Scribd
Upload
218 views8 pages

Power Distribution Theories in Politics

This document outlines an assignment on analyzing models of power distribution. It provides an overview of the pluralist, elitist, and Marxist models. The pluralist model argues that power is distributed among many competing interest groups. The elitist model contends that power is concentrated among a small elite. And the Marxist model views society as ruled by a bourgeoisie that shares political and economic interests. The document examines each model in turn and concludes that no single theory fully explains power distribution in modern societies.

Uploaded by

Sujeet kumar
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
218 views8 pages

Power Distribution Theories in Politics

This document outlines an assignment on analyzing models of power distribution. It provides an overview of the pluralist, elitist, and Marxist models. The pluralist model argues that power is distributed among many competing interest groups. The elitist model contends that power is concentrated among a small elite. And the Marxist model views society as ruled by a bourgeoisie that shares political and economic interests. The document examines each model in turn and concludes that no single theory fully explains power distribution in modern societies.

Uploaded by

Sujeet kumar
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

DEPARTMENT OF LAW,

SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES

ASSIGNMENT TOPIC :

Distribution of Power: An Analysis

NAME - SUJEET KUMAR


SUBJECT – POLITICAL SCIENCE
SEMISTER – 1ST
EMAIL – sujeetkumarllb@[Link]
ASSIGNED BY – DR. BILAL AHMAD GANI
ENROLMENT NO._________________

1
Table of Contents

➢ The Pluralist Model of Power Distribution----- 3


➢ The Elitist Model of Power Distribution ------- 4,5
➢ The Marxist Model of Power Distribution------ 5,6
➢ Conclusion------------------------------ 7
➢ List of References------------------------ 8

2
There are three major theories of power distribution:
1. The pluralist model
2. The elitist model.
3. The Marxist model

The pluralist model


According to the pluralist model, ‘many conflicting groups within
the community have access to government officials and compete
with one another in an effort to influence policy decisions’
(Cummings and Wise, 1989).

With reference to India, pluralists argue that the competition


among various political parties, caste groups and other interest
groups demonstrates the presence of multiple power centres in
Indian politics. Nowadays government at the centre and in many
states is formed by a coalition of several parties with different
interests.

Robert Dahl, in his book, Who Governs? (1961) reported that while
the number of people involved in any important decision was rather
small, community power was nonetheless diffuse. Few political
actors exercised decision-making power on all issues. Several other
studies of local politics further document that monolithic power
structures do not operate on the level of local government.

3
The elitist model
Elite theories see power as concentrated in the hands of a few.
There is, however, a difference of opinion as to the origins and
characteristics of elites.

• Pareto emphasised the psychological basis of dominance.


• Mosca highlighted social structural factors.
• Michels stressed the organisational basis of elite rule.

Developed as a response to Marxism, elite theory originally argued


that elite rule is inevitable in all societies, including socialist ones.

However, newer approaches argue that elite rule results from the
way societies are organised, rather than being an inevitable and
universal feature of human society

Who is Elite?
In every society, ancient or modern, tribal or rural, it is seen that
there are a select few, however chosen, who always seem to rule
over the many. These select few in the hands of which rests the
power are known as elite. The word ‘elite’ was first used in the 17th
century to refer to the superiority of a particular thing or object.

There are as many elites as there are values. For example:

(a) Political Elites (Elites of Power)

(b) Business Elites (Elites of Wealth)

(c) Social Elites (Elites of Respect)

(d) Intellectual Elites (Elites of Knowledge)

(e) Religious Elites (Elites of Faith)

4
Thus, elite is any socially visible small category of individuals who
possess some valued characteristics, in, such as intellectual ability,
high administrative position, military power, moral authority or
charisma and who consequently have high prestige and widespread
influence.

Such individuals may and may not manifest some degree of group
cohesion and may simply influence or be initiated by the ordinary
people (non-elite). Their high position in the society enables them
to transcend the ordinary environments of ordinary people and to
make decisions having major consequences.

The Marxist model


In Marxist theory, it was the 60s and early 70s that saw the debate
focussed around the differing views of instrumentalists and
structuralists. The instrumental position was associated with the
early work of Ralph Miliband, and the state was seen as an agent
or instrument of the ruling class. The state, argued Miliband, takes
decisions, which directly favour the owners and controllers of
capital. This is done for three reasons:

1. The state personnel are drawn from the same social


background. Here, Miliband used an empirical approach.
2. The state is capitalist; to protect it, they must encourage
capital accumulation.
3. In a capitalist society, the interests of capital and the national
interest are often viewed as the same - economic growth and
prosperity. So the state, in promoting the interests of capital,
promotes the interests of the nation.

5
Therefore, any key decisions made by politicians inevitably
reflected the interests of the dominant bourgeoisie. Marx, thus,
believed that society is ruled by a small group of individuals who
share a common set of political and economic interests.

The elitist theorists (Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Max


Weber, Robert Michels and others) believe that the power
structure of any society depends on the abilities of its political
leadership. It is political skill—or lack of it—which determines
who will rule and who will be ruled.
Marx, on the contrary, says that the political leaders from
whatsoever class they may be drawn will be representative of
the dominant class. The elitist theorists were highly critical of
the Marxian theory of social classes on two vital points.
Firstly, they say that the Marxian conception of ruling classes
is erroneous and demonstrates the continual circulation of
elites which would prevent the formation of a stable or a close
ruling class in modern industrial societies.
Secondly, they disagreed with the Marxian prediction of future
classless and egalitarian society. They viewed these ideas as
impossible since, in every society, there will always be
hierarchical division and the upper stratum of this division
which is, and must be in minority, will actually rule.

