Modern Western democracy is often called pluralistic because it positions itself as a diversity of public interests - social, economic, religious, cultural, territorial, group and so on. The same diversity is positioned at the level of forms of expression of these interests - associations and associations, political parties, social movements, and so on. This article will consider what types of democracy exist, how they differ.
Origins
Modern so-called pluralist democracy in Western countries has grown out of the liberal political system. She inherits all her main principles. This is the separation of powers, constitutionalism and the like. From the liberals also came such values as human rights, individual freedom, and so on. This is typical for all branches of democratic ideology. However, despite the fundamental commonality, pluralistic democracy fromliberal differs very much, because it is built quite differently. And the main difference is in the material for construction.
Pluralistic democracy is built on various ideas, concepts, forms that are in synthesis in their organization. It occupies the gap between the liberal (individualistic) and collectivist model of building social relations. The latter is more characteristic of the system of democracy, and this is not acceptable enough for the ideology of pluralism.
Ideas of pluralism
It is assumed that the theory of pluralistic democracy is that democracy should not be driven by the people, not by an individual, but by a group that will pursue the main goals. This social unit should encourage diversity, so that citizens unite, openly express their own interests, find compromises and strive for balance, which should be expressed in political decisions. That is, pluralists do not care what types of democracy exist, how they differ, what ideas they preach. The key is compromise and balance.
The most prominent representatives of this concept are R. Dahl, D. Truman, G. Lasky. The pluralistic conception has given the group the main role because the individual, according to it, is a lifeless abstraction, and only in a community (professional, family, religious, ethnic, demographic, regional, etc., as well as in relationshipsbetween all associations) a personality can be formed with defined interests, value orientations, motives in political activity.
Sharing power
In this understanding, democracy is not the rule of a stable majority, that is, the people. The majority is changeable, because it is made up of many compromises between different individuals, groups, associations. None of the communities can monopolize power, nor can they make decisions without the support of other public parties.
If this happens, the dissatisfied will unite and block those decisions that do not reflect public and personal interests, that is, they will serve as a social counterbalance that restrains the monopolization of power. Thus, democracy in this case positions itself as a form of government in which diverse social groups have the opportunity to express their own interests freely and in a competitive struggle to find compromise solutions that reflect this balance.
Key Features
First of all, a pluralistic democracy is characterized by the presence of a group of special interests (interested), which is the most important, central element of such a political system. The result of the conflicting relations of different communities is a common will, born through compromises. The balance and rivalry of collective interests is the social basis of democracy, which is revealed in the dynamics of power. Balances and checks are widespread not only in the sphere of institutions, as is customary among liberals, but also in the social sphere, where theyrepresent rival groups.
The generator of politics in a pluralistic democracy is the reasonable selfishness of individuals and their associations. The state does not stand guard, as liberals prefer. It is responsible for the normal operation of the social system in each of its sectors, supports social justice and the protection of human rights. Power should be dispersed among different political institutions. Society must gain consensus in the system of traditional values, that is, recognize and respect the political process and the foundations of the existing system in the state. Basic groups must be democratically organized and this is a condition for adequate representation.
Cons
The concept of pluralistic democracy is recognized and applied in many developed countries, but there are many critics who highlight its rather large shortcomings. There are many of them, and therefore only the most significant will be selected. For example, associations are far from a small part of society, even if interest groups are taken into account. Less than one third of the entire adult population actually participates in making political decisions and implementing them. And this is only in highly developed countries. The rest are much less so. And this is a very important omission of this theory.
But the biggest flaw lies elsewhere. Always and in all countries, groups differ significantly from each other in terms of their level of influence. Some have powerful resources - knowledge, money, authority, access to the media and much more. Othergroups are practically devoid of any leverage whatsoever. These are pensioners, the disabled, poorly educated people, low-skilled hired workers, and the like. Such social inequality does not allow everyone to articulate their own interests in the same way.
Reality
However, the above objections are not taken into account. In practice, the political existence of modern countries with a high level of development is built exactly according to this type, and examples of pluralistic democracy can be seen at every turn. How they joke about serious things in a German satirical program: privatization, tax cuts and the destruction of the welfare state. These are traditional values.
