This essay will explore the Elitist and Pluralist approaches to governance, examining their strengths and weaknesses. It will commence by defining the terms “Governance”, “Elitist”, and “Pluralist”. Subsequently, it will present a comprehensive explanation of each approach. The essay will also emphasize the benefits (merits) and drawbacks (demerits) associated with both methods. Ultimately, a conclusion will be drawn based on the key points addressed in the essay. Governance encompasses the process of formulating and executing policy decisions, along with the government’s competence in establishing and enforcing public policies.
The text outlines the government’s strategies for enforcing adherence to its policies and laws, particularly within an elitist political system. The concept of “elitism” pertains to a governing structure wherein a select few individuals wield significant power and rule society based on their capabilities, wealth, social background, or accomplishments. This interpretation of elitism traces back to Aristotle’s conviction that specific individuals are destined to govern while others are destined to be governed.
Cox (1985; pg 107) defines rulers as individuals who attain the highest position due to their exceptional quality. Pluralism, derived from “plural”, meaning “more than one” or “consisting of more than one”, is a theory proposing that society comprises multiple entities. According to this theory, government functions by considering the ideas and needs of both individuals and groups in order to address all societal needs. Every idea is deemed valid without any notion of correctness or incorrectness. Now that we have established the key terms, let us delve deeper into these two approaches.
Originally, government policies were informed by models created to understand and address various forms of societal behavior that can lead to social disorder. These models, known as the elitist and pluralist approaches to governance, aim to assist governments in making policy decisions that regulate and guide society. The Elitist approach suggests that power is concentrated among a few individuals who have significant influence due to their societal position.
According to the elite theory, individuals in positions of authority within significant economic and political institutions possess substantial power and are responsible for making crucial decisions that impact society. This theory is founded on two fundamental concepts. Firstly, power is centralized among these elite figures within these institutions. Secondly, the elite possess personal resources such as intelligence and skills, along with a vested interest in governance, which sets them apart from the general population who are perceived as incapable of self-governance. The resourceful elite will actively work towards ensuring the government operates effectively and achieves success.
Despite common belief, the elite do not participate in secret plots or manipulate situations for their own benefit. On the contrary, their main concern is the success of the government. Although they are a closely connected group, they place importance on individual rights, follow constitutional principles, and pursue their goals openly and without violence. Their influence is not based on fear or autocracy but can be described as either political or civil elite.
The political elite, including the President, members of parliament, and councilors, are elected by the public to govern society. The public’s participation in elections legitimizes their authority. However, once in power, they prioritize staying in power and governing without much regard for public involvement. As a result, the significance of the public is limited to Election Day and they are marginalized and kept at a distance.
The political elite, made up of elected officials who formulate policies and make decisions, holds a political mandate from the citizens. Examples of the political elite encompass the president, members of parliament, and ministers. In contrast, the civil elite comprises unelected individuals such as bureaucrats and civil servants, whose appointments are based on their educational and professional accomplishments. Collaborating with the political elite to govern the country are representatives of the civil elite like the Secretary to the Cabinet and Permanent Secretaries. Whereas the political elite shape policies, it is the responsibility of the civil elite to execute and oversee national affairs.
The civil elite plays the role of administration because they possess qualifications, professionalism, and research which make them more knowledgeable and experienced than others. They are responsible for initiating, planning, drafting, and implementing policies created by the political executive. Additionally, they serve as advisors to the political elites when their expertise is required. They also educate the general public about politics and establish societal standards as a means of enlightening and preserving culture (Birch, A., 1993; pg 6).
The Pluralist approach arose as a means of resisting perceived oppressive and dominant state sovereignty. Protesters aimed to distribute state power among various social groups, with the primary goal of avoiding a society where the state held absolute control over power. Instead, they sought to establish a decentralized and cooperative society that engaged all members in decision-making, rather than consolidating power under one authority. While the state would still play a role in significant decisions, its agenda should be influenced by the broader demands of society.
According to the pluralist approach, all citizens should have the opportunity to participate in government activities, not just the political and civil elite. This means that their views, comments, grievances, demands, suggestions, and ideas should be represented in policy making. Representation can come from representative elections or involvement in social groups like NGOs, Trade Unions, Pressure groups (like UNZASU), Political Parties, Churches, etc.
