Q. What would you identify as the similarities and differences in the elite theories of Mosca, Michels and Pareto? Discuss their main/crucial issues.

Model Answer:

Elite Theories: Mosca, Michels, and Pareto

Elite theories emerged as a critique of both Marxist and democratic theories, asserting that all societies are inevitably ruled by a minority. Pareto, Mosca, and Michels, the classical elite theorists, share fundamental premises while differing in their analysis of elite formation and maintenance.

Core Similarities

Inevitability of Elite Rule: All three contend that minority rule over the majority is a universal and permanent feature of social life, regardless of political systems.

Rejection of Marxism: They challenge the Marxist vision of a classless society, arguing that abolishing private property would merely create a new ruling class of bureaucrats and party officials.

Critique of Democracy: Democracy is viewed as a facade—a myth that legitimizes elite power while masses remain powerless despite claims of popular sovereignty.

Key Differences in Analysis

Pareto’s Psychological Approach: Pareto emphasized superior psychological attributes or “residues” of elites. He distinguished between “lions” (ruling by force) and “foxes” (ruling by cunning), describing history as a “graveyard of aristocracies” marked by the circulation of elites.

Mosca’s Organizational Theory: Mosca focused on the “political class” as an organized minority dominating the unorganized majority. Their rule is justified through a “political formula”—legitimizing beliefs like divine right or popular will.

Michels’ Structural Analysis: Through studying political parties, Michels formulated the “Iron Law of Oligarchy”—”who says organization, says oligarchy.” He demonstrated how bureaucratic necessity in complex organizations inevitably creates detached elites.

Crucial Issues/Criticisms

Their theories face several critical limitations:

• Excessive determinism: Their fatalistic view denies possibilities for genuine democratic participation and social transformation
• Neglect of mass agency: They underestimate the capacity of masses to organize, resist, and influence political outcomes
• Ahistorical approach: Failure to account for varying historical contexts and different forms of democratic arrangements
• Tautological reasoning: Defining elites by their power and then explaining power by elite status creates circular logic
• Conservative bias: Their theories potentially justify existing inequalities by presenting them as natural and inevitable

Conclusion:

Despite these limitations, elite theories remain valuable for understanding power concentration in modern democracies, organizational dynamics, and the gap between democratic ideals and political reality.