Ques- examine the pluristic theory of sovereignity

Pluralist theory is a reaction against the absolutist and unlimited principle of sovereignty. It is a
rebellion against Austen's singularism and Herrol's idealism. Austin called the sovereignty unlimited and
indivisible and Herrol considered the state as a divine institution and called the sovereignty of the state
uncontrolled. The ideology which has emerged against the above-mentioned monistic theory of
sovereignty is called pluralistic theory or pluralism. Pluralism can be said to be a reaction against the
Monistic theory of sovereignty, which though wants to maintain the existence of the state. But, ending
the sovereignty of the state considers it preferable. Pluralists pointed out that sovereignty is neither
indivisible nor absolute, but it is divided between different classes or associations of society and that the
law is not a mere command of the sovereign. Major thinkers of pluralism include Laski, Dr. The names
of Biggis, Dugvit, Krabbe, Basker, Lindlay, Mac lver and Miss Follet etc. are particularly notable. These
thinkers have made some attacks on the Monistic theory of sovereignty. He has called that traditional
principle of sovereignty harmful, useless and immoral. Crabbe has even said that “The nation of
sovereignty must be expunged from political theory . Similarly, Laski has also said that "It would be of
lasting benefit for the political science if the whole concept of Sovereignty surrendered." "Pluralists can
be interpreted as the fundamental principles of pluralism by pluralists on monism. Pluralists have
attacked singularism mainly from the following three points of view. From the point of view of various
federations, the monopolist considers the state as sovereign. He says That all other unions are subject
to the state. All other unions are created by the will of the state, so they depend on the will of the state,
but the pluralists have based their belief on this.But has denied that all other social associations arise
naturally and spontaneously. Therefore, they do not depend on the state for their existence and are
free from the control of the state in the areas of their activities. Pluralists believe that different aspects
of human life are expressed by different associations. All these unions are natural. They have a
personal will and a private individual and all unions are equal. The state is also a union in these unions.
Thus the state has no primacy over other unions. So sovereignty is divided not only in the state but also
in various federations. That is, sovereignty is divided and limited. 2. From the point of view of law
Pluralists have made a second attack on the singularist principle of sovereignty from the point of view of
law. Austin has accepted the state as a part of the law and has said that the law is only the order of the
sovereign state. However, the pluralist thinkers like Dugvit and Krabbe, while discussing the nature of
law, concluded that the state is neither the maker of law nor superior to it. According to these thinkers,
the state is not the makers of the law but the state is merely the investigating or declaring body. To
consider it high is erroneous imagination and on its basis to consider the state as sovereignty is not the
real truth. According to Krabbe, a rule is valid as a law not because it is an order of the state or has been
made by the state, but because it is considered just in the society. For example, theft or homicide is not
a crime because the state has prohibited doing so by its order, but to consider it to be higher than the
law is a fallacy and on its basis it is not true and true to consider the state as sovereign. , 3. From the
point of view of internationalism The final attack of pluralism on singularism is from the international
point of view. According to the monotheistic theory, the state is externally independent and its
sovereignty in the international arena is absolute and undivided. International law or agreement cannot
limit the boundaries of the state. However, the pluralists have denied this fact. They say that the
sovereignty of the state is limited by international law, mutual agreement of states and international
organizations. Although there is no power behind international law, yet the state cannot quickly redress
its violation due to the influence of public opinion, prevailing customs, public errors, etc. Today U.N.O.
The state has to relinquish its sovereignty in international affairs from the organization, due to which the
sovereignty has remained unlimited, absolute and not indivisible. Criticisms - The approach with which
the pluralists have attacked singularism. Critics have strongly criticized pluralism from all the same
points of view. 1. From the point of view of federal self-government, critics say that pluralists do not
properly understand the spirit of the monistic theory of sovereignty. Except for 'Herol' and a few
supporters, none of the traditional proponents of sovereignty have described the state as autocratic or
unlimited. Thinkers like Bonda Hobbes, Benthan, Austin etc. have limited the real power of the state.
He has also said that criticizing or opposing the state is not immoral. But this does not mean that their
sovereignty is divisible. E. Barker has said that “to establish harmony and balance among various social
institutions,Only the state can do the work. “The ultimate conclusion of pluralism is anarchism or
stateless individualism. Pluralists want to divide sovereignty among different federations, but if
sovereignty is destroyed, there will be unrest and disorder in society. Although pluralists oppose the
omnipotent state, the end is still there. They accept the supremacy of the state. After the division of
sovereignty, they are willing to entrust the duty of co-operation and balancing. This task cannot be done
by the state unless it enjoys supreme authority in the areas of law. Pluralists from the legal point of
view are also criticized in the view that the idea of law of pluralist philosophers such as Dugvit and
Krabbe is wrong. It is not correct. No rule can be effective in the society until it is legally recognized by
the state. The opposition to monotheistic sovereignty is flawed. It is true that international law has
limits on states, but these limits have no legal recognition. Therefore, the external sovereignty of the
state is in principle intact. Although in practice there are some restrictions on it. Conclusion - On the
basis of the above criticisms, it cannot be said that pluralistic theory is meaningless and has no
importance. There is a lot of truth in pluralistic philosophy. It attacks the supremacy and paramountcy
of the state. Recognizes groups and associations in society and accepts its importance. He puts an end
to the monarchy or monarchy and wants a complete stream of local life. Finally, in the words of
Gettelle, it can be concluded that "The pluralist theory is a timely protest against the rigid and the
dogmatic legalism associated with the Austin as a theory of sovereignty.