Elite theory of democracy

A PROJECT ON

Elite theory ofdemocracy

SUBMITTED TO – dr. avinash samal

(FACULTY OF political science)

SUBMITTED BY – Arpit borkar

ROLL NO. – 37

SEMESTER – I

DATE OF SUBMISSION –26-10-2013

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

NEW RAIPUR
Political science Page 1
 Elite theory of democracy

DECLARATION

I, Arpit Borkar, hereby declare that, the project work entitled, Elite Theory Of
Democracy submitted to H.N.L.U., Raipur is record of an original work done by me
under the able guidance of Mr. Avinash Samal, Faculty Member(Political Science),
Hidayatullah National Law University, New Raipur.

Arpit Borkar

Batch XIII

Semester – I

Roll No. 37

Acknowledgements

Political science Page 2

 Elite theory of democracy

First & foremost, I take this opportunity to thank Dr. Avinash Samal, Faculty, Political Science, HNLU
Raipur, for allotting me this challenging topic to work on. He has been very kind in providing inputs for
this work, by way of suggestions.

I would also like to thank my dear colleagues and friends in the University, who have helped me with
ideas about this work. Last, but not the least I thank the University Administration for equipping the
University with such good library and I.T. facilities, without which, no doubt this work would not have
taken this shape in correct time.

Arpit Borkar
Semester-I, Batch-XIII
Roll no-37

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Political science Page 3

 Elite theory of democracy

This project work is descriptive & analytical in approach. It is largely based on secondary & electronic
sources of data. Literature review has been done extensively in order to make a comprehensive
presentation. Books, Articles and Reports have been used in order to get comprehensive data on the
subject Books & other references as guided by faculty of Economics are primarily helpful for the
completion of this project.

OBJECTIVES

 To define the DEMOCRACY.

 To describe the elite theory of democracy.
 To study the elements of elite theory.
 To study the different elite theorists.

 To study criticisms of Elite theory.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Political science Page 4

 Elite theory of democracy

1. Introduction………………….…………………………………………..……..06

2. Democracy……………………………………………………………...………07

3. ELITE THEORY………………………..………………………………........08

4. Elements of Elite theory…………………………….………..……….……….11

5. Classical Elite Theory…………………………………………………………14

6. Classical Elite Theorists……………………………………………………….15

7. Conclusion……………………………….……………………….……….…....18

8. Bibliography………………………………………………………..…………..19

9. Webilography ……………………………………………………………….….19

INTRODUCTION

Political science Page 5

 Elite theory of democracy

The Elite Theory of Democracy maintains that the majority of political power and influence is held by
asmall number of individuals, groups, and industries. People who support this theory argue that
governmentpolicies disproportionately favor the elite over everyone else. For example, the oil industry
and many othershave been known to funnel millions of dollars into political campaigns for the
candidates who support lenientpollution standards. President Eisenhower in his farewell address warned
against the possible problemscreated by the "military-industrial complex," which is symbolic of the
elitism in government.The fourth theory is called Hyper pluralism. Similar to the Pluralist Theory,
Hyperpluralism suggests thatpeople who share interests form groups to advance their causes. Like the
Elite Theory, it suggests that somegroups wield too much power and influence on the government. For
example, when a group does not like apolicy passed by Congress, it can take its cause to court. Several
important court decisions have been reachedin civil rights and environmental cases thanks to the efforts
of strong special interest groups. However,hyperpluralists argue that taking cases to court can undermine
the political system by pitting the judicialprocess against the legislative process. Ultimately, the result of
Hyperpluralism would be the total gridlock ofgovernment; that is, too many groups vying for power but
lacking the cohesion necessary to forcecompromise. The factionalism that Madison and Hamilton
warned about in Federalist Papers #10 and #51come into play in this scenario.
Although quite different, all four theories of democracy share a common idea: people, either as
individuals orgroups, can make a difference in government. Involvement is the key to effecting change
and making surethe government responds to its citizens.

DEMOCRACY

Political science Page 6

 Elite theory of democracy

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that
affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected
representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic
and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination. It
originates from the Greek: δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people", which was coined from δῆμος
(dêmos) "people" and κράτος (kratos) "power", circa 400 BC, to denote the political systems then
existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens. Other cultures since Greece have significantly contributed
to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient Rome, Europe, and North and South America.

A democratic government contrasts to forms of government where power is either held by one, as in a
monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy or aristocracy.
Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because
contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper
defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to
control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.[citation needed]

Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the
whole body of citizens—the sovereign power in any variant of democracy—executes its will. One form
of democracy is direct democracy, in which citizens have direct and active participation in the decision
making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of citizens remain the
sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called
representative democracy. The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and
institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages and the Age of Enlightenment and in the
American and French Revolutions.

