Elitist and Pluralist Governance

Elitist and Pluralist Governance

Introduction
The concept of governance has become, in the last ten years or so, one of the keywords of contemporary political and administrative parlance (Magnette 2003). And as noted by Radesh (2009) the emergence of the new public administration has brought with it the emergence of comparative administration which in relation to governance compares and contrasts various governance approaches key of which are the pluralist and elitist approaches among others. This essay therefore is an effort at explaining the elitist approaches to governance and advancing both negative and positive sides to it. In an effort to do so the essay begins with definitions of key concepts which include governance, Elitist approach to governance and Pluralist approach to governance. This will be followed by an effort explaining the theoretical premises, assumptions and features of each governance approach while highlighting its positives and negatives in the process. A conclusion will follow to sum up the entire essay.
Definitions
Governance generally seen as an approach to rule and has been largely seen as a set of policies, systems and processes with which power, authority and legitimacy is determined, exercised and controlled with a given social entity or nation (Giddens 2006). UNDP defines it as the exercise of economic, political, and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. They argue that governance comprises mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations, and mediate their differences. Given these broad definitions of governance, it suffixes to say that there are many forms of governance which emerge from the interactions of the noted variables in the definitions which has resulted into sometimes vague but rather important categorisations of governance such as good governance, democratic governance, autocratic governance and many more. They are often syphoned through a comparative approach to studies in public administration and political sciences in which various approaches to governance are identifies and related which include among others the elitist and pluralist governance approaches.
Elitist approach to governance on the other hand is based on the English word elite which is derived from the French word elite a derivative from the Late Latin word “eligere” which means to “pick out,” “made to stand out,” or “choose” and using the Late Latin prefix e- produced the Latin word legere meaning to read or one who has read, gather or one who has gathered, collect or one who has collected. From this given etymological background, it is clear that an elite is one who has been picked/chosen, has read hence is educated and is gathered implying or indicating a social group or class. The American Heritage dictionary (2000) defines elite as a group or class of persons or person, enjoying or perceived as of superior intellectual, social, or economic status, or yielding great political, social and economic power in a particular country or community. Elitist approach to governance
Pluralism generally refers the state/condition of being multiple or non-monopolistic. It is a term generally used for the state or status that is non-singular. In Public Administration however it refers to an analysis of politics/administration which emphasises the role of diverse and competing interest groups in preventing too much power being accumulated in the hands of political and economic elites. It is as such seen as an antithesis to the elitist approach to politics which argues that society has a power balance as any shift of power causes internal tensions and instability with demands and pressures from marginalised interest groups. It is as such a theoretical perspective of governance and politics emphasizing that politics, governance and administrative outputs are mainly a balance competition among social, political, economic and religious groups, with each one pressing for its own preferred policies and outcomes.
The Elitist Approach-pros and cons
The major assumptions and theoretical premise of the elitist approach are:
1. Governments are creations of people from whom the legitimacy to govern emanates but not all directly take part in governance as only few people have the power, authority and legitimacy to govern. Hence decision making is for a few power brokers in society control (Wamsley & Zald, 1976).
2. Society as a whole is subject to administrative, social, political and economic policy environment created by the power brokers of society. The policies determine the directions processes and systems of operation of society and its organisations (Farazmand, 1994; Selznick, 1957).
3. The policies made are meant for self-preservation of the power brokers, increased political, social and economic benefits of the power brokers this entails policies for preservation of power, authority and legitimacy from the ordinary people (Farazmand, 1982; Lindblom, 1990; Miles, 1980).
4. Social, political and economic interest conflicts arise within the society with regards to socio-economic problems and policies as well as political dominance. The former is reconciled through minimal adjustments of policies whereas the latter is extremely difficult if not impossible to reconcile, because the elite will not abdicate its power and privileges (Fischer, 1984; Mills, 1956; Mosca, 1939). The elite will preserve its privileges at all costs.
