Meaning of Pluralism- Types of pluralism-Pluralism definition politics

Meaning of Pluralisms
 
Pluralism is not a fixed political doctrine. The term ‘pluralism’ is used for various ideologies that contradict the traditional theory of state domination. There is a great difference in the political views of different pluralists, but they are all unanimous in this that the whole principle of dominance. And especially the whole theory of legal dominance and especially the theory of legal dominance is meaningless and dangerous, so it is better to abandon it.
 
The seeds of pluralist ideology can be traced to the famous nineteenth century thinkers Otto von Greke and F. W. Metlead’s works, but in its true sense developed in the 20th century. Possibly Herald J. Lossky  was the first person to use the term pluralism. In England besides him J. N. Figgis, A. D. Lindley, G. D. H. Cole and S. G. Hobson is a famous pluralist thinker. In France, Leo Duigi supported pluralism in a particular form. Ernest Barker of England and Miss Follitt of America have accepted many criticisms and proposals of pluralists, but they do not agree with their radical principles.
 
The two ideologies of this era have a special impact on the pluralists. On the one hand he is influenced by the philosophers like John Stuart Mill etc. who opposed the domination of the state in the name of spiritual value and moral freedom of the individual, and on the other hand he has been inspired by the sociologists and jurists who advocated the various communities existing in the society. Give importance to freedom and want to protect it from the invasion of the state.
 
Pluralists have given various types of arguments against the principle of dominance. They have denied domination in the name of history and the present situation; It has been held to be unfit from the constitutional and legal point of view and on the basis of the rights of the person, it has been considered fatal. But the most important basis of their opposition is the freedom of the communities, since they want to establish many independent and autonomous communities in place of a sovereign state, that is why they are called ‘pluralist’ as opposed to ‘united’.

Arguments of Pluralists Against the Concept of Domination

Types of pluralism

(1) Criticism on historical basis – First of all pluralists refute the theory of dominance from the historical point of view. He says that the state is a very ancient institution, but it has not always been sovereign. The notion of dominance is a product of this era and is imprinted on it by the special political, social and economic conditions of this era. Prior to the 16th century the whole of Western Europe was considered a single society and sovereignty did not exist in that modern sense. The power of the state was considered not above many laws but under it. The Christian Church had extensive control not only over religious life but also over political life. It used to obstruct the way of being feudal or dominating. Apart from this, there were commercial unions and self-governing cities in those times, which, having their independent rights, could not claim to be the end of the state law under the circumstances. Therefore, the Europeans of that period were unfamiliar with the doctrine of dominance and supremacy.
 
Defective Definition of Dominance – The second important argument of pluralists against domination is that its definition itself is faulty and full of inconsistencies. According to Austin, in a free political society, the influence is definite and absolute and its power is infinite, indivisible and non-transitive. Laski says that if this view of Austin is accepted, then it will be impossible to find dominance in the Union State. For example, in the United States of America there is no president, no Congress (parliament) and no unit state governments. Not only this, the body that amends the constitution is also not sovereign, because it is written in the constitution that no state can be deprived of the right of equal representation in the Senate (upper house of America) without its consent. Therefore, there is no part of the government in the United States that can be called sovereign.

(3) Domination theory impossible in practice – Pluralists say that even if the principle of dominance is accepted from a legal point of view, it has to be accepted that in reality it is impracticable and has always been impracticable. There has never been a Lord in the world whose power has been infinite. Whenever someone has tried to possess infinite power, then only an attempt has been made to control it. for example. The Sultan of Turkey could not enjoy absolute power even after reaching the peak of his power. He was always bound by customary rules and for following those rules, he (King in Parliament) is considered as Lord according to Austin’s definition. Whatever order he issues, everyone has to follow it and the courts enforce it. But Laski writes that no parliament can ever deny Roman Catholics the right to vote or prevent the creation of labor unions. If it tried to do so, it would cease to be a Parliament. That is to say that the power which is limitless from the legal point of view is used in practice in such a way that people of every generation are familiar. In fact, the sovereign parliament has to obey the orders of the electors and not the electors of the parliament.

Meaning of Pluralism

(4) State and Law – French philosopher Duigi has criticized the principle of dominance from the point of view of law. The monopolist considers the state as the ultimate source of law. According to him the order of the state is the law. Duigi disagrees with this view. He says that the state is an organization of people living in a certain territory, under which strong people try to impose their will on the Nibelo. Therefore, the authority of the state itself has no justification. His order cannot be taken as law. The law is independent of the state, precedes it, is above and is broader than that. The basis of law is the fact of life that human beings live in society and in order to survive they have to live within it and for social life it is necessary that there should be definite rules of conduct so that the unity and organization of society can be maintained. The legal justification of an action does not depend on who is doing it, but on what purposes it serves. It is seen that one part of the government declares the actions of other organs illegal.

Meaning of Pluralism

(5) State and other communities – Pluralists in England have denounced dominance by favoring the interests and rights of various communities that are not part of the government. He says that the social nature of man is expressed by many communities. People have a variety of feelings, interests, and physical, mental and spiritual needs. For the fulfillment of each of them, it is necessary to get the social environment suitable for it. Man cannot express his whole life through any one social institution, so he creates many communities of economic, religious, occupational, cultural, political and other types. One of these communities cannot be like this. Which is superior in moral importance and practical point of view. Therefore, the state cannot be considered as sovereign and sovereign above all the communities. The greatest advantage of monotheists is that they understand that other communities are created by the state and they depend on it for their existence.

Meaning of Pluralism

(6) Laski has a special place in the state and the individual- pluralists. He was deeply influenced by the individualism of the nineteenth century. Therefore, he strongly criticized the principle of dominance not only on the basis of freedom of communities, but also in the name of pure rights of the individual and freedom of conscience. He considers the individual as the end and the state and other communities as the means, so his pluralism reaches a stage where its basis is not the community, but the individuals themselves. That is to say that according to his theory only the individual can be the Lord in the society and only the conscience of the individual can be considered as the legitimate source of law.Meaning of Pluralism

(7) State and International Peace and Order – According to monotheists, the state is completely free even in the international field, it can treat other nations as it wants. They do not have any legal control in this matter also. In fact the mutual relation of states is the same as that of human beings in the state of nature according to Hobbes. Pluralists, especially Laski, have also refuted this view. Laski regards lasting world peace and mutual cooperation of nations as indispensable for the defense and development of human civilization. He says that one of the main reasons for the wars that take place in the present era is the sovereignty of the states. Therefore, “the concept of independent and sovereign states in the international arena is fatal to the welfare of humanity.” It cannot be given the exclusive right to take the final decision on what kind of relations a state should have with other states. “The mutual relation of states is such a matter which can be decided only by their mutual agreement and consent.” For the promotion of international welfare, it is necessary to have an international government and an international government can be established only when in the Brahman region. the state relinquishes its dominance.Meaning of Pluralism

Meaning of Pluralism

Read these also

development publication

 meaning of justice

definition of politics

Theory of social contract

meaning of political science

what does sovereignty mean

development administration

State Secretariat

Centralization and Decentralization

meaning of sovereignty

Meaning of Pluralism

Leave a Comment

error: Content is protected !!