ELITE THEORY

Political science Page 7

 Elite theory of democracy

The elite theory states that the society is always ruled by a minority who are "superior" to others. The
earlier elite theorists like Mosca and Pareto said that the elites were superior to others in quality. On the
other hand, the later elite theorists like C. W. Mills and Floyd Hunter stated that the so-called superiority
of elites was derived from their family and social backgrounds and the hierarchical organization of the
society.

The classical liberal theory truly reflected the needs of the new middle class of the 18th and 19th
centuries during which it emerged. The new middle class was then fighting against the decaying
monarchical and feudal orders. The bourgeoisie, through democratisation, sought to curb the feudal
cont2ol over power structures. Hence the emphasis in classical liberal theory on the unrestrained
freedom of the individual and political equality. By the 20th century the problems and priorities of the
bourgeoisie had greatly changed. Having strongly entrenched itself in power by banishing the feudal
lords from it, it wanted to monopolise it by preventing other elements of the society from competing
with it for power. The elite theory, like its predecessor - the classical liberal theory - was developed to
serve the interests of the dominant class, the bourgeoisie. It was designed to rationalise the existing
political order prevailing in the early part of the 20 th century -- the domination of power-structures by
elites.

"Lions" and "Foxes" Circulate

Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), and Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), two Italian sociologists were the first to
systematically develop the elite theory. Pareto provided a broad as well as a narrow definition of elite.
His broad definition of elite is: "By elite is meant a small number of individuals, who in each sphere of
activity, have succeeded and arrived at a higher echelon in the professional hierarchy." According to this
definition there are several elites in each sphere of activity. For example, there are military elites,
political elites, business elites and academic elites. In the narrow sense, by elite, he means only the
"governing elite which is that small number of individuals who have succeeded and who exercise ruling
functions politically and socially."

Pareto believes that elites possess superior psychological attributes than others in the society. Following
Machiavelli, another Italian theorist of eminence, he says that the elites possess "lion" and/or "fox"

Political science Page 8

 Elite theory of democracy

qualities. "Lion" qualities include strength and courage while "fox" qualities comprise intelligence,
shrewdness and cunning.

Pareto observes that elites tend to decay. When one group of ruling elites, due to indulgence in power
and luxury, neglect its primary duty or fails to cope with the changing times and situations, it is likely to
be replaced by another group of elites. "Lion elites" may be replaced by "fox elites" and vice versa. Lion
elites possess strength and bravery, but they lack in intelligence and manipulative skill. Fox elites are
cunning and shrewd, but they lack in strength and courage. If both "lions" and "foxes" are not properly
represented in the elite structure, there is danger to it and it is vulnerable to decadence and replacement.
Pareto has succinctly observed that history is, and always will be, "a graveyard of aristocracies". He
describes this process of power-shifting from one group to another as "circulation of elites."

Mosca says that in all societies it is the organised minority which rules over the unorganised majority.
To quote him, "In all societies’ two classes of people appear - a class that rules and a class that is ruled.
The first class, always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and
enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class, is directed and
controlled by the first … The domination of an organized minority over the unorganized majority is
inevitable". According to Mosca, elites are distinguished from the masses by qualities which give them
material, intellectual or even moral superiority. Pareto argues that the qualities of elites are the same in
all societies. On the other hand, Mosca claims that these qualities would differ from society to society.

Mosca does not have faith in the capacity of masses for self-government. He asserts that elite rule in any
society is inevitable. To Mosca, democracy was government of the people; it might even be government
for the people, but it could never be government by the people. He was opposed to the extension of
franchise to all sections of people. He wanted it to be confined to the middle class only. He thus
remained "elitist" to the last.

Another early elite theorist is Robert Michels (1876-1936)who has formulated the principle of "iron law
of oligarchy". Michels says that democracy is inconceivable without organization. He argues that
individuals, for effectively expressing their views and promoting their interests, need to join together
and form organizations. But for coordination and dealing with things of complex nature, organizations

Political science Page 9

 Elite theory of democracy

need persons of specialised knowledge: In other words, as organizations grow in size and complexity,
there arises the increased need of bureaucracy. As a result, the bigger the organization, the more
dependent the rank and file members became upon their leaders. On the basis of this analysis Michels
concludes that each organization tends to be "oligarchic" and the society is subjected to the oligarchical
control of a few leaders.

