The basic sociological argument that the elitist theory extends with respect to democracy relates to impossibility of ‘rule of the people’. This argument is based on the understanding of power distribution in society and the influence and power enjoyed by an elite minority in society. Democracy as a government is a rule of elite minority and not of the people. Rule by elite minority is inevitable in all societies and there can be only one form of government, i.e., rule by elite. It refutes any possibility of government by the people or of the people, though it can be for the people. Elitist theory divides society into two groups – superior people by virtue of their qualities or social background and those who are masses. Masses are unintelligent and apathetic and elite are organised, capable, intelligent and have leadership qualities.
Sociologists, Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca and Robert Michels propounded the elite theory of power distribution and dominance in society. Subsequently, Joseph Schumpeter, Ortega Gasset, Giovanni Sartori, Karl Mannheim, Robert Dahl, C. Wright Mills and others have analysed power distribution from elite perspective. Their conclusion, with minor variations, focuses on one fact, that power and influence in society is restricted in the hands of small elite minority and only they decide and formulate policies. As a result, government can only be by elite and there is no possibility of democracy as government of the people. Alternatively, elitist theory portrays the general mass of people as apathetic, unintelligent and uniformed consequently, and incapable of any meaningful participation. The elitist theory of impossibility of democracy largely draws from the analysis of capitalist democratic societies of the West such as Germany, Italy, the UK and the US. Theorists and political sociologists such as Raymond Aron, Milovan Djilas and David Lane have observed the dynamics of the communist societies and analysed the phenomenon of elite class in these societies.34
Pareto and Mosca conceptualised general perspective on elite rule and view society divided into elite and non-elite. They pointed out that elite provides leadership and are capable of rule. Michels carried out the study of oligarchic phenomenon in political parties. In his study, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (1911) Robert Michels analysed the inner dynamics of decision-making and power distribution of European Socialist Parties and trade unions with particular emphasis on German Socialist Party.35 Michels was concerned with contradictory tendencies – while democracy requires political parties, they themselves evolve as undemocratically organised organizations. On the one hand, German Socialist Party had its aim as opposition to capitalist system and declared to be organised on democratic principles, on the other Michels’ analysis revealed that an ‘Iron Law of Oligarchy’ prevailed within the organization. Political parties, due to complexity of issues in society and apathetic attitude of masses/electorates, developed bureaucratic structure and became oligarchic. Michels suggested that without organization (i.e., political parties or organizations that ensure representation), democracy is inconceivable.
Michels followed a simple line of argument: Democracy requires organization in the form of parties to represent the masses because of vastness and complexity of society, which will not allow any other way of democratic participation. Political parties operate through structured organization with leadership, full time politicians and officials. Due to division of labour, hierarchy and control, decision-making and resource allocation becomes confined in the hands of a small group of leaders. This produces rule and control of small elites. Michels calls this Iron Law of Oligarchy, meaning any organization, political party, bureaucracy, trade union, etc., is bound to degenerate in elite rule. Michels declares ‘It is organization which gives birth to the dominion of the elected over the electors, of the mandatories over mandators, of delegates over delegates. Who says organization, says oligarchy.’ As such, representative democracy, mediated by organised political parties, be it even socialist variety, result in oligarchic rule. Michels wondered how democracy can be ensured when the very organisation that seeks to represent (political parties) is oligarchic.
We can make a distinction between the two set of elitist theorists. The early elite theorists argue that due to omnipresence of elites in every society, there is no possibility of any other form of government than rule of the elite either through circulation of elite or Iron Law of Oligarchy. They deny the possibility of democracy as rule of the people. Pareto, Mosca, Michels and Ostrogorski are champions of this position. There is a second group of elite theorists, who argue that despite elites being present as the leaders, competition between elites and elections at periodic intervals give sufficient chance to the people to express themselves and this choice of elites represents democracy.
Karl Mannheim (Ideology and Utopia 1929) upheld the possibility of democracy even when they agree the presence of elites as the fundamental reality in society. He maintained that though policy formulation was in the hands of the elite, the very fact that the elites can be removed in elections, make the people master. He thinks this very limitation is sufficient proof of democracy and accountability of elite. Elites are selected on the basis of merit and people exercise their choice to select from competing elites. Though Mannheim agrees that political power is always exercised by elites and that ‘actual shaping of policy is in the hands of elites’, he insists that ‘this does not mean that the society is not democratic.’36 In fact, Mannheim’s views reflect an attempt to reconcile theory of political elites and democracy.
Joseph Schumpeter (Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy 1942) gave a clear formulation of elitist theory with regard to democratic practice of selection of leaders/representatives. He makes two important departures from the traditional assumptions of democracy – one that the role of the people in a democratic society is not to govern or even to lay down the general decisions on most political issues; and second, that the form of government is to be distinguished by the methods of appointing and dismissing law makers. He assigns the electorate the role of producing government and not governing. For democracy is present if there is democratic method of selecting leaders. For him, democratic method is an ‘institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote’. Like Mannheim, Schumpeter does not deny the possibility of democracy though he adjusts democratic assumption to the theory of elitist democracy.
Democracy is only a mechanism for authorizing governments; it is neither a means to express will of the people nor to develop individual capacities, as J S Mill would have argued.
Schumpeter denies the possibility of representative democracy because he rejects the assumption of will of the people being expressed. He does not allow any moral content in democracy and treats it as merely a market mechanism where voters are not ‘developers or exerters’ as Macpherson says, but only consumers and the politicians entrepreneurs. Public opinion and will of the people are nothing but ‘manufactured will’. Its not that the people influence and shape the behaviour or policy of the leaders and decision-makers, rather the latter shape and manufacture people and voter’s will. His analogy is like market advertisement which shapes consumers purchasing decisions and behaviour. Schumpeter’s model is market model and hence is also called ‘the economic theory of democracy’.
While early elitist theory of democracy in the hands of Pareto, Mosca, Michels and Ostrogorski was elitist, in the hands of Mannheim and Schumpeter it acquired the characteristic of competitive elitist model, where elites compete for votes like entrepreneur do for their goods. Schumpeter’s model of competitive elitist democracy is reconciled to market assumptions. Anthony Downs also support theory of democracy as political market. Italian theorist, Giovanni Sartori upholds Schumpeter’s views and treats democracy as a mere procedure. He rejects any assumption of self-government or participatory democracy. For Sartori, democracy ‘is a political system in which the influence of the majority is assured by elective and competitive minorities to whom it is entrusted’.
However, a doubt remains. Is it a complete theory of democracy? If we look at the tradition of J. S. Mill and further espoused and upheld by Hobhouse, MacIver, Barker, Dewey, Lindsay and others who conceptualised democracy as a condition of individual self-development, it appears that democracy has shifted from moral content to market mechanism. Schumpeter and Downs were economist and hence they gave an economic model of democracy.
Leave a Reply