The study of politics is, for many sociologists, the study of power. Thus Dowse and Hughes (1972) contend that, Politics is about power, (and) politics occurs when there are differentials in power. Differentials in power can occur in numbers of different social relationships, for example between parents and children or teachers and pupils, thus any relationship that involves power differentials might be considered to be political. Beginning with the emergence of elite theory in the late nineteenth century this paper will describe and assess Weber’s views on socialism, democracy, and the role of political leadership.
Elite Theory
Within sociology a distinction is often made
between two kinds of power, these are authority and coercion. Coercion
is a form of power that does not have the consent of the people, such
as the Roman invasion of other countries, and is therefore power that
is obtained by force and not legitimate Authority is that form of power
that has the consent of the people, as when society accepts that
Parliament has the right to make certain laws. Authority is thus a
legitimated form of power. (Harlambos, Holborn and Heald , 2000). Elite
theory, as has been mentioned emerged in the late nineteenth century
when economic power was fragmented and spread among numerous small
businesses. Political power had become increasingly centralised and the
threat of international conflict led to a huge increase in the power
and size of the military. Tilley (1990) maintains that some thinkers
believe that the military process is a key element in the foundation of
modern democratic states and that war making was a critical factor in
gaining power. The need for an increase in military power led to the
centralisation of decision-making power which was in the hands of those
in key posts of Government institutions who were drawn largely from the
upper classes of society. Power in society was therefore in the hands
of a minority. Thus, for elitists society is divided into two groups
the majority who are ruled, and the minority who through the power of
the state, rule over them. The western state therefore, came to be
characterised by central power that coerced other powers through
agencies and force, and power that was legitimated through the consent
of society (King and Kendall, 2004).
Elite theory stems from the work of the Italian sociologists Vilfredo
Pareto (1848-1923) and Gaetano Mosca (1858-1911). Both of these
thinkers dismissed Marx’ and Engels’ ideas on revolution and the
emergence of a communist society and viewed the rule of an elite group
as inevitable. They argued that because of its inevitability there was
no reason to end such a rule (Haralambos et al, 2003). Pareto and Mosca
viewed Marx’s thinking as flawed because it did not give a sufficient
explanation of the continuing domination of one set of people in
society by another (Donleavy and O’Leary, 1987). Thus:
The history of all societies, past and future, is the history of its
ruling classes…there will always be a ruling class and therefore
exploitation. This is the anti-socialist, specifically anti-Marxist
bent of the elitist theory as it unfolds in the last decade of the
nineteenth century (Meisel, 1958:10).
Michels (1911) referred to the ‘iron law of oligarchy’, a ruling elite
was needed because the mass of people were incapable of thinking for
themselves and of taking complicated decisions (Donleavy and O’Leary,
1987). This was classical elitist thinking and failed to take into
account those instances e.g. the French Revolution, where the masses
had organised themselves and taken over from the elite (King and
Kendall, 2004). Pareto was also critical of modern democracies and
regarded them as another form of elitist domination. Mosca on the other
hand, particularly in his later work, changed his views on democracy
and believed that representative governing gave a greater number of
people a voice in the way in which society was run. Elitists hoped to
develop a systematic science of society and this view was also held by
Weber, where he parted company with them was in the view that the
methods of the physical sciences could give a full account of social
behaviour and action (Donleavy and O’Leary, 1987). While he did not
agree entirely with the classicists, a version of elite theory can be
found in the work of Max Weber.
Weber
Weber, like Pareto and Mosca, critiqued Marx and rejected
his claims that state relations derived primarily from the
relationships between classes. For Weber the nation state originated in
pre-capitalist conflicts between absolutist rulers.. Most of Weber’s
work from the 1890s through to the 1920s (Donleavy and O’Leary, 1987)
was the rational-legal type of authority that characterized modern
society Two major elements of what Weber called the rationalisation
process were capitalism and science. As society progressed and became
more rational then this became evident in social institutions. Economic
activity, the law and the administration progress became more formal
and rationalised, all of this is inherent in the structure of modern
capitalism (Bilton et al, 1996).
Weber did not believe that socialism was a viable option or that state
systems would be discarded with the end of capitalism. Because of the
different interest groups that existed in society he believed that
state institutions were necessary for maintaining order in complex
societies. The growth of a socialist conscience and the inauguration of
a socialist society would not bring an end to rationalization and the
increasing bureaucratization of modern society. Neither would it
overcome the need for such a society to be ordered. Rather he believed
that the socialist commitment to equality would be more likely to lead
to an increase and extension:
…of the universalistic, rational-legal criteriaassociated with state
growth and bureaucratization. The dictatorship of capital would simply
be exchanged for the dictatorship of the state bureaucracy (King and
Kendall, 2004:75).
Weber believed that socialism would bring with it more legislation and
less effective administration.The seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in
1917 may have seemed like a victory at the time but increasingly its
politics were marked by a growth in bureaucracy. With the collapse of a
number of these communist regimes since 1989, particularly that in the
Soviet Union, it might be said that Weber’s work in this area could be
said to be extremely prophetic. There was a growth in the hierarchy
within the administration and in the qualifications required for
employment. Private ownership was discarded in favour of national
ownership of public services, while all of this was to be found in
modern, capitalist and democratic societies, democracy was, in Weber’s
eyes the preferred regime. Weber believed that a strong private sector
was necessary to maintaining a balance in the amount of state authority
(King and Kendall, 2004).
More and more the material fate of the masses depends upon the steady
and correct functioning of the increasingly bureaucratic organisation
of private capitalism. The idea of eliminating these organisations
becomes more and more utopian ( Weber, 1978:988).
However, the increase in privatisation in Britain since 1979 might be
said to have had the opposite effect whereby the majority of ordinary
citizens have been subjected to increasing scrutiny and control of
their lives. Socialism was, for Weber, a utopian doctrine that he
regarded as illusory (Bilton et al, 1996).
Weber argued that within liberal democracies state bureaucracies were
subject to governing elites. The way in which these bureaucracies are
set up bear the image of past
conflicts between different governing elites. The way in which
governments work reflects the interests of the governing elite. This is
evident in the way in which UK politicians have repeatedly redrawn
constituency boundaries to benefit their own party. State bureaucracies
also operate under the influence of those who do not belong to the
governing elite. Those with power in other spheres, the media for
example, can bring pressure to bear on the governing elite, as happened
in America when a huge media campaign was launched in an attempt to
impeach President Clinton for his sexual behaviour (Dunleavy and
O’Leary, 1987). Weber believed that democracy would be adversely
affected by increasing rationalisation and bureaucratisation. Democracy
is not compatible with bureaucracy, as it develops government can
become increasingly influenced by the decisions resulting from
bureaucratisation and are no longer governing responsibly. There is
also a rise in economic interest groups who will manipulate power in
society by lobbying government to represent their concerns. The public
are consulted less and less when it comes to decision making which
results in a loss of democracy (Morrison, 1995).
Much of Weber’s work concentrated on different aspects of power and
authority, and these have been highly influential in political
thinking. Drawing on Plato’s understanding that force is the basis of
statesmanship and that power derives from the ability to exert one’s
will over others (Donleavy and O’Leary, 1987) Weber’s definition of
power was:
The chance of a man or a number of men to relaise their own will in a
communal action even against the resistance of others who are
participatin in the action (Weber, in Gerth and Mills, 1948:180).
Thus Weber’s work on power implies that it is gained by some people at
the expense of others. Those who hold power do so to further their own
interests (Haralambos et al, 2000)). Weber had an interest in
authority, he distinguished three different types of authority, that
were in fact, what he called ‘ideal types (King and Kendall, 2004)..
These were charismatic authority which depended on the personal
qualities of a particular leader e.g. Hitler, traditional authority,
authority which is inherited, for example a king, and rational-legal
authority is that type of leadership selected through a process that is
legally sanctioned, for example the democratic voting system. In modern
democratic systems authority is hierarchical, there is a long chain of
command where personal responsibility is limited to the confines of
one’s place in the hierarchy. The system is impersonal and its rules
are derived from the rational-legal model of legitimate authority
(Dunleavy and O’Leary, 1987). Government officials must be recruited on
their merit and the authority of political leaders rests on rational
grounds, officials are subject to the rules and their actions are
dictated through impersonal order. Authority does not therefore lie in
any one particular person (as it did in Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany)
but in a legal framework of rules (Morrison, 1995).
Weber believed that the bureaucratic organization was the most rational
way of exercising authority over people. The fact that every link in
the hierarchy was subject to a set of rules meant that there was less
chance of authority being used on the basis of individual will or
through the gain of power by physical force. Because some system of
domination was seen to be inevitable Weber argued that the bureaucratic
model should be preferred because of its rational basis. In a
bureaucracy officials are appointed because they have the qualities
necessary to do the job. Weber favoured presidential government, but
believed that election was detrimental to democratic societies because
it could result in what he termed a ‘ceasar’ concept where would be
officials are elected through the patronage of special interest groups
(as in the American system especially). This allowed for a monopoly of
power that worked against democracy and the bureaucratic legal
framework (Morrison, 1995).
Although Weber’s analysis of modern systems has had considerable
influence it is criticized at a number of levels by different thinkers.
He neglects, for example, the way in which officials within
bureaucracies can use their expertise and local knowledge to work
against central decision making. He also neglects the varying forms
that democracy can take, for example the election process and the
Ceasar complex has been less evident in the UK than in the United
States. Weber does however, provide a framework from which we can gain
considerable insights into the workings of modern politics and states
(Dunleavy and O’Leary, 1987)..
Conclusion
This assignment has taken a brief look at Weber’s
work on socialism, democracy, and political leadership within a
democratic state. While, as has been acknowledged, Weber’s work is
useful and insightful, it does have some drawbacks. His concerns on
socialism certainly appeared to be prophetic in terms of the fates of
some communist states, there are however, forms of socialism that have
been more effective, for example the Labour administration of the
1960s. His work on bureaucracy has been extremely useful in giving
insight into how historical catastrophes such as the Holocaust can
happen. His concept of ideal types, particularly in political
leadership, is also problematic because it neglects the considerable
differences that occur between countries such as the UK and France.
Nevertheless Weber’s work does provide insights that have influence the
development of modern political sociology. 2000 words
Bibliography
- Bilton et al, 1996. Introductory Sociology 3rd ed. London, Macmillan.
- Dunleavy and O’Leary, 1987. Theories of the State. London, Macmillan.
- Harlambos, Holborn and Heald , 2000. Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. London, Collins.
- King, R. and Kendall, G. 2004. The State, Democracy and Globalization. New York, Palgrave.
- Meisel, J.1958. The Myth of the Ruling Class: Gaetano Mosca and the Elite. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
- Michels, 1911 (1959) Political Parties. New York, Dover.
- Tilley, C. 1990. Coercion, Capital and European States, Cambridge, Blackwell.
- Weber, 1978. Economy and Society. Berkley, University of California Press
- Morrison, K.1995. Marx, Durkheim and Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought. London, Sage