1

PLURALISM AND DAHL

The second lecture today is on the idea of pluralist democracy. Ill try and
keep this lecture under the hour and make it a little more interactive than
the last. Just as an initial point of interest, the main theorist that well
look at in this lecture, Robert Dahl a giant of 20th century American
democratic theory and political science - died 2 years ago pretty much to
the day.
This second lecture will cover two notions of democratic pluralism. What
David Held calls classical democratic pluralism and neo-pluralism.
Just by way of some context, the reason we are looking at pluralism as a
key model of democracy is as a kind of interesting counter and correction
to Weber and Schumpeters focus on democracy as the circulation of
elites. Having said that both Weber and Schumpeter provide the key
jumping off points for many of the core ideas of democratic pluralism.
Who here agrees with Schumpeter that in the UK it is basically
professional politicians that set the political agenda? Does anyone
disagree?
Well, pluralists, like Dahl, held that the modern democratic state has over
time developed to incorporate a range of institutional, cultural and social
mechanisms and forces that constrain politicians and limit and delimit the
political agenda. The upshot of this, says Dahl, is that politicians or the
political class, cannot really just set the agenda as they like. The modern
politician must take heed of social pressures, the media, the electorates
everyday realities and concerns and the demands and perspectives of a
range of, often competing and overlapping interest and groups. This, say
the pluralists, is the context in which the official business of democratic
politics take place, and according to pluralists, this context changes
everything about the politics.

An important component part of this process can be seen very clearly in

one of Dahls early characterisations on the nature of competitive
elections. Interestingly, Dahl echoes Schumpeter in recognising that
politicians must persuade the electorate to vote for them and that,
therefore,
SLIDE
In a rough sense, the essence of all competitive politics is bribery of the
electorate by politicians The farmer supports a candidate committed
to high price supports, the businessmansupports an advocate of low
corporation taxes the consumervotes for candidates opposed to a
sale tax
I think we all recognize this picture. Think of the way marketing
techniques and PR is now ubiquitous in political campaigns and policy
making surveys, focus groups, media training. Some of this, as
Schumpeter saw, is clearly a kind of manipulation of the electorate and
manufacturing of the agenda, but some of it, like finding out about
peoples immediate problems, values, backgrounds and life goals
seeing what people think about potential policies in focus group (or
through product testing if you like) - really is a way to find out what
people want in order to gain political power. In this way, say the
pluralists, even though people might not be engaged in political parties
or particularly interested in strictly political issues, their views must be
taken in to account.
Although this characterization only speaks to a limited aspect of peoples
involvement in modern democratic political systems, it should give you a
sense of the various other ways in which the political landscape in a
modern democratic state based on competition and representation,
according to pluralists, is formed by a complex interaction of forces,
individuals, groups and their interests.

3
This idea is also nicely captured by Germanys Chancellor Angela
Merkel, who in an interview expressed the requirement for a kind of
pluralist outlook like this.
SLIDE
The problem is, of course, that these interest groups are all asking
for changes, but their enthusiasm for change rapidly disappears
when it affects the core of their own interests. Everyone wants a
more simple tax system. But if this means that certain tax breaks
have to be cut, people are no longer so enthusiastic. That is why
everyone in politics, and we do it, must make sure that they do not
depend on one single interest group. A good compromise is one
where everybody makes a contribution.
Well look at the pluralists theory of democracy in a little more detail in
what follows but I wanted to ask you a question before we press on. Just
thinking about the account Ive give you so far and the quotation from
Merkel - who thinks this goes someway to meeting the core ideals of
democracy? Do you think that a politician who gains peoples votes by
trying to balance and compromise between the interests of loads of
individuals and groups results in a kind of majority rule? Do you think it
facilitates individual liberty or freedom?
In 1961, Dahl wrote a hugely influential book entitled, who governs? Its
basically a case study of political power and representation in New
Haven, Connecticut in the US. Well, Dahl finds that modern democratic
practice is complex and notes that the classical story of democracy about
the relationship between the majority and the elites - or a minority
doesnt really do justice to what actually happens.
The practice of democracy in the modern world, says Dahl, is typically
characterised by a complex and untidy interaction of interrelated but
diverse and widely distributed interest groups and coalitions whose

