America is often named as a democratic nation. Some go as far as stating that it is an example of democracy and that it is the only country that is governed by the people in the broadest sense. However, other opinions exist on the matter, with some suggesting the elite and class theory as the most fitting description while others suggest its polar opposite, hyperpluralism, as the current governing model. While both suggestions have their weak points and are prone to subjective judgment, it is undeniable that the latter is at least partially confirmed by existing examples and thus can be a valid description of the governing power of America.
First, it is important to note several differences between democracy, the most popularly recognized government model when it comes to defining America, and pluralism. Both have at their core the principle of popular power. Democracy asserts that all people of the country can influence the governance of the country. What is often downplayed is the level of involvement. It is undeniable that by being able to select its government, the population is influencing the subsequent outcomes. However, the important condition of democracy is the homogeneity of the populace (Schmitt and Kennedy 14).
America can not be further from the definition of homogeneous, with its emphasis on diversity and protecting it by all means. On the other hand, pluralism, which is the type of government where all its participants have equal power regardless of their qualities, including social status, seems somewhat utopian from the first glance. It seems obvious that the common people can’t have more impact on the political scene than their right to vote suggests. However, it becomes less improbable once we look at the legal system proceedings of recent years. The dominating trend is challenging the laws based on their unconstitutional nature.
A good example is a series of federal court cases known as Hollingsworth v. Perry, which resulted in the overturning of Proposition 8 that was banning same-sex marriage in California by proclaiming it unconstitutional (Liptak par. 8). In this case, the interest group has changed the federal policy and triggered several changes for the president’s administration to consider. In other words, the group has secured its interests on a legal level.
However, while the ultimate ability of every citizen to defend his or her rights is a good thing, there is a growing trend of trying to gain additional leverage by exploiting the underprivileged status. Some suggest that the current dynamics of the equality movement is such that neither the legal system nor common sense can keep up the pace (Schermer par. 12). As a result, we end up in a situation where underprivileged groups try to gain an advantage over others rather than eliminate disadvantages and reach the mean level.
This is observable in many social spheres but most prominently in politics. For instance, the U.S. Congress currently struggles through each legal issue to satisfy every lobbyist group or political action committee, which indicates the attempt to comply with as many interest groups as possible (Lineberry, Edwards, and Wattenberg 171). This aligns well with the definition of hyperpluralism, an extreme version of the pluralistic model where the government is unable to sustain power because of this very reason.
At this point, it is important to emphasize that the border between pluralism and hyperpluralism is elusive and is often measured subjectively. We can not definitively determine if they wish to comply has disrupted the integrity of decisions or if this is just an extreme exception.
To conclude, the current governing principles of America exhibit the qualities of all four theories to at least some degree. Nevertheless, the presence of hyperpluralism is observable and allows us to suggest that diverse interest groups have a formidable share in the governing process.
Works Cited
Lineberry, Robert, George Edwards, and Martin Wattenberg. Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy, New York: Pearson Education, 2013. Print.
Liptak, Adam. Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage With Two Major Rulings. 2013. Web.
Schermer, Michael. What Went Wrong? Campus Unrest, Viewpoint Diversity, and Freedom of Speech. 2016. Web.
Schmitt, Carl and Ellen Kennedy. The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1988. Print.