Pluralist theory of sovereignty

Answer 1

PLURALIST THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY

The classical theory of sovereignty established the legal character of sovereignty. It held sovereignty as absolute, perpetual, universal, inalienable and indivisible. However the application of monistic/classical sovereignty to the political field gives rise to many problems. It could not resolve the conflict between the state and government on one hand and between the individual and the state on other side. The pluralist theory of sovereignty seeks to resolve this dilemma.

The pluralist sought to redefine the nature of the state as one of the several associations of human beings operating in the society to secure the multifarious interests of individuals. State act as an arbiter over conflicting claims of different associations. It repudiates the exclusive and absolute claim of the state to an individual's allegiance. The state should compete with other human associations to establish its claim to superior authority. In fact, the pluralist theory seeks to curtail or limit the absolute authority of the state as against the classical theory.

The main exponents of Pluralist theory include Laski, MacIver, Maitland, Duguit, Krabe, Lindsay, Barker, and Dicey among others. Duguit argues that laws are not an expression of the commands of sovereign but also conditions of solidarity to social life of men. Krabbe proceeds to distinguish between law and the state. Lindsay while discussing the real personality of the associations describes state as one of the numerous associations of society. In short, the pluralist theory of sovereignty is based on the following main principles:

• The Pluralist Nature of Society: The society is pluralist in nature i.e. consist of various associations to fulfill diverse interests of individuals. Such associations include the family, church, religious associations, professional and cooperative organizations like trade unions, business groups and labour organization and other voluntary organizations. All these associations embody some social value and receive the allegiance of individuals.

• Role of the State as Coordinator: The state do not exist above the other associations in society but only as one these associations. It coordinates the activities of these associations in the society. It is means of resolving the conflicting claims of these associations.

• The State must justify its Claim to Authority: The privileged position of state doo not accord superior authority of state but a higher moral responsibility on the state. Thus, the state must justify its claim to authority on moral grounds by securing common interest or public interest.

• Decentralization of Authority: Pluralists maintain that the concentration and expansion of state authority at the top level undermines democracy and liberty of the individuals. The authority of the state must be decentralized in the interest of the society, democracy and administrative efficiency.

In short, Pluralist political scholars like Laski, Duguit, Maitland, McIver and disagree with Austin that sovereignty is indivisible because pluralists think that society consists of number of associations for fulfillment of interests of people. People render obedience not only to state but also to these associations. The ultimate authority in modern states is the constitutional law of land, not state. Internally, the authority of state is limited by constitutional law; externally, state sovereignty is limited by international law, UN and other international organizations. Thus pluralist theory is evolved as criticism of Austin's classical theory by Laski, Barker, McIver, Duguit, Maitland, Cole and Lindsay.

Pluralists began with premise that individuals are a bundle of interests; i.e., men and women are creatures of diverse interests and aspirations. To fulfill them, various political, socio-eco, and cultural associations have emerged in society. These associations exercise a certain degree of command over individuals. As a result, individuals obey not only the state, but also to a certain extent, these associations. Thus state can't have absolute control over individuals or their lives. Therefore according to pluralists, sovereignty is divided between the state and other associations. State doesn't enjoy supreme power over individuals/ groups but enjoys certain amount of authority.