The Changing Nature of Political Power in the Context of the Liberal Democratic Introduction

The present liberal democratic system is a result of progressive transformation of political systems and structures since the 18th century. In the past centuries, different states were exposed to different political systems i.e. socialism, elitism, and communism. Some of these systems failed to appreciate and protect the individual freedoms and rights of citizens. This was relatively because power was accumulated in the hands of a few people who could not be checked as there were no sound constitutions to protect the rights of the majority.

Elitism is an example of a political system where a few persons, often called political elite influence the decisions and operations of government using their strategic influence.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com

Such a system disadvantages other citizens who may not be well connected to reach the top of power pyramid. However, political systems have developed in a remarkable manner to guard the interests of all citizens. This essay seeks to dissect the ever changing nature of political systems and power, with a keen eye on the modern liberal states which are often democratic in nature.

Political power in different theories

Political theories are important disciplines that help in critiquing the political power of states as a substance of theoretical contexts (Leftwich, 2004). The debates in the contemporary societies about democracy and other challenges faced by modern states have often affected and interrupted political theories. To help understand fully how power is related to these political theories, this paper is going to discuss these theories: Pluralism, Marxism and Elitism.

Pluralism

The western political pluralism is a school of thought that has attracted massive attention in the recent past. This mind boggling school of thought dissects and critiques the conglomeration of power in a central place. During the early decades of the 19th century, pluralism offered sound critiques relating to the sovereignty of states. Pluralism advocated for decentralization of governments. Here, pluralism sought to have the society govern itself and run associations in an independent manner (Axford, 2002). According to the theory of pluralism, government blue print, otherwise known as framework, is a custodian of not only decision making but also the politics. However, the theory asserts that quite a number of nongovernmental bodies inject their resources into the system to make their influence felt (Sorenson, 2004). Often, the principle question of pluralism that most scholars are keen to answer is how the distribution of power together with influence is done in the political process. This is relatively because different groups of persons with diverse interests are out to maximize these opportunities. In this system, conflicts are ever present as competing interests are continually in power brokerage. Despite not being inequality proof, governments tend to evenly distribute resources among the populace. Any slight change of the aforementioned is often slow and gradual as different groups have diverse interests and often have powers to gag or frustrate legislations that are not in their favor.

According to Leftwich (2004), pluralists assert that power can never be measured by the pyhsical state of persons as power often flows from different sources. Rather, individuals accrue their power from the amount of resources under their control. Resources are very integral to power as they are able to influence or else force persons to act in a manner that the owner of the assets wants them to act. Finally, the pluralistic theory observes that it is never easy to categorise or else make assumptions about power in any community. Therefore it is evident that it not a question of who runs the community, but which group does.

Maxism

Maxism is a political theory that elaborates how social life is often grounded on conflict of interests. The idea that is largely emphasized by this school of thought is the conflict between bourgeoiseie and proletariat. Bourgeoisie are individuals who control the means of production in a capitalistic economy, while proletariat are those individuals who sell their efforts in the labour markets to bourgeoisie for wages (Solinger, 2002). From the above explanation, it is apparent that the conflicts are largely entwined with class. This, therefore, implies that changes experienced in such a society are always guided and steered by classes. Conflicts between social classes are guided by the need for each class to benefit more by fleecing the other party. Maxism political theory reveals the contradictions present in capitalism that relate to economics and capitalism. For example, while the working class join efforts to maximize their protection, capitalists utilize these goods to maximize their profitality. They do so without rewarding fully the efforts of the working class. Moreover, marxism political theory also looks at how capitalism will definitely collapse and its place taken by communism (Chen, 2002).

According to Marxism, individuals who run or else control the means of production in a capitalistic setup are the same persons who are powerful. That is relatively because they are well endowed with resources that can be utilized to expound their power. On the other hand, individuals with a powerful economic arm need to translate the power harnessed through their wealth into political and ideological power (Chen, 2002). In other words, they should be able to influence the operations of the state by owning its government machinery and be able to influence how the larger population thinks about capitalism and other economic structures. The capitalists need to convince the proletariat that the capitalistic nature of the society is the best.

Elitism

According to Sorenson (2004), elitism is a term that is often used to elaborate a state where power concentration is in the hands of a few people in the society. Pluralism is the opposite of elitism. This theory analyses the influence of the elite on the political and social development of a state. The theory also refers to developments whereby a few individuals in the society assume unique privileges with a view that their assumed responsibilities will translate into benefits to the society and themselves. According to proponents of elitism, pluralism is a political theory that is utopian in nature and its application does not apply in an ideal setup.

