A Pluralist Democracy.

Is there any danger?

For some of us, when one thinks of a pluralist democracy in a state, it does, by default,
associates it with some level of danger or precarious equilibrium. Why? Because with pluralism
comes diversity, which, it does not necessarily mean bad things, in my humble opinion; as we all
may know, diversity comes with various ideas, suggestions, traits, behaviors, solutions and
answers to several questions. But in terms of pluralist democracy, such things transverse into
political, individual or organizational interests that may harm or may not, certain groups of
individuals within a given society. It is obviously understood that where diversity is, there are
also advantages and disadvantages, and thats the case of pluralism as well.
Notice that I used the term to associate in the first paragraph. Thats what pluralism is
about to some extent. People feel the need to associate, to affiliate or to be part of certain groups
or associations to assert their freedom, self or group individuality within a given society. People
seek such things so that they can pass their culture or human beliefs via generations.
Another important role of the independent associations in a democratic state is the
assertion of mutual control in relation to the government. If such organizations did not exist, the
government would take control of the entire country, and that would be total domination over
citizens.
The term domination may differ or have various meanings to citizens, so lets try and
figure out a decent meaning so that it may be general to all of us. Lets say theres this
government which dominates a certain organization or several ones. Its domination is true only if
the governments control takes place over long periods of time, extends over a range of actions
of huge importance to that certain organization and then forces that entity to behave in certain
ways that could be costly to it. Thats how this entire domination works. In a society where no
independent associations exist, the ruler, which in this case is the government, may dictate
citizens religious beliefs, laws defining crime and punishment or, even more, the free access to
education. Thats why such organizations exist; to make sure such a domination never makes its
appearance, but do they really succeed doing so?

I mentioned such things as cost to the entity being dominated, but what if that costly
manner applies to the government as well? At any given time, the ruler in a society, due to its
power, may annihilate such independent associations, but is it worth it or not? Sometimes it is,
sometimes it is not and such moment is that one when the resources needed doing so are higher
than what the ruler earns after annihilating such an association. The trick in such a relationship is
for the dominated association to raise the cost of domination as high as possible so that the ruler
would consider it not worth annihilating it. In such situations, the ruler would rather let
something out of his control and accept a certain level of unreliability than destroying such an
association and empty his pockets. And it is not only about the money or resources. It is also
about the global scale impact among societies. If an association fights for a certain goal against
the government, lets say freedom to education, and the government tries to annihilate it without
even taking in consideration the associations points of views, other interest groups may team up
and come up even stronger. The political and social impact of such actions are bigger than the
benefits the ruler earn from destroying an independent organization. It is all about mutual control
between the government and the interest groups in certain areas, one may dominate the other
when it comes to given aspects in their relationship. But the danger is that domination is not only
present in relation to the government, but may also be present among the leader of an
independent organization and its members, since the initial goals of the group may change in
relation to its leader over time.
Democracy is based on such pluralism, on such independent organizations and interest
groups, since elections are impossible to be contested without these organizations. By forbidding
the existence of such associations several rights would be violated: the criteria of voting equality
and effective participation, the criteria of effective participation and enlightened understanding.
Without these independent organization, or political parties, people wouldnt be able to
coordinate their efforts to support their candidate properly, and since theres such a huge
advantage, the formation of interest groups and independent associations is inevitable.
Democracy is defined by diversity, by pluralism and by the freedom given to form and
join organizations of several branches like: agricultural, professional, cultural or even religious.
From this point and until someone notices the advantages of joining or forming such
organizations is just a little. In developed countries, the number of such organizations is

continuously rising, and it would be impossible for a government to destroy all these
independent associations without using so many resources that in the end would not be worth it.
But even so, the danger is not coming only from the government, but also part from other
organizations. Lets assume that in time the barriers will slowly go down, and one organization
that is more powerful than the others will emerge and impose domination over the government
and the other organizations. Then the democratic regime may slowly move to an authoritarian
one if the other organizations do not find a way to diminish or control the domination.
In my opinion the organized pluralism works like a cold war state or like a modern day
nuclear war, but only without launching the missiles. Anyone knows that everyone has a nuclear
missile, and that is why no one is trying to attack the others, since it is, be default, known that
they will both be destroyed in the process. Thats exactly what happens in a pluralist democracy.
No entity is trying at any time to destroy the other, since they know that the resources needed
will exceed the benefits. There will be tensions and conflicts, but in the end, mostly, they will
accommodate with each other. They will prevent each other to make decisions that will
drastically redistribute control within a country.
Pluralism does not only mean diversity, but it also means various interests. While citizens
may freely express such interests, organizations form to advance, strengthen or even create new
interests in the process. Most of the organizations are wise enough to promote and strengthen
only particular interests of their members. Why did I say wise enough? Because due to a limited
level of resources it is impossible for such organizations to promote a broader range of interests
or the interests of each member without, in the end, getting handicapped and giving birth to
internal conflicts or public distrust. I consider that the biggest goal of an organization is to do so
that the interests of some members or of the leader would eventually become the general interest
of the entire organization, because doing so, the organization will be more powerful and earn
more influence.
Conclusively, in a democratic state we should expect diversity, no matter how it may be,
cultural, religious, political, social etc. There will also be organized independent institutions that
will support their own interests in terms of these categories against the higher rulers, where it
may be the government itself or other more powerful associations. In other words, in a pluralist
democracy there will be two sides, or more, mostly constructed in terms of ruler and the ruled.

These two or more entities will continuously fight each other for domination, but most of the
time none will totally dominate the other, but instead will establish a state of mutual control in
certain areas of their activity. Democracy is built on equality and that is why there is freedom to
form and join such organizations, and in doing so an authoritarian system of power may be
avoided. Even so, there are also disadvantages: we talked about equality, but there will always be
some people or entities left aside, not everyone will be able to join an organization to support his
own interest, there is some criteria to meet, some resources to bring to join them. Even though
most of the organizations find a way that the interests of some members become the general
promoted interest of the whole association, some of them do not, and if they are not annihilated
by the ruler, they will destroy themselves via internal tensions and conflict and public distrust
due to lack of resources to promote and advance a broader set of interests. The annihilation by
the hand of the ruler do not happen so often, since the well-organized institutions will always
find a way to make the rulers needed resources exceed its benefits in doing so. In other words, a
pluralist democracy, in my opinion, is a state of cold nuclear war, where everyone possesses a
nuclear missile, but no one launches it, since they know they will all be destroyed, not only the
ruled or the ruler, a state of mind characterized by a melting pot constructed of various people,
associations and interests.