Classical pluralism is the view that politics and decision-making are located mostly in the framework of government but that many non-governmental groups use their resources to exert influence.
The existence of diverse and competing interests is the basis for a democratic equilibrium,[1] and is crucial for the obtaining of goals by individuals.
Pluralists stress civil rights, such as freedom of expression and organization, and an electoral system with at least two parties.
[citation needed] Important theorists of pluralism include Robert A. Dahl (who wrote the seminal pluralist work, Who Governs?
The Anti-Pluralism Index in V-Party Dataset is modeled as a lack of commitment to the democratic process, disrespect for fundamental minority rights, demonization of opponents, and acceptance of political violence.
[2] The list of possible sources of power is virtually endless: legal authority, money, prestige, skill, knowledge, charisma, legitimacy, free time, and experience.
Dahl describes power as a "realistic relationship, such as A's capacity for acting in such a manner as to control B's responses".
In this case, Hamed Kazemzadeh (Canadian Pluralist and Human rights activist) argues that organizational membership socializes individuals to democratic norms, increases participation and moderates the politics of society so that bargaining and negotiation are possible.
Large military contractors certainly throw their weight around on defense matters, but how much sway do they have on agricultural or health policies?
The best way to do this, pluralists believe, is to examine a wide range of specific decisions, noting who took which side and who ultimately won and lost.
What this theory fails to take into account is the prospect of overcoming these qualities by garnering support from other groups.
Elite pluralists agree with classical pluralists that there is "plurality" of power; however, this plurality is not "pure" when the supposedly democratic equilibrium maintains or increases inequities (social, economic or political) due to elites holding greatly disproportionate societal power in forms aforementioned,[7] or by systemic distortions of the political process itself, perpetuated by, for example, regulatory or cultural capture.
In the international realm, order is distorted by powerful multinational interests and dominant states, while in classical pluralism emphasis is put on stability by a framework of pluralist rules and free market society.
For example, trade unions and major sectoral business associations are often consulted about (if not the drivers of) specific policies.
The state constructs a framework in which it can address the political and economic issues with these organized and centralized groups.
In international security, during the policymaking process, different parties may have a chance to take part in decision making.