home · Networks · The concept of the political elite. Classical theory of political elites The main content of theories of political elites

The concept of the political elite. Classical theory of political elites The main content of theories of political elites

Currently, there are a large number of different concepts that justify the legitimacy of dividing society into a controlling minority and a controlled majority. Ideas about the inevitability of such a division of society were expressed in ancient times by Confucius, Plato, Machiavelli and others.

However, the first scientifically developed concepts of elites were proposed only at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries.

The basis for the development of the theory of elites was laid Machiavellian school - Every society is characterized by elitism. This school is called Machiavellian because it is N. Machiavelli, having isolated politics as an independent sphere of society, he began to consider it not as an area of ​​the proper and imaginary, but as a political reality, as a practice. The content of the theories of representatives of the Machiavellian school is summarized (G. Mosca, V. Pareto, R. Michels) can be represented as follows: in elitism is based on the fact of natural differences between people: physical, psychological, mental, moral; the elite is characterized by special political and organizational qualities; the masses recognize the elite's right to power; elites replace each other during the struggle for power, since no one voluntarily gives up power. At the same time, each of the listed scientists had his own view on the origin of the elite.

G. Mosca to designate the elite, he used the definition “political class” and believed that the most important criterion for the formation of a political class is the ability to manage other people, i.e. organizational ability. In his work “Fundamentals of Political Science,” he outlined two trends in the development of the political class: aristocratic(manifested in the desire of the political class to become hereditary, if not legally, then in fact) and democratic(expressed in the renewal of the political class at the expense of those most capable of governing and active lower strata). G. Mosca formulated three qualities that open access to the political class: military valor, wealth, priesthood (i.e. clergy). He attached less importance to scientific knowledge and the ability to apply it practically. The dominant criterion for selection into the political class was the ability to govern, which presupposes knowledge of the national character and mentality of the people, and management experience.

V. Pareto proceeded from the fact that the world must always be ruled by a chosen minority, which can be held in power partly by force, and partly by the consent of the greater part of the subject class. The differences essentially lie in the proportions of force and consent. The resource of consent is based on the ability of the ruling class to convince the masses that they are right. The likelihood of consent depends on the elite's ability to skillfully master methods of manipulating feelings and emotions. However, the ability to persuade is sometimes not enough to maintain power. Therefore, the elite must be able to use force in a timely manner.

V. Pareto explained that all social transformations are determined by the “circulation of elites,” i.e., the system of “exchange” of people between two groups - the elite and the rest of the population. The continuous circulation of elites contributes to the balance of the social system to the extent that it ensures the influx of the “best” and “worthy”. In addition, the circulation of elites entails the circulation of ideas. This only happens when the ruling class is open and understands the need for constant circulation. A completely closed elite turns into a caste, loses the ability to govern and resorts to violence to maintain power.

V. Pareto identified two main types of elites: “lions” and “foxes”. “Lions” are characterized by conservatism and brute force methods of management. A society dominated by the “lion” elite is usually stagnant. “Foxes” are masters of deception and political combinations. The “fox” elite is dynamic, it ensures transformations in society.

R. Michels highlighted organizational abilities and organizational structures of society, stimulating elitism and elevating the governing layer. The creation of large organizations invariably leads to their oligarchization and the formation of an elite due to the action of a whole chain of interrelated factors.

Thus, the Machiavellian school made a significant contribution to the development of political science. Subsequently, the concept of elitism found both new supporters and critics. Opponents of the idea of ​​elitism pointed out its incompatibility with the ideas of democracy and self-government, criticized it for ignoring the ability of the masses to influence the government, for excessive psychologism in the interpretation of the motives of political behavior and the grounds of political inequality in society. Followers of the concept of elitism deepened and developed the theories formulated by the classes and the main provisions in new social conditions.

The theory of elites has gone through a long path of evolution, during which problems about the relationship between the elite and democracy, elites and social justice were considered. Today, political science, along with the theories of representatives of the Machiavellian school, operates with other theories.

The theory of elite democracy (R. Dahl, S. Lipset) - the elite does not rule, but leads the masses with their voluntary consent through free elections. American political scientist J. Schumpter defined democracy as a political system in which the masses, choosing between competing elites, influence politics to a certain extent. Thus, democratic government itself receives an elite structure.

Value theories (V. Ropkö)- The elite is a layer of society endowed with high management abilities. The elite is the result, to a large extent, of natural selection of individuals with outstanding qualities and abilities. The formation of an elite does not contradict the principles of democracy. Social equality of people must be understood as equality of opportunity.

