Poli cal and social scien st have developed many models,

theories, approaches, concepts and schemes for analyzing

policy making and its related component, decision making
(Anderson, 2011). Theories, models or concepts is required to
guide the study of public policy, to facilitate the
communica on and understanding on regards of public policy
and to suggest possible explana ons for policy ac ons. There
are many approaches or models of public policy such as Elite
theory, Ins tu onalism, Process model, Ra onalism,
Incrementalism, Group model, Public choice theory and game
theory. This models or approaches are the instrument to help
us understand public policies be er. These models are not
compe ve in the sense that any one of them could be
judged 'best' (Dye, 2008). Each one provides a separate focus
on poli cal life and each can help us to understand different
things about public policy.

THE ORIGIN OF ELITE THEORY:

In the late 19' century and early 20 century, there are
classical writers that been noted for their wri ng on the elite
theory itself. All of them researched and presented the reality
of poli cal system on their era. On the basis, they all assumed
elite theory consisted of the one who ruled (the elites) and
the one who were ruled (the society). One of them is
Gaetano Mosca (1858- 1941) was an Italian poli cal scien st
whose first presented his ideas on eli sm in his wri ng the
ruling class (1896). He stated in the book that whatever the
form of government, power is always in the hand of minority.
He held that two opposite tendencies are inherent in the
society:
a) the aristocra c tendency toward keeping power in the
hands of those who govern; and
b) the democra c tendency renewal by means of elements
derived from those who governed (Batson, 1981).
However, Mosca did not found the term of poli cal elites. He
referred them as poli cal class, ruling class or governing class.
Mosca concluded in his studies that neither one man nor the
whole mass of people can rule. In his mind, the elite's
minority is the key to control the organiza on. Organiza on
was easier with small number of individuals; informa on
could be transmi ed much more quickly and small well
organized group could rapidly respond to any change (Batson,
1981).
To Mosca, Eli sm was not a conspiracy to exploit or to
oppress the masses.
Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) is the other classical writer of
elite theory besides Mosca. Pareto wrote the elite theory in
his book tled "The Mind and Society" in the year of 1916.
Pareto postulated that in a society with truly unrestricted
social mobility, elites would consist of the most talented and
deserving individuals; but in actual socie es elites are those
most adept at using the two modes of poli cal rule, force and
persuasion, and who usually enjoy important advantages
such as inherited wealth and family connec ons (Higley,
2008). Pareto believes that poli cal power in terms of a
"con nuous circula on of elite groups" who rules because of
their member's superior intelligence, educa on, cunning and
so forth. That is considered as their superior personal
quali es that made them legit to rule the masses. Con nuous
circula on of elite groups meant by Pareto can be
summarized as powerful groups arise in society, take power,
lose their poli cal vitality over me and are replaced.
On the other hands, the contemporary elite theory stated by
C. Wright Mills in his books the power elite (1956) is pre y
dis nc ve from those classical writers. He defined the power
elites as those who control the great organiza ons; they were
the men who headed the great corpora ons, the armed
forces, the state and the mass media (Batson, 1981). They
had the power to make sure the rest of the society accepted
their decisions. The elite, stated by Mills (1956) had similar
interest, first of all in maintaining itself in power and then in
substan ve ma ers of policy. Thomas R. Dye (1972) defines
elites as those individuals who have a greater share than
other peoples of the things and experiences that are most
highly valued such as money, power and pres ge. By the
powerful he means those who are able to realize their will
even if others refuse it. To be celebrated, to be wealth, to
have power requires access to major ins tu ons; for it is the
ins tu onal posi ons men occupy that determine in large
part their chances to have and to hold these a ributed values
(Batson, 1981). The elites are the people who stay in the
power or hold the higher roles in society. Today, the
individuals who occupy the posi ons of authority in the large
ins tu ons are the generaliza on of elites. There are clashes
of the opinion between classical writers and contemporary
writers upon the elite theory but the similarity is the elite
s ll, un l today is the minority one while society considered
as the majority one.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ELITE THEORY:

According to Mills (1956), there is Power Elite in modern
socie es, the Elite who command the resources of vast
bureaucra c organiza ons that have come to dominate
industrial socie es. The elite held the key leadership
posi ons within the bureaucracies that now dominate
modern socie es, the posi ons in which the effec ve means
of power are now located. Thus their power is occupied in
authority, an a ribute of social organiza ons, not of
individuals. Elite is those few who have power and this means
they basically share the agreements in the behalf of basic
values of the social system and the preserva on of the
system.
Elites influence masses more than masses influence elites
(Anderson, 2011).
Masses held a very li le influence on the elites, making the
policy does not even reflect the greater interest of public. It is
all for the sake of elite regardless of local or foreign policy.
This kind of policy is the product of elites, reflec ng their
values and demands, serving their needs and ends, one of
which is hidden under the name 'welfare of masses'.
The majority of the elite, Mills asserted, come from the upper
third of the income and occupa onal pyramids. The few who
govern and so called 'elite' is not typical of the masses that
are governed. Elite are totally drawn their border and stay in
the upper socioeconomic strata of society. They are born of
the same upper class. They a end the same preparatory
schools and Ivy League universi es. They join the same
exclusive gentleman's clubs, belong to the same
organiza ons. They are closely linked through intermarriage.

