The Political Elite

Further Readings/Books• Putnam, Robert D. 1976 The Comparative Study of Political Elites. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

(Chapters 1-6)• • Pareto, Vilfredo. “The Governing Elite in Present-Day Democracy” in Eva Etzioni-Halévy (ed.) 1997.

Classes and Elites in Democracy and Democratization. New York: Garland, 47-52.• • Mills, Charles W. “The Power Elite” in Eva Etzioni-Halévy ed. 1997. Classes and Elites in Democracy

and Democratization. New York: Garland. (71-77).• • Lasswell, Harold D. Daniel Lerner & C. Easton Rothwell 1971. The Elite Concept” in Peter Bachrach

(ed.), Elites in a Democracy. New York: Atherton Press, 13-26.• • Tom Bottomore 1982. Elites and Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin• • Burton, Michael G. & John Higley 1987. “Invitation to Elite Theory: The Basic Contentions

Reconsidered” in G. William Domhoff & Thomas R. Dye (eds.), Power Elites and Organizations. Newbury Park: Sage (219-238).

• • Chilcote, Ronald H. Theories of Comparative Politics: the Search for a Paradigm Reconsidered

(2nd ed. Colorado: Westview Press (350-357)•

Discussion

• Caribbean government are generally not influenced by elites?

Political Elites

• the socially superior part of society• is a group of relatively small size, that is dominant within

a large society, having a privileged status perceived as being envied by the others of a lower line of order.

• If such an elite wields political power, it almost invariably puts itself in a position of leadership, whether it be expected or volunteered, and often subjects the holders of elite status to pressure to maintain that leadership position as part of status.

•

5

• POWER IS INEQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED IN POLITICAL SYSTEMS AND USUALLY IN INVERSE PROPORTION TO THE POPULATION

powerpopulation(see blow up)

6

Distributions of Population and Power: In inverse relationship

Elites

Middle

Masses

7

1. Social Class -- political elites disproportionately drawn from upper classes

• true for political, bureaucratic and business elite• relates to question of how open political system is

to the lower levels of society

2. Role of Education:• Elites are much more educated than general

population• You need education to enter elite but members of

elite have easier access to institutes of higher education.

Education

High Social Status

Elite Membership

8

3. "Law of Increasing Disproportion"• Access to elite is denied to women and ethnic

minorities e.g. Saudi Arabia, Morocco• In almost all political systems, the higher one

goes, the more white males (or black males) dominate

E.g. USA and Western Europe

4. "Agglutination of Elites"• people with one kind of resource more likely to

get access to other types.• people convert social and economic resources

into political resources• higher levels of education and social status lead to

higher levels of participation which gives higher levels of political power.

• particularly true for non-democratic systems

Austria 39%

Belgium 29

Czech Republic 21

Denmark 36

Dominican Republic 18

El Salvador 14

Estonia 33

Finland 36

France 42

Germany 31

Greece 29

Guatemala 23

Honduras 9

Hungary 38

Ireland 39

Italy 19

Latvia 22

Lithuania 39

Luxembourg 50

Netherlands 44

Nicaragua 18

Panama 27

Poland 13

Portugal 25

Slovakia 36

Slovenia 43

Spain 33

Sweden 58

United Kingdom 24

1. Independence model1. Socioeconomic status is negligible2. Every social category is proportionally

represented

2. Agglutination Model1. Socioeconomic caste monopolizes political

leadership2. The powerful are healthy, wealthy, prestigious,

and wise.

Elites and the Social Structure

3.Political leaders are drawn disproportionately from upper status occupations and privileged family backgrounds

1. Higher status occupations are vastly overrepresented and lower status occupations vastly underrepresented

2. The majority come from middle and upper middle class families. Less than a third come from working class families

Social Structure (continued)

4. The social background of administrative elites are at least as exclusive as those of political leaders

5. Economic and other sub-elites are usually drawn from even more privileged backgrounds than are political and administrative elites.

1. Education is particularly crucial for entrance especially in developing countries

Social Structure (continued)

Credentials- The criteria that successful aspirants meet

1. Sometimes specified in law1. President- 35 years of age and native-born2. Some societies legally reserved to member of specific

ethnic groups

2. Highly valued skills1. Technical expertise2. The ability to persuade and organize

1. Lawyers – twin skills of familiarity of the law and the ability to plead the cause of interested clients

Elite Recruitment (continued)

3. Affiliations1. Family ties2. Patron-client affiliations3. Factional ties

1. Italian Christian Democrats2. Indian Congress party3. Mexican PRI

Recruitment (continued)

15

Elite Recruitment and Elite Socialization

HOW DO PEOPLE GET TO BE MEMBERS OF THE ELITE?

