Comparing Organization of Politics
Pluralism can be defined as a kind of political theory which states that power statutorily resides with the central government, but non-governmental and independent organizations like lobbyists also exert significant influence on the final decision-making outcomes. Political pluralism is largely practiced in the United States where special-interest organizations hold some influence mainly on the members of Senate and House of Representatives whom they had financially helped during their campaign periods. In the same vein, hyper pluralism is a more dangerous situation whereby the special-interest 2 groups and lobbyists have become quite too powerful for the central government to handle or control. This can occur in a country where corruption is endemic and the executive arm of the government has been bought by the rich and mighty in the country. Hence, it has been discovered that both pluralism and hyper pluralism in political organization within a country also have a far-reaching effect on the citizen participation in the entire political processes of the country (Johnson 251). There are distinct differences in the regimes where pluralism and hyper pluralism political systems are in operation. However, the main similarity of these two forms of political organization is that citizens would be robbed of their rights to actually influence the governance of their country because the kind of politicians sent to the Congress (for example in America) are not the group of people that believe in their simple interests of the commoners, but they are there to satisfy the desires of their influential sponsors. Talking about a pluralistic regime, the central government’s control on the governance is still substantial. Take for instance, the current President of the United States, Barack Obama made the special-interest organizations and lobbyists the target of his presidential campaign, having realized that their interests in commerce and governmental affairs supersede that of the public. and even though they are small in number, their interests appear to weigh in as burdens over that of ordinary Americans. These independent or non-government groups often use their money to campaign for Congress members of 3 their choice. They would do everything in their power to make sure that their candidates win the elections. And once these Congress members resume their legislative duties, the special-interest, non-governmental organizations rise up to demand for laws that would safeguard their business, ideology or political interests. Some of these lobbyists are multinational companies, non-government organizations, trade and commerce groups or associations. Since the special-interest organizations are responsible for dictating the kind of laws to be passed in the Congress, they inadvertently reduce the participation of the ordinary people in the governance process. This means that other citizens in the affected country are under their machinations, since the members of Congress or the legislative arm are only answerable to their demands, and not that of the ordinary people in the country (Johnson 163). As indicated above, the executive arm of the regime can still function properly, if the president is a person who thinks about the masses in the country—this means that the president is not aloof from people’s needs and relate with them on a personal level through his or her organized method of communication. Nowadays, presidents can chat with their citizens online or even receive comments on their online profiles.