DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES
ASSIGNMENT TOPIC :
Distribution of Power: An Analysis
NAME - SUJEET KUMAR
SUBJECT – POLITICAL SCIENCE
SEMISTER – 1ST
EMAIL –
[email protected]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
• Yourarticlelibrary.com
• Modern politics and government: Alan R Ball
• Google.com
• Youtube.com
