Why would we want democracy when we can have elite rule?
In this essay, it will be discussed why a country would want democracy when it can live under elite rule. It will then be argued that even if people do want democracy, elite rule is inevitable and will always prevail. This thesis will be put forward by looking at classical elite theory and the works of sociologists and political scientists such as Robert Michels and Vilfredo Pareto. Democratic elitism will also be explored to display how elite rule is inevitable, particularly by looking at Max Weber’s work and applying this to modern examples, as it proves even in democratic situations, elitism will always be inevitable.
According to Hamilton (2017), elitism can be defined as ‘advocacy of or reliance on the leadership or dominance of a select group.’ It is the idea that there will be people at the top of the hierarchy who will create policy, and inflict their vision on people at the bottom of the structure who will tend to follow. Democracy is where citizens of a country have the opportunities to make decisions directly that affect them, this can be through things such as e-petitions online or referendums which allow citizens to vote on single issue policies.
Elitism first evolved as a political idea towards the end of the 19th century. The movement was spearheaded by Robert Michels, Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto. Their work according to D’Amato (2015) ‘formulated a sociological challenge to the widespread idea that classical liberalism ushered in a kind of classless, meritocratic society, countering with the claim that class stratification was alive and well, and that an elite ruling class…would always wield power.’ All three of these sociologists’ and political scientists’ work, back up the idea that elitism is inevitable regardless of whether or not the people in a nation want democracy and attempt to have it. They believe that regardless of the circumstances there will always be an elite few in charge at the top of the chain holding a certain degree of power over others.
This can firstly be seen by the work of Robert Michels, he created the ‘iron law of oligarchy.’ As adapted from Tolbert (2010) Michels explains in his book, political parties, that while he was a member of a ‘socially liberal political party… Michels described a number of conditions and processes that inevitably impelled even the most democratically-committed organizations to become divided into a set of elites.’ Michels realised that whilst people were increasing their political participation by joining these parties, it was only enhancing their oligarchic stance. Tolbert (2010) later goes onto say ‘As organizations grow, the ability of members to participate equally in organizational decisions becomes progressively more difficult.’ This then leads to certain people taking greater power of the organisation and having a bigger sway in the direction of the organisation or political party. Michels then goes on to explain that once these leaders have the power, they tend to do anything they can in order to stay within the elitist framework and have as much rule as they can. An example of this today can be adapted from Marshall (2012) where it is explained how there is a correlation between the beliefs in Michels theory that a small group of people will attempt to stay at the top and pursue their own agenda, and the US government. This can be seen as George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush were both President of the United States and are related. Jeb Bush, who is also related to both former Presidents, served as the Governor of Florida and Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, whilst her husband was another former President of the United States. This theory can then draw the conclusion that even in democratic countries such as the US where the cornerstones of the constitution are surrounded around the idea of preventing tyranny, there is still the same group of elites who try to constantly stay at the top in government proving Robert Michels idea of classic elite theory. From this it can then be concluded that even when democracy is wanted by a people, elitism is still inevitable because as explained by Michels, when people get to experience the elite rule and are at the top, they will try to stay there.
Classical elite theory can secondly be backed up by the work of Vilfredo Pareto. He was an economist who lived in the late 1800’s and set his work out in order to disprove of Marxist theory that a classless society is one that is feasible. He argues this by introducing the idea called the Pareto principle. Novikov, Burkov and Shchepkin (2015) claim that ‘the Pareto principle reflects existing distribution irregularities in different characteristics of economic and social phenomena.’ They then go on to explain that the original and first statement Pareto makes is that ‘20% of the population own 80% of the wealth.’ This goes to show that one of the key foundations in Pareto’s work was to disprove Marx’s theory, that there will always be those who are wealthier than others and this ultimately will lead to them being more elite and have a bigger sway in power as people tend to listen to money. This therefore can be argued to prove that elitism is always inevitable, even if democracy is wanted, because according to Pareto there will always be that 20% of people who hold the majority of the wealth and then due to this have that increase in power and influence over others. Of this top 20% elite, Pareto then described them as ‘foxes’ and ‘lions.’ According to Jones (2017) ‘Foxes tended to dominate through means of superior negotiating skills and persuasion rather than coercion or force. They were liberal, internationalist and more relativist. Recent examples include David Cameron’s Conservative party and Obama’s presidency.’ The Lions are described by Pareto as said by Jones (2017) as ‘populist, xenophobic and in favour of simplistic uncompromising action instead of compromise. Their economic policies revolved around protectionism and rigid national self-interest.’ An example of a ‘lion’ today can be seen through Donald Trump in his economic policies by increasing the America’s protectionism by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership in order to improve American self-reliance. Adapted from Jones (2017), Pareto, backed up by other theorists such as Machiavelli came to the conclusion that one type of elite tends to be followed by another in a cycle of elites. Pareto’s principle linked with the later development of the fox-lion theory proves that even in a democracy, the same type of elite leaders will always emerge and replace the one before them. Pareto is trying to put across that the simple working man has much less opportunity than the top 20% of wealthy people. This can be seen by the fact that there is a businessman with no political background as the current President of the United States.