The process of decision making involves various groups, with government institutions acting as a mediator. These policy inputs are then aggregated by the political elite, who decide and send policy output as feedback to society. According to Oppleby P. H. (1967; pg 145), the Elitist and Pluralist approaches to governance have been explained. Now, we can analyze the positive and negative aspects of each approach. The advantages of the elite include quicker and easier consensus due to decision making involving a small group.
Advantages of having an elite group of decision makers in times of emergency, such as war threats, include their ability to act swiftly without waiting for input from the wider society. The education and experience of the civil elite often surpasses that of ordinary citizens, making them well-informed and suitable to collaborate with the political elite. The elected officials, who are a representation of democracy, can make decisions on behalf of the masses as they are voted into power. These officials may also have access to classified information that can aid in decision making, especially in situations like imminent attacks on the country.
As an emergent figure, He possesses the ability to make decisions in the best interest of the masses, without seeking approval from the civil elite. Hence, in situations necessitating prompt actions, extensive consultations can prove to be expensive for the nation (Birch, A., 1993, pg 6). Despite its effectiveness during critical moments requiring urgent decision-making, the elitist approach has inherent limitations. This approach lacks democracy as it does not promote widespread societal involvement in governing the nation’s affairs.
The citizens only have a role in selecting the political elite through elections, but once they take power, their involvement ends. Furthermore, the model has a weakness in implementing policies. Since the citizens are marginalized and kept at a distance, they do not participate in policy-making. This makes it challenging to include them in the implementation process, as they may feel excluded from a process that directly affects them as the governed.
Furthermore, a smaller population may result in a reduced generation of ideas, potentially leading to the oversight of important issues or ideas that are better understood by those outside of government circles. This can result in biased policies favoring specific societal groups (Mannheim K. 1936; pg 119).
In contrast, the pluralist approach offers advantages as it promotes a more democratic decision-making process with broader social participation. This fosters a collective sense of ownership among the wider society regarding the policies.
In this way, no one would feel excluded, and all societal demands and desires would be adequately addressed. The implementation process becomes effortless, as there is no need to convince people to participate since they were involved from the beginning. Because it includes everyone, the decisions made are more likely to be just and equitable for every individual, as they are built upon extensive research, extensive consultation, and diverse perspectives.
The advantage is that no one pressure group or special interest group can influence decisions in their own interests, as power is shared among social groups. This means that no single group dominates because there are many different political resources. This variety of group power allows a group without resources to rely on public opinion to support their views in decision making.
The electoral mechanism functions on the assumption that the government should not consistently favor any specific group, as this bias would alienate the government from others. The government should act as a neutral mediator, free from partiality, and respond to pressure from various sides. The outcome of this process is uncertain, in contrast to the elitist perspective that suggests the odds are always in favor of those in power (Norris, 1982, p. 194). However, the pluralist approach has its drawbacks. One of them is that some policy inputs may be of low quality because many members of social groups lack education and understanding of complex issues.
Furthermore, the process of consensus building is generally characterized by sluggishness and inefficiency due to prolonged debates and discussions. The more individuals involved, the lengthier the time required to reach a resolution, rendering it a costly endeavor for the nation. Additionally, this model carries the drawback of power distribution, where significant decisions impacting the populace are influenced and decided through negotiations conducted behind closed doors, detached from democratic practices. Thus, the extent to which the people can bargain becomes crucial under this system.
In addition, this approach can be detrimental in war efforts as it prevents the implementation of a command economy and necessary strategies to secure victory, resulting in potential costs for the nation. In conclusion, the Elitist approach to governance focuses on the monopolization of power, with a small group of individuals possessing the expertise and capability to efficiently organize and manage society. These elites formulate and enforce policies independently, with the general population’s sole contribution being the election of political elites into power.
Centralizing power is considered the most cost-effective and efficient method of governance, according to this model. In contrast, the Pluralist approach opposes concentrating power solely in the hands of a privileged few and supports sharing it among different political and social groups that citizens can be part of. These groups act as channels for citizens to express their opinions, ideas, comments, suggestions, etc., which are then used by executive elites in the policymaking process.
This analysis argues that citizen involvement in policy-making and governance leads to smoother policy implementation. The government acts as a mediator between different groups, and if everyone actively participates, the government’s role may diminish over time. Nevertheless, many modern governments combine these approaches. The Zambian system exemplifies this.