C. Wright Mills, an eminent sociologist, has pointed out that the United States of America is ruled by a
monolithic elite structure called "Power elite". Power elite consist of military elites, business elites and
political elites. The interests of these elites are: complementary to one another and they have similar
values, beliefs and orientations due to similar socio-economic backgrounds, and exposure to similar
learning process. They occupy all "Command posts" of the society. Another study of this nature was
conducted by Floyd Hunter in the American city of Atlanta. He points out that it is the economic elites
who have the monopoly of power.

As contrasted with C.W. Mills and Hunter, some other American scholars have stated that elites are not
a monolithic structure; they have serious clash of interests and through completion and conflict for
power among themselves, they contain and balance one another. The most famous of these scholars is
Robert Dahl who, in his well-known study of New Haven, provided a pluralistic perspective to power
analysis. According to Dahl, C. W. Mills\ by his study of power elite, has shown that elites have the,
"potential for control", but the potential for control is not equivalent to actual control. Dahl claims to
have found out that New Haven contained several elites whose interests often collided and who seldom
worked unitedly. These elites, by balancing one another, prevented the concentration of powers in the
hands of any elite group. Dahl described this elite structure, based upon bargaining and compromise, as
"Polyarchy" which, he claims, is supportive of democracy.

Some of the recent elite theorists have sought to explain the elite rule by arguing that though democracy
is a government for the people, it is seldom a government by the people. The common man, being very
much vulnerable to manipulation, is not expected to be rational in his thinking and action. As a result of
his exposure to strong media campaigning and propaganda offensives by different agencies, he tends to
develop a will which, in reality, is not his own; it is rather the reflection of the influencing agency. In
other words, the so-called public will is the "manufactured will". In view of this development, it would

Political science Page 10

 Elite theory of democracy

not be a great loss, it is argued, if the common man does not have a voice in the day-to-day functioning
of a democratic government. It is enough if he has some control over the ruling elites by holding them
ultimately accountable through periodic elections. In a democracy, the voter is required only to elect the
leaders, not to decide policies. It is the leaders who will decide issues and policies. Democracy is there
so long as the leaders have fears that they can be removed from power in the next election if they do not
serve the people. Thus, it is argued, the control by elite is not the negation of democracy. The elite
domination of a democratic system has been characterised as ''democratic elitism." It has been succinctly
observed that the elite theorists regard democracy as "simply a market mechanism; the voters are the
consumers; the politicians are the entrepreneurs.

Elements of Elite Theory

1. All need not be equally active in democracy. It is enough that some are more active and involved in
the political process than others. In other words, democracy, for its success, requires the gradation of the
political involvement of citizens.

2. Elites should be drawn from all sections of the people as much as possible.

3. Elites should not neglect the common people to whom they are accountable at regular intervals.

4. The elite structure should be open, and the deserving people from below should be encouraged and
enabled to enter it. Otherwise, it will gradually lose its vitality, and decay.

5. In democracy, there should not be too much stress on "ideology". It is better that the ideological
polarisation among political elites/parties is reduced to the minimum. The "end of ideology” is a recent
feature of democracies. The one ideology to which all of them should be committed is the maintenance
and stability of the system. None of them should see radical change in it.

6. The government is a mechanism of mediating between the competing elites and establishing
compromise and consensus among them. It should aim at minimising conflict among them.

Ruling Class Vs Political Elite

Political science Page 11

 Elite theory of democracy

Both Marxists and elitists agree that the society is dominated by a minority. But they differ from each
other in regard to the identity of this minority. Bottomore says that the elite theory was originally
conceived by bourgeois intellectuals to oppose the Marxist idea of social classes. The following are the
main differences between them.

1. According to Marxists, the ruling minority derives its dominance from its ownership of the means of
production. On the other hand, many elite theorists hold that elites rule over others because of their
superior psychological qualities. Some other elitists maintain that ruling elites derive their dominance
from their social background and the hierarchical nature of the society. Bottomore has said, "The elitists
also oppose socialist doctrines in a more general way, by substituting for notion of class which rules by
virtue of economic and military power, the notion of an elite which rules because of the superior
qualities of its members.”

2. Marx said that communism would be characterised by the absence of class. Elitists do not agree with
the thesis of classless society. They assert that there will always be a ruling class dominating others in
the society.

3. According to Marxists, each society is divided into two classes, namely, the class of rich, and the
class of poor, and they are always locked in hostility. There is no question of compromise and harmony
between these two classes, they assert. Elitists, on the contrary, believe that the conflict between elites
and masses is not inevitable, and they can live in peace and cooperation.

