Pluralism and Urban Regime - Research Paper Example

Pluralists believe that direct democracy is unworkable and undesired. They operate under logistical manner where every citizen comes in a meeting to decide on political issues that require continuous and expert attention, which is common among the common citizens. Robert Dahl, a known pluralist, suggested in one of his writing that, the societies that we live in politics are like sideshows in the great circus of life. The common worry in the pluralism is that, common persons lack intelligence and direct democracy that is required in leadership.

Urban regime on the other hand is the development of cities in order to provide a range of profound changes in the view of globalization. The urban governance in the modern world is catalyzed by technological and communication development, economic restructuring and the postmodernism reconstruction tendencies (Parker 247). The urban governance theory came to prominence in the publication of the Clarence stone’s study in Atlanta. Since then, the urban regime method has had an extensive use to determine the politics of a country both in North America and across the world.

The urban regime recognizes the values and insights of the subjects. The urban regime has recognition from most of the countries, including North America, as totally involving the subjects. The system brings together the coalition partners through the available resources in either governmental or non-governmental limits (Davies 98). The system recognizes the political leaders as the channels through which resources can be mobilized to accomplish duties in the society. Robert Dahl is a sterling professor of political science and earned a degree in political science and a subsequent honorary doctorate in law.

He contributed a lot in explaining the varieties of governance. He says that urban governance is a multidisciplinary natural phenomenon that describes both innovation and confusion among the majority who are governed. Dahl emphasized on the urban politics as primarily concerned with urban political power many scholars thereof have also tried to explain what an urban regime is and who actually owns the town (485). The most important factor to put into consideration is whether the power has any relation to the ideal reasoning of the American democracy.

Dahl developed the earliest theory about the urban politics. He held the same as an intellectual movement that is philosophical in nature. Dahl raised the main criticism as to why he held urban politics as the appropriate means of governance. He held that the elites at the top levels less remember the desires of the majority they have left behind. Thus, he emphasized the urban regime as the best forms of governance. On the issue of pluralism, Robert Dahl rejected the idea of democracy as an open form of governorship.

He said that a dominant paradigm of a majority rule would endorse diverse cultural, economic, racial, and ethnic interest. All these would translate into lack of unity in the country and resulting into a division among the different groups. In addition, policies made by a group of people may conflict at the implementation stage (Smith 257). Generally, Dahl did not back the ideas of pluralist but instead emphasized on urban governorship as the most appropriate form of governorship. Clarence stone also had a say on the urban regimes and pluralism.

He once wrote that,