5. To gain compliance, the elite must convince the masses who are prone to withdraw their legitimacy. Legitimacy, however, is not always given to the elite, and the masses are not always free to exercise such a right, for it is already conditioned and controlled by the elite (Perrow, 1986).
6. Membership to the elite is highly restricted to those who share the values, education and status of the Elites. Accessibility to elite membership is limited and controlled by numerous gatekeepers whose primary function is to serve the elite’s interests rather than those of the ordinary people. Secrecy is a central and essential operational feature of the elite power structure (Farazmand, 1994). This phenomenon is argued to be prevalent in large governments and organizations of the administrative state, making citizens “captives” of the modern state (Korten, 1995).
The elitist approach therefore argues that the people in governance are marginalised by a self-preservative elite in both the administrative and political processes of governance. The rationale for decision making is self-benefit and self-preservation rather than public benefit. There is oppression, suppression and manipulation in the Elites’ hold on power and while it may appear democratic it is not democratic all together since power in the hands of the minority few and not majority. Further it results in corruption and abuse of office at the expense of the suffering majority. Elitism results in social stratifications which cannot be broken where power is meant for specific individual alone.
Elitism however also results into a well functional society as the elites are educated and trained for rational decision making. Elitism also avoids power struggles and conflicts within society which may result in power being opened to all. Governance is generally complex, it involves experience, knowledge and competence as well as policy analytic, formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation skills which ordinary citizens do not have hence the restriction to hold of power for the sake of societal preservation. Preservation of the elite therefore is preservation of society since it is preservation of the management of the society. Given the structural theory, elite’s existence is inevitable as they play the societal function of decision making in the social structure while ordinary member attend to daily activities. This is also in line with Plato’s ideal society in which the philosopher kings were to be the decision makers hence social elites of the republic. The whole idea therefore of a republic as first propounded by Plato calls for a political and administrative elite (Guardians) to govern society.
Pluralist approach- pros and cons
Pluralist approach to governance is based on the systems model of analysis as opposed to the elitist approach which is based on the structural functionalist model. In the systems approach, society is seen as composed of varied and often conflicting interests groups and governance is seen as a process of amalgamating these interests into appropriate policies, decisions and actions. Pluralism therefore sees governance as plural in nature and operation. There is under this theory several theoretical premises and these include:
1. Power is not an identifiable property that humans possess in fixed amounts such that it can be brokered by elites as power bokers. Rather, people are powerful because they control various resources. Resources are assets that can be used to force others to do what one wants. Politicians and bureaucrats become powerful because they command resources that people want or fear or respect however, sources of power are virtually endless and these include: legal authority, money, prestige, skill, knowledge, charisma, legitimacy, free time, experience, celebrity, and public support. Pluralists therefore emphasize that power is not a physical entity that individuals either have or do not have, but flows from a variety of different sources scattered through-out society.
2. Power is only power if it is exercised hence potential power does not imply actual power. Here, Pluralists stress the differences between potential and actual power. Actual power means the ability to compel someone to do something; potential power refers to the possibility of turning resources into actual power. Therefore, while many may be the sources or power, the possession of those sources is only having a potential of power until finally exercised. This potential however is possessed by everyone.
3. The amount of potential power exceeds the amount of actual power in everyone and that this power can amalgamate into a collective power in interest groups.
4. No one individual or groups of individuals is all-powerful. An individual or group that is influential in one realm may be weak in another. Social, political, administrative, civil, military etc are some realms of power. A measure of power, therefore, is its scope, or the range of areas where it is successfully applied. Pluralists believe that with few exceptions power holders usually have a relatively limited scope of influence in which others have a greater scope of influence.
In view of the above theoretical premises, pluralists see governance as the administrative unit/function of society which referees societal powers in their various forms. Interest groups therefore press demands and governance turns them into policies in an input-output approach mechanism of systems theory.