4. The Marxist thinkers point out that there is little mobility between the ruling class, and others: no poor
man can join the class of rich. The elite theorists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible for the
members of masses to be elevated to the group of ruling elites. Any elite structure which does not admit
of social mobility from below is destined to die sooner or later.

5. For Marxists, revolution would bring about radical changes in the society; it is likely to overthrow
from power one ruling class and replace it by another class. The elite theorists do not accept this view of

Political science Page 12

 Elite theory of democracy

revolution. For them, revolution is a normal thing, replacing one elite group by another elite group, or
adding a few new elites to the existing group of ruling elites. They maintain that by revolution no
fundamental change is effected in the elite structure - the domination of the society by elites.

Classical Liberalism Vs Elite Theory

Some significant differences between classical liberal theory if democracy and the elite theory are stated
below:

1. Classical liberalism is people-oriented. It has great faith in the capacity of the people to properly play
their role in the social and political processes. It views the man as a rational actor capable enough of
making right political choice. Elitists, on the other hand, are leader-oriented. They have a great deal of
confidence in the ability of elites to deliver goods – to help maintain the system.

2. The classical liberal theory of democracy treats “common good" and "public opinion" as vital
elements of democracy. But the elite theorists do not accord much importance to these objectives.
According to them it is difficult to define common good, and worse still, public opinion can be invented
and manipulated.

3. The elite theorists value democracy as an agency of making compromise and consensus by mediating
among conflicting elites, and as an agency of system-maintaining. However, classical liberalists
regarded democracy as an agency of building moral men. They believed that democracy helped in
effecting the all-round development of the man. McPherson has rightly observed: "The traditional theory
of Mill - gave democracy a moral dimension: it saw democracy as development, as a matter of the
improvement of mankind. The Schumpeter-Dahl axis, on the contrary, treats democracy as a
mechanism, the essential function of which is to maintain an equilibrium.

Criticisms

Political science Page 13

 Elite theory of democracy

1. The elite theory is anti-democratic in nature. It has little faith in the people. It pins its hopes on elites.
The common man is devalued, while elites are overvalued.

2. Elitists are primarily concerned with the maintenance of the stability of the system. They have not
much sympathy for any effort to reform or modify the system. They are thus highly conservative and
even reactionary.

3. Moral man misses in the writings of elite theorists. For them the utility of the common man lies in its
function as the voter, required to elect ruling elites at regular intervals. The all-round development of
individual is of little concern to elitists.

Classical Elite theory

The aristocratic version of this theory is the Classic Elite Theory which is based on two ideas:

1. power lies in position of authority in key economic and political institutions

2. the psychological difference that sets Elites apart is that they have personal resources, for
instance intelligence and skills, and a vested interest in the government; while the rest are
incompetent and do not have the capabilities of governing themselves, the elite are resourceful
and will strive to make the government work. For in reality, the elite have the most to lose in a
failed government.

Classical Elite Theorists

Vilfredo Pareto

Pareto emphasized the psychological and intellectual superiority of elites, believing that they were the
highest accomplishers in any field. He discussed the existence of two types of elites:

Political science Page 14

 Elite theory of democracy

1. governing elites
2. non-governing elites

He also extended the idea that a whole elite can be replaced by a new one and how one can circulate
from being elite to nonelite.

Gaetano Mosca

Mosca emphasized the sociological and personal characteristics of elites. He said elites are an organized
minority and that the masses are an unorganized majority. The ruling class is composed of the ruling
elite and the sub-elites. He divides the world into two groups:

1. ruling class
2. class that is ruled

Mosca asserts that elites have intellectual, moral, and material superiority that is highly esteemed and
influential.

Robert Michels

Sociologist Michels developed the Iron Law of Oligarchy where, he asserts, social and political
organizations are run by few individuals, and social organization and labor division are key. He believed
that all organizations were elitist and that elites have three basic principles that help in the bureaucratic
structure of political organization:

1. Need for leaders, specialized staff and facilities

2. Utilization of facilities by leaders within their organization
3. The importance of the psychological attributes of the leaders

Political science Page 15

 Elite theory of democracy

Elite theorists

C. Wright Mills

Mills published his book The Power Elite in 1956, claiming a new sociological perspective on systems
of power in the United States. He identified a triumvirate of power groups - political, economic and
military - which form a distinguishable, although not unified, power-wielding body in the United States.

