Classical Elite Theorists And The Claims Of Democracy Essay, Research Paper

“Who says organization says oligarchy.” `”In all societies … two classes of people appear – a class that rules and a class that is ruled.” Classical Elite Theory, as demonstrated in the quotations from Robert Michels and Gaetano Mosca is brilliant in it’s simplicity. Democracy, as encapsulated in the liberal/parliamentary model is merely a facade. Society is in fact controlled by a minority, an “elite” who exercise power primarily (though not always) for their own benefit. Given both the nature of society and mankind this pseudo-democratic facade (or, as the third of the triumvirate, Vilfredo Pareto called it, “Pluto-Democracy”) is not only inevitable but even beneficial. `Classical Elite Theory is not a homogeneous body, though study does reveal similarities between the three. Differences occur due to the divergent political and methodological perspectives taken by the Elite Theorists and as academics they felt free to criticize their contemporaries’ work. There is enough common ground though to collect under the category. `The views of the “Machiavellian School” are undoubtedly controversial and contentious, both on a political and methodological level. One commentator wrote that the theory amounted to nothing more than a “defence of the political interests and status of the middle class.” whilst Mosca’s analysis has been described as ” a new dismal science aimed at the naive optimism of Eighteenth Century enlightenment”. `What is also without doubt is the influence of Classical Elite Theory. I would argue that the theory of Democratic Elitism is nothing but a modified version of Classical Elite Theory with a more optimistic outlook and other commentators, whilst acknowledging the flaws of the theory believe that it still has valid points that need to be discussed. `Pareto and Mosca share a common political and cultural background, the Parliamentary liberalism of post-unified Italy. The problems of this system, the limited franchise, centralized/bureaucratized state, high taxation, corruption and the willingness of the system to use either patronage or force (as illustrated by the policies of Crispi and Giolitti) to maintain it’s position obvious had an influence on their writings. `There were political and methodological differences though – Pareto was a pure sociologist (his theory of elite circulation is merely a component in a total sociological system) and a classic liberal, whilst Mosca was a moderate conservative whom Femia has labelled the “the pioneer of modern political science.” `Pareto’s major work, the Tratto (Treatise of General Sociology 1916) followed on from earlier works in establishing categories of human behaviour and attitudes and showing how these “classes” affected political systems. Pareto had an atomistic view of society and claimed that ophelimity was the dominant force in society. Since for Pareto oligarchical rule was inevitable, his main concern was to show the different forms it could take and how one form shifted to another. Thus we have Classes I and II, the analogy of “Foxes and Lions”, and an economic parallel/overlap (”rentiers and speculators”). `The important thing to note about the theory is the concept of circulation – whilst the composition of the elite might change, due to shifts in the Class I/II balance, (thus “the elite is in a state of continuous and slow transformation” ) the elite itself retains power, be it by force or by consent. `Mosca’s book, Elememti di Scienza Politica (Elements of Political Science 1896) has a similar objective to the Treatise namely to dispel the collective illusions of democracy and popular sovereignty. Mosca takes a more pragmatic approach than Pareto but produces as a result a more accessible argument. `For Mosca, the key to elite rule lies in organization and it is the very size of the elite (the fact that it is a minority) that gives it it’s disproportionate power (what Meisel calls the “Three C’s”: cohesion, conspiracy and consciousness – possession of all three is essential for an elite to rule). `As with Pareto, Mosca doesn’t assume that the elite has complete freedom to do as it wishes – his concept of Juridical Defence accepts that concessions have to be made to ensure political stability -”the system itself provides the maximum guarantee of civil liberties”. Yet as with Pareto, Mosca sees the elite as a fundamental fact of social existence which adapts to survive by incorporating and assimilating “new blood” from the non-elite populace. This would appear to be a gradual and necessary process whereas Pareto’s circulation thesis suggests wholesale replacement and a change in Class. `Mosca has been criticized for being prescriptive rather than scientific but he should be credited, if for nothing else, for revealing the difference between formal political structures and informal political power. `The last of the Classical Elitists, the German Robert Michels, was probably the most scientific of the three, proposing a hypothesis and then setting out to test it. Michels wanted to show that oligarchy is inherent to any society of a certain size and complexity or rather, that popular democracy was incompatible with the nature and structure of modern society (thus unlike the other two he seemed to suggest that oligarchy was not a fundamental fact of human existence but was inevitable given the conditions of modern society). `His major work Political Parties developed a theory of organization that showed the tendency of organizations (political parties, trade unions, etc.) to develop a bureaucracy separate from the people the organization represents, with its own interests and aims – the primary one being the preservation and perpetuation of its own position. This was facilitated by the concentration of power within the bureaucracy and the incorporation into the elite of potential