Concepts of elite pluralism (S. Keller, O. Stammer, D. Riesman) - the elite is plural. No single group within it is capable of exerting a decisive influence on all areas of life at the same time. In a democracy, power is distributed among various groups of elites who influence decision-making to defend their interests. Competition makes it possible for control by the masses.

Left-liberal concepts (R. Mills)- society is governed exclusively by one ruling elite. The possibilities of democratic institutions (elections, referendums) are insignificant.

Partocratic elite theory received real embodiment in the countries of totalitarian socialism. Its fundamental features:

  • - the global, messianic nature of the political elite and its historical calling to lead the process of humanity’s transition from capitalism to communism;
  • - the comprehensive nature of political leadership in all spheres of society: the economy, the distribution of material and spiritual benefits, the solution of personnel issues, etc.;
  • - origin from the lower social classes, and above all the proletariat, as a determining criterion for entry into the political elite;
  • - adherence to one ideology is a guarantee of successful leadership of society;
  • - rigid hierarchy of the elite and militarization of its internal relations.

Thus, according to the considered theories, the elite in political science is understood as: persons who have the highest indicators (performance) in their field of activity (V. Pareto); charismatic personalities (M. Weber); persons who have intellectual and moral superiority over the masses, regardless of their status; the most politically active and power-oriented people; organized minority of society (G. Mosca); people who occupy the highest places in society due to their biological and genetic origins; persons who have a high position in society and thereby influence social progress (Dupré); people who have received the greatest prestige and status in society (G. Lassuel); persons receiving material and intangible assets in the maximum amount.

Test questions and assignments

  • 1. Reveal the essence of the categories “elite” and “political elite”.
  • 2. Characterize the theories of the elites: Machiavellian school, G. Mosca, V. Pareto, R. Michels.
  • 3. List the main features of the political elite and reveal its structure.
  • 4. What is the essence of the functions of the political elite?
  • 5. Describe the political elite of modern Russia.

Political elite(modern definition) – a small, privileged group that has the qualities necessary for active political activity and has the ability to directly or indirectly influence the adoption and implementation of decisions related to the use of government power.

Walfredo Pareto (1848-1923)- Italian economist and sociologist. He argued that all societies are divided into those who govern and those who are governed. Managers must have special qualities (flexibility, courage, the ability to persuade others) in order to be able to subjugate others. They must also have a willingness to use violence. In his work “Treatise of General Sociology” he gave the concepts of “elite” and “counter-elite”. He understood the elite as “a community of people who possess the properties of intelligence, character, dexterity, and a wide variety of abilities to the highest degree.”
Elite, according to Pareto, it is divided into the ruling elite, directly or indirectly participating in management, and the non-ruling counter-elite.
Counter-elite- this is a group of people who have the psychological and qualification qualities characteristic of the elite, but in a given society do not have access to leadership functions due to their special status and various other barriers.
He also highlighted ideal, psychological types of elites as “lions” or “foxes” according to the methods of their political behavior and activities.
"Foxes"- These are elites who prefer cunning and resourcefulness. These types of elites are more suitable for ruling in stable democratic regimes of power.
"Lions"- elites who prefer tough leadership methods. They are more suitable for making decisions in extreme conditions. V. Pareto considered the problems "circle of elites" and showed that under certain circumstances, representatives of the elite and the counter-elite can change places. For example, if “foxes” cannot manage effectively in the current situation, then “lions” come to replace them, and vice versa.
Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941)- Italian sociologist and political scientist. In his work “Elements of Scientific Policy” he characterized the political the elite as a special, more or less closed “dominant political class”. He noted that political leadership is always effective in the hands of the minority, since only the elite is capable of performing significant functions in society. He singled out 3 ideal models for the development of the political elite:

· Perpetuation of the “political class”;

· Weak renewal of the “political class”;

· Radical renewal of the “political class” as a result of a revolution or political coup.

In his work “The Ruling Class,” he argued that all societies are divided into 2 classes: the ruling (elite) and the governed. The ruling class monopolizes power, using legal and illegal methods to maintain it. The dominance of elites exists in any society - this is a law that is confirmed by the entire history of mankind.

G. Mosca believed that the most important criterion for the formation of a ruling class is its ability to control other people. An elite that is focused solely on its own self-interest gradually loses its political and ideological influence and may be overthrown.

