A Critique of the Pluralist Model.

This research examines the view of Robert Dahl on pluralism as a working model of political decision-making and not with the prescriptive pluralism of political theorists. In some ways Dahl's New Haven, Connecticut findings are not very different from those of the elitists. In this light, it is interesting to compare Dahl and Hunter, the two main protagonists of the elitist-pluralist debate. Besides the infinitely better methodology used by Dahl, one of the main differences between the two writers is the way in which they interpret and particularly the way in which they appraise their data. Hunter is highly critical of politics in Atlanta, Georgia and obviously believes that the city falls far short of the democratic ideal. He writes that his concern for the future of democracy prompted his study of power in Atlanta. Dahl is much less critical of New Haven politics and believes that it is not so very different from a reasonable man's expectations of democracy in operation. He holds the view that over-optimism about democratic possibilities in modern large scale industrial societies will only breed cynicism about democracy. New Haven may not operate in the way that perfect textbook democracies should operate, but that is all pie in the sky, and New Haven is a good example of what a real, feasible democratic system looks like, warts and all.