In Arend Lijphart’s influential typology pluralism and corporatism are shown both: as two leading patterns of interest group politics and two main dimensions of the differences between the majoritarian and consensual variants of institutionalized democratic systems. The patterns of pluralism and corporatism show differences not only in the institutional setting of the activities and strategies undertaken by organized interest groups, but also display the differences in the processes of intermediation of interests, in which interest groups cooperate with political parties and party governments in various extents and in various forms. The leading thesis of the article is to indicate the need to adjust of this bipolar model. The hypothesis focuses on the indication that the pattern associated with the concept of policy networks is currently gaining advantage and it is much more labile than pluralism and corporatism. In this newly growing postmodern pattern the connections between political parties and interest groups, as well as the processes of intermediation of group interests becoming more liquid. The text aims to conclude on the need to revise the classic Lijphart’s model by pointing to the network hybridization of interactions between political parties and interest groups. This may not completely undermine one of the important features that distinguish majoritarian and consensual patterns of democracy, but it should certainly encourage updating their analyses, assessments and predictions of further development trajectories.