Click here to join telegram group
Elite theories focus on the structure and functioning of power in society. Rejecting the liberal-democratic idea of political equality, classical elite theorists argue that a small minority (the elite) always rules over the majority (the masses). Among the leading figures, Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, and Robert Michels developed influential frameworks. While they differed in emphasis, they shared the conviction that political and social power tends to concentrate in the hands of elites.
Mosca’s Elite Theory
- Central Idea: Division of society into a ruling class and a ruled class is universal and inevitable.
- Ruling Minority: The ruling class is organized, cohesive, and exercises control over political power.
- Political Formula: To justify its rule, the elite develops ideologies, myths, and legitimating principles (e.g., divine right of kings, nationalism, democracy).
- Circulation of Elites: While Mosca acknowledges mobility, he emphasizes the persistence of ruling minorities across history.
- Main Concern: How elites maintain their dominance through organization and legitimization.
Pareto’s Elite Theory
- Central Idea: Society is always ruled by a minority—the elite, which he divides into:
- Governing Elite – those directly holding power.
- Non-Governing Elite – those with influence in other spheres (economic, intellectual, religious).
- Residues and Derivations: Human behavior is driven by deep-seated instincts (“residues”), while ideologies (“derivations”) justify actions.
- Circulation of Elites: History is marked by a continuous process where one elite replaces another. He distinguishes between:
- Lions (rule through force and conservatism)
- Foxes (rule through cunning, diplomacy, and innovation).
- Main Concern: The inevitability of elite domination and the cyclical replacement of elites.
Michels’ Elite Theory
- Central Idea: Known for the Iron Law of Oligarchy – “Who says organization, says oligarchy.”
- Organizational Dynamics: Even democratic organizations (e.g., trade unions, political parties) tend to develop leadership cliques that concentrate power.
- Bureaucratization: Leaders gain control due to technical competence, access to information, and organizational machinery.
- Mass Psychology: Masses prefer leaders and are often apathetic, reinforcing elite dominance.
- Main Concern: The inevitability of oligarchy within democratic organizations, undermining true democracy.
Similarities among Mosca, Pareto, and Michels
- Minority Rule as Universal: All three reject the liberal-democratic view that power is evenly distributed. Instead, they argue that a small, organized minority always governs the majority.
- Inevitability of Elites: They consider elite dominance a natural and structural phenomenon, not a deviation.
- Skepticism toward Democracy: Each emphasizes the limits of democracy, portraying it as a façade where elites continue to dominate.
- Focus on Organization: Whether through Mosca’s emphasis on political formula, Pareto’s circulation of elites, or Michels’ iron law of oligarchy, all highlight organizational factors that consolidate elite power.
- Continuity of Elite Rule: Despite changes in regimes (monarchy, democracy, dictatorship), elite rule remains constant.
Differences among Mosca, Pareto, and Michels
| Aspect | Mosca | Pareto | Michels |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Political class and legitimacy (political formula) | Psychological residues and circulation of elites | Organizational dynamics and oligarchy |
| View of Elites | Organized minority dominating disorganized majority | Governing vs non-governing elites; lions vs foxes | Leadership cliques in organizations |
| Change in Elite | Gradual replacement through mobility | Cyclical replacement (circulation of elites) | Leaders consolidate; masses remain passive |
| Democracy | Tool to legitimize elite rule | Just another political formula; no real equality | Inevitably becomes oligarchy |
| Analytical Lens | Political and institutional | Psychological and historical | Sociological and organizational |
Crucial Issues in Their Theories
- Inevitability of Elite Domination:
- All three highlight that elites are an inescapable feature of social and political life.
- Nature of Democracy:
- Democracy, for them, is more appearance than reality. It does not eliminate elite domination but merely changes its form.
- Elite Circulation and Renewal:
- Pareto stresses cyclical circulation, Mosca emphasizes gradual mobility, while Michels points to entrenchment of leadership.
- Role of Ideology and Organization:
- For Mosca, ideology legitimizes rule; for Pareto, ideologies are rationalizations of deeper instincts; for Michels, organizational logic sustains oligarchy.
- Determinism vs Possibility of Change:
- Michels is the most deterministic (iron law), Pareto is cyclical, while Mosca leaves some scope for mobility.
Conclusion
The elite theories of Mosca, Pareto, and Michels converge on the pessimistic view that true democracy and equality are illusions, as power inevitably concentrates in the hands of elites. However, they diverge in their explanations—Mosca emphasizing political organization and legitimacy, Pareto focusing on psychological residues and circulation, and Michels highlighting the organizational dynamics of oligarchy.
Their crucial contribution lies in exposing the structural constraints of democracy, reminding us that vigilance, accountability, and mechanisms of checks and balances are necessary to prevent excessive elite domination. Even today, in debates on political dynasties, corporate power, and bureaucratic elites, their insights remain highly relevant.