Elitism and participation

Résumé du document

The document analyzes the question of who actually governs and should govern a State, and by the means through which a political system should be governed. Jean-Jacques Rousseau has described in The Social Contract, the model of what he thought to be the ideal political system: in a small, relatively egalitarian community united by a shared civic religion. Rousseau thought it is possible to develop a political system based on the participation of each citizen in political decision making. This system would enable to "educate" citizens and make collective decisions more easily which acceptable by an individual since the government would be based upon the "general will". The criticisms of the classical theories are based on the empirical remark that democratic politics don't work as described in the classical theories. Consequently, the work by Schumpeter and Berelson, among others, will consider each requirement commonly assumed for the successful operation of democracy according to the classical theories and confront these requirements to the results of an empirical research. The following divisions by themes is inspired from Berelson's book, Voting (chapter 14):

Extraits

[...] Elitism and participation Introduction This essay is concerned by the crucial question of who actually governs and should govern a State, and by which means such a political system is carried out. Jean-Jacques Rousseau has described in The Social Contract, the model of what he thought to be the ideal political system: in a small, relatively egalitarian community united by a shared civic religion, Rousseau thought it possible to develop a political system based on the participation of each citizen in political decision making. [...]

[...] According to Schumpeter, this new definition presents many advantages: first of all, thanks to this definition, democratic governments can be distinguished more easily from other sorts of governments, unlike the classical theory of democracy (indeed, the will and the good of the people can as well be carried out by a undemocratic government). Then, this definition provides us with a recognition of the crucial act of leadership the ] acceptance of leadership is the true function of the electorate's vote"), unavoidable in a democracy and to which citizens have to obey, and which was not properly taken into account by the classical theory which attributed to the citizens a quite unrealistic degree of initiative which almost led to ignore leadership. [...]

[...] But how does the elite achieve its domination over the rest of the society? The classical elitist thesis insists first on their power, their organization, their knowledge, different qualities which often appear in the elitist literature and which James Meisel calls the "three Cs" (which stand for Consciousness, Coherence, and Conspiracy - i.e. common will to action) unlike the vast majority of citizens who is typically "atomized" and whose apathy goes with technical incompetence in political matters; these men, says Robert Michels, "have a psychological need for guidance" (which explains the authoritative trends of some of them), they don't want to be imposed responsibilities and desire to be governed; of course, such a behavior, including apathy and submissiveness, pave the way to the domination of an enlightened elite, whose role is then conceived as protectors and guarantors of the citizens' basic rights against authoritarian temptations. [...]

[...] However, this view was challenged by political thinkers including Schumpeter and Berelson, who, by means of an empirical analysis mainly, consider this eighteenth-century model little adapted to the realities of the XXth century, featured by the dominance of an elite over the rest of the society. The reasons of this will be studied in the first part of this essay. The second part will be concerned by the counter-attacks of the "neo-classics" who, as Peter Bachrach or Carole Pateman, are eager to reach a more participatory society, reviving by this way the ideals of the XVIIIth century. the criticisms of the classical theories pave the way to another theory of democracy. The criticisms around the classical theories. [...]

[...] Aware as they are that the classical model described by Rousseau, conceived for a society made up of small, peasant proprietors, can hardly suit to national politics, the "neo-classics" insist on the fact that participation has to be developed at the local and workplace level, where people are more likely to feel concerned by political issues. Bachrach particularly emphasizes on this necessity to widen the range of what is usually called the "political affairs" and to decentralize political authority: for instance, a great firm, such as General Motors, can be considered as a part of the political sector in so far as both a government and a firm "authoritatively allocate values for the society" but in the meantime, their accountability to the society is obscure. [...]