From ancient Greek city-states to modern nation-states, all societies are steered by the decisions of an elite few.
Here’s why “power to the people” is a myth:
Greek philosopher Plato believed the existing forms of government were flawed, critiquing them in his famous work the “Republic.” He claimed monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy all eventually devolve into their tyrannical forms. Democracy, though, is unique in that it leads to an “excessive freedom” which allows the most selfish person to attain power. Though democracy supposedly gives citizens a fair choice, it really just preys on the ignorance of the masses…
Plato’s critique is via analogy, where he compares the state to a “ship of fools”:
The owner is the strongest, but is slightly deaf and has a poor sense of navigation. The sailors argue endlessly over who should control the helm though none have studied the art of sailing. The sailors all convince the owner to hand over the ship to them, whereupon the one who is most convincing becomes the navigator. It won’t end well for the ship because the one who now leads doesn’t know anything about sailing — he just has a silver tongue.
The most persuasive man gets the power, so did the people really get a fair choice? Who is actually in control — “the people” who were duped, or the manipulator? And were there other forces who helped the manipulator persuade the masses?
Though Plato didn’t necessarily mean to, his analogy hints toward a concept called “elite theory”…
Elite theory seeks to explain power relations within a society. It posits:
- power in large societies is concentrated at the top in a relatively small group
- power flows top-down from elites to non-elites
- the actions of elites determine major political & social outcomes
Plato’s countrymen Polybius, writing in the 2nd century BC, described a forerunner to elite theory in his “anacyclosis”, which explains how governments — monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy — eventually devolve into authoritarian forms due to corruption.
But the idea that elite rule is inevitable in all forms of government was mainly promulgated by the late 18th/early 19th century Italian School of Elitism, composed of sociologists Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, and Robert Michels.
The Italian School saw elitism as intrinsic to human society because the psychological differences between elites and non-elites were so stark — the two groups were simply built differently.
Pareto in particular championed the idea of inequality between elites and non-elites.
His famous “Pareto Principle” argues that the vast majority of productive labor in any given field is accomplished by only ~20% of the population — the other 80% are mostly spectators.
And he believed regime changes were not the result of “the people” rising up, but rather one elite replacing another in the “circulation of elites”. Ordinary people were just followers like Plato’s sailors who were duped into supporting the most conniving man as captain.
Robert Michels promoted his theory, the “iron law of oligarchy,” which further emphasized how elite rule was universal in supposedly democratic systems. In his 1911 book “Political Parties” he asserted that the complexities of large organizations demanded oligarchy as the only viable means of control.
He observed that, since direct democracy is unworkable in complex organizations like governments, power always gets delegated to individuals whether they are elected or not.
Essentially, organization is impossible without a form of oligarchy.
He writes:
“It is organization which gives birth to the dominion of the elected over the electors, of the mandataries over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators. Who says organization says oligarchy.”
Any attempts at true democratic control of an organization will inevitably fail, since the oligarchy in place can reward loyalty, control information, and dictate procedures — mechanisms the oligarchy uses to direct the outcome of any “democratic” resolutions.
But oligarchies have not always been viewed as inherently corrupt or “bad.”
Some historians point out how often small groups of high-agency individuals are the innovative forces behind massive civilizational accomplishments.
Historian Arnold Toynbee posited that cultures progressed from primitive tribes to complex civilizations via the actions of an elite class of problem solvers who responded to society’s challenges. He called this group the “creative minority.”
This creative minority inspires the masses to follow their innovative lead through a process called “mimesis”, or imitation.
In this view, the majority are copy-cats — unable to solve problems on their own but useful as long as the creative minority is effective.
Toynbee gave the American founding fathers and the pioneers who settled the West as prime examples of creative minorities. Without a few key figures, it’s easy to see how the American experiment would’ve failed to get off the ground.
Elites don’t stay creative forever, though. Problems occur once the creative minority loses the ability to respond effectively to challenges and guide the masses. The creative minority deteriorates, becoming prideful of their status and worshipping their former selves.
Oswald Spengler also saw history as being driven by a few figures who guided the great accomplishments of civilizations. He writes in Decline of the West:
“It is always a definite minority that represents the world-historical tendency of a State, and it is a more or less self-contained minority that in virtue of its aptitudes actually holds the reins [of power].”
Specifically, ancient Rome owed its immense success to its upper class — Rome was great because its leading men were the best in the world.
The masses were simply ”raw material” for this elite-caste to mold for its own purposes.
Spengler writes:
“If ‘Rome’ is a perfectly unique and marvellous phenomenon in world-history, it is due, not to the Roman “people,” which in itself, like any other, was raw material without form, but to this class which brought Rome into condition and kept her so…”
Perhaps no episode in history embodied the rule of a benevolent elite-class as much as the Carolingian Renaissance — Charlemagne’s cultural revitalization of Europe.
By assembling the greatest religious and scholarly men across Europe, he created a court literati—an “intellectual” class who helped institute his top-down cultural reform.
The group was led by the scholar Alcuin, noted as “the most learned man anywhere to be found.”
From their assembly in Aachen, these elites were the spark that ignited an artistic, educational, religious, and even architectural reform across Charlemagne’s domain, laying the foundations for the medieval period.
So we can see that elite influence isn’t a negative per se, and can even be positive for some aspects of society.
In fact, Plato actually saw elite-rule as the ideal.
He laid out a visionary society that gave a single class control over all political decisions…
In the Republic, Plato describes the ideal state as one ruled by “guardians” — an elite-class who manage affairs on behalf of the people. They are a group of “philosopher-kings” whose sole duty lies in governing the state.
There’s a caveat though — Plato’s guardians don’t have absolute power because they are forbidden from owning property. They share resources and live communally, meaning greed and corruption cannot influence their decision-making.
His vision is utopian, but it’s telling that his critique of democratic means of government (and all other forms) led him to believe that the ultimate society would have a top caste of rulers. He, like Robert Michels, believed that any organized society must have some form of concentrated power.
So are elites inevitable?
Does civilization depend on them like Toynbee, Spengler, and others believed?
Or is there another way — can we have a truly egalitarian society?