Elitism as a theory of power (Political Power, Option A): the elitist account of power concentrated in a ruling minority, classical elitism (Mosca, Pareto, Michels) and the iron law of oligarchy, the power-elite thesis, democratic elitism, and the main criticisms of elite theory.

What this dot point is asking

You need to explain the elitist theory of power: the claim that power is concentrated in a ruling minority, classical elitism (Mosca, Pareto and Michels) and the iron law of oligarchy, the power-elite thesis, democratic elitism, and the criticisms of elite theory. The CCEA A2 2 Political Power option rewards a clear grasp of the variants and a balanced evaluation against pluralism and Marxism.

The elitist account of power

Elite theory is fundamentally opposed to pluralism: where pluralism sees power dispersed among competing groups, elitism sees it concentrated in a dominant minority.

Classical elitism

The classical elitists, writing around the turn of the twentieth century, argued elite rule is inevitable:

• Gaetano Mosca. Every society divides into a small ruling class that monopolises power and a large ruled class; organised minorities always dominate disorganised majorities.
• Vilfredo Pareto. History is a circulation of elites: elites rise and fall and are replaced by new elites (he distinguished cunning "foxes" from forceful "lions"), but elite rule itself never ends.
• Robert Michels. The iron law of oligarchy: even organisations committed to democracy (he studied socialist parties) inevitably come to be controlled by a small leadership, because large organisations require leadership and specialist expertise and the rank and file are passive.

The power-elite thesis

Modern elite theory shifts from inevitability to empirical analysis of who actually rules:

• C. Wright Mills argued that the USA was dominated by a power elite: a relatively unified group drawn from the commanding heights of three institutional hierarchies, the political, economic (corporate) and military, whose members share backgrounds and interests and take the major decisions, while ordinary citizens and even Congress are relatively powerless.

This thesis is influential because it identifies a concrete elite and its institutional base, rather than asserting elite rule as an abstract law.

Democratic elitism

Democratic elitism is important because it bridges elitism and pluralism: it accepts that elites rule (with elitism) but argues that competition and accountability among them preserve a meaningful, if limited, democracy (closer to pluralism).

The criticisms of elite theory

Elite theory faces several objections:

• Hard to prove. The existence of a single, unified ruling elite is difficult to demonstrate empirically; pluralists argue power is more fragmented than the theory allows.
• Underestimates competition and division. Elites are often divided and competing (business versus labour, rival parties, branches of government checking each other), which is closer to pluralism than to a unified power elite.
• Differs from Marxism. Marxists argue that elite power is not simply a matter of organisation but of the ownership of the means of production: the ruling elite is the capitalist class, and the state serves capital. Elitism locates power in organisation and position; Marxism locates it in economic class.

Examples in context

A model A2 paragraph might read: "Elite theory's strength is its refusal to take democratic forms at face value: by insisting that organised minorities dominate disorganised majorities, it draws attention to the concentration of power in political leaderships, corporate boardrooms and the senior state machine that pluralism can overlook. Its weakness is the difficulty of showing that these elites form a single, cohesive ruling group rather than a set of competing factions. Schumpeter's democratic elitism offers the most persuasive synthesis, conceding that elites rule while arguing that electoral competition between them gives the masses real, if limited, control. The judgement, therefore, is that elite theory correctly identifies the concentration of power but, unless qualified by the competition and accountability that democratic elitism stresses, overstates the unity and unaccountability of the few." This evaluates across the variants and reaches a verdict.

Try this

Q1. What is the iron law of oligarchy? [2 marks]

• Cue. Michels's claim that even democratic organisations inevitably come to be controlled by a small leadership, because organisation requires leadership.

Q2. Explain the power-elite thesis. [6 marks]

• Cue. Mills argued that a relatively unified elite drawn from the top of the political, economic and military hierarchies dominates major decisions while ordinary citizens are largely powerless.

Q3. To what extent is elite theory more convincing than pluralism? [24 marks]

• Cue. Weigh the concentration of power elite theory exposes against the competition, division and electoral accountability that pluralism and democratic elitism stress. Reach a substantiated judgement.