The concept of political elites was first brought into the realm of politics by H.D. Lasswell.
Since then much has been written on political elites and the cases argued in detail and with sophistication, but the common theme is that in any and every polity there is a distinct and identifiable group of persons which constitutes the political elites. This elite may change without revolution and one ruling group be replaced by another.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
For example, landowning elites have been superseded peacefully by commercial and industrial elites. Elite theorists acknowledge that there is supersession of elites, circulation of elites and internal competition, but maintain that an identifiable political elite or class is always to be found.
The main argument hinges upon the fact that in every society there exists a minority of population which takes the majority decisions of the society. According to Lasswell, “Elites are the power holders of a body-politic.”
Image Source: i0.wp
The theory of elites is not an innovation of the contemporary political scientists. Its origin goes back to the ancient Greeks. Plato’s concept of ‘Philosopher kings’ epitomised the essentials of the elite theory clothed in the virtuous qualities which the rulers were sought to possess.
Aristotle, Plato’s disciple, distinguished between the ‘normal’ and ‘perverted’ forms of government and aristocracy for him was the government of the talented and the best and the rulers directed their energies for the good of the people. Oligarchy was for Aristotle the perverted and, therefore, degenerated form of government, though we do not distinguish now between aristocracy and oligarchy.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Even the cabinet in a parliamentary system is really a group of elites who are collectively the magnet of policy and the Prime Minister, who heads it, is the tallest of all, the keystone of the cabinet arch.
All democracies have become mass democracies; they all have plebiscitary elements, that is, they also give room to personal leadership—the personality of the leader. People vote for policies or against them. But they essentially vote for or against a man who leads the party contesting to secure the mandate.
It is a contest between elites and the popularity of a given leader can be assessed only in an open contest provided both by the parliamentary and presidential systems. When the electorate votes for a party leader they also vote for the party he heads so that his party may govern. If elected, the leader selects his own team consisting of the real leaders who are the elites in the party politics and are deemed to be the best to rule.
The rule is, therefore, by the political elites. Maurice Duverger maintains that a government of the people and by the people, as a classical explanation of democracy, “must be replaced by another formula government by elite sprung from the people.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
But it does not mean that the theory of elites contradicts the liberal democratic State. In democratic politics decisions result from competition and often cooperation between groups or leadership of groups.
As we said earlier, the elite may change without revolution and one ruling group may be replaced by another. The elites of the ruling group, therefore, cannot act arbitrarily.
In a competitive polity the ruling group is limited both by the existing and the potential competition. Such competition is dependent upon continued freedom to publicize, to criticize, to associate with others of like mind and to survive after doing so because the day of reckoning (elections) is always in sight.