ay in he Elitism in the modern age is defined as the “belief that society should be governed by a select group of gifted and highly educated individuals” (collinsdictionary.com, 2015) and in relation to the state of the UK, this seems to be an accurate representation of our political leaders. With over 50% of the current cabinet ministers coming from privately educated backgrounds, it is not surprising that the UK has been known for its elitist society. Using a process definition of the state which concentrates on government and specifically on the influence of political figures, this view of the British state is greatly applicable. However, a more accurate interpretation on British politics would be to include arena factors, such as its influence on ‘social, economic, cultural and domestic’ aspects of society, influencing not only public but private spheres.
Elitism comes in various forms, known as ‘democratic elitism’, ‘elite theory’ and straight elitism. Where democratic elitism seems like the dominant model for the British state, it is debatable to whether other factors such as pluralism allow for accurate analysis of the nation’s current position. An elitist society compromises of a concentration of power to a small group of highly influential and educated individuals who are ‘overwhelmingly white, male and middle-class, (who gain power) if not by birth then by education’ (Marsh, 2002). With power focused in government, these individuals are in positions similar to monopolies and have come to these arrangements from not only ‘what they know’, but also ‘who they know’. The sources of power of the elite traditionally come from wealth and aristocratic families who have descended from fields of power, only to succeed this practice. As for those who are not in the elite, little power is distributed among the working power or even pressure groups. Contradictory to a pluralist state where power is distributed, allowing for lobbying of politicians and the influence of transnational corporations and the media. Normally, the ‘masses’ (Mark Goodwin, 2015) are unable to ‘influence the middle layer’ and are rarely involved in political issues. In addition, elitist theory clearly preserves the idea that the working class are unequally stood for and it also claims that the masses are not competent enough to rule themselves and therefore it is necessary for them to have limited participation as they are ill-informed and selfish in their decision-making; thus the elite are more suitable to make these decisions for the masses.
Where an elitist state is run by a small group of those who are privately educated, this seems to be replicated in the British state because a large proportion of those in power went to such institutions, whereas only 7% of the general population did. Private education serves as a gateway into the elitist membership as it provides a higher chance of gaining education at Russell Group universities and even Oxbridge places because over 1 in 20 privately educated students in the UK achieve places in either Cambridge or Oxford whereas only 1 in 100 students from state schools go to such institutions (bbc.co.uk, 2014). This highlights a strong divide in opportunities that are available for state and privately educated individuals, consolidating the view that the UK is an elitist society, where only those who are wealthy enough are able to gain positions of power. Where money seems to be the driving force in elitist societies, people in highly influential positions outside of government seem to stem from the same background. With over 70% of financial directors and 75% of judges coming from independently schooled upbringings shows the high exclusivity that comes with the elitist society, especially in Britain where these individuals are linked with politicians, showing that they are able to use their peers’ positions for their advantage. Furthermore, the British state does reflect an elitist society because these individuals who are in positions of power in the legal system including barristers, who, 68% of which are privately educated, are able to pressure politicians because they share ‘group membership’ and ‘social homogeneity’ (Goodwin, 2015). Moreover, exclusive education continues into university where Oxbridge colleges are universally known to be the best in the world. This further narrows the elite group as members now form a more select group within these institutions. It is here where many people form contacts, especially through famous clubs such as the ‘Bullingdon Club’ where famous members such as the current British Prime Minister David Cameron had been part of, as well as numerous other political leaders such as Boris Johnson. This furthers the idea that the UK is definitely an exclusive society, where those who lead it have a highly concentrated power, a key element of elitist society, in particular from a pluralist perspective where this ‘social group is […] narrow and exclusive’. What’s more is that this demonstrates the lack of social mobility, where when asked, 75% of the British public believe that ‘who you know’ is more important than ‘what you know’.
Another key feature of the elite is their ethnicity as predominantly Caucasian males. In a multiculturalist society, it is expected that each ethnicity is demographically represented in positions of power, particularly in seats held in parliament. As the UK represents a ‘deeply elitist’ society (theguardian.co.uk, 2014), this multiculturalism is not replicated in parliament where diversity is not illustrative of the demographic. This is shown particularly through the omission of non-white MPs representing parliament for the Liberal Democratic Party from 1987 to 2010. However, this could reflect the ethnicities of the population of the area it represents, as the Liberal Democratic is more popular in more rural areas of the West Country, where the ethnic diversity is significantly lower than in megalopolises such as London or Birmingham. Nevertheless, this demonstrates that the UK is again an elitist society; further supported by the fact that only one member of the current cabinet formed by David Cameron is from an ethnic minority, being Sajid Javid, the Business and Innovation Minister originating from East Pakistan.
