Suchergebnisse

THIS ARTICLE IS A CRITIQUE OF CONTEMPORARY PLURALIST THEORY AS FOUND LARGELY IN THE WORK OF ROBERT A. DAHL AND CHARLES E. LINDBLOM. TWO DIFFERENT FORMS OF PLURALISM ARE DISTINGUISHED AND COMPARED CRITICALLY WITH MARXIST CLASS ANALYSIS. PLURALISM, IT IS ARGUED, FAILS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE REALITY OF POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES. AS A THEORY, PLURALISM IS ALSO MARKED BY INCREASING TENSION BETWEEN THE UNDERLYING VALUES AND THE PERFORMANCE OF AMERICAN POLYARCHY. THE OVERALL RESULT IS THAT PLURALISM'S UTILITY AS A DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION OF THE AMERICAN POLITICAL ECONOMY IS CALLED INTO SERIOUS DOUBT, AND A CASE IS MADE FOR THE EXPLANATORY SUPERIORITY OF CLASS ANALYSIS.

This article is a critique of contemporary pluralist theory as found largely in the work of Robert A. Dahl and Charles E. Lindblom. Two different forms of pluralism are distinguished and compared critically with Marxist class analysis. Pluralism, it is argued, fails to account for the reality of political and economic inequality in the United States. As a theory, pluralism is also marked by increasing tension between the underlying values and the performance of American polyarchy. The overall result is that pluralism's utility as a description and explanation of the American political economy is called into serious doubt, and a case is made for the explanatory superiority of class analysis.

Le système politique rnarocain est original en Afrique, non seulernent parce que le Maroc est doté d'un régime monarchique rnais aussi parce que ce pays est Ie seul à avoir tenté et poursuivi depuis son accession à l'indépendance une experience de multipartisme.Societies are generally neither monolithic nor homogeneous; every political system must deal with the problem of pluralism in some way. But political systems tend to be organized hierarchically, with power and authority concentrated at the top. The confrontation of social pluralism and political concentration can well give rise to tensions, since centralized political structures deal with diversified social interests. Tensions are also likely to grow out of pluralism within the political structure itself, as factions form on the bases of personalities, programmes and interests. Factions can exist within a single organizational or institutional framework, or they can be reflected in competing parties, checking and balancing institutions, and separated powers. The single-party regime has often become a familiar way of containing these tensions and factions in developing countries, particularly in Africa, and the existence of many African single-party regimes has led to efforts to discover the common elements behind the common phenomenon. The purpose of this study is not to challenge these explanations, but to look more broadly into the nature of interests, factions and power in developing polities, suggesting a model of political development that puts both unipartism and political pluralism in their places.