He believed that there are 2 main ways to renew (replenish) the ruling elite: democratic and aristocratic. Democratic is open and promotes a constant influx of fresh, sufficiently trained leaders. Aristocratic (closed) - the attempt of the ruling class to form an elite only from its own ranks leads to its degeneration and stagnation in social development.

Robert Michels (1876-1936)- German sociologist and politician. In his book “The Sociology of Parties in Modern Democracy” (in some sources called simply “Political Parties”) he analyzes the problems of interaction between the party elite and the party masses. He showed that party systems (parties), as they develop, are characterized by a tendency towards oligarchic degeneration - the seizure of power by a minority and the subordination of the majority (party). This trend is called the “iron law of oligarchy,” which sounds like: “The process of seizure of power by a minority is inevitable. Every organization strives to be controlled by a minority that exercises its power over the majority.” Any social organization is subject to the rule of oligarchy. The power of elites depends on organization, and the organization of society itself requires elitism of leadership and inevitably reproduces it.

During the formation of elites in an organization (society), a leadership core and apparatus are separated, which gradually go beyond the control of ordinary members. 1. Ordinary members, according to R. Michels, due to their inertia and incompetence, are not able to control the leaders. 2. The masses have a psychological need for leaders and leadership, a craving for strong power and admiration for the charismatic qualities of the elites.

R. Michels believed that democracy in the strict sense is impossible. At best, it comes down to rivalry between two oligarchic groups.

83. Political process in modern Russia: essence, types, structure, stages.

Structure
1. General and private political processes
General political the process covers the entire society and leads to a change in the state of its political system.
Private political processes- are manifested in the performance by government officials of their direct functions (in particular, in managing society). These processes also reflect the different ways in which various political parties, social movements and individual citizens present their political interests (for example, participation in elections, referendums, as well as in rallies, street marches, etc.). Private political processes include various forms of making and implementing management decisions. Processes can take place at the state level, in the region, city, village, within different socio-demographic groups, classes, nations; in labor collectives, in political parties, etc.
It is advisable to highlight the main stages of the formation and development of the political process.
Its beginning can be considered the stage production and representing the political interests of groups and citizens to political decision-making institutions.
Next is highlighted political decision-making stage, in which intergroup, state and collective political will is concentrated.
3 stage of the political process– implementation of political decisions, embodiment of the volitional aspirations of government institutions, various political subjects.
From the point of view of the stability of the main forms of interconnection of social and political structures, the certainty of the functions and relationships of subjects of power, stable and unstable political processes can be distinguished:
Stable political the process is characterized by stable forms of political mobilization and behavior of citizens, as well as functionally developed mechanisms for making political decisions. Such a process is based on a legitimate regime of government, an appropriate social structure, and the high efficiency of legal and cultural norms prevailing in society.
Unstable political the process usually occurs in conditions of a crisis of power. This can be caused by complications in international relations, a decline in material production, and social conflicts. The inability of the regime to respond to the new needs of society or its main groups in an adequate manner causes instability in the political process.
Summarizing the analysis of some features of the political process in Russia at the present stage, we will draw certain conclusions:
1. According to studies, the majority of citizens do not take an active part in politics, which is explained by distrust in the authorities, in the ability to change their lives for the better with their own participation.
2. The protest behavior of voters is unconventional in nature, which, over the course of a number of years, has been expressed in strikes, unauthorized protests, and aggressive behavior in response to the actions of Western powers. Recently, with the increase in the welfare of citizens, the illegal protest behavior of citizens has become conventional.
3. In Russia, a situation has arisen where older people of retirement age demonstrate greater activity in political behavior, while young citizens and middle-aged people are generally more passive. We explain this by greater discipline and remaining faith in a “better future” among older people who grew up in the Soviet era. The middle generation, formed in the 70-80s. saw the moral decay and hypocrisy of power and treats it today with distrust. Young people who grew up in the era of democracy are not at all interested in politics, preferring other hobbies to it. The state has not created a need for political participation among young people and now perceives their passive behavior.
4. Passive political behavior, lack of youth policy, sharp impoverishment of large masses of the population, propaganda of violence led to a sharp increase in extremism and radical sentiments in Russian society.
5. Only the implementation of a targeted state policy to explain and promote political participation in the political process of Russia, educational and patriotic programs can help reduce the influence of national extremist and radical sentiments in Russian society.

