In the Defense of Elitism

Elitism has been viewed in two differing lights as either "inevitable and desirable" or "remediable and regrettable" (Heywood, 2007, 83). For advocates of modern democratic rule, the latter contention is particularly resonant. After all, democracy was founded on the idea that all are born equal with natural rights and thus should be free from the arbitrary rule of the few.

However, these same theorists (Hobbes and Locke) also prescribe that we surrender some of these rights to a sovereign to escape the state of nature. Whether by necessity or by convenience, these same scholars acknowledge that a smaller group should exercise power in a society, as expounded upon by scholars such as Michels and Mosca. This smaller group, as C. W. Mills puts it, form the power elite that shapes the trajectory of a nation's policies. While modern democrats advocate checks on this power elite through representative government and separation of powers as advocated by Locke, the fact remains that in modern democracies, as in the autocracies that democracy was pioneered to replace, power is still exercised by a small group.

There are few escapes from the "iron law of oligarchy" as Michels puts it. One would be direct democracy closer to what was envisioned by the Athenians who pioneered classical democracy wherein all citizens would participate in governing, commonly done through plebiscites and referendums in modern times. However, this means of governing has drawbacks in terms of practicability (What mechanism can be used to allow all citizens of a state to participatey?) and convenience (Would people participate in governing if this took time away from their labor or leisure?).

The other escape would be anarchy, or the absence of the state, which brings us back to the state of nature and whether existence in a society is possible without government or would life be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Interestingly, Marx believed that through the "withering away of the state" people would be able to live harmoniously in the absence of the state, albeit through the heavy hand of the state during the period of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Still, no socialist state has reached the communist mode of production leading many to rethink Marx's "withering away of the state."

For the most part, it would seem that the rule of the few has more or less been accepted in mainstream political discourse. If the formation of political elites is unavoidable, then what separates democracies from autocracies is not whether the few or the many rule, but the ability of the people to constrain the power of the ruler, often manifested in electoral rules mandated by a constitution. This would be what prevents the formation of Aristotle's "perverted" government (rule for the ruler) and foster "natural" government (rule for all).

Thus, elitism per se should probably not be antagonized as only unchecked elite rule is detrimental to society. In our case, elites for the most part have proven to be non-cohesive with a large number of them implementing unpredictable policies, exercising unchecked power, and possessing unclear motives...

Oh well...

Reference

Heywood, A. (2007). Politics (3^rd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan