When considering where power lies in a liberal democracy, it must be first understood what a liberal democracy is. A liberal democracy is essentially a representative democracy, in the sense that members of the public are required to communicate with the government via an elected representative. What makes it liberal however are aspects such as: free, fair and regular elections, competition between a number of different participating candidates, ensured civil liberties and individual human rights, a government that relies on a constitution that follows laws, a functioning civil society in which the media have free reign to report and groups are independent from the government, and a society which operates under a capitalist economy (Heywood, 2008, p.9). As the world has globalised at an exponential rate, the idea of elitism has been adopted as a general consensus; especially in the western and developed world. Elitism is the idea that power is primarily and inevitably concentrated within that the richest 1% of society, as a result, most decisions that are made are decided by this ‘power elite’ (Mills, 1956, p.18). In this essay, it will be argued how political power inherently lies with the elite as a result of colonialism, meaning that the elitist way of life has been engrained in to originally colonised states – using America as the running case study throughout the essay as in 1776 it was a British colony. This will be done by discussing the structure of America’s political, economic and social system. When discussing colonialism in this context, it will be in respect to the post-colonial theory which refers to the political and economic state of pre-colonised countries (Young, 2016, p.57). Finally, the overarching conclusion will be drawn that elitism has come about as a result of colonialism and the values being engrained in post-colonial states. However, the updated 21st century version of the elite are those who hold more economic power than has been previously seen, becoming the economic elite that we see today. Therefore, to answer the question at hand, power in America as a liberal democratic state lies with the economic elite due to the pure monopolising power which they have over political decisions, the most obvious example being that the US is in fact run by a successful business man.
With the knowledge about how the American higher educational system works in the sense that privately funded universities are funded by an individual, it can be said that a large amount of the cabinet members, including President Trump, have all attended high costing privately funded universities. This is evident with the fact that on average cabinet members, who predominantly attend private universities, will spend more than $21,000 more than the average US citizen who attends a private university (Forbes , 2018) (Bridgestock, 2018). The fact that America’s best ranked univeristy Harvard has an average cost of $69,600, compared to one of the bottom ranking universities Indiana State with an average cost of $32,938 ranked at 646 (Forbes , 2018), highlights the inequalities in the educational system. It can then be argued that it is this that has led to the elite being able to come to power much more easily than those with lower incomes, as they are able to afford the more expensive universities allowing them a higher quality of education. Leonard Reissman has stated that ‘the lower classes include those who by occupation, income, and education stand lowest in the hierarchy’ (Reissman, 1969, p.183). This therefore shows how on average individuals who recieve a better quality of education will usually be further up in the heriarchy and recieve the more prestigious jobs, such as in political fields. It just so happens that the individiuals who are able to afford this better quality of education are those who are part of the elite and have higher incomes. Similarities such as these can also be seen in the UK, the colonising state of America, especially with the popular example of the Bullingdon Club; in which three members of the 2015 cabinet (BBC News, 2016) were members of during their time at university. This group is ‘an elite dining society’ which is known for other things among its ’ostentatious displays of wealth’ (Mutch, 2017). Of course, this can also be seen with the rest of the cabinet who have all predominantly attended Russell group universities (The Telegraph, 2018) . However, these kinds of universities such as Oxford have been known to have students from families with higher incomes, with figures showing that ‘more than four in five students c[ame] from the most privileged groups in 2017’ (Sally Weale, 2017).
Relating back to the initial argument, the top qualifications required to attain such high political power roles will only be obtained from the best universities in America. These unfortunately come at a very high price which low income families cannot often afford. Therefore, this leads to the higher income, elite families monopolising these power roles, expelling the possibilities for economic equality to be achieved and the working class being able to attain the power roles. History has shown us that America was a British colony in the 17th and 18th century and since their declared independence in 1776, it has adopted the British values of elitism. Therefore, this demonstrates how lower income families are often excluded from being able to achieve any high standards of power due to not being able to afford the prices which the high ranking universities require. As a result, this leads to only the economic elite being placed in the political power roles as those are the ones which are able to afford the better qualities of education which are required to gained such roles. This however, is inherently supported as a way of life due to the ingrained values of elitism from America’s post-colonial status.