84. Political conflict: essence, specifics, methods of development

A political conflict is a clash, a confrontation between political subjects, caused by the opposition of their political interests, values ​​and views.
There are three main types of political conflicts.
1. Conflicts of interest. Conflicts of this kind prevail in economically developed countries, stable states; the political norm here is “bargaining” over the division of the economic “pie” (struggle over the size of taxes, the amount of social security, etc.); This type of conflict is the easiest to resolve, since here you can always find a compromise solution (“both this and that”).
2. Conflicts of values ​​are typical for developing countries with unstable government systems; they require more effort to resolve, since compromise on values ​​such as “freedom”, “equality”, “tolerance” is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
3. Identification conflicts: characteristic of societies in which the subject identifies himself with a certain group (ethnic, religious, linguistic), and not with society (state) as a whole; this type of conflict occurs in situations of racial, ethnic, or linguistic opposition.
Depending on the level of participants, a political conflict can be: interstate (subjects are states and their coalitions), state (subjects of branches of government, political parties, etc.), regional (subjects are regional political forces), local.
Internal political conflicts are also divided into regime and legitimate: - in regime conflicts, the goal of one of the subjects may be to seize power in the state or change the political system, but without destroying the territorial integrity of the state; - in legitimate conflicts, part of the state seeks to separate from the whole; Often such conflicts coincide with ethnopolitical ones, but ethnopolitical conflicts are not always legitimate (such as, for example, demands for national equality and autonomy). To resolve a conflict, it is necessary to manage the conflict and regulate the conflict (conflict control), which means the development and application of a system of measures aimed at limiting the intensity and scale of the conflict, and de-escalating it. Political practice and theory have developed some general forms and methods for preventing, regulating and resolving political conflicts. These include compromise and consensus. Compromise is an agreement based on mutual concessions. A distinction is made between forced and voluntary compromises: the former are imposed by prevailing circumstances; the latter are concluded on the basis of an agreement on certain issues and correspond to some part of the political interests of all interacting forces (on the basis of such compromises, diverse party blocs and political coalitions are created). Consensus (lat. consensus - agreement, unanimity) is an agreement of the significant majority of people of any community regarding the most important aspects of its social order, expressed in actions.
Conflict resolution implies: - prevention of open forms of conflict accompanied by violent actions (wars, riots, etc.); - conflict resolution, which involves eliminating the causes that cause them; - formation of a new level of relations between the participants, resolution of conflicts (reducing the level of hostility towards the parties, transferring the conflict into the search for a joint solution to the problem).
There are four ways to resolve conflicts: - agreement as a result of the coincidence of opinions of all parties; - agreement in accordance with the legislative or moral will of an external force; - an agreement imposed by one of the parties to the conflict; - an old conflict loses its relevance and resolves itself.

85. Interethnic contradictions and conflicts in modern Russia: characteristics and problems of resolution.

The aggravation of interethnic contradictions both in the former USSR and in modern Russia is due to various reasons.

Firstly, these are reasons that have global character, to a certain extent inherent in all multinational states (the presence of opposite trends in the development of ethnic communities: on the one hand, their differentiation, an increasing desire to preserve their ethnocultural identity and independence, and on the other, integration, increasing internationalization, universalization of various spheres of life of peoples).

Secondly, the reasons national-specific, conditioned by the diversity of specific conditions and factors of social life (historically established traditions and culture, features of economic development, various historical types of civilization and religious and confessional affiliations of people).

Mosca's theory of elites.

The outstanding Italian sociologist and political scientist Mosca (1858-1941) tried to prove the division of society into two unequal groups. In 1896, in “Fundamentals of Political Science,” he wrote: “In all societies, from the most moderately developed and barely reaching the beginnings of civilization to the enlightened and powerful, there are two classes of persons: the class of managers and the class of the governed. The first, always relatively small in number, exercises all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys its inherent advantages, while the second, more numerous, is controlled and regulated by the first and supplies it with the material means of support necessary for the viability of the political body.” Gelman V.Ya. “Community of elites” and the limits of democratization: Nizhny Novgorod region // Polis. 1999. No. 1. P.93.

Mosca analyzed the problem of forming a political elite and its specific qualities. He believed that the most important criterion for entering it was the ability to manage other people, i.e. organizational ability, as well as material, moral and intellectual superiority that distinguishes the elite from the rest of society. Although in general this layer is the most capable of governing, not all of its representatives have better, higher qualities in relation to the rest of the population.

Noting the cohesion of the group of managers and its dominant position in society, Mosca called it the political class. This class is subject to gradual changes. There are two trends in its development: aristocratic and democratic. The first of them is manifested in the desire of the political class to become hereditary, if not legally, then in fact. The predominance of the aristocratic tendency leads to the “closure and crystallization” of the class, to its degeneration and, as a consequence, to social stagnation. This ultimately entails an intensification of the struggle of new social forces to occupy dominant positions in society. V.P. Elizarov, Elitist theory of democracy and the modern Russian political process. // Polis, 1999, No. 1, P. 74

The second, democratic tendency is expressed in the renewal of the political class at the expense of the most capable of governing and the active lower strata. Such renewal prevents the degeneration of the elite and makes it capable of effectively leading society. A balance between aristocratic and democratic tendencies is most desirable for society, because it ensures both continuity and stability in the leadership of the country, and its qualitative renewal.

Mosca's concept of the political class, having a great influence on the subsequent development of elite theories, was criticized for some absolutization of the political factor (belonging to the managerial stratum) in the social structuring of society, for underestimating the role of the economy. When applied to a modern pluralistic society, this approach is largely unjustified. However, the theory of the political class found unexpected confirmation in totalitarian states. Here politics acquired a dominant position over the economy and all other spheres of society, and in the person of the nomenklatura bureaucracy, the prototype of the “political class” described by Mosca was formed. In totalitarian states, entry into the political nomenklatura, accession to power and management became the root cause of the economic and social dominance of the “managing class” "

Concepts of Pareto and Michels.

Independently of Mosca, Pareto (1848-1923) developed the theory of political elites around the same time. He, like Mosca, proceeded from the fact that the world has always been and should be ruled by a select minority - an elite endowed with special qualities: psychological (innate) and social (acquired as a result of upbringing and education). In his Treatise on General Sociology, he wrote: “Whether some theorists like it or not, human society is heterogeneous and individuals are different physically, morally and intellectually.” The totality of individuals whose activities in a particular area are distinguished by efficiency and high results constitute the elite.

It is divided into the ruling, directly or indirectly (but effectively) participating in management, and the non-ruling - the counter-elite - people who have the qualities characteristic of the elite, but do not have access to leadership due to their social status and various kinds of barriers that exist in society for the lower strata.

The ruling elite is internally united and fights to maintain its dominance. The development of society occurs through periodic changes and circulation of two main types of elites - “foxes” (flexible leaders who use “soft” leadership methods: negotiations, concessions, flattery, persuasion, etc.) and “lions” (tough and decisive rulers , relying primarily on force).

Changes occurring in society gradually undermine the dominance of one of these types of elite. Thus, the rule of "foxes", effective in relatively calm periods of history, becomes unsuitable in situations requiring decisive action and the use of violence. This leads to increased discontent in society and the strengthening of the counter-elite (“lions”), which, through the mobilization of the masses, overthrows the ruling elite and establishes its dominance.

A major contribution to the development of the theory of political elites was made by R. Michels (1876--1936). He explored the social mechanisms that create elitism in society. Basically agreeing with Mosca in the interpretation of the causes of elitism, Michels pays special attention to organizational abilities, as well as the organizational structures of society, which strengthen elitism and elevate the governing stratum. He concluded that the very organization of society requires elitism and naturally reproduces it.

The “iron law of oligarchic tendencies” operates in society. Its essence is that the development of large organizations, inseparable from social progress, inevitably leads to the oligarchization of social management and the formation of an elite, since the leadership of such associations cannot be carried out by all of their members. The effectiveness of their activities requires functional specialization and rationality, the allocation of a leadership core and apparatus that gradually but inevitably escapes the control of ordinary members, breaks away from them and subordinates politics to their own interests, caring primarily about maintaining their privileged position. Ordinary members of organizations are insufficiently competent, passive and show indifference to everyday political activities. As a result, any organization, even a democratic one, is always virtually ruled by an oligarchic elite group. These most influential groups, interested in preserving their privileged position, establish various kinds of contacts among themselves, unite, forgetting about the interests of the masses. Gelman V.Ya. “Community of elites” and the limits of democratization: Nizhny Novgorod region // Polis. 1999. No. 1. P.96.

From the operation of the “law of oligarchic tendencies” Michels drew pessimistic conclusions regarding the possibilities of democracy in general and the democracy of social democratic parties in particular. He actually identified democracy with the direct participation of the masses in government.

