In a study on the city of Atlanta, capital of Georgia, and published in 1959, Hunter showed that the entire power was firmly and permanently in the hands of a few business people (SINGLE 2000: 238). A elitist would not lose time to do such a study, since he assumes that this is the rule. The elitist believes that the vast majority of citizens will not be able to govern themselves and in need of guides, and approves and supports the dual society. Here, for example, what Mises would say: "That men are not all equal, ie that some are born to lead and others to be driven, it is a fact that democratic institutions can not change" (1990: 97). "The central doctrine of the elite - Rush writes - is that in any political system is a minority of the population to take key decisions" (1994: 70). The elitists from this finding: every society in history are "dual", ie they are divided in that a minority government and a majority that is ruled. They conclude: "It is a good thing and can not be that way."
6.1. The theory
elitist elitist theory starts from the obvious fact that "in all societies [...] there are two classes of people: those of the rulers and the ruled" (Moscow, 1994: 50) and the belief that the company meets dual " to a real need of the social nature of man "(Moscow, 1994: 70). According to Moscow is inevitable that organized minority to assume the government of the masses because, "there can be a human organization with no hierarchy, and any hierarchy that necessarily requires some Comandini and others and obey because it is in human nature that many of them love the control and most fit to obey, an institution can be very useful, which gives to those who are above the way to justify their authority and at the same time helps mightily to persuade those who are down to endure it "(1994: 194) . And if they do not, "any organization and any social structure would be destroyed" (Moscow, 1994: 51). What
expressly say or not, the elite is convinced that there are two kinds of men: men with higher capacities (the strongest, the best, the elite, the rulers), and those with lower capacities (the weak, the people, the masses, the rulers). The first, and they alone, should govern and govern, legislate and must legislate, command and must be controlled. All others should be excluded from power, because they do not make the cut. As the eternal children they must be kept under supervision by someone who decides for them and establish what their good and their evil and how they should be happy.
is the logic that the Jews have built a political ideal and that his model was rather rejected by the Greeks in favor of a shared responsibility among all citizens. Well, history teaches that, in this respect, the Jews were the real winners. Their logic, in fact, prevailed in all countries and in all ages, thus confirming the idea that people are fundamentally incapable of taking political responsibility and must be driven from one end. This idea has been internalized by the masses, who already feel honored and gratified by the mere fact of being called into question in periodic elections. But the elitists know that the DR is only an illusion of democracy and that elections are not a sign of the power of the people: they are only a sort of battle without bloodshed carried out by the ruling elites competing for the conquest of power.
The idea of \u200b\u200ba popular self-government is regarded by the ego. pure fantasy, since the power has always been run by a few individuals or a few groups. "It's not the people who aspire to govern themselves. The figure of the self-governing people, on the contrary, a creation of the intellectuals: it serves to legitimize their desire to unite in their own hands, in a society governed by reason and science, the same hegemony in society dominated by the faith they shared among their clergy and feudal lords "(SETTEMBRINI 1994: 70). Also according to Cross, the masses do not are able to govern themselves and do not know how to be the protagonists of the story: power is held only by the ruling classes. The elections themselves are not a sign of the power of the people are just sort of a survey of public opinion by the leaders.
To the elitists, in all societies there are two classes of people, a few leaders and many governments and, consequently, all governments are nothing more than oligarchies. Obtuse is the inevitable consequence of the masses, who need to move taking for sure. Moses that he is more certain: "It is true that the masses do not think. But it is precisely for this reason that they follow those who do. The intellectual guide humanity belongs to the few who think for themselves "(1990: 556). Pareto is explicit: "Leaving aside the fiction of" popular representation "and taking care of the substance, taken a few brief exceptions, everywhere there is a ruling class is small in numbers, which remains in power, partly by force, in part with the consent of the governed class, much more numerous' (1920: 444). The strength of the government is linked to their organization: Organised hundred thousand people will prevail over disunity.
Unlike Marxism, the elitists deny that history is made of class struggles and say that there is no alternative to the ruling classes, that the class of the poor has never ruled that the people there as a political force, as there is no popular will, that there are only leaders and that history is the struggle of minorities for supremacy "(SOLA 2000: 12 ). Leaders are people who prey, backed by an elite of wealthy, manipulate the masses, use them for their own purposes, conditions and exploit them by giving them, barely, the minimum for subsistence. They impose their law making people believe that it is the law can best interests of all, sometimes allow the elite to the masses to choose from which you are governed, but not at the same right to call to account for their actions.
