The Pluralistic Theory of Sovereignty was a reaction to monistic or legal theory of sovereignty. The pluralistic theory of sovereignty arose as a direct challenge to the dominant monistic theory. Monistic theory posits a single sovereign authority within the state. Which can be either an individual or a collective body. Furthermore, as sovereignty is considered to be a legal concept, the theory is called the Legal-Monistic Theory of Sovereignty. According to legal positivism, sovereignty is derived from legal rules and institutions that define and allocate power within a state. This legal theory often aligned sovereignty with the formal legal framework of a state. This sovereignty power is supreme and indivisible.
In contrast, pluralism argues that power is diffused throughout society. Pluralism challenges the monistic view by suggesting that sovereignty is not solely vested in a single entity but is dispersed among multiple actors and institutions like corporations, religious groups, labur unions hold significant influence.
Pluralists felt the monistic theory painted an unrealistic picture. Because, Monistic theories often centralize power in the state on its legal framework, potentially neglecting the voices and interests of minority groups, regions or marginalized communities. Pluralistic theories critique this concentration of power and advocate for a more inclusive approach to governance that considers a broader range of perspectives and interests.
Conclusion:
Overall the pluralistic theory of sovereignty indeed emerged as a reaction to the monistic or legal theory of sovereignty. It represents a recognition of the increasingly complex and interconnected nature of governance, where authority is dispersed among various actors and institutions beyond the traditional state-centric framework. This evolution in sovereignty theory reflects broader shifts in political and legal thought towards accommodating diverse sources of power and influence in modern societies.
Also Read:
Political Science Book:
