The Explanations Given by Classical Elite Theorists for the Existence of Elites - Essay Example

Reflection Essay: Discuss the Explanations Given by Classical Elite Theorists for the Existence of Elites Name Institutional Affiliation Reflection Essay: Discuss the Explanations Given by Classical Elite Theorists for the Existence of Elites Elitism is a denotational concept of the belief that a certain group of people (elite) with a common but specific goal, amount of wealth, experience, or intrinsic quality, who exist in the society, have a greater power over the others, and control most of the activities. The particular group of people is manipulative and holds views that they want prioritised over those of the others, but views and actions are projected as entirely beneficial to the society. Overall, this high-handed class of people may be doctors, business people, high-ranking civil servants, or a gaggle of lawyers. They assume special responsibilities and privileges with a view to benefiting themselves or the entire society. The concept borders on social stratification, commonly known as social class. The existence of elites in the society has been a highly controversial matter with most researchers and theorists differing on their beliefs. The heated debate has elicited the advancement of various theoretical frameworks aimed at explaining such existence. Classical elite theory, in particular, has been a common instrument used by the theorists to expatiate the existence of elites. Classical theorists such as Gaetano Mosca believe that politics has been dominated by the elites since time immemorial. Among other similar theorists, these people believe that the fact that politics consists of the ruling class and the ruled is a sufficient testimony of the postulation that elites exist (Schwarzmantel, 1987). The aristocratic version of the classical elite theory notes that elites often have a vested interest in the government, thus, can acquire the requisite instruments and resources that will facilitate their eventual stardom. Vilfredo Pareto, another classical theorist, insists on the intellectual and psychological superiority of the elite group of people, adding that there are two groups of elites: governing, and non-governing elites. While the premises of these theorists differ, they all agree that elites exist in the society and give reasons for their beliefs. The following reflection discusses some of the explanations used by the classical theorists to underpin their belief of the existence of elites. According to Hay, Lister and Marsh (2006) Pareto emphasizes that history provides fertile grounds for observation of the existence of the elites in the society, and the existence of oligarchy could support the claim that each sector of the human sphere contains elites. Just like the other theorists, Pareto contends that the governing bodies are replete with different circles of elites with common aims and goals. The characteristics of the elites are likened to those of a fox who try to govern through gaining consent minus the use of force. They use their intelligence, innovativeness, and enterprising nature to gain control of their subjects. Another class of elites shares the characteristics of the Lion, namely strong, aggressive, stable, and are not afraid to use force wherever necessary (Hay et al., 2006). In this respect, Pareto hypothesizes that societal elites are of two classes, each class with the characteristics of either the lion or the fox. According to him, history has always circulated these two classes of elites. Thus, elites have existed throughout history, always renewing and replacing themselves in all organised societies. From Pareto’s explanation and the definition of elites, it is superficially easy to contend with his position. However, the definition and explanation are somewhat broad and offers no definite insight into the existence of the elites. That is, for instance, in the past, there have been claims and instances of a certain group of people in the society teaming up to influence the governance for their own benefit (Gonzalez, 2009). For instance, drug cartels and gangs have existed since the beginning of industrialisation, or before. The cartels have often influenced societal leadership through bribes and threats with a view to gaining protection from the government and facilitating their illegal business (Gonzalez, 2009). Besides, some of them have even attempted to run for elective offices with a view to controlling government affairs in a manner that favours their businesses and ideologies. According to Pareto, the drug cartels and gangs would fall in the ‘Lion’ category of elites who are not afraid to unleash damning amounts of force on their opponents to have their way. Ideally, Pareto’s explanation means that any group of organised people, since they will be either lions or foxes, with a common aim, can be termed as elites. While this may be true, it paints, for instance, civil societies and groups, in their quest for democratization, in a bad light. In the majority of the cases, civil societies consist of like-minded people with a special set of skills to facilitate the achievement of their goals through non-forceful means. Thus, Pareto would classify them as the foxes. It is worth recalling that elites often have a hidden selfish agenda. It then follows that civil societies, as an elite group, are insincere and use a worthy cause to advance their hidden agenda, which may not always be true. Thus, in as much as Pareto’s explanations have a certain degree of truth and validity, they are not definitive enough to help in distinguishing elite groups from non-elite groups in the society and politics. His assumptions are general and broad without any empirically backed substantiation. Pareto also argues that the need for democracy