Abstract
Federalism, consociationalism, and corporatism can be described as concepts of compound majoritarianism in plural societies. In practice, however, these concepts have been criticized as elitist and executive instruments of policymaking and conflict regulation which lack popular control. Linked to the functional ends of regulation in hierarchical industrial systems, they tend to bypass the obsolescent, and majoritarian, institutions of the traditional nation-state. Thus they lose their meaning as conceptual devices for accommodating group interests in complex societies. It is suggested, therefore, that anarchism be added as afourth and corrective concept of interest intermediation. Anarchism must be understood in its proper historical meaning as a critique of modern etatocentrism. It aims for effective control by the various societal segments over their own affairs. Its conceptual virtues are organized mutualism and horizontal cooperation. These virtues are contrasted with the neoconservative rediscovery of anarchism as a logical extension of laissez-faire liberalism.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
