In the USA, no less than in the Republic of Armenia, the rich rule. In America, just as in Armenia, the big capitalists as a group hold a near-monopoly on political power. So let us be clear: the most exhaustive comparative empirical study yet conducted on theories of American democracy by “mainstream political scientists” shows conclusively that: (i) the view of liberal democracy that the American University and Armenia’s one-man-shop political parties have prescribed are inaccurate and (ii) the Economic Elite Domination view and the Biased Pluralism view, represented most notably in Marxist political theory, far more accurately describe American democracy. The later views are represented, notably, by Marxist political theory. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.” The study refutes Majoritarian Pluralism, as well as the familiar Majoritarian Electoral Democracy view (according to which political power lies with the electorate), and it confirms the implications of two alternative views of American politics, which academics call Biased Pluralism and Economic Elite Domination. “The central point that emerges from our research,” Gilens and Page write, “is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. Their research, which included measures of key variables for 1779 policy issues, is the most exhaustive study of its kind that has yet been undertaken. In a paper entitled “Testing Theories of American Politics,” researchers Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University present the results of a multivariate analysis, conducted by a large team of researchers, to compare the predictions of Majoritarian Pluralism and other leading theories in the study of American politics. If Majoritarian Pluralism were genuine, then in liberal democracies, mass-based interest groups, such as large consumer advocacy organizations, grass-roots environmental movements, and popularly supported anti-corruption campaigns should have a direct impact on public policy.Īs it turns out, though, these implications are not borne out by real events on the ground-and this is true especially in countries like the United States. It would have implications, for example, when it comes to what sets of actors have influence over public policy and how much influence they have. If it were right, then this would make a difference when it comes to how policy is made. Bringing this kind of democracy to Armenia is the advertised aim of more than one of the one-man shops that go by the name of political parties in Yerevan these days.īut let us take a closer look at Majoritarian Pluralism. According to their story, this is what the American political system is all about, and other liberal democracies, too. Mainstream political thinkers call this view of democratic politics Majoritarian Pluralism.
The modern liberal state, we hear, is a level playing field upon which a wide range of multiple interest groups compete to influence the electorate.
But in what sense are citizens of a state that is dominated by the super-wealthy few “equal” as a corporate body-let alone “free”?
#PLUTOCRACY POLITICAL REPRESSION IN THE U.S.A FREE#
One of the most influential American political philosophers of the last century, John Rawls, claimed that in a liberal democracy like the United States, “political power is the coercive power of free and equal citizens as a corporate body.” Perhaps it should count as an achievement that a liberal thinker has at least managed to acknowledge the essentially coercive character of political power. In Armenia today, as in other capitalist democracies, the wealthiest few hold a near-total monopoly of political power.īut this all-too-evident truth flies in the face of the “mainstream political science” taught in places like the American University of Armenia. What is obviously true of the legislature is just as obviously true of the Presidency and the Ministries, the judiciary, and local and regional state agencies. A politician in Yerevan recently noted that, “if the oligarchs are omitted from the National Assembly, only one or two MP’s will remain, and the cabinet will be empty.”