On the other hand, supporting the idea that the UK is actually becoming less elitist is the fact that an increasing number of women are reaching positions of power, not only in politics, but also through influential positions of business and the legal system. The percentage of elected MPs that are female has increased from <5% in 1983 to over 22% in the 2010 elections, decreasing the gender inequality and exclusivity that is associated with elite theory. Whereas ethnic diversity within the elite in the UK is clearly demonstrates the presence of an elitist society in the UK, the increase in female involvement in purely political issues shows that, if one considers the process definition of politics (as solely involving the government) then this is a key improvement into classifying the British state as no longer elitist.
It can also be argued that elitism does not represent the contemporary British state at all because the influence of pressure groups and society movements creates a more pluralist state, where the government ‘responds to the pressures of society’ (Goodwin, 2015). While it differs from elitism, pluralism highlights the importance of opposition and changing of policies, especially through lobbying of politicians. Whereas this is more important in the US where political party funding has a high correlation with the success of such parties in elections, the British state does also display levels of pluralist tactics such as media campaigns, the creation of organisations through similar interests. Organisations that involve medical research such as IVF treatment have had profound influences on UK policy-making through lobbying politicians in the 2000’s, where doctors had tried to change policies surrounding prenatal genetic diagnosis funding in 2009. This shows that the British state is not particularly elitist as the influence of pressure groups and transnational corporations to prevent the government from monopolising decision-making of policies that will affect the masses. Furthermore, large corporations such as Tesco that share an interest in economic policies such as corporation tax and land-use laws consolidate this view because these policies affect both their business and their image. One particular incident that involved Tesco was the case that the Department of Health had failed to release accurate figures of food contamination amidst fears that it would ‘damage the UK food industry’ (Lawrence, 2014), which was highlighted by Tesco’s Technical Director, Tim Smith. Thus, this expresses the idea that the UK is becoming more of a pluralist state because it demonstrates a distribution of power away from purely the government.
However, the UK can also be interpreted as not a pluralist state at all because democratic elitism (aka. Competitive Elitism) demonstrates that the elite must take into account the interests of the masses in order to stay in power, whilst still belonging to an exclusive group. As Joseph Schumpeter suggested, ‘democracy means only that the people who have the opportunity of accepting or refusing the men who are to rule them’, this consolidates the view that the British state is in fact elitist. Whereas the voting process which is used to elect these individuals into parliament is democratic, the first past the post system, this is still ultimately through an elitist lens because these individuals who are in positions of power have often in due course come from privileged backgrounds, whether it is from their wealth, family or ethnicity.
Furthermore, the British state represents an elitist society through its most famous family, the monarchy. In itself, a monarchy that still has great influence over the state and its society is the epitome of elitism as it is the most exclusive and most separate group from the masses. This demonstrates without doubt that elitism is an accurate analysis of not only the contemporary British state, but also historically, with the monarchy dating back to the 10th century AD. Despite the establishment of the Magna Carta in the 13th century to reduce the power of the Royal Family, the British Monarchy to this day still holds influence over some political processes such as ‘assenting to Bills passed by Parliament’ (royal.gov.uk, 2015) which means the current Queen still attains political authority, even though she has gained this power purely through family. This accumulation of power in the political and social spheres that the monarchy obtains reflects the concentration of power to the upper class that is so typical of an elitist society. This reveals the British state to be strongly elitist, especially as the main characteristics of the elite, in reference to the British Monarchy, are of the ethnic majority and does not reach outside their class.
To conclude, I strongly believe that elitism is an accurate analysis of the contemporary British state. This is for the most part due to the strong concentration of male, Caucasian figures in positions power. These individuals share similar interests and are from comparable backgrounds; thus they are socially cohesive. They have more often than not gained their positions of power through wealth or family which is typical of an elitist society and this power has also not been distributed to the masses, as they are deemed unsuitable to rule themselves. Furthermore, the concentration of these like individuals in positions of power creates a narrowing diversity at ‘the top’, thus demonstrating a key aspect of an elitist society. Moreover, the possibility of the UK as a pluralist society does not reflect the actual situation of the state. The presence of the Monarchy and the democratically elitist nature of the UK’s voting system represents the overwhelming power that the small group of higher class individuals have over the rest of the nation.
re…