1. Elite Recruitment Channels• all societies have key channels through which

people can enter elite• major channels include universities, military,

personal networks, youth organizations, political parties, religious institutions

• opening and closing of recruitment channels can affect "political generations"

16

WHO CONTROLS HOW THEY GET THERE?2. Political Selectorates • all channels are controlled by selectorates who decide

who will get in.• in socialist systems "Nomenklatura system" (list of names

or posts)• democratic systems: transition teams, elections, party

leaders, university professors

SO WHAT? 3. Important Impact on Socialization and Values of Elites• channels and selectorates affect type of people who enter

elite and their values • systems tend to exclude people with different views from

dominant norms• people will change their views to get into the elite• if no new blood, few new ideas, systems can stagnate• political generations can limit new recruits by filling up

spots.

Example

• Typical features of US President– White Male– Over 40 – Southern– Wealthy– Ivy League Education– Former Governor, State Representative

Example

• White Male• Wealthy• Affiliation with labour union or nobility

19

ELITE-MASS LINKAGES: How do elites and citizens interact?

HOW CAN CITIZENS AFFECT ELITE BEHAVIOR?• participation as major way to articulate interests to elite• Elections force elites to listen anticipating that they will

be punished if they don't • problem of politicians who are only ambitious but have

no values• different methods for sending messages in different

systems• public opinion polls, letters to editors, big character

posters, protest marches

20

HOW CAN ELITES AFFECT CITIZENS?• three types of incentives: moral, material, and coercive • a. Moral:

– Socialization, propaganda, manipulation of political symbols– Weber's charismatic authority– important for promoting legitimacy

• b. Coercive:– hard to maintain for a long time, very expensive in terms of

legitimacy– creates backlash from society, very destabilizing in long term– empowers coercive institutions of state--police, army– Can have mix of moral and coercive under socialism

• c. Material Incentives: – creates elitist system as politicians likely to get majority of benefits

Discussion

• Why are Elites Important?

Why are Elites Important?

• They have more power, more control over allocation of resources than ordinary citizens

• play a role in ruling• They keep system stable, • key decision makers on policy issues.

Elite Theory

• A theory of the state which seeks to describe and explain the power relationships in contemporary society

The Classic Elite Theory

• Based on two ideas:• Power lies in position of authority in key

economic and political institutions– Commercial Organizations– Political organizations/institutions: government,

political parties,

• The psychological difference that sets Elites apart is that they have personal resources, for instance intelligence and skills, and a vested interest in the government;

• While the rest are incompetent and do not have the capabilities of governing themselves, the elite are resourceful and will strive to make the government to work. For in reality, the elite have the most to lose in a failed government

1. Political power is distributed unequally2. People fall into two categories

1. Those who have significant political power2. Those who have none

3. The elite is internally homogenous, unified, and self-conscious

4. The elite is largely self-perpetuating and drawn from a very exclusive segment of society

5. The elite is essentially autonomous

Classical Elite Theory

Classical Elite Theorists• Vilfredo Pareto• Pareto emphasized the psychological and intellectual

superiority that the Elites obtained, • He believed that the elites were the highest

accomplishers in any field and he discussed how there were two types of Elites

• Governing elites• Non-governing elites• He also extended on the idea that a whole elite can be

replaced by a new one and how one can circulate from being elite to nonelite.

• Gaetano Mosca• Mosca emphasized the sociological and personal

characteristics of elites. He said elites are an organized minority and that the masses are an unorganized majority. The ruling class is composed of the ruling elite and the sub-elites. He divides the world into two groups:

• ruling class• class that is ruled• Mosca asserts that elites have intellectual, moral, and

material superiority that is highly esteemed and influential.

Robert Michels and the Iron Law of Oligarchy

• Robert Michels• Sociologist Michels developed the Iron Law of Oligarchy• He asserts, social and political organizations are run by few

individuals, and social organization and labor division are key. • He believed that all organizations were elitist and that elites

have three basic principles that help in the bureaucratic structure of political organization:

• Need for leaders, specialized staff and facilities• Utilization of facilities by leaders within their organization• The importance of the psychological attributes of the leaders

• Michels is best known for his study of the inner workings of the German Social Democratic party.

• His first thesis is that political parties always will end up with being led by an elite.

• His second thesis is that this elite will always develop interests that are contrary to those of their members.

• The main reason for this is the bureaucratic structure of large parties, that demands a division of labor. Thus giving birth to a professional party bureaucracy, that controls the means of communication in the party.

• At the same time, the members are characterized by low competence and low activity (given little time and few possibilities for education). Michels also believes in psychological factors in the process. The masses have a psychological need to worship their leaders, and the leaders allow themselves to be intoxicated by this worship.

• The reasons that the party elite develops contrary interests to those of the members are mainly three.

• They become a part of the broader elite. • They will become conservative, and wish to keep

the organization (that gives them wages and power) at any cost.

