Government acts as a broker, independent from interest, and responds to pressure from different sides and the outcome is a gamble as opposed to the elitist view that the odds are stacked in favour of the house.
For instance; in an event where the country is threatened of an attack by the enemies, he would through the intelligence wing be the first to get the information before any ordinary citizen. The fact that decision making involves a small group, consensus tends to be quicker and easier. In addition, this approach can be bad at fighting wars because they cannot dictate a command economy and do what is necessary to win the war.
The political elite make the policies while the civil elite implement or actually do the running of the affairs of the country.
It is not a dictatorship and does not rely on terror. It is sufficient democracy in the sense that the citizens have the mandate to vote into or out of power whoever they choose to, and as such, those in power may be forced to make decisions in the interest of the many.
Because of the emergent nature of the issue, it would be quite cumbersome for decision makers to wait for views and contributions from the wider society. The desired goal was one of a decentralized and associative society that would involve every member of society in decision making process and not a monopoly of power.
This implies that the public is only important on Election Day, thereafter; they are marginalized and kept at a peripheral distance.
Because of the powers that they wield, the elitist make most of the important decisions for society. The Elite can be sub-divided into two categories: They give political education to the masses and set certain model standards in society and in this they enlighten the people and thus preserve and promote the culture.
Having defined the main terms, we can now look at the two approaches in detail. In addition, fewer people means fewer ideas, hence, chances are that some important issues, important ideas which may be well known or better understood by those outside government circles may be left out in the process.
The civil elite, by virtue of their qualifications, professionalism, and research, take the role of administration because they are well informed and experienced than their counterparts.
The demerits of the pluralist approach include the following: Based on those policy inputs, the political elite then, aggregate, decide and send policy output as feedback to the wider society. Therefore, according to the pluralist approach, the activities of the government should not be left to the fewer political and civil elite alone, but be extended to all the citizens, so as to accord them the opportunity to participate in the manner they are going to be governed.
This implies that they are well informed and as such can be allowed to work with the political elite. The civil elite on the other hand are the unelected officials, the bureaucrats, the civil servants, who have no political mandate but are appointed into positions based on their educational and professional attainments; for instance: The Elite theory is based on two ideas: More Essay Examples on Policy Rubric The rulers are those few individuals who get to the top by virtue of their superior quality.
This can cost the nation. Also consensus building tends to be very slow and inefficient because debates over issues become prolonged, the more the people involved the longer it takes to reach a conclusion. It becomes quite difficult to include them in the implementation thereof because some people tend to feel that they have been left out of an important process that concerns them directly as they are the governed.
The merits of the elite include the following: However, it can be observed that, most modern governments use both approaches.
The Zambian system is an example. The approach is less democratic because it does not encourage wide social participation in governing the affairs of the country. The political elite are the elected officials who are given the political mandate by the electorate in a society, for instance; the President, members of parliament, councilors, etc.In the elite approach, the term understructure generally refers to the government While the class approach sees the masses as __________, the elite approach views them as.
CHAPTER NINE Who Wins, Who Loses: Pluralism Versus Elitism CHAPTER OVERVIEW This chapter examines two competing approaches—pluralism and the power elite school--in order to answer the basic questions “Who’s running the game of politics,” “Who wins, who loses,” and “Who plays and who the power elite approach.
Having explained the Elitist and Pluralist approaches to governance, now we can advance both positive and negative sides to each approach. The merits of the elite include the following: The fact that decision making involves a small group, consensus tends to be quicker and easier.
The pluralist approach is to assess a situation or circumstance while using multiple sciences or philosophies to find a solution or explanation. When studying or observing the behavior of people on an international level, the pluralist approach is often useful.
Pluralists ultimately believe that. Pluralist approach- pros and cons Pluralist approach to governance is based on the systems model of analysis as opposed to the elitist approach which is based on the structural functionalist model.
In the systems approach, society is seen as composed of varied and often conflicting interests groups and governance is seen as a process of.
The Elite and Pluralist Approach to Governance Words | 9 Pages. This essay seeks to explain the Elitist and Pluralist approaches to governance and advance both positive and negative sides for each approach.
It shall begin by defining the major terms/ concepts Governance, Elitist and Pluralist.Download