Political Power Concentrated in Elite Groups of Modern States - Literature review Example

Political Power Concentrated in Elite Groups of Modern s: A Critical Discussion To qualify the matter at hand, political power and the term elite should be defined. Dr. Way, Almon Leroy Jr. (2012, Part 1C-2a) says, Political power is the ability to shape and control the political behaviour of others and to lead and guide behaviour in the direction desired by the person, group, or institution wielding the political power. Political power is the capacity to influence, condition, mold, and control human behaviour for the accomplishment of political objectives. That is to say, political power is the ability of one political actor – e.g. an individual citizen, a family, an interest group, a political action committee, a political party, or the government —to effect a desired change in the behaviour of other political actors, persuading or forcing the latter to act in a manner they would not act in the absence of the former’s impact on the situation.” BusinessDictionary.com (2012) briefly defines it as the “authority held by a group within a society that allows for the administration of public resources and (that) implement policies for society.” However from the viewpoint of Raphael, D.D. (1970, p.24), “political is whatever concerns the state”. This comment was affirmed by the writings of Barry, Norman P. (1981, p.46) when he said that “the history of political theory has been mainly concerned with the state”. McLennan, G. (1989) clarifies part of the major reasons why decisions arise from conflicting multiple interests that differ from one another. People have their respective interest. All want to be served. From a political standpoint, there will be a struggle to win favourable decisions that tend to satisfy the interest of different people. And not everyone will gain power as a result of decisions. McLennan calls this pluralism. In Marxism, which McLennan also wrote about, the ownership of resources controlled by the state makes it very possible to control an outcome in decision making that favors the proletariat (or working class), whereas in a capitalistic ideology where competition reigns, the working class become overruled by the elite who have their interests and the means to have their interests given priority over the greater majority. The capitalistic economy was described as capable of resolving this issue by a natural tendency to create groups that will struggle for the attainment of benefits from favourable decision. Such groups exert stronger influence than individuals, so that the individuals follow the strongest influence in the group. This then was identified as group struggles rather than the so called class struggle. Parry, Geraint (2005, p. 13) identified the elite as “small minorities who appear to play an exceptionally influential part in political and social affairs”. The elite are suspected as society’s decision makers. Furthermore, due to their wealth and influence, Parry adds that they have become not “subject to control by any other body” and some say, they are “the sole source of values in society…without which it may fall apart.” (p.13). He even mentions that the elites are democracy’s chief threat to its own survival. They occupy sensitive positions in society enough to be able to control the turn of events to serve their own interest at the expense of the greater majority. This makes democracy a mere hoax because it is supposed to be for the people’s interest, but the elite are able to maintain their hold on the vast amount of resources as well as the policy making bodies in government and private institutions. As it turns out, after over 2 centuries of teaching that democracy is for the people, the wide gap between the rich and the poor, or the haves and the have-nots, has proven that all those years, they were building up their own resources, their own quality of lives, and their own power. The study of Parry, Geraint (2005, p.14) involved looking into a couple of opposing hypotheses. First, power will inevitably be held by the elite. And second, power “is widely distributed between a variety of rival groups which include or represent the bulk of the population” He described the elite in UK as a limited number of people who can “fit into a top soccer stadium”(Parry, G. 2005, p.2). UK is known to be one of the modern countries in the world. Yet from the description of Parry, G. (2005) of their many influential roles in society, it would appear that power inevitably went to the elite by virtue of their resources and influence, while democracy became instrumental greatly to present to the consciousness of the greater population that it is the people who runs the government. In the United States, out of over 300 million population, only about 10,000 are elite, according to Dye. T.R. (2002). In smaller countries like France, the elite is estimated to be about 5,000 according to Dogan (2003). Australian elite number about the same 5,000 people according to Higley, Deacon, and Smart (1979). 