Pluralist Theory of Sovereignty

Pluralist Theory of Sovereignty or Pluralism

The pluralist gave a new explanation or classification to the actual nature of sovereignty. They thought that, monistic theory as, a pernicious or unsuccessful doctrine, they have differentiated state and society and the position of the state was reduced from supreme to slavery. State is not made of social association and it cannot entitlement total loyalty to people or individual. The power to be mutual of other social groups and must fulfill the needs of man and perform a part in the development of social machinery. Hence, they promoted a new type of state that is omnicompetent or omnipresent in nature, it is just above the social groups and other organisations.

In this there is no unified system of law by the state, administration is not centralized, and there is no generalization of political will as they promoted the influential supporters of methodical legality. “On contrary the state is a multiplicity in its essence and manifestation, it is divisible into parts and should be divided”. That is, pluralism “Undertakes to transform the state. It criticizes and discredits the state as it is, and seeks to reduce it from a place of honour to place of servitude”.

The pluralism theory of sovereignty has two components 1. Negative and 2 Positive sides.

The negative side, it does not escalate the argument of the monist that state is connotation of omnicompetent which relates with all the concerns of the society. The positive side of the theory is, it deal with the authority of the state, must be mutual by the social groups and connotations in two aspects. Firstly, the association must have their own personality; some of them are older than the society. Secondly, they play a significant role in the needs of the individuals where state cannot do anything, and in this regard they have differentiated state and society. Pluralist doctrine which was given by Hsiao as follows;

1 It gives importance to individual liberty

2 Pluralist theory, presents the associations or groups in political thoughts and stress the need of social organisations

3 It implies actual vision on the political procedure, which includes government and law both, all the social relations among men as multifaceted moral beings.

4 It look like the entire response of the political state as totalitarianism and absolutism.

5 It facilitated for the improvement of Western political thought to develop nonconcrete monism to pluralism, by which a concrete monism.

6 It forces monists to confine the state to its constricted political domain.

Features of Pluralist Sovereignty:

The theory of political pluralism is existed because of severe response of customary theory of sovereignty. It disallows the argument that the entire power is given to the state and its associations along with social groups, which becomes irrelevant. They argued that the sovereignty of state must reexamined in order to get new facts and new opinions which can give actual utility of these groups and associations. According to Lindsay, ‘If we look at the facts, it is clear enough that the theory of sovereignty is like a venerable superstition and it would go like the dogma of divine rights of king”.  The pluralist offered parallel model of this theory, if the social sets and connotations have their own persona and if they come across to the needs of their members the state must contend with them while upholding the federal structure of the society. It should contest with churches, trade unions, employers, associations and friendly societies. According to Figgis, the state is like ‘an association of association of the society’ and, according to Laski, ‘we give to it no peculiar merit’. All the pluralist harp melody of social groups and associations which allows them to share of sovereignty of the state.

Pluralist on State and Government:

Pluralist do not claim on any difference between state and government, for them this differentiation is unrealistic and artificial. They support an accurate political science, the prominent supporters of this opinion are Laski and Duguit.