haven public largely sends its kids to private educational institutions and consequently, in his opinion, they show little interest in public schools. Commercial leaders may neglect politics or public schools without clear knowledge of the fact that their returns may well be adversely impacted by their disinterest (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962).

Baratz and Bachrach's (1962) paper raises the very question elitists, not pluralists, would pose. Rather than adopting a sociological line of thinking and putting forward the question of who rules or a pluralist line of thinking and raising the question of "Does anybody enjoy power?", the authors began with an investigation of specific bias mobilization in the given institution. Subsequently, after analyzing the main values, instituted political rules and processes, and myths, the authors carefully inquired into the particular individuals or groups that would benefit because of the current bias and those that would be at a disadvantage. This was followed by an examination of non-decision making dynamics or, in other words, why and how far status quo focused individuals and groups shaped community ideals and political entities that typically limited real decision-making only to matters that were "safe." It is believed that pluralists, in their negative response to biased sociological power model elements, have committed the error of doing away with aspects that can't be measured and considering them unreal. Ironically, in doing so, they become vulnerable to the very central criticism they strongly leveled against elitists: that their power-related suppositions and approach determine their results and conclusions.

3. Explain how one argument from a theory or critique of democracy OR a theory or critique of pluralism is linked to your research interest (Black Women in White Male Dominant Oil & Gas Industry: Are Set-Aside and Inclusion Programs & Policies Really Assisting?) Please refer to the readings to support the points that you make and cite your sources.

Pluralist thinking acknowledges the legality of principles governing action which are implemented uniformly across a number of diverse institutions, including plurality, super majority or majority voting, voting entitlement definitions, rules for debate terms, rules regarding providing appropriate notice, rules regarding fundamental rights unchangeable without long and serious voting "rounds" by several organizations, etc. The general assumption of political science theory is that there exists an ideal choice which may be unearthed empirical cost-benefit analyses and not through arguments and discourse between affected parties. Critical theories based on communicative reasonableness perhaps fail to tackle conflict effectively, and would, in actual practice, necessitate the adoption of numerous liberal pluralism practices and rules for avoiding small minorities to safeguard the existing state of affairs from change, irrespective of how unfair just the existing state of affairs is (Schneider, Anne, & Helen, 1997).

In today's post-modern world where beliefs and identities have been pluralised and ideals and rules fragmented, centralised planning and a Universalist welfare state no longer remain updated. Cultural and societal pluralism ought to be realized in welfare as well and its provision. Several entities have noticed private sector benefits, decreased distance to leaders, increased salaries, decreased complexity of decision making, and, the most salient element, influence over personal work. Moreover, only very few citizens appear to be in support of social democracy. The public sets greater store by quality and price rather than by the service provider's identity (Schartau, 2009).

When overriding standards, recognized rules, current inter-group power relations, and influential instruments, separately or combined, prove successful in preventing specific grievances from becoming major issues that require decision-making, one may say the scenario is of a non-decision making nature. It is easy to differentiate such a phenomenon from decision making processes' negative elements (deciding upon not deciding or not taking action), as bias mobilization's sheer presence suffices in stopping a latent problem from growing to require decision-making (Bachrach & Baratz, Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework, 1963). A majority of real life situations in which minorities insist on their rights eventually end as non-decision making scenarios. One may raise the objection that non-decisions, being non-events, aren't observable, and, hence, aren't operationally beneficial concepts. While non-decisions are truly not directly visible, both latent problems and bias mobilization are.