• They will become anxious to keep their position, and hence be aggressive against opposition

• in order to maintain its efficiency as it becomes larger—many decisions have to be made daily that cannot be made by large numbers of disorganized people. For the organization to function effectively, centralization has to occur and power will end up in the hands of a few. Those few—the oligarchy—will use all means necessary to preserve and further increase their power

• The "iron law of oligarchy" states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic[citation needed] they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations. The relative structural fluidity in a small-scale democracy succumbs to "social viscosity" in a large-scale organization. According to the "iron law," democracy and large-scale organization are incompatible

Example

• During the 1970s and early 1980s, the Green Party of Germany made a conscious effort to try and break the Iron Law. Anyone could be or could remove a party official. There were no permanent offices or officers. Even the smallest, most routine decisions could be put up for discussion and to a vote.

• When the party was small, these anti-oligarchic measures enjoyed some success.

• But as the organization grew larger and the party became more successful, the need to effectively compete in elections, raise funds, run large rallies and demonstrations and work with other political parties once elected, led the Greens to adapt more conventional structures and practices

Elite Theory

• Holds that nearly all political power is held by a relatively small and wealthy group of people sharing similar values and interests and mostly coming from relatively similar privileged backgrounds.

• Most of the top leaders in all or nearly all key sectors of society are seen as recruited from this same social group,

• Elite theorists emphasize the degree to which interlocking corporate and foundation directorates, old school ties and frequent social interaction tend to link together and facilitate coordination between the top leaders in business, government, civic organizations, educational and cultural establishments and the mass media.

• This "power elite" can effectively dictate the main goals for all really important government policy making (as well as dominate the activities of the major mass media and educational/cultural organizations in society) by virtue of their control over the economic resources of the major business and financial organizations in the country.

• Their power is seen as based most fundamentally on their personal economic resources and especially on their positions within the top management of the big corporations, and does not really depend upon their ability to garner mass support through efforts to "represent" the interests of broader social groups.

• Elitist theoreticians broadly share the notion that it is these few thousand "movers and shakers" who really run the country and determine the basic directions of public policy, certainly not the manipulated and powerless masses of ordinary voters choosing among candidates at election time

Elite Theorists• C. Wright Mills• He identified a triad of power groups - political,

economic and military - which form a distinguishable, although not unified, power-wielding body in the United States.

• Mills proposed that this group had been generated through a process of rationalization at work in all advanced industrial societies whereby the mechanisms of power became concentrated, funneling overall control into the hands of a limited, somewhat corrupt group

• This reflected a decline in politics as an arena for debate and relegation to a merely formal level of discourse.

• This macro-scale analysis sought to point out the degradation of democracy in "advanced" societies and the fact that power generally lies outside the boundaries of elected representatives.

The theory of the "Power Elite”• Mills argues that political order, the economy and the

military have become more centralized and have combined with one another to form a unified system of power that runs the country and also influences a great deal of the rest of the world.

• Mills argues that there are three levels of power in the US:

• the Power Elite occupies the highest level, which makes most of the important policy decisions,

• interest groups occupy the middle level, which have limited amount of influence,

• and the large mass of population is at the bottom, which has little or no influence at all.

• Since the Power Elite spans the top of both party organizations and are run by individuals with similar overall interests and outlooks, the voters have so little choices that they are not that important

• Mill's claimed that the military plays a central role in the Power Elite

• Robert D. Putnam• Putnam saw the development of technical and

exclusive knowledge among administrators and other specialist groups as a mechanism by which power is stripped from the democratic process and slipped sideways to the advisors and specialists influencing the decision making process

Democratic Elitism

• Developed by Max Weber and Joseph Schumpeter, • Democratic Elitism is the theory that in a large-

scale society, democratic participation is limited to the electing of political leaders.

• Weber believed that participatory democracy can only succeed when things that need to be done are very simple, and that specialized skills and knowledge are required for more complicated decisions.

Opposing Theories

• State Autonomy• Pluralism

THE STATE CENTERED APPROACH – State Autonomy

• State-Centered theorists consider the state as an institution, and its activities the primary and starting point of inquiry. To them, the proper explanatory direction is from the state and its bureaucratic organization to civil society, and not vice-versa.

• To state-centered theorists the state is at the same time embedded in the structural relations of capitalistic social formation, and an independent organization which has a monopoly on coercive power, and a life and form of its own.

• Max Weber. States, Weber argued, “are compulsory associations claiming control over territories and the people over them” [Skocpol 1985:7].

• In conceiving the state as such, Weber (and the neo-Weberians) can postulate that the state may pursue goals and plans that do not reflect the demands of powerful groups or classes.

State autonomy theory

• State autonomy theorists believe that the state is an entity that is somehow impervious to external social and economic influence, and has interests of its own.

• "New institutionalist" writings on the state, such as the works of Theda Skocpol, suggest that state actors are to an important degree autonomous. In other words, state personnel have interests of their own, which they can and do pursue independently (at times in conflict with) actors in society.

