Focusing solely on David Held’s text, Models of Democracy, this short essay will discuss the nature of power in reference to three theoretic models: competitive elitism, pluralism and neo-pluralism. All of these models agree that there is a problem in having a concentration of power within modern social forms such as: the state/government, industrial organizations and learning institutions. On the other hand, they diverge on aspects that involve the search for power-balance. For instance, the competitive elitism model promotes the continuation of bureaucracy, and asserts that the political rights of citizens must be limited in order to slow down and decrease the degree of concentrated power within the state. Meanwhile, the pluralism model believes that power is non-hierarchal and shared among all groups of people. This paper dissects each models’ view of concentrated power, examining how and why they consider it an issue, and what they deem to be its effect(s). Some of the inconsistencies within each model will also be underlined, but first let us indulge into the theory of competitive elitism.
Competitive Elitism
Competitive elitism is based on the thoughts and opinions of Max Weber, who believes that the concentration of power is an inevitable occurrence within modern society. Weber touches on themes and aspects of bureaucracy --- which include: rationalization, the significance of organization, legality, and the role of parliament --- to successfully prove his belief; this essay, however, will only elaborate on two of these four aspects. Ironically, Weber thinks that one can resolve the issue of concentrated power and/or bureaucracy by restricting the rights/power of citizens. Even though he states that the political rights of citizens should be defended, Weber emphasizes that they should also be limited (Held, 2006, pg. 137) and entrusted in the care of elite leadership. The following paragraphs will further explain Weber’s thoughts, and by extension,...