Classical elitism

Although the origins of the ideas informing elite theory can be extrapo­lated from the political thought of Plato, Machiavelli and others, elitism as a theory of social power is most associated in its earliest form with the work of Robert Michels (1911 [1962]), Vilfredo Pareto (1935), and Gaetano Mosca (1896 [1939]).

Michels (1911 [1962]: 364) argued that the practical ideal of democracy consisted in the self-government of the masses in conformity with the decision-making of popular assemblies. However, while this system placed limits upon the extension of the principle of delegation, it fails, ‘to provide any guarantee against the formation of an oligarchic camarilla’. In short, for Michels, direct government by the masses was impossible. He also applied a similar argument to political parties. In his view, the technical and administrative functions of political parties make first bureaucracy and then oligarchy inevitable. Hence, for Michels (1911 [1962]: 364) ‘[w]ho says organization, says oligarchy’. This maxim clearly determined his conception of the nature of elites. His much quoted notion of the ‘iron law of oligarchy’ provides the key to Michels thoughts on the nature of elite structures, as it emphasizes the dominance of the leadership over the rank and file membership. Elite circulation is maintained by the inability of the masses to mobilize against the leadership view. This ensures their subjugation to the whim of the elite.

Pareto argued that historical experience provides testimony to the perpetual circulation of elites and oligarchy and that every field of human enterprise has its own elite. He borrowed two categories of elites from Machiavelli, ‘Foxes’ and ‘Lions’ (1935 [1961]: 99 and 110), in order to illustrate the nature of governing elite structures. The two categories stand at opposite ends of a continuum of government. ‘Foxes’ govern by attempting to gain consent and are not prepared to use force; they are intel­ligent and cunning, enterprising, artistic and innovative. However, in times of crisis their misplaced humanitarianism leads them towards compromise and pacifism. Hence, for Pareto, when final attempts to reach a political solution have failed the regime is fatally weakened. ‘Lions’are situated at the opposite end of the continuum. They are depicted as men of strength, stability and integrity. Cold and unimaginative, they are self-serving and are prepared to use force to achieve or maintain their position. ‘Lions’ are defenders of the status quo in both the state and civil society and they are likely to be committed to public order, religion and political orthodoxy. For Pareto, the qualities of ‘Fox’ and ‘Lion’ are generally mutually exclu­sive and history is a process of circulation between these two types of elites. This ongoing process of elite renewal, circulation and replacement help to illuminate his thesis that an elite rules in all organized societies. Pareto’s ideal system of governance would reflect a balance of forces, which exhibits characteristics of both ‘Fox’ and ‘Lion’.

Pareto’s identification of the concentration of power in the hands of a narrow political elite represented a rejection of both vulgar economistic Marxism and political liberalism. It rejected the Marxist conception of the state as a mere tool of the ruling class and the notion of class conflict.

In a similar vein, Mosca argued that elites were inevitable as all societies are characterized by the dictatorship of the majority by the minority. He identified the existence of a ruling, but not necessarily economically domi­nant, class from which key office holders were drawn. Within Mosca’s formulation each ruling class develops a political formula, which maintains and legitimates its rule to the rest of the population. Elite circulation will usually occur through inheritance but, from time to time, power will pass into the hands of another class due to the failure and collapse of the polit­ical formula. Mosca’s conceptualization of the political formula has much in common with the concept of hegemony, which was derived from the views of Marx and Engels in The German Ideology; that the ideas of the ruling class are in every historical stage the ruling ideas. Hence, the ruling class, which is the dominant economic group in society, is, at the same time, its ruling intellectual force. In other words, a Marxist would say that those people owning the means of production also control the process of government and can use this source of domination to impose their views on society. This results in a false consciousness among the proletariat, whereby they accept their subordinate position in capitalist society and do not ques­tion the existing social and political structure. Mosca failed to develop the concept of political formula in any systematic way unlike his Marxist contemporary, Antonio Gramsci. Nevertheless, the centrality of the ideo­logical dimension to an understanding of the dialectic of power domination and control is an important consideration which Mosca’s research clearly overlooked.