In fact, leaders place themselves above the law and government so "irresponsible", so that can not be sued in the event of bankruptcy or administration of the State of misconduct. This applies not only to governments or monarchies of old, is also true for modern democracies where, as argued by Schumpeter, from a short list of names imposed from above, the people elect a leader and he entrusted the government of the country. The elitists, then, "subscribe to the existence of a single power elite, monolithic, homogeneous by origin and social situation, tend to be irresponsible and come to expression, direct or indirect, of economic power "(SOLA 2000: 228).
6.2. Elitism and social Darwinism
elitist theory has a strong compatibility with the theory of natural selection developed by Darwin, which is suitable to be integrated. Both, in fact, argue that living things compete with each other and the strongest dominate (and sometimes eliminate) the weakest. A masterful synthesis of the two theories has been implemented by Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), which extends to the collective what Darwin proposed in the biological-individual, thus giving rise to the so-called social Darwinism, which collect a great success and become the dominant philosophy in the second half of the nineteenth century. This philosophy stems from the doctrine elitist, which is illustrated in the works of Mosca, Pareto and Michels, between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and spread on the following key points: 1
. All the men compete with each other.
2. From this emerged the strongest competition (elite), which are siphoning off the power.
3. In every time and everywhere the power is concentrated in the hands of a small minority and therefore any government is oligarchic.
4. The dominant minorities are organized or at least much better organized than the majority alternative.
5. The law is imposed by the ruling class, ostensibly in the name of a god or the people, in reality by force.
6. The law is generated by the powerful and serves their interests.
7. The law can not be equal for all, since there are A-class citizens (the members of the elites) and second-class citizens (the so-called people.) Therefore, all companies are dual.
8. The elites can be closed, as is the case in aristocratic and autocratic regimes, or open, as is the case of democracies, but they are always restricted.
6.3. The reasons for success
The elite can be considered one of the most successful political theories of all time, and his supporters are legion: Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto and Roberto Michels constitute only the tip of the iceberg. The position of the elitists is a large sweep to the present day and, in fact, even the most important thinkers of the democratic faith, as N. Bobbio (1991: 47-9), G. Sartori (1993: 295) and D. Settembrini (1994: 70), continue to believe that the people are incapable of governing themselves and that we can not go beyond representative democracy. The same is Salvador Giner, a leading English social scientists, according to which direct democracy is a system desirable but difficult to put into practice "(1998: 71). Now this general distrust is not only encourage and strengthen the positions elitist.
Most citizens do not mean policy and many do not even bother to exercise their right to vote? That's okay, repeat with Plato's elitist. It is good that the people do not take any initiative if it did it would be a disaster. Politics, Plato said, is the stuff of philosophers. For their part, the elitists say, "politics is the stuff of professionals." They change the words, but the substance is the same. In both cases, most of which we speak of democracy oligarchy, "the elitist theory argues that democracy can function and survive only in the form of a de facto oligarchy of professional politicians and bureaucrats, whereas popular participation must be only during election, in other words that political apathy is a sign of health "(Finley 1972: VII).
6.4. Issues
remain some questions. Is it really true that the rulers are the best? Is it really true that the people are incapable of governing themselves? The elitists do not seem interested in such issues and assume that the leader has already been shown to have crushed the competition and be the strongest. They do not pose the question whether the governor is truly the most deserving, or if all ordinary citizens are truly unable to assume political responsibilities. The elitist is not asked "Who should rule?", Taking for assume that drive the best, or inquires about a possible government of the people, since, according to him, in all types of government, always commands the strongest. In short, the elite tend to give a very narrow definition of democracy which, at best, be considered as a means of choosing those who make the decisions and to curb their excesses "(HELD 1997: 221).
6.5. Limits
The elitists are pragmatic and faithfully describe what you see, in the same way a camera captures the scene as it appears from a certain vantage point. What is lacking in their critical spirit, the desire to whether what they see could change if conditions change or the point of observation. The elitist is quick to justify the appearance without delay to wonder why the things he sees, without adequately argue his opinion, that is, without bothering to prove either that the dominant are the best, or that the masses are really unable .
0 comments:
Post a Comment