In the works of Mosca, Pareto and Michels, the concept of the political elite has already received quite clear outlines. Its most important properties and parameters were outlined that make it possible to distinguish and evaluate various elite theories of modernity (these parameters will be used below). These include:

  • 1. special properties inherent in representatives of the elite;
  • 2. relationships that exist within the elite layer and characterize the degree of its cohesion and integration;
  • 3. relations between the elite and the non-elite, the masses;
  • 4. recruitment of the elite, i.e. how and from whom it is formed;
  • 5. the role (constructive or destructive) of the elite in society, its functions and influence.
  • 1.3 Typology of elites

These and some other factors determine the elitism of society. The political elite itself is heterogeneous, internally differentiated and varies significantly at different historical stages and in different countries. This, as well as the specifics of research approaches, complicate its classification.

Depending on the sources of influence, elites are divided into hereditary elites, for example, the aristocracy, value elites - individuals occupying highly prestigious and influential public and government positions, power elites - direct holders of power, and functional elites - professional managers who have the qualifications necessary to occupy leadership positions.

Among the elites, a distinction is made between the ruling elite, which directly possesses state power, and the opposition (counter-elite); open, recruited from society, and closed, reproduced from their own environment, for example, the nobility.

The elite itself is divided into high and middle. The top elite directly influences decision-making that is significant for the entire state. Belonging to it may be determined by reputation, for example, unofficial advisers to the president, his “kitchen office,” or position in government structures. In Western democracies, there are approximately 50 members of the top elite for every million inhabitants. Among the highest elite, a core is often distinguished, characterized by a special intensity of communications and interaction and usually numbering 200-400 people.

The middle elite includes approximately 5 percent of the population, distinguished simultaneously by three criteria - income, professional status and education. Individuals who score highly on only one or two of these criteria are considered marginal elites. As Karl Deutsch notes, “In general, people whose educational level is much higher than their income tend to be more critical of existing attitudes and tend to be centrist or left-wing radical in their political beliefs. Persons whose income significantly exceeds their level of education are also often dissatisfied with their position and prestige and, as a rule, take right-wing political positions. Thus, the views of the top 5 percent of a country's adult population, measured by income, occupational status, and educational attainment, can reveal much about what is and is not politically acceptable in a given country."

Many political scientists note the trend of increasing role of the middle elite, especially its new layers, called the “subelite” - senior officials, managers, scientists, engineers and intellectuals - in the preparation, adoption and implementation of political decisions. These layers are usually superior to the upper elite in information, organization and ability to take united action.

The political elite, directly involved in the process of making political decisions, is adjacent to the administrative elite, intended for executive activities, but in fact having great influence on politics.

One of the fairly meaningful classifications of the political elite in a democratic society is to distinguish, depending on the degree of development and the ratio of vertical (social representativeness) and horizontal (intra-group cohesion) connections of the elite, its four main types: stable democratic (“established”) elite - high representativeness and high group integration; pluralistic - high representativeness and low group integration; imperious - low representativeness and high group integration; and disintegrated - low both indicators.

In political science, the elite is the circle of those individuals who either have power or can influence it. The founders of the theory of the political elite are the Italians Mosco and Pareto.

The political elite is a group that stands out from the rest of society with influence and a privileged position, directly and systematically participating in decision-making related to the use of government. power or influencing it.

The political elite should include:

The most influential and politically active. members of the dominations classes

The layer of functionaries of political organizations of these classes

Intellectuals developing the political ideology of these classes

The leaders of these organizations

Functions of the political elite:

1. studied, analyzed and reflected the interests of various social groups in political attitudes

2. development of political ideology, programs, doctrines

3. subordination of interests of various. groups of ruling classes

4. creation of a mechanism for implementing political plans

6. nomination of political leaders

The composition of the polit. Elites include individuals occupying leadership or dominant positions in society.

PE is divided into: higher (making decisions that are significant for the state as a whole), middle (serving as a barometer of public opinion) and administrative (mainly employees or bureaucracy).

Polit. The elite can be divided into ruling and opposition.

In world practice, there are 2 elite selection systems: closed and open.

The open elite is called the US establishment (the ruling, privileged groups of bourgeois society, as well as the entire system of power and control), and the closed elite is our nomenklatura.

There are several classical theories of elites:

1. Back in 1896 in “Fundamentals of Political Science,” G. Mosco formulated a law according to which any society can be divided into 2 classes: the class of managers and the class of governed. The first, the smallest in number, carries out all political activities. functions, monopolizes power and enjoys all the advantages. The second, numerous, is controlled and regulated by the first and supplies him with material. support sr.;

2. Pareto in his “Treatise on General Sociology” wrote about the heterogeneity of people. society A set of individuals who are distinguished by their effectiveness, act with high performance in one or another area of ​​activity, and constitute the elite. It is divided into the ruling and non-ruling congrelig - people who have the psychological characteristics characteristic of the elite. qualities, but do not have access to leadership functions due to their social status. The development of society occurs through the circulation of elites, their periodic. shifts. Because the ruling elite seeks to preserve its privileges and pass them on to people with non-elite individual qualities, this leads to a qualitative deterioration in its composition and at the same time to a quantitative growth of the counter-elite;

3. R. Michels believed that the existence of water. the elite is caused by the inequality of people; the law of division of labor; high social significance of managerial work; watered by the passivity of the broad masses of the population, whose interests lie outside politics. The political elite is internally differentiated. It is divided into the ruling one, which directly possesses the state. the authorities, and the opposition - the counter-elite; to the highest level, which makes decisions that are significant for the entire state; the average, which acts as a barometer of public opinion and includes about 5% of the population, as well as the administrative one - administrative employees.

Modern theories of elites:

The concept of democratic elitism

Democracy is a continuous competition of potential leaders for votes. The leadership stratum is not only a group possessing the qualities necessary for management, but also a defender of democratic values, capable of even restraining the ideological and political radicalism and extremism inherent in the masses.

The concept of elite pluralism

There is no single elite as such. There are many elites, but none of them is able to dominate all areas of life. Each elite is under the control of the mother groups that created it. Elite competition reflects economic and social competition.

Left-liberal elite theory

The elite is formed from people occupying key command positions in all spheres of the economy, politics and social relations of society. It is the occupation of these key positions that provides members of the elite with access to power, wealth and fame. People from the masses can enter the elite, but before that they must occupy a key position in a certain field of activity, and this is almost impossible.

Partocratic elite theory

1. the global missionary nature of the political elite, which lies in the fact that they must lead the process of humanity’s transition from capitalism to socialism

2. the comprehensive nature of elite management of all spheres of society

3. the determining criterion for entering the elite was proletarian origin

4. Ideology is the most important characteristic of the elite

5. strict hierarchy, casteism, selection into the elite based on the principle of personal loyalty

, strength and so on. The mechanisms for this promotion are very different. From the point of view of most early and some later elite theorists, so-called democratic states are governed not by the people, but by a dominant elite or several elites who struggle for power. A number of modern concepts within the framework of this theory believe that society can control these elites using suffrage, including the possibility of nominating the most capable representatives of the people.

Encyclopedic YouTube

  • 1 / 5

    There are different interpretations of the term “elite”.

    Some believe that the authenticity of the elite is ensured by noble origin, others rank the richest in this category, and still others - the most gifted. It is believed that entry into the elite is a function of personal merit and merit, while G. Mosca and V. Pareto believe that for inclusion in the elite, the social environment from which a person came is primarily important, and only then personal sympathy or antipathy leader

    Power in society cannot be exercised by either one person or all people at once. As a consequence, an organized minority emerges, and it rules because it is organized. “...The authority or power of a leader is rooted in the support of supporters...” writes N. Machiavelli. In his opinion, all major conflicts unfold between elites: the minority holding power and the minority moving to power. Orientation towards power, the desire to achieve it, is fraught with a potential danger for the social order, the guarantor of which is the one who already has this power. The demands that the people make are determined not by the selfish desires and whims of individual citizens, which are too contradictory to each other, but by the interests common to all people. These interests are security and inviolability of honor and property. Only for the sake of protecting these interests do people come out of their passive role, Machiavelli believes. He also notes: “...the second distinctive quality of the people is the inability to make quick decisions and movements and limited desires.” To substantiate the theory of elites, Machiavelli put forward the assumption of the cyclical development of state forms: democracy; oligarchy; aristocracy; monarchy

    Ideas of G. Mosca, V. Pareto and R. Michels

    A later exponent of elite theory was Gaetano Mosca (1858–1941). He analyzed political dominance based on an organizational approach. “...people acting in a coordinated and uniform manner will defeat a thousand people between whom there is no agreement...” Access to the political class requires special qualities and abilities. For example, in primitive society military valor and courage were valued, and later money and wealth. But the most important criterion for selection into the elite is the ability to govern, knowledge of the mentality of the people, their national character. G. Mosca cited three ways to update the elite: inheritance, elections or co-optation (replenishing the composition of a body with missing workers without holding new elections, the volitional introduction of new members).

