<P> A contradiction to pluralist power is often cited from the origin of one's power . Although certain groups may share power, people within those groups set agendas, decide issues, and take on leadership roles through their own qualities . Some theorists argue that these qualities cannot be transferred, thus creating a system where elitism still exists . What this theory fails to take into account is the prospect of overcoming these qualities by garnering support from other groups . By aggregating power with other organizations, interest groups can over-power these non-transferable qualities . In this sense, political pluralism still applies to these aspects . </P> <P> Elite pluralists agree with classical pluralists that there is "plurality" of power; however, this plurality is not "pure" as some people and groups have more power than others . For example, some people have more money than others, so they can pay to have their opinion put across better (i.e. more advertising) than the working class can . This inequality is because society has "elites"; people who have more power, perhaps through money, inheritance or social tradition than others . </P> <P> Basically, it claims that elites play a big role in decision making . The idea behind reads as follow: in democracies the people participate in electing the elites who will represent them and, at the end, the ones who are going to make the laws . As Davita S. Glasberg and Deric Shannon highlights, "political elites are not a monoholitic, unified interest group representing their own narrow group of interests but rather are divers, competitive elites representing a wide range of interests". They have to compete in "the political market place" in order to gain voters being the power equally distributed between all the potential voters . Moreover, the stability in the system is achieved through this competition among the elites due to they have to negotiate in order to pass a bill . And, sometimes, they have to change their positions and points of view in order to reach a common point . Elites respect and follow the policy - making procedures because they are accountable of their acts and they can be replaced through legal procedures of through new elections . </P> <P> While Pluralism as a political theory of the state and policy formation gained its most traction during the 1950s and 1960s in America, some scholars argued that the theory was too simplistic (see Connolly (1969) The Challenge to Pluralist Theory)--leading to the formulation of neo-pluralism . Views differed about the division of power in democratic society . Although neo-pluralism sees multiple pressure groups competing over political influence, the political agenda is biased towards corporate power . Neo-pluralism no longer sees the state as an umpire mediating and adjudicating between the demands of different interest groups, but as a relatively autonomous actor (with different departments) that forges and looks after its own (sectional) interests . Constitutional rules, which in pluralism are embedded in a supportive political culture, should be seen in the context of a diverse, and not necessarily supportive, political culture and a system of radically uneven economic sources . This diverse culture exists because of an uneven distribution of socioeconomic power . This creates possibilities for some groups--while limiting others--in their political options . In the international realm, order is distorted by powerful multinational interests and dominant states, while in classical pluralism emphasis is put on stability by a framework of pluralist rules and free market society . </P>

The elite critique of pluralist theory is the fact that