Political elites entail individuals who have the ability to influence political outcomes. In addition, they are able to affect the operations of political institutions on a regular basis. The aforementioned is possible because elites are strategically placed in the society i.e. they run powerful organization or play a cardinal role in both the social and political movements in a state. According to Cai (2004), these persons have climbed the political ladder and they are neary or already at the peak of the power pyramid. Put differently, these persons are responsible or are better placed to stir political unrests at any point in time. Different societies posses different political elites at any particular time. More often, political elites are often divided into camps that are frequently warring. One camp may be in the upper ladder of power; this positions them well to oppress other camps which are below it. From the above, it is apparent that these political elites are often disunited. On rare occasions, political elites bond together tightly in a political pary or a religious movement to showcase shared a ideology. However, neither disunity or unity of political elites is well aligned with the democracy of a state.

Globalization exposes modern states to quite a number of challenges. In the contemporary society, qiuite a number of thinkers, policy makers and political scholars are in agreement that the challenges of globalization cannot be understated. Although there are some positives asscoiated with it, it is apparent that the relevance of modern governments is fast becoming extict. This is because due to globalization these states have lost their influence both politically and economically. According to Hays (2004), globalization has tranformed not only the nature of modern states, but also that of capitalism. For example, on one side, capitalism is gaining momentum and it is becoming ungovernable as the disembedment of makets from institutions is taking root. On the other hand, the power of the state towwards the protection of its teritory is fast withering. The aforementioned has lead to the sprouting of a unique kind of economy, that which is deprived off its sovereignity, has a trend on its policy frameworks and has joined global governance arrangements (Almond et al., 2000). In addition, the important locus pertaining policy making and coordination of economic affairs has shifted from the modern state courtesy of globalization. This hampers and erodes the gains of democracy.

According to Calvert (2002), the signing of Amsterdam treaty in the dying moments of the 20th century increased the levels of immigrants to Europe. These immigration are exposing modern states to a lot of changes. This has, therefore, neccesitated the formulation of stringent policies to address the issue. The debates surrounding europeanisation are conceived around politics that seek to dissect the issue in realtion to modern states and other emerging political organizations. The sprouting of new actions, both social and political, new institutions, together with the emergence of new culture exposes modern states to acute challenges. The aforementioned aspects do not only deplite the sovereignity of states but also impact its internal processes pertaining state legitimacy on political matters. The increased levels of europenisation in the late 1980s and 1990s could not be contained by national legislation. In addition, both economic and political independence were jeopardised and political powers of states became obsolete.

New right is a term that is often used by quite a number of states to ellaborate right wing policies. In addition, new right describes the coming into being of Eastern Europe political parties after the fall of Soviet Union and the disbandment of systems that utilized communism. The challenges of this form of theory are immense to modern states. This is largely because the policies are not often intertwined with the modern form of policies which factor in the plight of all citizens, while basing all policies on democracy aspects (Almond et al., 2000).

According to Bellamy (2008), a liberal democracy is a state or setup of governemnt whereby the representative democracy works under the cardinal fundamentals of liberalism. Such a state is showcased by not only free and fair elections, but also competitive ones i.e. its elections brings together a good number of political parties. In addition, governemnt branches are often independent as their powers are often separated. Modern liberal democratic states are adherents of the rule of law. In addition, the rule of law often guides all persons in the society as human rights, freedoms and other liberties are envisaged in it. On the political angle per se, modern liberal states are often manned by the constitution that enshrines governemnts power by delienating its powers. Liberal democracy captured momentum during the 20th century and is now the most predominant sytem in the world. Modern liberalism is a political view that seeks to transform the politics, economics and social setup of the society to enhance the development of individual citizens. According to Sorenson (2004), liberals assert that citizens are rational individuals who are able to utilize their inteligence to improve their welfare without necessarily distabilizing an already established political structure. Modern liberalization ephasizes the empowerment of individuals so as to free them from government restrains. Modern liberalism has done remarkably well in changing how persons view governemnts. For example, in the past, governemnts were seen as bodies used to correct society abuses and shortcomings in the society. However, in today’s society, political governemnts are not associated with the gagging of individual freedoms and rights.

Conclusion

It is apparent from the above discussion that liberal democratic states play a cardinal role in vesting the real political power in the hands of its citizens. This kind of a political systen presupposes that individuals have the ability to make sound judgements and decisions that are not only good for themselves, but also for their nation. Another notable aspect from the above discusion is that political systems will tend to change given the disatisfaction of a group or a class of persons. For examle, in the case of Marxism theory, workers who sell their labour to capitalism, when aggrived, are bound to rebel against the ruling elite who control the capitalistic economy.