Power in modern society is progressively being diffused, moving away from central government to interest groups, even to single individuals. Society and the body politic in democratic societies are becoming pluralist in new ways.
This phenomenon has been analysed by the management guru and social science professor Peter Drucker in his book The New Age and a clear understanding of this development would help political and social leaders to cope with changing electoral aspirations.
The dispersal of central power takes two forms: in the social sphere, it depends upon the growth of independent apolitical institutions. In the realm of politics, pluralism has a tendency to give rise to pressure groups committed to single purposes.
In the words of Drucker: “Theory still postulates that there is only one organised power centre – the government. But both society and the body politic are now full of power centres that are outside the government. The new pluralism in society is a pluralism of single-purpose organisations, each concerned with one social task: wealth creation, or schooling or health care, or forming values and habits of the young. This new pluralism of society is totally apolitical
“The new pluralism within the body politic, by contrast, focuses on power. It is the pluralism of single-cause, single-interest groups – the mass movements. Each of them tries to obtain through power that which it could obtain through numbers and persuasion. Each is exclusively political.”
A hundred and fifty years ago, social tasks, whether bringing up and educating the young, or looking after the sick and the old, were carried out in the family. Now, they are increasingly carried out by organised institutions – schools, universities, business enterprises, trade unions, hospitals and the like.
Up to a few decades ago, babies were born in the home. Now, the overwhelming majority of babies are born in hospital. Although farm production is improving in quality, and even in quantity, the farming population is shrinking.
The introduction of new technologies, ranging from electronics to computerisation to fibre optics is creating a demand for “knowledge workers”, who are outnumbering the traditional class of manufacturing operatives.
The new institutions are dedicated to single tasks: producing economic goods and services, curing the sick, creating knowledge and disseminating it. None of these institutions is a “government”. Neither are they “political”. Yet each has a governing organ, a management and sufficient autonomy to produce results. It makes little difference if an institution is government-controlled or a private enterprise.
The great strength of these institutions is their narrow focus or specialisation. They are not based on “power”, but on function. Although not political in aim, each institution must have power over people – power to hire and fire, to assign jobs, set standards and enforce discipline.
This has led to a situation where people in developing economies work for an organisation or under its auspices. And the centre of gravity is shifting to “knowledge workers”, whose qualifications entitle them to authority in their place of work, while the demand for their services has given them mobility.
Equally new is the position of the individual in a pluralist society. Today’s “knowledge workers” do not belong to the mass of the exploited and impoverished proletarians who Karl Marx would have described as “the working class”. Productivity, inventiveness, quality and much more depend on this new class, which is highly located and often in control of the nerve centre of each separate institution.
What is more, the new pluralism often transcends traditional geographic boundaries. The globalisation of finance and business in general has led to the appearance of multinational organisations and to trans-national activities.
Operating as they do within the community, pluralist institutions have to take stock of their social responsibilities and must keep an eye on the common good. But their main role is to function in terms of their mission statement with an enlightened self interest as their compass. Whether or not power is dispersed to local governments, to broadcasting or to computer networks, the individual and his institutions are becoming more autonomous and capable of flowering in a pluralist environment.
Politicians would do well to give institutions and individuals more power to their elbow – or else they are likely to be carried away by the rising tide of democratic aspirations. Increasingly, sensitive issues relating to education, health and the like are being considered too important to be left to politicians. The modern trend is that governments are held accountable for policy making.
The people hold the government to account for the performance of sensitive institutions like schools and hospitals. But although the government is burdened with responsibility, its authority has to be devolved to the interested parties. In a pluralist society, according to Drucker, the government’s uncontested role is to set standards.
Just as pluralist institutions in society focus on one single task, new pluralist groups in the body politic are often concerned with a single cause. Single-cause groups derive their power from being an organised minority, no matter how small.
Their job is to lobby and their strength lies in their singleness of purpose rather than in their number. More often than not, their task is to prevent something from being done. They are most effective when they try to stop, to prevent or to immobilise. Their tactic is to deploy the minimum effort needed to achieve maximum results.
They seek to dominate because they are active, organised and completely committed to a single cause or to a narrow range of objectives. Often, they aim to paralyse and tyrannise political life – if necessary by activities in defiance of law-and-order conventions. Unlike totalitarian activists, single-purpose groups have a penchant for blocking any action of which they do not approve – and they do so not necessarily to seize power.
In a society that is basically pluralist, single-cause movements cannot be smothered – but they can be contained.
The answer is to broaden the base of direct democracy and let the electorate decide directly, by referenda, issues that should be sorted out by the electorate and not by political tug-of-war exercises manipulated by lobbies.
[email protected]