4
voices, perspectives, access to resources - ultimately their power - mean
that in different ways and to greater and lesser extents they do in fact
have an input in to political decision making and political processes. The
upshot of this, says Dahl, is that even in a relatively small community in
New Haven Dahl find that the citys policy making arenas are simply too
fragmented for any single group to dominate entirely. Now Dahl notes
that there are significant power imbalances yes, some groups do have
more sway business voices, for example, may, in effect have more
political power. And this does mean that power, resources and policy is
not evenly distributed, but, even then, says Dahl, because every group
and coalition in the city has possession of some resources and power
they invariably had some degree of influence.
Dahl finds in this reality a kind happy consequence of the increasing
complexity and scale of modern representative democratic societies. The
upshot of the messy development of political institutions and power
relations that have emerged in large, modern, complex democracies has
been a practical solution to what, says Dahl, is the thorniest problem in
democratic theory.
Heres the problem.
Democracy is premised upon political equality which, according to Dahl,
implies that it is the majority that should rule. On the other hand,
democratic thinkers in the liberal democratic tradition from Locke and
Mill, to Maddison and Toquville - worried about protecting minorities and
individuals from being abused by the majority in a democracy, or worse
the rise of a tyranny of the majority. In other words, their focus was
individual freedom, in liberty. This problem is, of course, a certain version
of the old tension between liberty and equality in democratic thought.
According to Dahl, the reason we generally dont find one monopolistic
centre of power controlling everything and everyone in modern liberal

5
democratic societies whether a monolithic state, the capitalist class, or
political elites or parties jockeying for total domination is simply
because it wouldnt work. According to Dahl and the pluralists, the
relative success of modern liberal democratic and social democratic
states - their stability, wealth and freedoms - emanates from the
requirement to balance the plurality of competing interest groups who
hold different sorts of power at all sorts of different levels in society.
Whats more, says Dahl, this sort of arrangement actually comes closest
to the practical realization of the ideals of democracy without falling foul
of the tension between majority and minority rule. For pluralists, the
dispersal of power within modern democratic societies means that
politics becomes a fluid, dynamic process of competition, bargaining and
compromise among a multitude of interest groups or minorities all vieing
for the rewards distributed by the political system. And the upshot of this,
according to pluralists, is that modern democratic states end up realizing
or getting close to the realization of at least some of the core ideals of
democracy. However, precisely because power is dispersed in to minority
groups, Dahl thinks that a more accurate term for modern democratic
politics is actually polyarchy.
So instead of talking about democracies, Dahl typically uses the term
polyarchy. What do we think polyarchy means?
Heres a couple of Dahls many characterizations of democratic polyarchy.
SLIDE
instead of a single center of sovereign power there must be
multiple centers of power, none of which is or can be wholly
sovereign. Although
the only legitimate sovereign is the people... even the people ought
never to be an absolute sovereign
Pluralists ... see American society as fractured in to congeries of
hundreds of small special interest groups, with incompletely

6
overlapping memberships, widely differing power bases, and
multitude of techniques for exercising influence on decisions salient
to them...
Just to flesh this out a little bit so we all understand the notion of
polyarchy. A good polyarchy, says Dahl, is one characterized by loads of
minority groups at all sorts of levels in society wielding lots of power and
resources which all input into the political landscape and process.
Can anyone think of the kinds of groups in society that might constitute
power groups? Now, clearly there are things like political parties, MPs,
local governments etc, etc, but what about the interest groups that make
up what is often called civil society. So, again, what sorts of groups
might Dahl have in mind?
SLIDE
Think interest Groups, Pressure Groups, Social Movements, Charities,
education, Businesses, Religious groups, business interest, unions,
Something like coalition government gives you a sense of this but its
broader.
As I said, Dahl wants to suggest that today polyarchy is the only realistic
instantiation of democratic ideals in modern states. To make his point
Dahl lists a variety of formal conditions which if maximally realized would,
he believes, form an ideal or utopian democratic situation. Heres are the
conditions:
SLIDE
1. Effective participation
Citizens must have adequate and equal opportunities to form their
preference and place questions on the public agenda and express
reasons for one outcome over the other.

7
2. Voting equality at the decisive stage
Each citizen must be assured his or her judgments will be counted
as equal in weights to the judgments of others.
3. Enlightened understanding
Citizens must enjoy ample and equal opportunities for discovering
and affirming what choice would best serve their interests.
4. Control of the agenda
Demos or people must have the opportunity to decide what political
matters actually are and what should be brought up for
deliberation.
5. Inclusiveness
Equality must extend to all citizens within the state. Everyone has
legitimate stake within the political process.
Given that these conditions are never fully realizable, says Dahl, the best
weve got is the messy business of polyarchy and the more poly the
archy i.e., the more powerful minority groups there are - the more
democratic. This is why I emphasized the plurality of minorities.
Why is it, do you think, that for Dahl democracy is not fully realizable in a
modern state? What is it about modern states?
Is Dahl right about this?
I want to make one more point about Dahls classic pluralism before
moving on to a critique.
Dahl notes that beyond these formal democratic conditions, any possible
democratic polis must be underpinned by a basic shared framework or
culture that functions as a kind of underlying consensus. However
divergent the interests and perspectives that underpin political life in a
society, for Dahl there is a kind of background set of values or
worldviews, which anchor the political framework and, thereby, delimit