comes with a vested interest of a few members of the society who creates the existence of the elites. Schwarzmantel (1987) argues that Pareto proposes that the pursuit of direct democracy is a futile quest that is entirely impractical. From his standpoint, people do not have sufficient time for participation in the democratization process; and, it is impossible to properly arrange and organise a platform for large-scale participation of the masses. On that note, the success of democracy thrives on representation, which is characterised by a dominion of the representatives over those they represent. The gap creates an opportunity for the representatives to establish them as the elites and influence the process of democracy. It is noted that such moves are inherent and spontaneous, and are independent of anyone’s extreme lust for power. In the definition of elitism, the concept involves vested interest. Normally, for a group of people to fulfil their agenda, they must be at the helm of operations, and they will use all the means necessary to obtain power. Therefore, Pareto’s claim that such tendencies happen by default does not seem entirely accurate. He also exploits the psychology of the masses and posits that the existence of the elite is enabled an ever passive and incapable mass. There have been cases where the masses have risen and stood against bad leadership (Tan, 2008) which contradicts Pareto’s claims that elites thrive on the common and inherent characteristics of the masses to worship their leaders and obey without question the leadership decisions. Just like in the previous cases, Pareto’s premises are backed up mostly by claims that cannot be substantiated. However, they still contain some level of truth. Gaetano Mosca, just like Pareto, asserts that all societies allow the thriving of the elites as the society is permissive to dictatorship, where the majority remains submissive and passive, allowing the ruling minority to take advantage of them. He points to the existence of a ruling class, which produces prime office figures, but it is not necessarily economically repressive (Mills, 1956). His sentiments are closely related to those of Pareto. He also argues that every ruling class embarks on a self-legitimising mission where it crafts a framework replete with formulas that ensure they maintain the status quo by influencing the rest of the population and convincing them that the leadership is legitimate. Its persistence throughout history can be explained by a hypothesis that the circulation of the ruling happens through inheritance of power by members of the elite group over time. In this manner, Mosca implies that the ruling class, as a dominant societal economic group, also influences the intellectual ability of the rest of the society. According to Hay et al. (2006), Mosca’s concept is not systematic and has critical loopholes that negatively impacts on its reliability. In my view, Mosca did not consider the importance of idea in the understanding of power domination and control in the society. Michels seems to share the sentiments of both Pareto and Mosca. According to him, ideal democracy entails self-government of the majority in conjunction with the decision-making of the popular institutions (Bottomore, 1993). Even then, the system never guarantees the provision of an oligarchy-free operation. In that respect, Michelle implies that democracy is an impractical aspect, just like Pareto. He supports his position by adding that the nature of the administration of political parties invites bureaucracy followed by oligarchy. In this manner, organisation and oligarchy are inseparable entities (Bottomore, 1993). Contextually, organisations of any nature cannot exist without oligarchy and the elite. However, in his case, the persistence and existence of elites is enabled by a mass that does not hold its leadership responsible for its actions, instead, sit back and swear complete and unwavering allegiance to the leadership. This behaviour exposes the mass and ensures it is subjugated to the elite. Essentially, the existence of oligarchic leadership undermines pluralism and democracy, and sustains the political elite. In conclusion, all the three classical theorists contend that elites, at least the political ones, have always existed in the society. Their existence, over time, has been largely facilitated by the passiveness of the subjects who yearn for governance and are happy to be led, thus, is blinded to the reality. The very quest for democracy also invites elitism and sustains its survival. In essence, direct democracy is impractical and impossible to attain. In the majority of the cases, the representative few charged with overseeing the process of democratization become the elite. The trust they enjoy from the unsuspecting masses often serve to strengthen the oligarchy and create a strong political elite system of leadership. However, while these explanations hold a certain amount of water, they cease to be entirely valid given that most of them do not stem from empirical evidence. Even then, they are critical in helping debunk the myth surrounding the existence of political elites. References Bottomore, T. (1993). Elites and Society. London: Routledge. Gonzalez, G. A. (2009). Urban Sprawl, Global Warming, and the Empire of Capital. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hay, C., Lister, M., & Marsh, D. (2006). The State: Theories and Issues. New York, N.Y: Palgrave Macmillan. Mills, C. W. (1956). The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press. Schwarzmantel, J. (1987). Structures of Power. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice-Hall Tan, K.P. (2008). Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City: Ideological Shifts in Singapore. International Political Science Review, 29 (7-27). Read More