LEVANTAMIENTO Y DISEÑO DE LOS PROCESOS

The plural elite model assumes that many groups control the power structure. They come from different economic, social, cultural, symbolic and linguistic family backgrounds such as hereditary, hierarchy and endogamy (Anderson, Anderson, Friedrich, & Kim, 2010). The interaction network is also not centralized to one specific group. When individuals are capable of expressing their interests, they join with one another to form organisations or groups for their common interest. They may have different modes of thought, integrated with different concepts of the relations between individuals and the community since they reside on different locations.

The plural elite model suggests both a convergence and differentiation of powers between members of the elite. Convergence is the tendency of elite to grow more alike in structures, processes and performance. The differentiation refers to the fact that the elite diverge from each other in terms of policies, processes and performance for their own interests (Giddens, 1972; Parkin, 1972). The plural elite model helps to develop models of social systems characterised by hierarchical or oligarchical structures. There are two main ways that the plural elite situation is formed: one is in the context of traditional elite and the other in the

43 context of a new elite. The traditional plural elite are formed by the coexistence of distinguishing ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural differences between members of the elite (Stock, 2008). The traditional elite is the person, born in the upper class, who inherits the gifts of privileged culture and capital (the person can attend private school and operas) that enable him/her to reproduce the elite culture and specific status in society (Ahmad, 2010).

The new elite are those who may have earned economic, social and culture capital but who does not have symbolic capital. Symbolic capital is an accumulation of economic capital that can be converted from one elite to another elite, ultimately in order to gain advantage in the form of additional wealth, power, allies and marriage partners (Bird & Smith, 2005). Symbolic capital can be referred to as the resources available to an individual on the basis of prestige or recognition. The new elite can gain such symbolic capital through performance in society.

Like the consensually elite model, in this model the leaders of all the sectors, organisations and interest groups present themselves in interaction networks. The main attributes and promise of this model are that members represent the policy-making authorities from different decision locations and no single group of elite dominates the structure (Farazmand, 1999; Higley & Moore, 1981). The interaction among the plural elite group is not consciously centralised in an “inner circle” or “core” group. The interaction between intrasector and intersector elite is considerably less frequent and is based on specific issues. The intrasector elite are located in different decision centres at the regional level whereas intersector elite are prominent leaders who participate in the interaction network at the core or central circle. The intrasector elite interaction is greater than the intersector interaction because of the sector autonomy; intersector interactions occur only in the government political elite.

Farazmand (1999) and Higley and Moore (1981) referred to the plural elite model in which a privileged minority, a small group of elite people who have more power, social standing, wealth or talent than others in the society and, whether they have a distinct ethnic, religion, linguistic and culture, they put their decisions into effect through different decision centres and not just a central one. Collectively, the elite who present an interaction network at different decision locations connect with each other for their impact behaviours joined by common interests (Etzioni-Halevy, 2003). Kreps (2010) argued that the plural elite connection and consensus have limited the impact of their public beliefs because of less frequent linkage with their regional leaders.

44 The plural elite model is based on the premise that there is not a single elite group dominating power. The plural elite are not centralised in an inner circle or with core groups. Each group has different modes of thought that integrate them by different conceptions of the relations between individuals and the community (Breton, 1978). The interaction networks are located at different decision centres for debating related issues. The plural elite work together when required on behalf of all other elite groups for their mutual interest.

In the Nepalese social context, Nepal is considered to be a typical plural society including cultural diversity of religions, castes, languages and ethnic groups, regionally categorised into different indigenous people. Presently, 101 ethnic caste groups and subgroups and 93 living languages with eight religions (Hindu, Buddhist, Islam, Kirat, Jain, Sikh, Christian and Bahai) have been recognized (H. P. Bhattarai, 2004). The plural society stresses the relationships among race, ethnicity, language, religion and culture, but these differences are socially, culturally, politically and historically structured in the process of interaction (D. L. Shrestha, 2004). The plural nature of Nepalese society means that the plural elite model may also explain the behaviour of those who manage CFUGs, since it is able to capture the interaction of groups who come together only for issues of mutual interest, but who otherwise work and live separately.