6
Conclusion
No theory has all the truth but each seem to contain an element of
it. Certainly, it would seem that both classic pluralism and classic
Marxism are inappropriate for analysing contemporary world.

Voting and lobbying can have some effect on some areas of state
activity, but not the central importance that pluralism gives it.
Classical Marxism suggests the government is merely the agent of
the ruling class, whereas it is clear that the government is certainly
not simply the creature of a ruling class consistently taking
decisions which forward its interests.

Additionally, with the exception of the fragmented elite model, and


perhaps the more recent Marxist material, most theories appear to
present a far too simplified view of government. There is a neglect
of divisions that exist within government, for example, between
government departments. More importantly, some models - the
elite pluralist and some Marxist models, seem overgenerous in their
view of the competence of government.

The elite pluralists see governments as willing to promote the


national interest as against particular interests, while some Marxists
see governments as capable of mediating between classes, and
between fractions of the ruling class, in the overall interest of the
ruling class.

The problem seems to be that at the surface level, there is some


agreement about the visible features of power. There is agreement
about many of the 'facts' of the decision-making process and the
surface picture of the distribution of power. However, the elite
pluralists and the fragmented elitists believe that this surface
picture is the complete picture - they exclude any consideration of
structural constraint and ideological control.

In contrast, the Marxist model takes capitalists' structural position


as crucial and regards the surface pluralist picture as, at best -
partial, and at worst - a mystification. So we end up only being able
to say that the interpretation of the distribution of power in depends
on the model used.

7
List of references
• [Link]
• Modern politics and government: Alan R Ball
• [Link]
• [Link]

Common questions

Powered by AI

Pluralists assert that at the local government level, power is not centralized but rather diffuse among various political actors. Despite the small number of people involved in decision-making, pluralism suggests that these actors do not exercise control over all issues, which prevents monolithic power structures from operating. Studies of local politics indicate that multiple interests and group competition foster a distribution of power, with no single entity dictating all decisions .

The document suggests that classic pluralism and Marxism have limitations in analyzing contemporary world politics due to their oversimplified views. Pluralism wrongly attributes central importance to voting and lobbying, while classic Marxism inaccurately depicts the government as merely an agent of the ruling class. Both fail to account for internal government divisions and overestimate governmental competence, neglecting factors like structural constraints and ideological control .

The concept of the 'circulation of elites' refers to the ongoing process by which new elites arise to replace the old, preventing the establishment of a stable, closed ruling class. Elitist theorists argue that this constant change impedes the formation of a permanent ruling class, as shifts in power dynamics and societal values introduce new individuals into elite positions. This view challenges the Marxian notion of a dominant, unchanging ruling class, suggesting instead that elite circulation is a natural and necessary feature of societal governance .

Elite theorists dismiss the Marxian prediction of a future classless society as impossible, arguing that hierarchical divisions are inherent in all societies, and a minority upper stratum will always exist to rule. They claim that the continual circulation of elites prevents the formation of stable ruling classes, suggesting that societal hierarchy and elite rule are unavoidable, contrary to Marx’s vision of class elimination and egalitarianism .

Elite theorists argue that power is concentrated in the hands of a few due to the organizational and psychological characteristics of elites, suggesting that elite rule is inevitable due to societal structures rather than class dominance. In contrast, Marx argues that ruling classes emerge from economic interests, with political leaders representing the dominant class. Elite theorists critique Marxism by emphasizing the constant circulation of elites and the impossibility of a classless society, as they believe hierarchical divisions will always exist .

The claim that theories of power distribution simplify government functioning is supported by the critique in the document. Most theories, including elite pluralism and some Marxist models, neglect internal governmental divisions and overestimate the government's ability to manage diverse interests effectively. By focusing on surface-level features of power distribution, they fail to account for structural constraints and ideological control, resulting in a partial or mystified understanding of how governments operate and make decisions .

Fragmented elitism and modern Marxist theories offer a more nuanced view compared to traditional models. While traditional elite pluralists view governments as promoting national interest against particular interests, and traditional Marxists see governments mediating class interests effectively, fragmented elitism recognizes divisions within the government and questions its competence in managing diverse interests. Modern Marxists focus on the structural position of capitalists and suggest that surface-level pluralist perspectives are limited or mystified, implying deeper structural constraints influencing decision-making .

Elitist theory explains elite dominance through psychological and organizational factors. Pareto emphasizes the psychological basis, suggesting elites naturally rise due to their superior traits. Mosca highlights societal structures that concentrate power, while Michels points to organization, noting that hierarchical structures in organizations inherently lead to elite rule. This theory posits that elites maintain power through psychological advantage, structural foundations, and organizational capabilities, making elite rule an inevitable characteristic of all societies .

The pluralist model suggests that in a multi-party system like India, numerous conflicting groups within the community compete to influence policy decisions. It argues that this competition among political parties, caste groups, and interest groups demonstrates the presence of multiple power centers in Indian politics. The coalition governments formed by different parties with varying interests are indicative of this pluralistic power distribution, where decision-making power is not centralized but diffuse, as highlighted by Robert Dahl’s observation of community power being spread across different actors .

Marxist theory characterizes the state in capitalist societies as an instrument of the ruling class, promoting their interests for three reasons. Firstly, state personnel typically share the same social background as the ruling class. Secondly, the state’s capitalist nature requires it to encourage capital accumulation. Thirdly, the interests of capital and the national interest are often seen as aligned, leading the state to reflect the dominant bourgeoisie’s interests through policy decisions .

You might also like