situations of dominance where frequently such conflicts are officially
denied any existence.
A distinction should be drawn between social and political plural-
ism. What we have been describing is a model of social pluralism in
an ethnically or racially mixed society. Politically this may be
accompanied by explicit provision for the participation of different
social groups in government. For example, in Switzerland the lingu-
istically and religiously distinct Cantons are traditionally guaranteed
participation in the Federal Cabinet (a similar arrangement has been
attempted less happily in the Lebanon). In the Netherlands separate
religious and political traditions are accommodated by having
separate radio stations and schools. In the United States ethnic
representation is accomplished through a flexible party and interest
group system and a decentralised constitution.
Political pluralism, however, is a broader concept, which fits well
with social pluralism in the sense we have used it, but is broader in
that it suggests any group is free to pursue its interests in the political
system and stands a realistic chance of exercising influence. A more
sophisticated treatment of this concept requires us to consider
additional kinds of social and political division.Elites, classes and political pluralism
We have already discussed the concept of ‘vertical’ lines of division
within society – meaning that geographical communities may come
into conflict. We have also discussed ‘horizontal’ ethnic divisions
within geographical communities. It is clear that other ‘horizontal’
divisions frequently divide societies so that within virtually every
geographical community there are to be found rich and poor, the
powerful and the powerless, those with prestige and those without.
As Pareto (1976) puts it, for every desirable unevenly distributed
social quality, there exists an ‘elite’ that possesses that quality in
abundance – whether it be economic, political, social, sporting, or
even ‘sex appeal’ – and, consequently, a usually more numerous,
‘mass’ that suffers from a relative lack of that quality.
As C. Wright Mills (1956) argues, the existence of elites is hardly
in dispute as far as modern industrial societies are concerned. More
controversial is the political significance of this observation and the
causes of these differences. Simplifying somewhat, we can say that114 PROCESSES