A strong group privatizes state property, it also reduces taxes on it (this money will not be received by weak groups - pensioners, doctors, teachers, the army). Inequality will continue to widen the gap between the people and the elite, and the state will cease to be social. Protecting property instead of protecting human rights is indeed the core value of Western society.
In Russia
In Russia today, a democratic state based on pluralistic principles is positioned in the same way. Individual freedom is preached. Nevertheless, the monopolization of power (here the term usurpation is closer) by individual groups is almost complete.
The best minds continue to hope that the country will someday give its population equal chances in life, smooth out social conflicts, and the people will havereal opportunities to protect their own interests and to participate in the political process.
Other concepts
The people as a subject of power has a very complex group composition, so the pluralism model cannot reflect all aspects and complements them with a number of other concepts. Theories devoted to the very process of exercising power can be divided into categories: representative (representative) and political participation (participatory). These are two different concepts of democracy.
Each of them differently defines the boundaries of state activity, which are necessary to ensure freedoms and human rights. This issue was analyzed in detail by T. Hobbes when he developed the contractual concept of the state. He recognized that sovereignty should belong to the citizens, but they delegate it to the elected. Only a welfare state can protect its citizens. However, strong groups are not interested in supporting the weak.
Other theories
Liberals see democracy not as an order that allows citizens to participate in political life, but as a mechanism that protects them from lawless actions and arbitrariness of the authorities. Radicals see this regime as social equality, sovereignty not of the individual, but of the people. They ignore the separation of powers and prefer direct democracy over representative democracy.
Sociologist S. Eisenstadt wrote that the main differences in the political discourse of our time are pluralistic and integralist (totalitarian) concepts. Pluralistic sees the individual as potentiallyresponsible citizen and assumes that he is actively involved in institutional areas, although this does not quite correspond to the real state of affairs.
Marxism
Totalitarian concepts, including their totalitarian-democratic interpretations, deny the formation of citizenship through open processes. Nevertheless, the totalitarian concept has much in common with the pluralistic concept. First of all, this is an ideological understanding of the structure of the world community, where collectivism prevails over other forms of social organization. The essence of the concept of K. Marx is that it contains faith in the possibility of transforming the world through political action of a total nature.
Such a regime is still called Marxist, socialist, popular. This includes very many and very different models of democracy that were born from the traditions of Marxism. This is a society of equality, which is built on socialized property. There is also political democracy, similar at first glance, but which should be distinguished from Marxist democracy, since it is only a façade of equality, followed by privileges and deceit.
Socialist Democracy
The social aspect is most clearly expressed in socialist theory. This kind of democracy comes from the homogeneous will of the hegemon - the working class, since it is the most progressive, organized and united part of society. The first stage in building socialist democracy is the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is gradually dying out, as societyacquires homogeneity, the interests of different classes, groups and strata merge and become the single will of the people.
People's power is exercised through councils, where workers and peasants are represented. The Soviets have complete power over the social, political and economic life of the country, and they are obliged to carry out the will of the people, which is expressed at the people's meetings and in the instructions of the electors. Private property is denied, the autonomy of the individual does not exist. ("You can't live in a society and be free from society…") Since the opposition cannot exist under socialist democracy (there simply is no place for it), this system is characterized by a one-party system.
Liberal Democracy
This model is based on other ideological concepts. The essence of liberal democracy is that it recognizes the priority of the interests of the individual while completely separating them from the interests of the state. Liberals are growing like mushrooms in the vast expanse of market relations, they are in favor of removing the ideological and political components from everyday life and for the formation of a nation state.
The people in the liberal theory are the subject of social relations and are identified with the owners, and the source of power is certainly a separate person, whose rights are placed above the laws of the state. They are enshrined in the constitution, protected by the court, which also does not depend on the state (liberals have only precedent law). freedom for themis not participation in politics, but life without coercion and restrictions, without interference from the state, where the guarantors are public institutions. As a result, the state mechanism is not efficient, there is no social justice.
