The Elite Theory

Aristotle held that some persons are fit to rule while others are fit to be ruled over. Elite means “Chosen Few”. Elite consists of those people who come at the top because of their superior quality.

According to Pareto,

“Elite consists of those successful persons who rise to top in every occupation and stratum of society. There is an elite of lawyers, an elite of mechanics, an even an elite of thieves.”

According to Laswell,

“Elites are the power holders of a body politic. They are the holders of a high position in a given society.”

According to C. Wright Mills,

“Elites are those who hold the leading position in the strategic hierarchies.”

Consequently, all definitions agree on the following points:

1. Distinct qualities which make the elite.
2. Rule by microscopic minority.
3. Prestige, status, and pre-eminence of elites.
4. Compact and united group feeling.
5. Possession of power, authority, influence, and other sources.

The Elite Theory consists of the idea that there are two groups:

1. The selected few who govern the society because of their ability.
2. The vast masses who are governed because they are destined to be ruled.

The Elite Theory assures that men can be equal in the eyes of the God but they are not so in the eyes of the men; rather we can say each other.

Different Approaches of the Elite Theorists:

1. Pareto:

Pareto held the opinion that in every society there are people who possess in a marked degree the qualities of intelligence, character, skill, capacity, of whatever kind. He agrees that elite possess certain qualities on the basis of which they come at the top. He calls these qualities as “Residues”. By “Residues” he means those qualities owing to which one can come at the top.

Pareto has given six kinds of Residues:

1. Residues of Combination
2. Residues of Persistence of Aggregates
3. Residues of Manifestation of Sentiments through External Acts
4. Residues of Sociability
5. Residues of the Integrity of Personality
6. Residues of Sexuality

According to Pareto, there are two kinds of elites:

1. Governing Elites - This group consists of individuals who play a direct or indirect role in running the state. They are the ones who hold positions of authority and make decisions that affect the public.

1. Non-Governing Elites - This includes all other elites who are not directly involved in government, such as intellectuals, artists, or prominent business leaders. While they lack formal political power, they can still exert significant influence on society and government.

Circulation of Elites:

According to Pareto, revolutions occur when class circulation slows down, i.e., the time taken is more when one elite vacates and the other new elite grabs the position.

2. Gaetano Mosca:

He strongly refused the classification of the government given by Aristotle, which divided the Governments into Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, and Democracy. He favoured only Oligarchy. He also believed in the theory of “Circulation of Elites”. He was sceptical towards Democracy and opposed it.

According to Mosca, in any type of society, at any point of history, there are two class of people:

a. A Class that Rules – contains a number of people and possess all political power and privileges.

b. A Class that is Ruled – contains large number of people and is subjected to the rule of the ruler class. It provides essential instrumental for political organisation.

3. Robert Michell:

Robert Michell is associated with “Iron Law of Oligarchy”. He is best known for his book “Political Parties”. According to him, “Organisation” is simply another way of spelling “Oligarchy”. For him, powers are vested in the leadership of any organisation. It cannot be checked and made accountable for everything. This forms the central principle of elitism.

Contemporary Elite Theories:

1. Ortega Y. Gasset:

He evolved the theory of the masses. He says that people choose their leaders upon whom they pour out their vast store of vital enthusiasm. These leaders are men of outstanding ability and always lead the masses. He asserts that the masses revolt when the aristocracy become corrupt and inefficient. And the motive is not that they have objection to be ruled by aristocracy, but would like to be ruled by a more competent aristocracy.

2. C. Wright Mills:

C.W. Mills in his work, “The Power Elite”, propounds an elite theory to explain the nature of American Political System. He combines the elements of traditional elitist theory with the Marxist theory of ruling class.

According to Mills, the rule of power elite is a special characteristic of a developed society only such as the U.S. after World War – II.

Criticism of Elite:

1. Elite Cannot Control the Whole Sphere of Political Activity –

Pluralists argue that political power is fragmented and dispersed among numerous competing groups (interest groups, lobbies, associations) and institutions, rather than being concentrated in a single, unified elite. Different elite groups may specialize in different policy areas (e.g., economic elite, military elite, political elite) and may even clash or have differing interests. The concept of 'sub-elites' or 'counter-elites' also suggests that power is not a simple top-down flow and that the elite must often compete, negotiate, and compromise with these other groups, thus failing to control the entire political sphere.

2. Wealth and Political Position Cannot Be Proportionate –

Political authority is fundamentally distinct from economic power. While wealth is a critical resource for gaining political access (e.g., funding campaigns), it is not a direct substitute for legitimacy, organizational skill, or popular support. A person with immense wealth can be a disastrous political leader. Political leaders must respond to constraints like public opinion and electoral cycles, forcing them to often enact policies (like taxes or regulations) that are against the immediate interests of the wealthiest class, demonstrating a lack of perfect proportionality.

3. Elites are More Concerned About their Personal Interest than the Interests of the Whole Community –

Critics argue that because the elite are a small, relatively homogenous group with shared backgrounds and interests, they naturally tend to formulate public policy and make decisions that benefit their own class and status, such as tax policies favourable to the wealthy, regulations that protect large corporations, or foreign policies that serve their economic interests, rather than the 'collective good' or the interests of the masses. This self-serving behaviour leads to political alienation and distrust among the non-elite, who perceive the political system as rigged against them.

4. Ideas of the Elites Never Create Values –

The criticism suggests that the elite's 'ideas' or ideologies are often primarily focused on justifying and preserving their own power and the existing social order (i.e., they are an ideology of legitimation). These ideas, therefore, do not represent truly new, transformative, or universal values that guide societal progress or moral consensus. Instead, their "ideas" are seen as a form of manipulation or 'false consciousness' designed to secure the consent of the masses, rather than genuine moral or philosophical contributions that create shared community values. The values that genuinely move a society (e.g., justice, liberty, equality) often emerge from broader social struggles, not from the top-down pronouncements of a ruling minority.

5. Elites do not Rule with their Inherent Ability –

Modern empirical critiques often find that the elite's position is a result of institutional arrangements, organizational power, and access to resources rather than innate superiority. For example, Robert Michel’s’ “Iron Law of Oligarchy” posits that all large organizations, including political parties, inevitably develop a ruling elite not because these leaders are inherently superior, but because the organizational necessity (the need for bureaucracy, expertise, and continuous leadership) makes their rule indispensable and their entrenchment inevitable. The elite rule by virtue of their strategic organizational position and control over information and resources, not by a natural, inherent, or superior 'ability'.