IMAGE
There are two other levels of power in society below the
power elite.
At the bo om are the great masses of people. This mass is
referred as those 'many that do not have power'. They are
largely unorganized, ill informed, and virtually powerless and
can be manipulated from above. The masses are
economically dependent; they are economically and
poli cally exploited. Because they are disorganized, the
masses are far removed from the classic democra c public in
which voluntary organiza ons hold the key to power. We can
see the flow downward of communica on from the elite
towards the masses. They sets everything, the administrators
will implement it and the masses only just have to follow.
According to Zimmerman (1995), Policies and programs
reflect the values and interest of elites in a hierarchically
arranged society. Somehow, public policy does not reflect the
demand of masses but they are rather li ing the veil on what
elites wants. Elites want what's best for them and what's best
for them is also considered beneficial to the society. Elite may
act out of narrow self serving mo ves and risk undermining
mass support, or they may ini ate reforms, curb abuse, and
undertake public regarding programs to preserve the system
and their place in it (Anderson, 2011).
As elite sees public as apathe c and ignorant, they tend to
sideline the public from any policy making. However, if they
were to allow the policy to be reform, they prefer it to be
incremental. Incremental changes of public policy that been
done in the first place to avoid revolu on approaches by
public. Incremental changes permit responses to events that
threaten a social system with a minimum of altera on or
disloca on of the system (Anderson, 2011). This is one tac cs
to ensure the harmony of masses and in the same me
guaranteed the posi on of elites to hold the power in longer
period.

EXAMPLE OF ELITE THEORY:

In the United States of America, Capitalism creates an
ownership class that has immense economic resources and
the poten al for poli cal power. It also generates ongoing
class conflict over wages, profits, work rules, taxes, and
government regula on. In response, corporate owners have
been able to create a wide range of organiza ons that give
them ins tu onal resources through which they incorporate
and legi mate their class resources, making it possible for
them to contain class conflict. It is the interac on of class and
organiza onal impera ves at the top of all American
organiza ons, including government ins tu ons, that leads
to class domina on in the United States. As stated above,
Elite class theory posits that a select few individual control
decision making. In America, Oil cartels are one of the leading
examples to describe the elite. They has the heavy influence
on the control of a highly valued resource that affects all
businesses.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF ELITISM:

Eli sm in public policy suggests that decisions are driven by
elite interests rather than public demands, leading to policies
reflec ng elite values and preferences. While elites may
consider public welfare, their decisions o en reflect their
own values. Masses are viewed as passive and manipulated
by elites, with limited influence over decision-making. Elites
typically share consensus on fundamental norms, ensuring
stability, though compe on exists within a narrow range of
issues. Despite democra c instruments like elec ons, true
public influence is indirect. Elite agreement is crucial for the
survival of the social system.

THE STRENGTH OF ELITE THEORY:

The premise that an elite, due to their superior educa on and
abili es, should govern is flawed. Democracy values inclusion
and representa on, not exclusion. Assuming the public is
irra onal and ignorant overlooks their collec ve wisdom and
diversity. While elites may bring exper se, true governance
requires accountability and responsiveness to all ci zens, not
just a select few. The no on of obedience to an elite risks
undermining democra c principles and can lead to
authoritarian tendencies. Manipula ng public opinion
through media and consumerism is undemocra c and erodes
trust. A healthy democracy fosters par cipa on, debate, and
checks on power, ensuring a government accountable to all
its ci zens, not just a privileged few.

THE WEAKNESS OF ELITE THEORY:

The power elite theory posits that a small, privileged group
controls major decisions, leaving li le room for input from
lower and middle-class ci zens. This elite wields significant
influence over policy-making, priori zing their own interests
and values. Lower and middle-class individuals have limited
par cipa on in decision-making processes, resul ng in a lack
of accountability for the elite. The top er, comprising
influen al figures in poli cs, business, and other spheres,
holds sway over cri cal na onal ma ers, while the masses at
the bo om lack power to challenge their decisions. This
scenario fosters a centralized power structure where the elite
dictate policies without genuine considera on for broader
societal welfare, pain ng a bleak picture of democracy's
func oning.
CONCLUSION:
There is not any fixed concept and structure of the elite in
any society. It keeps changing according to social needs,
poli cal struggle and compe on. The term Elite refers to
those who excel. The classical elite theorists iden fy the
governing elite in terms of superior personal quali es of
those who exercise power.
However, later versions of elite theory placed less emphasis
on the personal quali es of the powerful and more on the
ins tu onal framework of the society.
Elite theory emphasizes on how the policy operates and who
controls or dominates and benefits from it. Or concisely: who
rules and governs? To govern, elites must hold the power.
Power is centered in ins tu ons. Therefore, key leadership
posi ons in these ins tu ons are reserved for the elite. These
posi ons are open only to the ruling class of the na on. This
class controls the economy and preserves the economic
status quo. Society is held together by force and control, with
elite domina on of the majority a given. This power elite
encourages powerlessness among publics so it's get easier to
manage, govern and enforce the policy that favors elite much
more than masses itself. In short, it can be said that "no one"
speaks for the people.
Nowadays elite group may shown publicly that their policy is
"public-associated' but there's always their interest that will
be top prior.

