Sometimes, it is pressure groups behaving illegitimately that end up having power. Examples include the Animal Liberation Front and paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland, both of whom use coercive direct action to demonstrate how they feel on their respective issues. Since the behaviour of such organisations disgusts the great majority of ordinary people, it can hardly be said to be in their interests.
Elite pluralist theories see most western societies as essentially democratic, nonetheless acknowledging that certain people in society will always have more power than others. Sectional interests are represented by that section’s elites. Elections – be they parliamentary or within a pressure group – ensure that the elites in society are held accountable to those they represent, ensuring democracy is kept intact.
Pluralism is the general model on which the UK and Ireland would like to say that they are part of. Both countries do have freedom of speech as seen in the newspapers and constitutions ensuring rights for all groups are met (although for the UK this is uncodified). In Ireland, only referendums can allow changes to their constitution, which makes the country exceptionally democratic. Judicial Review in both countries, although not as widely used in the UK, ensures that the government is not as elite as it would like. In the Northern Ireland executive, the d’hondt system of seat allocation – a type of consociationalism – ensures that all parties are embodied politically. Thus, pluralism is clearly a relevant explanation, in some measure, of how British democracy works.
On its own, however, it cannot explain all governmental behaviour. Elitism is clearly a relevant theory also. C Wright Mills (1956) refers to the “power elite,” which he defined in terms of institutions. According to him, 3 key establishments held power in American society – the military, the major corporations and the federal government. Together, they make up a power elite. As in Britain, the important members of these institutions tend to be male, white and middle class.
It seems to be unclear whether Wright Mills sympathised with the existence of elites, but political and sociological analysts such as Mosca and Pareto undoubtedly did. Pareto (cited by Finer, 1966) claimed that elites were inevitable in any society and fell into two categories: some people are the only ones with the ability to take direct and decisive control and as such they deserve power. These people are termed “the lions” by Pareto. The second type of elite, “the foxes,” cunningly takes power when it is not expected. Thus, there is a never-ending circulation of elites.
Mosca (1958) agreed about the inevitability of elites, but claimed it was primarily due to their ability to organise. He claimed the masses had no capacity for self-government and a societal requirement was therefore a government with strong leadership.
By definition, it may seem that the existence of an elite in a democracy is a contradiction in terms. However, Pareto and Mosca both point out that since elites are inevitable, there is no point in avoiding it, but it made sense to try to understand it. Evidence certainly seems to back up their claim of elite inevitability. As detailed above, people employed in the most important governmental positions tend to be white, middle class and male. This may be an unfair selection based on racial, sexual and economic discrimination, but on the other hand these people tend to be the most educated, and therefore the most capable of undertaking a task competently.
Even in the micro levels of society, elites invariably develop. In schools, we see popular people dominating year groups. In a group of friends, there is almost always a “ring leader.” These people have come forward as natural leaders, while others have not.
A good example of elitism is shown in Orwell’s classic political novel, “Animal Farm.” The book is based on events in communist Russia. Communism dictates that all members of society should be treated equally, but “Animal Farm” demonstrates how that cannot work. Even in the most ‘equal’ society, leaders emerge to show the masses the way. As Orwell metaphorically put it, “All animals are equal, but some are more equal that others.” While non-elite members of society may be perfectly intelligent, alert and charismatic, they are, in the majority of cases, not capable of effective leadership.
One problem that writers like Marx had with elitism was that they thought the rulers abused their position, as Lenin and Trotsky, on whom “Animal Farm” was based, did. Elitism is clearly present in Britain, as seen through Civil Service Mandarins, senior members of the judiciary, the Lords and the Government. This is usually acceptable among the British public but big businesses and the rich in society are often treated favourably because of their position. For example, several years ago, Formula One manager Bernie Eccelstone donated one million pounds to the Labour party, much to the disgust of the general public. Eccelstone was given concessions because of his donation and his position.
This may not be ‘positive’ elitism, but it nonetheless helps prove the relevance of elitism in contemporary Britain.
Elitism among society’s rich is criticised by Marxists, who believe that the proletariat ought to take control of the state. According to Marx, governmental power was situated with the capitalist class, who owned the so-called means of production. In having this power, the dominated the social order and used the state as a means of controlling the general masses.
Marx believed the only solution was for the working classes to revolt and overthrow the government. He thought that eventually class politics would cease to be and everyone would live in harmony.