Mills proposed that this group had been generated through a process of rationalization at work in all
advanced industrial societies whereby the mechanisms of power became concentrated, funneling overall
control into the hands of a limited, somewhat corrupt group.[1] This reflected a decline in politics as an
arena for debate and relegation to a merely formal level of discourse.[2] This macro-scale analysis sought
to point out the degradation of democracy in "advanced" societies and the fact that power generally lies
outside the boundaries of elected representatives. A main influence for the study was Franz Leopold
Neumann's book, Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism, 1933-1944, a study of
how Nazism came to power in the German democratic state. It provided the tools to analyze the
structure of a political system and served as a warning of what could happen in a modern capitalistic
democracy.

Floyd Hunter

The elite theory analysis of power was also applied on the micro scale in community power studies such
as that by Floyd Hunter (1953). Hunter examined in detail the power relationships evident in his
"Regional City" looking for the "real" holders of power rather than those in obvious official positions.
He posited a structural-functional approach which mapped the hierarchies and webs of interconnection
operating within the city – mapping relationships of power between businessmen, politicians, clergy etc.
The study was promoted to debunk current concepts of any ‘democracy’ present within urban politics
and reaffirm the arguments for a true representative democracy.[3]

This type of analysis was also used in later, larger scale, studies such as that carried out by M. Schwartz
examining the power structures within the sphere of the corporate elite in the USA.[4]

Political science Page 16

 Elite theory of democracy

G. William Domhoff

In his controversial book Who Rules America?, G. William Domhoff researched local and national
decision making process networks in order to illustrate the power structure in the United States. He
asserts, much like Hunter, that an elite class that owns and manages large income-producing properties
(like banks and corporations) dominate the American power structure politically and economically.[5]

James Burnham

Burnham’s early work The Managerial Revolution sought to express the movement of all functional
power into the hands of managers rather than politicians or businessmen – separating ownership and
control.[6] Many of these ideas were adapted by paleoconservativesSamuel T. Francis and Paul Gottfried
in their theories of the managerial state. Burnham's thoughts on Elite Theory were elucidated more
specifically in his book The Machiavellians which discusses the thoughts of, among others, Pareto,
Mosca, and Michels; it is here that Burnham attempts a scientific analysis of both elites and politics
generally.

Robert D. Putnam

Putnam saw the development of technical and exclusive knowledge among administrators and other
specialist groups as a mechanism by which power is stripped from the democratic process and slipped
sideways to the advisors and specialists influencing the decision making process.[7]

"If the dominant figures of the past hundred years have been the entrepreneur, the businessman, and the
industrial executive, the ‘new men’ are the scientists, the mathematicians, the economists, and the
engineers of the new intellectual technology."[8]

Thomas R. Dye

Dye in his book Top Down Policymaking, argues that U.S. public policy does not result from the
"demands of the people," but rather from Elite consensus found in Washington, D.C. based non-profit
foundations, think tanks, special-interest groups, and prominent lobbyists and law firms. Dye's thesis is
further expanded upon in his works: The Irony of Democracy,Politics in America,Understanding Public
Policy, and Who's Running America?

Political science Page 17

 Elite theory of democracy

Conclusion

Elite theory developed in part as a reaction to Marxism. It rejected the Marxian idea that a classless
society having an egalitarian structure could be realized after class struggle in every society. It regards
Marxism as an ideology rather than an objective analysis of social systems. According to Elite theory
man can never be liberated from the subjugation of an elite structure. The term Elite refers to those who
excel. The classical elite theorists identify the governing elite in terms of superior personal qualities of
those who exercise power. However later versions of elite theory places less emphasis on the personal
qualities of the powerful and more on the institutional framework of the society.

They argued that the hierarchical organization of social institutions allows a minority to monopolize
power. Another criticism of the elite theories against the Marxian view of distribution of power is that
the ruling class too large and amorphous a group to be able to effectively wield power. In their view
power is always exercised by a small cohesive group of the elite. Elite theory argues that all societies are
divided into two main groups a ruling minority and the ruled. This situation is inevitable. If the
proletarian revolution occurs it will merely result in the replacement of one ruling elite by another.
Classical elite theory was propounded by Pareto and Mosca.

Bibliography

 Mills, C. Wright (1956) The Power Elite.

Political science Page 18

 Elite theory of democracy

 Bottomore, T. (1993) Elites and Society (2nd Edition). London: Routledge.

 Putnam, R. D. (1976) The Comparative Study of Political Elites. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Webilography
https://teacher.ocps.net/michael.callahan/resources/apgoporeview.pdf

academic.regis.edu/jroth/elitedem.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory

www.hippocampus.org/.../Constitutional%20Beginnings_Theories%20of...

http://www.sociologyguide.com/political-system/elite-theory.php

Political science Page 19