• Before she wrote Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, Skocpol astounded the political science community with her State Autonomy Theory. It was the idea that nations could have potential for autonomous operations and that this potential was ignored by scientists focused on society-centric studies

• It stresses that government is always an independent force.

• It says the government in the U.S is the most important power center

• Since the state controls the means of coercion, and given the dependence of many groups in civil society on the state for achieving any goals they may espouse, state personnel can to some extent impose their own preferences on civil society.

• Theda Skocpol. Skocpol’s theoretical work on the state and on state autonomy is a strong defense of the ‘structural’ organization of the state. Like Weber, she also argues that the state cannot be reduced to class relations and class struggle; that the state is an independent organization just like any other private organization with its own internal structure and its own interests.

• Skocpol criticizes classical Marxist theories (and neo-Marxist structuralists) for assuming that “states are inherently shaped by classes or class struggles and to preserve and expand modes of production” [1985:4], and for making it “virtually impossible even to raise the possibility that fundamental conflicts of interest might arise between the existing dominant class or set of groups on one hand, and the state rulers on the other” [1979:27].

Critique of State Autonomy

• G. William Domhoff claims that "The idea of the American state having any significant degree of autonomy from the owners and managers of banks, corporations and agribusinesses is a theoretical mistake based in empirical inaccuracies."

THE SOCIETY-CENTERED APPROACH/Pluralism

Society-centered theorists consider the social formation the primary and starting object of inquiry in understanding the State. The proper explanatory direction, they argue, is from civil society to the nature of the state and vice-versa.

• Voluntary associations, shifting coalitions, and interest groups are the essence of mainstream pluralism

Marx and Engels. In the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy (1859/1935), Marx observes that “forms of state are to be grasped neither from themselves...but rather have their roots in the material conditions of life...”, and that “the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy”.

In the Origin of the Family (1884/1972) Engels observes “the state is therefore by no means a power forced on society from without...rather it is a product of society at a certain stage of development …this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above it...it the state”. And in the Holy Family (1845), Marx and Engels state that “only political superstition today imagines that social life must be held together by the state, whereas in reality the state is held together by civil life” [cited in McLellan 1977:541, emphasis added].•

• For Marx and Engels (and for neo-Marxists), the state is an extension of civil society, a mechanism that reproduces the normative social order so that particular, not general, interests are protected and enhanced. Hence to Marx and Engels (and to neo-Marxists) the “state and its bureaucratic organization constitute ‘parasitic’ entities” [Held 1989:39].

• In a capitalist society, no matter what level of economic development and what form of state, the particular interests are those of owning capitalist class. The state assures the maintenance of the necessary “general conditions for the reproduction of the wage labor/capital relation which is the heart of bourgeois societies” [Munck 1984:206].

• Echoing Marx’s dictum, Zeitlin observes “the political form of the bourgeois state, either democratic or authoritarian, is the relatively contingent historical product of specific social struggles between classes and class segments...in determinate circumstances” [1981:141].

Notes

Notes• Those who support the idea that America remains a pluralistic

society in which the majority of the voting populace determine the direction of American society have at least one very convincing argument in their favor. If America truly were in the hands of an elite group of puppetmasters working behind the scenes to determine the official policies of America, then how to explain the fact that-unlike in other democracies to which the idea of a controlling elite can be effectively argued such as Mexico-the balance of power in America has constantly shifted back and forth between whichever political parties have been dominant at the time? If a ruling elite were so powerful that they could control the very fabric of American government, then surely the most recent election would not have resulted in a full-scale rebalancing of the power structure?

Notes

• Skocpol may put a little more emphasis on political institutions and the structured nature of the polity than past pluralists did, but in fact voluntary associations, shifting coalitions, and political parties are the essence of mainstream pluralism.

Notes• There are a multitude of viewpoints on the role of elites and the masses

in political processes. This debate will never be solved. However, there is no doubt that political elites do play an important role. As Converse and Pierce note, comparing the structure of elite and mass preferences is ‘absolutely central to the study of political representation, since this process obliges a representative to perceive and understand the policy sentiments of his constituents and somehow to take them into account, along with his own judgements of policy options’ (1986, p.226).

• Accordingly, the content of the electorate programs of leading political parties have been analysed in order to reveal value orientations: towards security, building a strong state integrated in the world, enhancing democratic values through striving towards personal freedom and equality, broadening relationships with Caucasian countries, etc.

Tutorial Questions

• Examine the characteristics of the consociational/consensus model of democracy?

• Explain the following argument: if democracy means that winning parties may make all the governmental decisions and that the losers may criticize but not govern, the two meanings are incompatible.

• To exclude the losing group from participation in decision making clearly violates the primary meaning of democracy

Tutorial Questions