This is itself is an extremely idealistic opinion. As Stankiewicz says, “…his sense of freedom is an illusion…” (Stankiewicz, 1980, p 245). When combined with the reality of everyday life, it is clear to see that Marxism as a functioning type of politics could never work. As discussed above, leaders always tend to emerge, no matter how committed one is to equality. It follows that many leaders, although perhaps not all, allow their power to influence them into wanting more. As such, they become insatiable for power and end up controlling the state institutionally in much the same way as the very people they originally opposed, the bourgeoisie, did. While Marxism is only a specific type of communism, the failure of communism in countries across the world, such as Russia, demonstrates its flaws.
That said, Marx and other writers supporting him have made points relevant to what we know as democracy. Marx and Engels (cited by Hague et al, 1992) discussed the idea of ‘false consciousness.’ Essentially this meant that the government appeared to be doing things for the benefit of the people, but were in fact doing it for their own good. There is some evidence that we have an elective dictatorship in Britain, allowing New Labour to do more or less as they please. The argument ties in with the notion of false consciousness in that the Blair government make policies claiming they are in the country’s interests, but they do not – in reality – have widespread support. A recent example is the debate over war with Iraq: the majority of the public are opposed to military action, but the British government plan to take it anyway if they feel it is necessary. It is possible that they genuinely see this as an action for the long term good of Western democracy, but many observers of British politics would not take this viewpoint.
Marxism also was critical of the media’s influence, and this is another case in which its cynicism is probably justified. Gramsci (1971) believed that the media assisted the ruling classes in keeping control of society. Whether or not this is an accurate assumption, it is clear that the media and the governmental elite are intrinsically linked in Britain, what with the BBC being a public body and Rupert Murdoch’s press monopoly.
Despite the relevance of the above points, it is fairly clear that Marxism is not of great use in explaining British democracy, as it concentrates too much on class. There is distinct class dealignment in Britain today, with many middle class voters supporting Labour, and even a few working class people supporting the Tories, after becoming disillusioned with Labour’s performance over the past five years. However, to say that class politics would ultimately die, as Marx and Engels supposed it would, is too strong a presumption and history, with particular reference to Russia, has proven them incorrect.
A final theory on explaining liberal democracy is that of the New Right. Kolkey (1983) acknowledges that, to a degree, this ideology may have been based on nostalgia regarding tradition, but pointed out that it still had a profound effect on 1960’s America. It arrived in Britain with Margaret Thatcher.
The New Right claims that a strong government is the only way of competently running a country, but that it needs to be given authority in order to do this. It is not, therefore, to be confused with certain types of Fascism, as some would believe, which involve coercively taking power. Weber’s idea of legal-rational authority is relevant here – the government may be tough but voting ensures it has the authority to be so, and if it’s not liked it can always be changed.
Fundamentally, the New Right believes in a free economy as the state would “take on too much” () by getting itself involved with business. This may well be the case, but it is not evident that the current British government are worried about it. Labour have links with Formula One, the BBC, and many major corporations. However, they do want to de-nationalise many public services, and in this respect, New Right theories are evident. Many analysts remark that Tony Blair displays Thatcherist tendencies in his manner of ruling – his desire to always be present in the decision-making process, and the decline of Cabinet committees under his rule are Thatcherist principles, and therefore, New Right.
The New Right is contemptuous of pressure groups. It feels they are “…primarily interested in their own concerns…” (Jones et al, 2001, p 227) and as they only represent a small section of society, the unrepresented remainder have no public voice. Yet most people in contemporary Britain feel that pressure groups assist in holding the government to account, although they are not always successful. Also, a pressure group exists for almost every cause there is. In support of the relevance of the New Right though, Labour are gradually shifting away from their links with the Trade Unions (a form of pressure group).
Having analysed these ideologies, it is clear that there are points in each of them that relate to present-day liberal democracies, and that it is impossible to definitively fit Britain into one category. However, some of these are more relevant than others. Marxism only serves to explain that some politicians are ‘out for themselves’ and that government and business have links, but the latter at least can be explained by elitism also. The New Right is merely relevant is clarifying New Labour’s shift to the right and fails to strictly describe Britain as it is today. For me, a combination of pluralism and elitism serves as a better explanation of modern Britain. Elites do exist, but they cannot be avoided given the character of human nature. Yet, democratic organisations must be present to avoid a dictatorship, and pluralism seeks to explain this. Ultimately, given its fusion of both of these concepts, it seems that elite pluralist theories are the best for describing current British liberal democracy.
