Political Elites

POWER CANNOT BE evenly distributed in any but the smallest of political societies. This uneven distribution leads to the creation of elites, or relatively small groups of people who have a disproportionate level of influence and power over political outcomes. In modern society, these groups generally have more money and education than non-elites do. The groups are also relatively immobile; it is very difficult to become a part of the elite if not born into the group. There is a lasting divide between opinions of elites in society: Those who believe elite rule is good for society, because elites are better educated and better able to determine what is best politically; and those who believe political power should not be concentrated in a small group of people, but that the people as a whole will make the best decisions.

Following from this debate, a main concern of democracy is whether the political elites are actually elite; in other words, whether those with the most power have the knowledge, education, and capabilities necessary to lead society in a positive direction. This line of thought questions if democratically elected officials really represent the best interests of the people, or if they are instead selfish actors interested mainly in self-promotion. This concern is greatest in established democracies where the most highly-educated members of society do not generally run for office.

Historical views of political elites have been diverse. Plato explained in his Republic that ordinary residents were not fit to govern, and, thus, political (and philosophical) elites should have complete control over the governing of society. Aristotle's rebuttal in Politics calls for political debate to strengthen society, but that debate remains focused on only a small portion of the population, those who are by definition not concerned with the mundane necessities of life. Even some modern political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes believed that elite rule was the only reasonable way to keep peace in a society. These philosophers promoted elite rule for a variety of reasons, but all agreed that the general population is incapable of the level of interest or intelligence necessary to maintain peaceful and just societies.

The goal of populism was to defend common people against self-promoting elites. However, this idea was not new to political philosophers or to politicians. In his Discourse on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy, Nic-colo Machiavelli explained that the common citizenry needed to have the power to offset the elites in order to prevent corruption and maintain the functioning of the republic. Of the U.S. founding fathers, Thomas lefferson, especially, believed that elite rule could take away the people's inalienable rights, and saw the Federalist movement as a road toward a new elite rule in the United States that would parallel the one that remained in England. This continuing mistrust of political elites in the United States is most evident today in low voter turnout caused by voter apathy. The Libertarian Party also represents these anti-elite ideals.

Philosopher Robert Michels developed the “iron law of oligarchy” to explain why even the most democratic states revert to oligarchic rule. He explained that the [Page 517]tendency for all organizations to focus on efficiency, delegation, and bureaucratization lead every society to place power in the hands of a few.

...