    He noted two trends in the development of the ruling class: the desire of representatives of this class to make their functions and privileges hereditary, and on the other hand, the desire of new forces to replace the old ones. If the first tendency (aristocratic) prevails, then the ruling class becomes closed and society stagnates. Depending on the principle of transfer of political power, G. Mosca distinguished autocratic and liberal types of governance. With the first, power is transferred from top to bottom, and with the second, it is delegated from bottom to top.

    Speaking about the cycle of elites, their constant change, he called history “the cemetery of the aristocracy,” that is, privileged minorities who fight, come to power, use this power, decline and are replaced by other minorities. Elites tend to decline, and “non-elites”, in turn, are able to create worthy successors to the elite elements. After all, often the children of the elite may not have all the outstanding qualities of their parents. The need for constant replacement and circulation of elites is due to the fact that the former elites are losing energy, the energy that once helped them win a place in the sun.

    He considered the rationale for the role of the elite to be the desire of society for social balance, and this state is ensured by the interaction of many forces, called elements by V. Pareto. He identified four main elements: political, economic, social and intellectual. Pareto paid special attention to the motivation of human actions, so for him politics is largely a function of psychology. Thus, using a psychological approach in the analysis of society and politics, V. Pareto explained the diversity of social institutions by the psychological inequality of individuals. “Human society is heterogeneous,” wrote Pareto, “and individuals differ intellectually, physically and morally.” We can conclude that V. Pareto defined the elite by its innate psychological properties, and the main idea of ​​the term “elite” is superiority. He even developed a scoring system that characterizes an individual’s abilities in a particular field of activity.

    The elite is divided into two parts: “ruling” and “non-ruling”, the first is directly involved in management, and the second is far from directly making government decisions. This small class is maintained in power partly by force and partly by the support of the subordinate class. The “resource of consent” is based on the ability of the ruling class to convince the masses that they are right. The likelihood of agreement depends on the elite's ability to manipulate the feelings and emotions of the crowd. V. Pareto wrote: “... government policy is more effective the more successfully it uses emotions...”. But the ability to persuade does not always help one stay in power, so the elite must be prepared to use force.

    Another justification for dividing society into a passive majority and a ruling minority was proposed by Robert Michels (1876-1936). He explained the reasons for the impossibility of democracy by the following three trends: one is inherent in the essence of man, the other is in the peculiarities of political struggle, and the third is in the specifics of the development of an organization. The development of democracy into oligarchy is partly explained by the psychology of the masses. Michels’ concept of mass is interpreted as “... a set of mental properties of the mass man in the street: political indifference, incompetence, the need for leadership, a feeling of gratitude to the leaders, the creation of a cult of the leaders’ personality...”. These masses cannot themselves manage the affairs of society, so an organization is needed that will inevitably divide any group into those in power and those ruled. Michels later became one of the supporters of fascism, first in Italy and then in Germany. And the embodiment of the strong-willed class that replaced the crisis parliamentarism was fascism led by B. Mussolini.

    Transformation of the social elite

    Peaceful rotation of elites is considered necessary for the health of society. However, as a rule, political power is concentrated in a very narrow circle of elected individuals, and it is very difficult to break into influential oligarchs from the lower levels of society. An extreme case of extremely low rotation of elites is a caste society, where it is openly declared that a person cannot change his social position, inherited by birthright. With such closedness of the elites, religious dogmas often arise, designed to consolidate the obedience of the oppressed masses. In contrast, it is believed that a democratic society is based on the openness of the ruling elite, facilitated by the social mobility of labor reserves and electoral technologies aimed at increasing the level of loyalty of the broadest sections of the population. For example, at the beginning of the 20th century, Russian sociologist Pitirim Sorokin studied how these mechanisms for updating the national elite function in the United States. In conditions of economic competition, the most successful people in the profession were promoted to the first roles in American public life. The personal success of fellow citizens becomes the key to the growth of the welfare of the new nation, turning into the main locomotive on the path to the overall success and prosperity of the entire country. In turn, the effective development of human civilization is possible only with the timely renewal of the elite.

    In turn, the successful development of society is possible only with the timely renewal of the elites, was understood by V. Pareto, in the concept of “circulation of elites” put forward by him, as the absorption and inclusion of the most mobile representatives of non-elites or counter-elites into the elite according to the directive “election from above by the Bilderberg Club”, Bohemian Club, Committee of 300 and the like).