Theories of Democracy: Part IV

The final theory which will be here considered is elitism. This theory claims that a “democratic” state is (or should be) controlled by a small number of powerful individuals who, by virtue of their wealth, business connections, and experience make all the important government decisions (Janda, et al, 46). These are the “elite”. The mass populace has access to certain aspects of government, such as elections and means of redress, but ultimately, the outcome lies with the elite. On the surface, it seems evident that elitism is not a democratic theory at all; it appears to be nothing more than an oligarchy of the super rich, who use their incredible wealth to advance their own financially based agendas under the facade of democracy.

But according to some theorists, this is not the case, or at best, it is an incomplete account. The elite control government, not solely because they can, but because they are best suited to do so. They are the gifted few who have both the knowledge of what decisions would best benefit the society as a whole, and the means to make those decisions reality. Defenders of elitism would claim that the vastness of modern economics, technology, foreign policy, and politics in general is such that the classical idea of a government truly by the mass of the people is simply not feasible. Democracy must therefore be redefined in light of “the stable, constitutional, and liberal nature of the system of elite pluralism” (Bachrach, 8). In such a system, policy decisions are made with an efficiency that can not be realized under any of the systems previously discussed. The elite, being few in number, can work together decisively to further the interests of the state. This is beneficial to both the elite, whose power is derived from the financial and otherwise health of the state, and the people, who live and work within its boundaries. Elitism need not mean the abuse of the people; indeed, elitism is to a great extent congenial to pluralism, as its interest groups present the concerns of the people to the government through the lobbying of the power-holders.

Despite this defense of elitism, the fact remains that it is in many ways not compatible with a sincere democratic theory. Though elitists may cite realism as a tenet of their theory, they overemphasize the unrealistic possibility that a handful of people can control a nation's finances and general governance while still keeping the best interest of the people at heart; power corrupts. Though it may provide a level of government efficiency, elitism keeps the people out of the political process. In this, the democrat believes that the elites are doing the people a great disservice. There is an overwhelming sentiment among democratic theorists that good democracy is not simply an end; it is a virtue by its very means. When it is absent, even under a stable, efficient elitism, the common man can not be expected to reach his intellectual and human potential (Dahl, 55). In the words of John Stuart Mill,

"The nation as a whole, and every individual composing it, are without any potential voice in their own destiny. They exercise no will in respect to their collective interests. All is decided for them ... What sort of human beings can be formed under such a regimen?" (Padover, 20)

Most telling of all is the fact that elitism is founded upon the premise of the inability of the people to effectually govern themselves, which strikes at the very heart of the entire theory of democracy (Kelso, 39).