The fact that America is quite literally run by the economic elite demonstrates the close ties between the corporate world and the political one. In reality, America is headed by an individual who is a successful businessman that has not received any notable political qualifications in his life. Following on from this, the ‘house of representatives and US senate earn a base salary of $174,000 a year’ (Murse, 2018), yet a list of ‘The 13 richest politicians in office’ of which seven are senates or representatives are all multi-millionaires or billionaires (Forman, 2018). Since these individuals are being paid a base figure of $174,000 a year, it is put in to question about where these other millions are being accumulated from. An example to where it could have been obtained is Chuck Hagel, the former Secretary of Defence and Senator of Nebraska during the Obama administration (PSB, 2018). Hagel, prior his term in cabinet served on a handful of boards of directors including the oil corporation, Chevron. Although this is not Hagel’s only alternative form of income, as he also co-founded Vanguard Cellular Systems Inc. as his main form of income, it certainly is the most questionable. Not only was Chevron found to be ‘deliberately dump[ing] billions of gallons of toxic wastewater […], spilled millions of gallons of crude oil and abandoned hazardous waste in hundreds of unlined open-air pits littered throughout the region’ in 2002 which has caused ongoing ramifications for both Amazonian ‘ecosystems and local indigenous communities’ (Amazon Watch , 2018) (Chevron in Ecuador , 2002 – 2018), but since the uncovering of this scandal; it has also emerged that ‘Chevron Fabricated Evidence in U.S. Court to Evade $12b Liability to Indigenous Peoples of Ecuador’ (FDA, 2018). As the secretary of defence, this is a questionable decision to become a board member of a company which could potentially wreak havoc in the international security sector as suggested by Michael Klare when he stated in his book that ‘of all the resources discussed in this book, none is more likely to provoke conflict between states in the twenty-first century than oil.’ (Klare, 2001, p.77). Although it has not, as of yet, caused an outbreak of violence in the Amazon as of yet, it has certainly showed to have huge environmental ramifications which Chevron are having to deal with at the current date.
The dubious aspect of this is that when Hagel left Chevron, he was paid $301,199 in board compensations and between him and his wife, ‘hold between $100,001 and $250,000 of Chevron common stock and earn between $5,001 and $15,000 in dividends.’ (St., 2012), which could be said to be more than enough to sway the decisions which are made by the cabinet, as such trends are seen with all members. This supports an idea quoted in Sharon Beder’s book by Klaus Schwab that the ‘sovereign state has become obsolete’ and that ‘the preference of the chief executives of large corporations is for national governments to become subservient to corporate and financial interests’, especially with the existence of the World Economic Forum who Beder states to set the ‘political, economic and business agenda’ for the rest of the world.’ (Beder, A Corporate Class, 2006, p.1). A strong trend in this point is therefore that corporations have become the elite to which the political power falls to. This idea has once again been brought about by the post-colonial status of America that has engrained the idea that there must be an overarching supreme power to take control; in this case, the economic elite.
Another aspect of colonialism that is not often discussed is the suppression of women. It is common knowledge that there has never been a female president or vice president. Considering America was a colonised state in the 18th century, it is quite evident that the sexist colonial values of elistism are still more than engrained in society. The most recent figures show that out of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, women hold just 83 (19.1%); and out of the 100 seats in senate, women hold just 22 (22%) (Catalyst , 2018). These figures have been proven to be important, as ‘the presence of visible female role models makes young women more likely to express an intention to engage in political activity as adults’ (David E. Campbell, 2006). With this information it highlights how patriarchal elitist values will inevitably always be engrained in the American society as a result of the never ending revolving door of men in government as women feel they are not good enough achieve these kinds of strong power roles. The most key statistic to support this point is that women are much more likely than men to work below their potential level of competence due to their views that they have never been taken seriously in stereotypically male dominated roles (Schuller, 2017, p.1).Therefore, it can be said that the power in America as a liberal democratic state lays with the economic elite, this being the male dominated sector in society.
To conclude, poltical power in America, as a liberal democratic state, inherently lies with the elite. It has been argued throughout this essay that the elitest values that are engrained in the American society have come about as a result of the post-colonial status from the 18th century. The updated version of the elite however could be said to be those who hold the dominating economic power in society and therefore represent a new economic elite. The most prominent reason for why this is the case is due to America quite literally being run by a sucessful business man. This as a result, highlights the strong links between corporations and the government making it possible for lobbying tactics to be used, especially with the majority of senates or representatives being on the board of directors for large corporations, i.e. Chuck Hagel and Chevron. Furthermore, political power roles are often able to be monopolised by these economic elites due to the high tutuion fees which come with the higher ranking universities, meaning that lower-income families often do not have a chance at becoming significant power roles in politics. Finally, with conolialism there was also a mass supression of women as well as races. This has then resulted in a lack of female poltical role models for the younger generations, limiting the extent to which they will strive for these high power roles. All of these points as a result shows how political power in America lies with the elite.