5,000 members of the elite turned out to be the estimate for Germany as well, according to Hoffman-Lange (1992). Roughly 1,500 was the estimated number of elite population was reported in Norway by Gulbrandsen and Engelstad (2002). Based on these random data, the population of elite who have great control over most of the world’s resources, do not even reach 1/100 % or 0.0001 of total population while the vast majority or 99.9999 % have to tow the line each time their interest might get into conflict with the interest of 0.0001 part of the total population. Supposedly, political power in a democracy is decided during elections by the greater majority of a nation’s population. Participation makes that possible. Pateman (1970) pointed out that in a democracy, there should be active participation to select the representatives of the people who will make decisions for all. By participation, he meant the presence of people actively doing something with some people for the purpose of electing officials for example. It has to be about an event capable of shaping future decisions or directions for the people. During the 1970s, countries were still recovering from World War II. Economies were expanding and the elite needed the cooperation of the majority of people through the use of their manpower. Thus, democratic principles had to be practiced. Earlier than that time, Mills, Wright C. (1956) had written about the years when groups ruled America, and not the elite families. Powerful groups represented the elite then. That was in the early parts of the 20th century before World War I. A New Deal of the 1930s took place under President Roosevelt. During and after those years and right before World War II, the elite was observed to have surfaced and gained great influence in businesses, politics, and even the military. Mills, W.C. (1956, Part 2) thus described the power elite during his time by saying: “The power elite today involves the often uneasy coincidence of economic, military, and political power.” He further identified the power elite as those who command corporations, banks, government key roles. However, to Mills, W.C., the power elite hides nothing. This suggestion was refuted by Lukes, Steven (1974). Lukes, Steven (1974) recognizes three (3) dimensions of power which would consist of those which can be observed and those that are hidden, coercive or not coercive, whether utilized or not utilized to influence others. By utilized is meant that the power wielder did not make decisions on certain matters but indirectly influenced events to arrive at results as if decided. There are instances when the power wielder even makes it appear that certain consequences are not wanted. Yet the real interest is apparent. Lukes (2005, p.34) classified the three-dimensional view of power as radical. The first was a liberal definition of power. And the 2nd was from a reformists point of view. Although the 3rd was called radical, he believes it to be the more adequate way of understanding power. His criticism of many other authors pertaining to the subject matter of power made him popular as the proponent “of power - as force, persuasion, and manipulation”, according to Ozcelik, Ali Onur (2010) of the Center for Strategic Research and Analysis. Political power of the elite may include decisions that may never be disclosed as against the position of Mills, W.C. which says they have nothing to hide. Critical Analysis Based On Definitions Although there are democratic processes in the selection of decision makers for the modern society, and the hope is that the peoples’ choice will shape the destiny of a democratic nation to benefit the general public, such choices are limited to elective posts. Many of the key roles of government are not elected. Key positions in banks, large corporations, and influential government agencies consist of career personnel who were chosen by the power elite or recommended by them. In the decision making process, information and recommendations will come from such key personnel. It appears inevitable that there would have to be people who will define the appropriate values of our times. And because of the substantial influence of the power elite, there will always be a higher chance for their choices to be adopted even when there are opposing forces. However, the moral force can be swayed by the church as an institution regardless of who will be the members of the power elite. The wide coverage of churches can spread the news about immoral pending decisions which the public must oppose for the protection of both the present and the future generations. Are the church leaders also tempered by the great influence of the power elite? It is possible although not very common. Bribery can corrupt the weak. Thus, something in exchange for something can be justified whether or not right or wrong, by just using an explanation favouring common good or compensating benefits. Marxism and Socialism cannot claim to be any better than a Democracy because the people who will be entrusted with resources to provide for the survival and growth of citizens can face the same problems as those considered to be elite. Some of the chosen leaders can be corrupted by wealth coming from the wealthy, thereby re-enacting the same problem of corruption in government. For example, in a press release, the American Sociological Association (2012) reported how USSR leaders were influenced by western economists to mass privatize some resources supported by the “IMF, World Bank, and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development”. Although