threats. `Michels’ belief in the now inevitable oligarchical nature of society (as suggested above) stems from society itself – “…the principle cause of oligarchy … is to be found in the technical indispensability of leadership.” This embodies a disparaging view of ordinary people, the “incompetence of the masses” but it does seem to be a vicious circle – given the demands of everyday life what else can you do but give power to those with the ability and time to wield it? `Michels’ views on the permanency of organizational elites and thus elites in general, are more sophisticated than either of his colleagues, but the essence is the same – the elite is only renewed, never removed. Michels is remembered for his attack on socialism (the famous quote being that “the socialists might conquer but not socialism …) but Pareto and Mosca were equally caustic, and not only of Socialism but of ideology in general. All ideology, be it democracy, socialism whatever is a facade – if socialism were to prove more useful in placating and fooling the masses than liberal capitalism then all societies would become socialist overnight. `As I stated earlier, Classical Elite Theory is brilliant and attractive in its simplicity. This simplicity though, as Robert Dahl is also the theory’s major flaw, as it “is cast in a form that makes it virtually impossible to disprove”- a cardinal sin for a “scientific” theory. Accordingly, Pareto et al. are reduced from (political) scientists to simple polemicists or, at best, metaphysicians. `This is an important argument. It appeals to our commonsense and “realpolitik” perception of politics to talk of an elite controlling society but who actually are these people? The theorists may have been attempting a gigantic refutation of Marxism but at least Marx dealt in specifics not generalities. So who are these people and how do “they” fulfil their preferences, choices and desires over our own? `Granted that Mosca and (to a greater extent) Michels attempted to explain the processes of elite rule by talking of organization, cohesion, consciousness etc. but there is still no real explanation of how the elite interacts with society as whole. `I don’t agree with Dahl, probably because I don’t share his idealistic perspective of democratic processes. It does not follow that because society becomes more sophisticated/advanced it becomes more democratic. `Classical Elite Theory developed at a time of mass poverty and illiteracy, where economic and political power were one and the same and manifestly in the hands of a few. Now societies have political parties, electoral systems, education and mass media but are they any more democratic? `Irrefutably we have our rights and freedoms – since they are not dictatorships or totalitarians even oligarchies have to maintain their political stability through concessions to the masses but do we have any power? `The theory of Classical Democracy envisages popular participation in the processes of decision making with the majority preference prevailing. `Now nobody, not even such champions of democracy as Joseph Schumpeter or Dahl himself argue that society can possibly hope to achieve this ideal. For them the best we can hope to realize is a reasonable degree of democracy, where even if a number of elites exist they are forced (through the processes of democracy) to respond to the wishes of the people. `The question I ask myself is how do we do that? How do we make our preferences known, how do we make our presence felt on the political process? Western democracies are composed of highly centralized states (entailing a complex bureaucracy) corporations and QUANGO-type bodies. Where does popular participation fit into this structure? `Defenders of liberal democracy would argue that our interests are represented through the variety of political parties that exist but so what? We have little or no choice of candidates, little influence on formulating party ideology – all we are expected to do is vote for the people they tell us to for the policies they picked – when Mosca wrote that candidates get themselves elected he meant it. Consider the fact that in the 1950s the derisory term “Butskellism” was employed to denote the similarity between the supposedly opposing parties and then consider that Pareto and Mosca saw political parties as facets of the same elite and Parliament a convenient place to make deals and bargains – there would appear to be some truth to it. `This argument is not a zealous defence of Classical Elite Theory. I agree with the charges of determinism (especially the immutability of human nature espoused by Pareto and Mosca), subjectivity and vagueness levelled at the theorists and I also agree that their methodology is suspect being more prescriptive than scientific. `However, the question of political participation remains unresolved and since the theory hinges on the political power of the few it needs to be answered. If people believe that all politicians are essentially the same and fail to vote for lack of a genuine then they are in effect handing power to the politicians and bureaucrats. `If this is the case then the belief that power is not concentrated in the hands of a minoritty but is diffused throughout society is as open to criticism as its antithesis. `Bibliography `I would like to thank Dr.Townshend for his advice and encouragement – all titles used were supplied through him. R.Bellamy, Modern Italian Social Theory. `(Polity Press, Cambridge, 1987.) R.Michels, Political Parties. `(The Free Press, New York, 1962.) V.Pareto, Sociological Writings. `(Pall Mall Press Ltd., London, 1966.) G.Parry, Political Elites. `(George Allen and Unwin Ltd., England, 1969.) R.A.Dahl, A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model. `The American Political Science Review, Vol.47, 1953. J.Femia, Mosca Revisited. `European Journal of Political Research, Vol.23 (No.2), 1993.