COMPARISON BETWEEN ELITE AND GROUP THEORY

Group theory and elite theory are both frameworks used in
poli cal science to understand power dynamics within
socie es. While they have some similari es, they also have
dis nct approaches and perspec ves. Below is a comparison
of group theory and elite theory:

Group Theory:
Group theory, posits that society is composed of various
interest groups that compete for power and resources. These
interest groups could be based on factors such as ideology,
socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or industry. Group theory
emphasizes the idea that power is dispersed throughout
society rather than concentrated in the hands of a few elites.

Key points of group theory include:

1. Distribu on of Power: Group theory suggests that power is
distributed among various groups in society. These groups
may have different interests and goals, and they compete
with each other to influence government policies and
decisions.
2. Representa on: Groups are seen as represen ng the
interests of their members. Through advocacy, lobbying, and
other forms of poli cal par cipa on, groups seek to advance
their agendas and secure favorable outcomes from the
government.
3. Pluralist Democracy: Group theory aligns with the concept
of pluralist democracy, where mul ple groups with diverse
interests coexist and interact within the poli cal system. This
perspec ve emphasizes the importance of compromise,
nego a on, and accommoda on among compe ng groups.
4. Par cipa on: Group theory emphasizes the role of ci zen
par cipa on in poli cs through membership in various
interest groups. Par cipa on is seen as a means for
individuals to influence government policies and hold elected
officials accountable.

5. Policy Outcomes: In group theory, policy outcomes are

viewed as the result of the bargaining and nego a on
processes among compe ng interest groups. The government
acts as a mediator or referee, balancing the compe ng
demands of different groups.

Elite Theory:
Elite theory, on the other hand, proposes that power in
society is concentrated in the hands of a small elite group.
This elite may consist of wealthy individuals, corporate
leaders, poli cal leaders, or other influen al figures who hold
dispropor onate influence over poli cal and economic
processes.

Key points of elite theory include:

1. Concentra on of Power: Elite theory suggests that power is
concentrated in the hands of a select few individuals or
groups who dominate the poli cal and economic systems.
These elites o en control key ins tu ons and resources,
allowing them to shape government policies and decisions to
serve their own interests.
2. Eli st Democracy: Elite theory challenges the no on of
pluralist democracy and suggests that democra c processes
may be undermined by elite manipula on and control.
Elec ons and other democra c mechanisms may serve to
legi mize the power of the elite rather than truly reflect the
will of the people.
3. Iron Law of Oligarchy: Some versions of elite theory
propose the "iron law of oligarchy," which suggests that all
organiza ons, including democra c ones, tend to be
dominated by a small elite group over me. This idea
underscores the enduring influence of elites in shaping
poli cal outcomes.
4. Inequality and Power: Elite theory highlights the
rela onship between inequality and power, arguing that
economic inequality o en translates into poli cal power. The
wealthy elite can use their economic resources to influence
poli cal processes and maintain their privileged posi on in
society.
5. Cri cal Perspec ve: Elite theory offers a cri cal perspec ve
on democracy and governance, highligh ng the ways in
which elites may subvert democra c principles for their own
benefit. It raises ques ons about the extent to which
democra c ins tu ons truly represent the interests of the
broader popula on.

Comparison
1. View of Power: Group theory sees power as dispersed
among various interest groups, while elite theory posits that
power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite
2. Representa on: Group theory emphasizes the role of
interest groups in represen ng the diverse interests of
society, whereas elite theory suggests that elites may
dominate and manipulate poli cal representa on.
3. Democracy: Group theory aligns more closely with the
ideals of pluralist democracy, while elite theory offers a more
cri cal perspec ve on democra c processes and their
suscep bility to elite influence.
4. Policy Outcome: Group theory suggests that policy
outcomes are the result of nego a on and compromise
among compe ng interest groups, while elite theory
highlights the role of elites in shaping policies to serve their
own interests.
5. Inequality: Both theories acknowledge the role of
inequality in society, but group theory focuses more on the
compe on among various groups, whereas elite theory
emphasizes the ways in which elites perpetuate and benefit
from inequality.
In summary, while both group theory and elite theory offer
insights into power dynamics within socie es, they approach
the subject from different angles. Group theory emphasizes
pluralism and the role of diverse interest groups, while elite
theory focuses on the concentra on of power among a small
elite. These theories provide complementary perspec ves
that contribute to our understanding of poli cal systems and
processes.