The Characteristics of Pluralist governance
1. Governance is not dominated not by a single elite but rather by a multiplicity of interest groups, some of which are well organized and funded, some of which are not. Although a few are larger and more influential than the others, the scope of their power, far from being universal, is restricted to relatively narrow areas in which they exercise power and authority.
2. The interest groups are autonomous and independent from each other based on their varied interests. This is because society is diverse and a diverse society contains so many potential factions, political autonomy guarantees constant, widespread, and spirited competition among these interest groups.
3. The intergroup competition leads to countervailing influence: The power of one group tends to cancel that of another so that a rough equilibrium/balance results. Group memberships overlap as well. Members of one association, in other words, might belong to another, even competing, group. Overlapping memberships reduce the intensity of conflicts because loyalties are often spread among many interest groups.
4. The openness of the system is another characteristic which can be viewed in two senses/ways. Firstly, most organised interest groups operate in an open environment which they influence and influences them and from which they acquire inputs and dispose outputs. Interest groups continuously recruit new members from all walks of life. Second, the availability of unused resources constantly encourages the formation of new groups. Stimulated by threats to their interests or sensitized to injustices, or for whatever reason, individuals frequently unite for political and social action which pressures and influences decisions made.
5. The need for legitimacy and support of cause. There is an endless quest by groups and office seekers for public support. Even though the masses do not govern directly, their opinions are a resource that can be used by one interest group against another.
6. Democracy comes with the notion belief in popular governance is so deeply ingrained, people feel compelled to sell their causes to the public hence ultimate power lies with the people.
7. Consensus building, exists in any governance system which is symbolic of pluralism. This can be procedural or substantial consensus were both processes and content are agreed upon by all parties involved by the governance process. There is therefore tolerate differences of opinion mitigated by governance process in the creation of a win-win situation failure to which greater pressure is exerted by the threated interest groups to bring about a balance.
Pluralists therefore argue that governance is a collective process exercised by various interests groups in which both procedural and substantial consensus is attained. Further power and influence is distributed throughout society such that all are powerful but none is all powerful as argued in the elitist approach. Pluralist therefore ensure equilibrium of power, multi-stakeholder approach to governance and decision making, attainment of both procedural and substantial consensus and results in peaceful and ethical conflict resolutions.
Pluralist approach however is critiqued for its conflict theory of society and governance. Further for its assertion of equal and balanced distribution of power in the face of the so many voiceless and marginalised citizens. Furthermore, it fails to recognise the role of social classes and elites in the governance process.
Conclusion
In conclusion the pluralist and elitist models are antithesis of each other such that while one argues sees power as monopolised, the other sees it as evenly distributed and while one is modelled after the structural functionalist view, the other is structured after the system perspective. They however both help discuss power relations in society as they relate and influence the governance process.
Bibliography
Ackoff, R. (1974). Redesigning the future: A systems approach to societal problems. New York: John Wiley.
Bachrach, P. (1967). The theory of democratic elitism: A critique. Boston: Little, Brown.
Dahl, R. (1958). A critique of the ruling elite model. American Political Science Review, 52, 463-469.
Dye, T., & Zeigler, H. (1984, 1993). The irony of democracy: An uncommon introduction to American politics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Farazmand, A. (1997, August 28-31). Institutionalization of the new administrative state/role. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association (APSA), Washington, DC.
Higley, J.,&Burton, M. (1989). The elite variable in democratic transitions and breakdowns. American Sociological Review, 54, 17-32.
Hunter, F. (1953). Community power structure. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Kaufman, H. (1964). Organization theory and political theory. American Political Science Review, 58, 5-14..
Moore, S. (1979). The structure of a national elite network. American Sociological Review, 44, 673-691.
Mosca, G. (1939). The ruling class. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Niskanen, W. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay (3rd ed.). New York: Random
Waldo, D. (1992). The enterprise of public administration: A summary. Novato, CA: Chandler & Sharp. (Original work published 1980)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.