Political Science

What are the elements of the élite theory of democracy?

The proponents of the élite theory of democracy sought to establish how a liberal-democracy could exist in the absence of broadly-based citizen participation and citizen commitment to liberal-democratic values. Their solution was to emphasize the central role of élites--leaders within various societal organizations and institutions--in protecting and preserving liberal-democratic values and making democracy work. In the words of a leading American textbook, Democratic values have survived because elites, not masses, govern. Elites in America, leaders in government, industry, education, and civic affairs; the well-educated, prestigiously-employed, and politically active give greater support to basic democratic values and rules of the game than do the masses. And it is because masses in America respond to the ideas and actions of democratically minded elites that liberal values are preserved. In short, the common person, not the elite, is most likely to respond to anti-democratic ideology; and the elite, not the common person, is the chief guardian of democratic values (Dye and Ziegler, 1984, 15).

In the élite theory citizens are represented in government decision-making by the leaders of the organized groups which have formed to represent the various interests of which society is comprised. They see government decisions as the result of bargaining among these leaders or élites. Governmental élites act on the basis of the accommodations worked out in this process of bargaining. Élite theorists argue that no one élite is able to dominate in this process because power is fragmented and widely dispersed.

The proponents of élite theory see elections as being useful to the leaders of the various interests and institutions because they help settle conflicts among themóby deciding which group or groups among the élites will occupy positions of political power. Since élites must justify their actions, they are compelled to be responsive to popular concerns. Thus, democracy serves the interests of élites because the process of competitive elections provides a means to effect peaceful resolution of the conflicts among them. And it serves the interests of citizens because it affords them a veto over the decisions of government.

Why is there no socialism in America? (Please provide a couple of theories and I could work with that).

Socialism is a non-force in American politics, which is a bit surprising considering how influential it has been in many Western democracies (such as Britain, Scandinavia, Canada, and post-WWII Germany). In fact, at first glance, you might think that America would have one of the strongest socialist movements because it is the most overtly capitalist country. (Indeed, there was a time about 150 years ago when socialism was considered "inevitable" in America by many European scholars).

This is the question that Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Marks begin with in "It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States."

It turns out that about a zillion historians, political scientists, economists, and nameless grad students have written everything from short essays to ponderous treatises about the lackluster performance of the Socialist party in the US. For those of us who are intrigued by the question but don't want to read all of this, Lipset and Marks have done a fine job summarizing many of the main arguments that have been advanced and critiquing their effectiveness.

Whether you love or hate socialism, there is no doubt that it failed in America, and probably isn't coming back. In fact, it's worse than that-- socialism never even got off the ground in America, despite a couple of prime opportunities (just before WWI and during the Depression of the 1930s). There has never been an explicit Socialist representation in Congress, much less the Presidency (although there have been Socialist leaders at the city, county, and state levels). Why?

There is no one single reason. Lipset and Marks' thesis is that socialism failed due to the convergence of many factors, each of which alone would not have been enough to kill the movement. These factors include the two-party political structure of the United States, the largely immigrant population, and some strategic blunders of the Socialist movement leaders such as not forging strong connections to labor unions. These factors are woven together into a coherent and plausible story. One factor that is often cited as important-- political repression-- is shown to be of insignificant consequence.

The US voting system hindered socialism because of the winner-take-all electoral system. Votes for third-party candidates are often perceived as "wasted"; people who don't like either major party candidate prefer to vote against the one with whom they disagree most. However, this does not explain why the Socialist Party did not grow to become one of the two dominant parties, as would have happened if socialism had significant support. Although the explanation based on political structure is important, it can't be the whole story.

Most of the rest of the arguments come down to the fundamental fact that class consciousness is simply not very strong in the United States. Immigrants preferred to identify with their own ethnic, religious, or racial group rather than with other "working class" people. Labor unions never connected well with socialism because workers did not see themselves as a class but more as a group of people sharing similar working conditions. There was never a sense that capitalism was evil, just that employers should treat workers with more respect and give them better pay and benefits. Socialists in the US tended to be very dogmatic and ideological, which alienated those who preferred a more diplomatic approach (who were then accused of "capitulating" or "selling out" by the socialists).

In many ways, socialist influence is waning in other Western democracies where it used to be a powerful force. Is the world coming to resemble America in its worship of the free market and blindness to class as a political category?

They note that the US has one of the least equitable partitions of wealth among Westernized countries, as well as the greatest fraction of citizens living in poverty. They cite opinion polls showing that US is still exceptional in its rejection of such statements as, "The government should provide everyone with a guaranteed income" (only 12% of wealthy Americans and 33% of poor Americans agreed with this, compared to, for example, 53% of wealthy Italians and 80% of poor Italians). They assert that the presence of viable Green parties in many other Western democracies points to the continued legacy of social democratic politics.

So in the end, the conclusion is that the historical non-influence of socialism in America will continue to shape its present, while the heritage of strong socialism in other countries has also left its indelible mark. When the paths of the US and other countries forked at the decision to reject or accept socialism, there was no hope of completely coming back together again.