Another reason as to why elite rule is inevitable even if democracy is wanted by a country which means the question asked in this essay has no meaning, can be seen through the theory of democratic elitism. This is the theory that the people in a country will vote in democratic, free and fair elections. They will then choose someone or a group of people to lead the nation and then these group of people have the autonomy to lead the country. This theory has been further analysed by Max Weber, a German sociologist who believes that democracy ensures we have the best of the elites in charge who go up against each other. He also then goes onto point out that the state is always going to be controlled by elites and that once leaders are elected they will disregard the interest of the electorate. An example of where this is implemented is the UK where the government has minimal checks and balances to pass legislation should they have a
large majority in the House of Commons. An example of this is the fact that Tony Blair managed to cut benefits to single parents on 11th December 1997 despite 47 backbench rebellions. Blair and his government were able to pass this unwanted legislation due to the size of his majority that he was democratically given by the people of the United Kingdom. Blair and the Labour government were able to pass controversial legislation that the electorate would not support. This is a prime example of democratic elitism as 7 months before this, he was elected as Prime Minister with an overwhelming majority of 179 with Labour having 418 MP’s elected compared to the Conservatives 165 as it is written by Morgan (2001). Due to democratic elitism and the fact that once a government is elected their manifesto isn’t legally binding, it therefore allows for them to take control of the direction they wish to take the country in. This then proves that even if democracy is wanted by a people and they do have it, elite rule is inevitable and uncontrollable showing that there is no true democracy in the first place, this therefore disregards the concept of the question.
Another reason as to why elite rule is inevitable even if a country wants true democracy, can be seen by reflecting upon Britain’s process of leaving the European Union. The process was described as one where the British people will have the ultimate and final say on Britain’s destiny and relationship with the European Union. A referendum, one of the key foundations of direct democracy was held and ultimately Britain decided to leave the EU. However, there are various ways in which this form of ‘true democracy’ has been transformed and twisted to become further elite rule. The first of these is the fact that directly after the vote, those elites who disagreed with the result were calling for another referendum, because, in their opinion it was the wrong decision. This includes the Liberal Democrats and the Green party which shows elitists completely undermining democracy in its arguably purest form to get the result that they want. This is clearly seen in the Green Party manifesto where Maciejowska (2017) published that the Green party want ‘a referendum on the detail of whatever deal is negotiated for Britain’s departure of the EU, with the option to reject the deal and remain in the EU.’ This clearly shows the stance of the Green party, which is that they wanted to overturn a democratic vote as they didn’t agree with it. The second of these is that after the vote was cast, all power was then handed back to the elite few in charge to negotiate a deal to leave the European Union, despite the fact it was meant to be the electorate deciding their relationship with the EU. There is now great debate as to whether it should be a ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ Brexit which will affect the way that Britain operates with the EU particularly when it comes to trading with the nations inside it. However, the British people don’t have a say on the matter and most of the power is handed to a small group of individuals, led by David Davis and his team. A man who was elected by a mere 31,000 people has the right to lead the team to negotiate the terms of Britain leaving the EU on behalf of 65.6 million people. A man who has been given the opportunity to do this, not from knowledge or expertise in the European Union, but solely due to the fact he is an MP. This, therefore, shows that despite the fact that the people of Britain were handed a democratic referendum to decide the future of the UK’s position on the EU, there are still constant elites that will have the final say in what they want whether it is being handed full control over the Brexit negotiations like David Davis and his team are or if it is pledging to hold another referendum. These examples prove that even if democracy is wanted by and given to people, elite rule is inevitable and completely disregards the question as even if democracy is wanted, it is completely unachievable.
Overall, it can be concluded that, even if people did want democracy, elitism is inevitable. This can be seen from classical elite theory which proves that even in countries which are known for their democracy, the elites at the top will still tend to do what they can to stay there. Secondly, it can be proven that elitism is inevitable as seen by democratic elitism where even when citizens are offered the purest form of democracy in a referendum, elites constantly try to interfere with the result and afterwards get to dictate what to do which is completely undemocratic.