the intention was to promote improvements in the economy, the indicators showed USSR countries involved to be headed towards bankruptcy. Although not stated, the political system was also corrupted. Man is corruptible. Providing empirical evidence to test the hypothesis about the power elite being inevitable versus the impact of democratic processes does not appear to be necessary in the sense that the issue in need of confrontation is whether or not one of the two can actually do any better than the other. Moreover, over 70 years have passed since the time the power elite was given a chance to prove the way of the power elite to work. The present day results of all effort to improve civilization can be utilized as basis of evaluation about the system. What are the statistics? Nearly 1,000,000,000 people in our world are suffering from hunger. America has become heavily indebted. Both USA and UK have high unemployment rates. In the World Factbook, CIA reported (2012) that communist China ranks # 1 with $280,600,000,000 in terms of Net Trade Current Account Balance and Socialist Russia ranks # 5 with $90,510,000,000 whereas democratic USA ranks # 192 with ($ 599,900,000,000) and democratic UK ranks # 188 with ($66,600,000,000). The USA unemployment rate as of 2011 was 9%. For the unemployment rate of the American youth 15-24 years of age, it was 20.1% for the male gender and 14,9% for the females. People living below the poverty line in the USA were at 15.1%. In UK, the unempl;oyment rate in 2011 was 8.1%. Those below the poverty line made up 14% as of last survey in 2006. Both USA and UK are bastions of democracy. In China, the unemployment rate was only 6.5% in 2011. And although the population of China is 400% that of the USA, its people living in poverty was 13.4%. Russia’s unemployment rate was 6.6% while those living below the poverty level were 13.1%. In terms of foreign debts, USA topped the list of most indebted countries with $14.7 Trillion while UK ranked 2nd with $ 9,8 Trillion whereas Hongkong,China ranked only # 17 with less than $ 1 Trillion while Russia ranked # 23 with about $ ½ Trillion. These external debt figures are according to the global economic data gathered by Aridas, T., and Ventura, L. (2011). Which countries are “net lenders” to the rest of the world? Cuadra,L. (2011) listed Japan as the top Net International creditor with over $3 Trillion followed by Republic of China with $ 1.79 Trillion. Russia ranked # 13 with $ 15.684 billion. Both democratic countries, UK and USA, are net borrowers of the international community. And yet in the Forbes list of top 100 richest families in the world, as of March 2012, 36% were reported to be Americans, 12% Russians, 1% UK, and only 1% Chinese. The term political power elite does not refer to all the members of the elite. However, those wielding military, government, business or economic power, including the influential church hierarchies may be called the political power elite. By virtue of their authority, they are responsible and should be held accountable for the poor performance (based on results) realized by the state for the greater majority in a democracy. Groups can only be held responsible if they are given as much authority to make decisions. References American Sociological Association, 2012. Mass Privatization Put Former Communist Countries On Road to Bankruptcy, Corruption. EurekAlert.org. March 29, 2012. [Online] Available @ . Accessed June 29, 2012. Aridas, Tina and Ventura, Luca 2011. External Debt in Countries Around the World. Global Finance. [Online] Available @ . Accessed June 30, 2012. Barry, Norman P. An Introduction to Modern Political Theory. London: Macmillan Press. BusinessDictionary.com, 2012. Political Power. [Online] Available @ . Accessed June 29, 2012. CIA,2012. The World Factbook, June 19, 2012. [Online] Available @ . Accessed June 30, 2012. Cuadra, Leslie 2011. List of World’s Largest Creditor and Debtor Nations (as of August 31, 2011). Financial Sense. [Online] Available @ . Accessed June 30, 2012. Dye, T.R., 2002. Who’s Running America? The Bush Restoration. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Dogan, M., 2003. Is There A Ruling Class in France? Boston, USA: Brill. Gulbandsen, T.and Engelstad, F., 2002. Norkse Makteliter. Oslo: Gyldendal Higley, J.. Deacon. D., and Smart D., 1979. Elites in Australia. London: Routledge Kegan Paul Hoffman-Lange, U., 1992. Eliten, Macht Und Konflift In Der Bundersrepublik. Opladen: Leske & Budrich. Lukes, Steven 2005. Power: A Radical View, 2nd Edition. New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan McLennan, Gregor., 1989. Marxism, Pluralism and Beyond Classic Debates and New Departures. UK: Polity Press. Mills, Wright C., 1956. The Power Elite. Oxford University Press. Parry, Geraint 2005. Political Elites. UK: ECPR Press. Pateman, Carol 1970. Participation in Democratic Theory. Oxford University Press. Raphael, D.D., 1970. Problems of Political Philosophy. London: Macmillan Press. Way, Almon Leroy Jr., 2012. Political Science 201H – The American System of Government Politics & Government in the USA. Cyberland Univesity of North America.[Online] Available @ < http://www.proconservative.net/CUNAPolSci201HOutline.shtml> Accessed Jume 29, 2012. Read More