In order to understand ‘Pluralism’, one has to understand the philosophical tradition that built up around the very word and the inbuilt rejection of the coercive singularism of the monists. The monists held that there is a single harmony of truths into which genuine everything, must fit in the end.

This ancient belief gave birth to the notion of nation-state i.e., the states need to be based on a single nation for politics to be effective.

The monists said that only a homogeneous socio-cultural order can make the political system functional, in the contrary, a plural and fragmented socio-cultural environment will lead ^ a8gravation of political divisions and intensification of differences. John uart Mill, one of the ardent champions of individual rights with liberal views “free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of ^entative government, cannot exist”.

The myth of successful coupling I eral democracy and mono-national state haunts all liberal thinkers. For them, the plurality of the third-world societies is an insufferable incongruity many liberal political philosophers like Maurice Duverger, Gabriel Almond Lucian Pye, Sigmund Neumann, even agreed that a unifying and centralising socio-cultural order was the most basic necessary for a political system to work effectively. Some liberal thinkers highlight that pluralism has also its constraints.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

For example, Harry Eckstein regards plural society as a ‘society divided by segmental cleavages’, where political divisions follow the line of social differentiation and division. The cleavages maybe ‘religious, ideological, linguistic, regional, cultural, racial or ethnic in nature’. Even political parties, voluntary associations, interest groups, media of communication tend to get organised around such segmental cleavages.

Furnivall characterisation of groups which play a dominant role in a plural polity is very interesting. According to him in a plural society, each group holds onto its own religion, culture, language, ideas and ways. In such a case, domination by one of the segments becomes inevitable.

The group relationships get regulated in a non-democratic manner and one group may dominate the rest. Gabriel Almond also distinguishes such plural societies as regulated societies characterised by dispenses and cultural pluralism while contrasting them with integrated societies characterised by consensus and cultural homogeneity.