Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Relationship between Pluralism and Democracy - Coggle Diagram

- - - - CULTURAL PLURALISM - Furnivall (Cultural Anthropologist)
        
        based on colonial situations
        
        co-existence of different segments - one native and other alien - not voluntary but brought about through the force imposed by the colonial power from outside
        
        there is a lack of integration
        
        due to the lack of integration, such plural societies are unsuited for the emergence of nationalism and hence for democracy
        
        nationalism within a plural society is itself a disruptive force tending to shatter and not consolidate its social order
        
        By implication, it is only in societies that have been voluntarily constituted and which are homogenous that democracy can be institutionalised and nurtured.
        
        But this position is not sustainable in the light of available empirical evidence. The most successful democracy in the world, the USA, is not a voluntarily constituted polity if one takes into account the manner in which the original inhabitants of the US territory were treated and the Blacks were incorporated.
        
        CULTURAL PLURALISM IS REFERRED TO AS THE CONFLICT MODEL
        
        The essential source of conflict in the culturally plural society is located in the fact that a demographic, racial, cultural and alien minority dominates the native majority in every aspect of life.
        
        This domination is made possible through its economic and technological superiority.
        
        this situation necessarily breeds confit between the two and the resolution of conflict is possible only by doing away with its very source - the domination of the majority by the minority.
        
        Viewed historically, however, a large number of such societies have continued for a long time as 'stable' societies, the dominated majority rarely revolting against the dominant minority either because the value of self-governance was not internalised by it or because it did not have the requisite striking power.
      - POLITICAL PLURALISM (Tocqueville-Political Scientist)
        
        Tockquevillean conceptualisation of pluralism is based on an entirely different type of empirical situation that grew out of multiplicity of collectivities competing in the political arena through the instrumentality of parties and associations, institutions and mobilisations.
        
        Typical cases that represent such situations are capitalist liberal democracy of the UK with its multi-national and migrant populations and the USA which is poly-ethnic and multi-racial.
        
        Tocqueville was eager to locate the sources of the stable and successful democracy, that obtained in the US. He found that there existed a number of secondary power, that is, voluntary associations, and that these associations along with the autonomy of local authorities served to prevent the authoritarianism of the central stage and helped to stabilise democracy.
        
        Thus, voluntary associations are recognised as countervailing powers which sustain political pluralism in democratic societies.
        
        Political pluralists argue that voluntary associations are instruments that sustain democracy; and the associations are formed on the basis of wide variety of factors including race, religion, caste and region.
        
        POLITICAL PLURALISM IS CONDUCIVE TO DEMOCRACY
        
        POLITICAL PLURALISM IS REFERRED TO AS EQUILIBRIUM MODEL
        
        It is not true that societies grouped under the equilibrium model, the democratic plural societies did not have any conflict
        
        In fact conflict is more visible in democratic plural societies than in the despotic plural ones.
      - Need to reconceptualise these two notions of pluralism (cultural and political) because of their inadequacy to cope with the empirical situations prevailing in India
        
        Conflict and Equilibrium are common to both types of plural societies.
        
        Oommen's suggestion is that we need to distinguish between the two types of societies based on quality of equilibrium which obtains in them
        
        Cultural plural societies - chrarcterised by coercive equilibrium
        political plural societies - consensual equilibrium
        
        The real challenge is:
        cultural plural societies transforming their equilibrium from coercive to consensual
        political plural societies to sustain and strengthen the consensual equilibrium
        
        THREE GENERAL CONCLUSIONS EMERGE FROM THIS DISCUSSION:
        
        The pronouncements regarding relationship between pluralism and democracy are diametrically opposite. For cultural pluralists, pluralism destabilised the social order and is antithetical to the very ethos fo democracy. By implication, they plumb for homogeneity for sustaining democracy For Political pluralism, pluralism is the essence of democracy
        
        Neither cultural nor political pluralists ave addressed the all-impportant issue of institutionalised inter-group ineequality, an inherent feature of hierarchical societies such as India.
        
        They have not adequately addressed the complex issues of conflicts in societies such as India which combine cultural diversity and political pluralism.