Modern Western democracy is often called pluralistic, because it positions itself as a variety 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 unions, political parties, social movements and so on. This article will examine what types of democracy exist, how they differ.
The origins
The modern so-called pluralistic democracy of Western countries has grown out of the liberal political system. She inherits all her main principles. This separation of powers, constitutionalism and the like. From liberals, such values as human rights, individual freedom, and so on came. This is characteristic of all branches of a democratic ideology. However, despite the fundamental commonality, pluralistic democracy differs from liberal democracy very much, because it is built in a completely different way. And the main difference in the material for construction.
Pluralistic democracy is built on various ideas, concepts, and forms that are synthesized 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 consists in the fact that democracy should not have a mover at all, not a separate personality, but a group that will pursue the main goals. This social unit should stimulate diversity so that citizens unite, openly expressing 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 are preached. The main thing is compromise and balance.
The most prominent representatives of this concept are R. Dahl, D. Truman, G. Laski. The pluralistic concept assigned the main role to the group because the individual, according to her, is a lifeless abstraction, and only in the community (professional, family, religious, ethnic, demographic, regional and the like, as well as in the relations between all associations) a person with defined interests, value orientations, motives in political activity.
Power sharing
In this understanding, democracy is not the power of a stable majority, that is, a people. Most are volatile, because they are made up of many compromises between different individuals, groups, associations. None of the communities can monopolize power, nor can it make decisions without the support of other public parties.
If this happens, those who are dissatisfied will unite and block those decisions that do not reflect public and personal interests, that is, they will serve as the same social counterbalance holding back 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 the competition to find compromise solutions that reflect this balance.
Main features
First of all, 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 relationships of different communities is a common will born of 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 common not only in the sphere of institutions, as is customary among liberals, but also in the social sphere, where they are represented by rival groups.
The generator of politics in pluralistic democracy is the rational egoism of individuals and their associations. The state is not on guard, as liberals prefer. It is responsible for the normal functioning of the social system in each of its sectors, supports social justice and the protection of human rights. Power should be sprayed between different political institutions. Society must find 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 have a democratic organization, and this is a condition for adequate representation.
Minuses
The concept of pluralistic democracy is recognized and applied in many developed countries, but there are many critics who emphasize its rather large shortcomings. There are many of them, and therefore only the most significant will be selected. For example, associations comprise a very small part of society, even if we take into account interest groups. Actually participates in political decisions and their implementation in less than one third of the entire adult population. And this is only in highly developed countries. The rest is much smaller. And this is a very important omission of this theory.
But the biggest flaw is in the other. Always and in all countries, groups differ significantly in terms of influence. Some have powerful resources - knowledge, money, authority, access to the media and much more. Other groups are practically devoid of any leverage. These are pensioners, people with disabilities, poorly educated people, low-skilled employees and the like. Such social inequality does not allow everyone to equally articulate their own interests.
Reality
However, the above objections are not taken into account. In practice, the political existence of modern countries of a high level of development is built on this type, and examples of pluralistic democracy can be seen at every step. They joke about serious things in the German satirical program: privatization, tax cuts and the destruction of the social state. These are traditional values.
A strong group privatizes state property, but it also reduces taxes on it (the weak groups - pensioners, doctors, teachers, the army) will not receive this money. 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 truly the core value of Western society.
In Russia
In Russia today, a democratic state is being positioned in the same way, built on pluralistic principles. The individual freedom of man 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 people equal chances of life, smooth out social conflicts, and the people will have real opportunities to protect their own interests and to participate in the political process.
Other concepts
The people as a subject of power have a very complex group composition, therefore the model of pluralism cannot reflect all aspects and supplements them with a number of other concepts. Theories on 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 otherwise defines the boundaries of state activity, which are necessary to ensure freedoms and human rights. T. Hobbes examined this question in detail when he developed the contractual concept of the state. He acknowledged that sovereignty should belong to citizens, but they delegate it to the elect. Only a social 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 the arbitrariness of the authorities. The radicals see this regime as social equality, the sovereignty of the people and not the individual. They ignore the separation of powers and prefer a direct, rather than representative, democracy.
Sociologist S. Eisenstadt wrote that the main differences in the political discourse of modernity are pluralistic and integral (totalitarian) concepts. The pluralistic sees the individual as a potentially responsible citizen and assumes that he is actively involved in institutional areas, although this does not completely correspond to the real situation.
Marxism
Totalitarian concepts, including their totalitarian-democratic interpretations, deny the formation of citizenship through open processes. Nevertheless, the totalitarian has a lot 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 structure. The essence of the concept of Karl Marx is that it contains a belief in the possibility of transforming the world through a political action of total property.
Such a regime is still called Marxist, socialist, popular. This includes a lot of very different models of democracy that were born of the traditions of Marxism. This is a society of equality, which is built on socialized property. There is also a political democracy, similar at first glance, but which should be distinguished from the Marxist one, since it is only a facade of equality, then there are privileges and deceit in it.
Socialist democracy
The social aspect is most clearly expressed in socialist theory. This type of democracy proceeds from the uniform will of the hegemon - the working class, as it is the most progressive, organized and single part of society. The first stage in building socialist democracy is the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is gradually dying, as society gains homogeneity, the interests of different classes, groups and strata merge and become the united 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 fulfill the will of the people, which is expressed in public meetings and in the mandates of voters. Private property is denied; autonomy of the individual does not exist. ("You cannot live in society and be free from society …") Since the opposition cannot exist under socialist democracy (it simply cannot find a place), this system is one-party.