8
debates and possibilities and in so doing represents an obstacle to
oppressive rule and tyranny.
SLIDE
Prior to politics, beneath it, enveloping it, restricting it,
conditioning it, is the underlying consensus on polity that usually
exists in the society.Without such a consensus no democratic
system would long survive the endless irritations and frustrations of
elections and party competition. With such a consensus the
disputes over policy alternatives are nearly always disputes over a
set of alternatives that have already been winnowed down to those
within a broad area of basic agreement
So, its not just competition, different perspectives and different power
and interest groups that go towards a functioning polyarchy, but more
fundamentally its that these difference perspectives more or less share a
kind of homogenous cultural and social backdrop.
Im sure lots of you in this room disagree with each other about lots of
things. Im sure there are radically different perspectives and opinions etc
but do you agree with Dahl that despite these, there is a kind of
fundamental similarity more or less between most of you? A
fundamental equality of sorts between you all.
Hopefully most of you see why democratic pluralism is considered the
dominant and realistic way of understanding modern politics in liberal
democratic states. Its a very coalition and power-sharing sort of world.
Ok. So much for some of the core ideas of classical pluralism. Theres a
rather obvious critique of classical pluralism and in particular the notion
of polyarchy that might have crossed some of your minds. Think Marxist
analysis from earlier in the week.
CAPITALISM

Well, later in Dahls work he comes to recognize this issue but whats
interesting about the way in which Dahl formulates his reflection is that it
highlights that equality in a society is not a precondition for polyarchy.
Rather, for Dahl, polyarchy is chiefly about the dispersal of power, which
is why he points out that
In the twentieth century, the existence of a market oriented capitalist
economy in a country has been favourable to democratization up to the
level of polyarchy; but it is unfavourable to democratization beyond the
level of polyarchy (Dahl 1996 p 646)
This, I think is the germ of neo-pluralism.
For neo-pluralism, the analysis of modern liberal or social democratic
states demonstrates that although there may be no single power that
dominates overall (so they are not Marxists) if there are at least 2 or
more centres of power whatever they are then we have polyarchy. But
of course, not all polyarchys are the same. What many of the pluralists
came to see was that their models missed the power of capitalism and
corporate capitalism in particular.
This is why in his later work which focuses on democracy in relationship
to the economy, Dahl is explicit that corporate ownership and the modern
system of property produces inequality and so undermines liberty and
democracy.
Heres what he says. Its worth quoting at length I think.
SLIDE
Ownership and control of firms affects political inequality in two ways
that are closely related but rather different. First, ownership and control
contribute to the great differences among citizens in wealth, income,
status, skills, information, control over information and propaganda,

10
access to political leaders, and, on the average, predictable life chances,
not only for mature adults but also for the unborn, infants, and children.
After all due qualifications have been made, differences like these help in
turn to generate significant inequalities among citizens in their capacities
and opportunities for participating as political equals in governing the
state.
Second, and even more obvious, with very few exceptions the internal
governments of economic enterprises are flatly undemocratic both de
jure and de facto. Indeed, genuine political equality has been rejected by
Americans as a proper principle of authority within firms. Hence the
ownership and control of enterprises creates enormous inequalities
among citizens in their capacities and opportunities for participation
in governing economic enterprises.
What Dahl and other neo-pluralist theorists came to see was that modern
democracies are underpinned by a particular socioeconomic system that
is biased towards or grants a privileged position to the interests of
corporate business interests. And for Dahl, what this entails is that the
only way our society can become more democratic is to transform the
power of modern capitalist corporations. To do this, says Dahl, would
mean the extension of democratic practices in to the workplaces.
The key point to stress here, is that, as David Held nicely puts it,
SLIDE
In the view of neopluralists like Dahl interest groups cannot
treated as necessarily equal, and the state cannot be regarded as a
neutral arbiter among all interests; the business corporation wields
disproportionate influence over the state and, therefore, over the
nature of democratic outcomes.

11
Its for reasons like these that although later pluralist thought retains
some of the thinking on the complex interactivity of various power groups
within society it begins to take increasing notice of
-the bias of the political agenda,
-the sectional interests that can emerge within the state,
-the fact that our lives are fundamentally marked by diverse political
cultures and inequality
- Contestation for power
- the barriers to political participation
- inequality of opportunity for individuals and political groups
- the secrecy of government
- the extent to which the global order - its socioeconomic makeup
problematizes the democratic character of the nation state.
In other words, although their focus on complexity and careful empirical
analysis remains, the neopluralists begin increasingly to stress the
failures of, and limits to, democracy in modern, so-called, democratic
states.