With the Ruling Elite theory however, what is needed for the system to work in that way, is coherence, conspiracy and consciousness. This is where the Ruling Elite theory claims that, in all states and all political systems there is a ruling elite and it is run through these three things. With the minority having a common interest to achieve, the capacity for a common action to achieve goals amongst the ruling elite at the expense of the majority and to be aware of their own common interests that they are achieving, then the three items are fulfilled.
In pluralist theories, then, it is vital that anybody has the right to run for office, and to be able to become an elected official if they win an election, as these are necessary conditions. This means that, in theory, anybody anywhere in the state can decide that they do not feel they, or their minority are being represented properly in the government and so run for office. Therefore, anyone can enter into the political system and be involved to any level. But in the ruling elite theory, in all states, the only way to enter the ruling elite is through the ruling elite. They control the addition of new “members” and use “top-down” control, so that not just anybody can enter into the political “game”. Control of entrance to the ruling elite is a central theme to how ruling elite differs from pluralism, and it is done in two ways. Firstly, there is closed elite recruitment, which is restricted to entrance by birth to those born into certain families, and secondly, open elite recruitment, which is meritocratic, but very controlled to those in the secondary elite.
It is argued that they do this by the state being structured in a pyramid fashion, with the ruling elite being a very, very small number of people at the very top. Below them, are the secondary elite, a crucial part of the ruling elite theory, and below them, the massive bulk of the pyramid, are the masses.
The secondary elite are where the ruling elite will take new members from, it is, so to speak a reservoir pool for them. They work with the ruling elite to create the illusion to the masses of a working democratic arrangement in which they have control of their own interests, they do this by reassuring the masses of that this façade is real and justifying every action of the ruling elite to appear it is for the good of everyone.
Unlike this pyramid of classes almost like the feudal system of the Middle Ages, pluralist states are structured so that anyone can rise to positions of political influence due to the plurality of political resources. In different “pluralist states” the government works with the people in different ways. It can either be done with the executive in complete control of the legislator or that the legislator is independent of the executive in the states or regions as in the U.S. This means that in the U.S the places of access to political power and decisions etc. is decentralized therefore can be accessed all over. This decentralization however, is not necessary to pluralism.
What is necessary is a plurality of political resources, such as the most basic resources of the vote, the right to start an organisation and free and accurate political information. These resources cannot be monopolised by any one group as this would be rule through tyranny by that group.
In a pluralist political system decisions cannot be made through substantive consensus, where everyone has to agree on each decision made. This is because of the social diversity and the great variety of interests and groups involved that it is impossible for there to be a total agreement on each decision. Instead they use procedural consensus. This is where instead of agreeing on each decision to be made, they agree on how each decision is made, so that it cannot be argued that it was unfair, because there is a consensus on the procedure for decision making.
For these pluralist states, there are two main features which control the decision making. Firstly no single group dominates decision making, it is done through many different small groups exercising power together so that the decisions are not made through tyranny or to be used to advantage only one small group. Also, in pluralist society, to exercise political power, requires political resources, and therefore, as the political resources cannot be monopolised by any one group, then no one group can control the political power and so it is dispersed as pluralism says it should be.
The ruling elite theorists argue that it survives through a rotation of the ruling elite and a power struggle between different ruling elites. They claim that the ruling elite can be represented as a fox and a lion, the manipulative cunning and the iron fist rule and it is under these two guises that the ruling elite continue. It is claimed that this is unavoidable and so that the ruling elite is universal and in every state a ruling elite exists and holds political power and so there will never be true democracy. The theorists in support of ruling elite say that although there is a rotation of the ruling elite, with the fox replacing the lion, and the lion replacing the fox, always appearing to be better for the masses with each new leadership, there is always still a ruling elite, but they just swap power with another ruling elite. It is therefore said, that the ruling elite always changes but endures. Pluralists will argue this and the universal claim to worldwide ruling elite by saying that how can it be possible for a ruling elite in a society with both social diversity and the 7 characteristics of a pluralist political democracy.
Where there are no pluralist characteristics, pluralists allow that it is possible for a ruling elite to occur, but they deny that it is universal as it must be impossible to any truly democratic system. Elite theorists will argue that democracy is make believe and in place only to fool people in societies where they like to think it is working, as only minor parts of the state are under democratic control, whilst the rest, the vital parts, are independent of democracy. While pluralists argue that the elected part of the state controls the rest, the ruling elite theory states that, the unelected parts such as, military, police, MI5, judges etc. which are not elected but appointed and enduring regardless of who wins the elections, are the vital parts. Also ruling elite theorists say that even in political parties, the enduring top members and officials, select the party leaders who will lead the country should they be elected, so only those whom the ruling elite deem fit to be leaders or who are already ruling elite themselves shall be selected.
This is demonstrated in “Michel’s Iron Law of Oligarchy”. Michel studied the German SPD party which claimed to be fantastic and support democracy and socialism, but yet she discovered that within this party a ruling elite existed. The top officials in the party controlled the party to only interest themselves, and did this without concern to the rest of the party or to the public. Their behaviour filled the definition of a ruling elite given earlier in my essay, that a ruling elite is “a minority which rules over the majority in the interest of the minority and that the minority is not concerned with or accountable to the minority. She believed, and so do supporters of the ruling elite account of political power, that there will always be a ruling elite at the top for two reasons, one technical and one psychological. Technically they will reign at the top because they are an enduring group and so are always one rung on the ladder ahead of new members, and as they are always there, then they control they vital parts of the party, such as the media. Psychologically they will continue as a ruling elite, because the ordinary party members do not like power, especially power over these enduring, respected party officials, and so need them to control the party.
The ruling elite account of political power claims that there is ideological indoctrination in society, which is what allows ruling elite to persevere. Here, the way in which people judge what is in their best interests and how well off they are, is controlled externally to themselves. This starts in school with people adjusting to winning and losing, and even if you don’t win, other peoples winning trickles down to you, to make your life better. The best way and most effective way of controlling how people judge their own interests and how well off they are is through the media, and so for this to be correct, then the media must be totally under control of the ruling elite, and with only 1 variant then this makes this ruling elite account impossible, and there is therefore, another characteristic filled for a pluralist political system. Also for this theory to work, then the media must shape effectively the publics opinion.
Pluralism will argue against this idea, saying that there is a variety of sources of political information etc. available to the population in pluralist societies such as the U.S and the U.K. They say that with this then, it cannot mould public opinion and so no bias will appear as there are so many varieties. They claim that the variety is also there because papers and so on adjust their content to the public or they just would not get any readers or viewers, so they adjust to the public as opposed to the public adjusting to them.
Pluralists will also argue that where there is a ruling elite there is a pluralism between them, and so even this stops the tyranny of the ruling elite being effective. They say that although there is a coherence within ruling elites, there is no coherence between ruling elites, as they have to win the elections to become “The” ruling elite. So that means that the ruling elites have to exercise political power fairly and for the people or they would be beaten in the next election.
Cox, Andrew. 1985. Power in Capitalist Societies: Theory, Explanations and Cases. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Burch, Martin. 1985. Three Political Systems: A Reader in Politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press
Dunleavy, Patrick and O’Leary, Brendan. 1987. Theories of the State: The Politics of Liberal Democracy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holden, Barry. 1993. Understanding Liberal Democracy. London: Prentice Hall
Schwarzmentel, J.J. 1987. Structures of Power: An Introduction to Politics. London: Atlantic Books
Young, Ralph. 1993. Introducing Government. Manchester: Manchester University Press
