.
Monday, January 13, 2020
Political Elite Revised Essay
Do you want to belong to the elite? Or do you sometimes feel that, in a way, you belong to the elite? Without its political meaning, the elite simply refer to a group that possesses superior qualities than the rest. It is the â€Å"cream of the crop†. In one way or another, some of us may have already experienced belonging to the elite, such as when we became part of an important club in school or belonged to the top of the class. In the book Concept and Issues in Comparative Politics, Frank Wilson explained that when applied to politics, the term elite acquires a negative connotation to mean a â€Å"small group who conspire to monopolize power and use it for their benefit†. However, without this political meaning, term elite refers to those who are active in political processes. Thus, Wilson stresses that not only the politicians belong to the elite, but also the opinion leaders and influence wielders and the senior civil servants. While politicians seek and hold elective or appointed government positions, influential figures participate in the process by shaping the ideas and preferences of others. This makes the media and business group as parts of the political elite. Bureaucrats or senior civil servants are also one of the components of the elite because they are involved in the policy- and decision-making processes in the government. Can a person enter the circle of the elite by moving his or her way up in the bureaucracy? Yes, if the person’s career achievements merit him or her to be recruited into the elite. Basically Wilson suggests two ways of recruitment to the elite: by achievement and by ascription. Recruitment by achievement does not only refer to technical skills, but also pertains to interpersonal, leadership or money-making skills. This is in stark contrast with the ascriptive mode of recruitment wherein a person automatically becomes a member of the elite because he or she was â€Å"born with silver spoon in the mouth,†so to speak. Also, Wilson points out that recruitment by achievement is characteristic of developed political systems, while recruitment by ascription is more common in traditional societies. However, it is not uncommon to find elites by birth who also developed the necessary skills to lead by achievement. For example, George W. Bush did not become the US President simply because he is the son of George H. W. Bush; but his first-hand observation of his father’s former job, the Bush’s network of influence, and the name recall surely helped in his campaign. Wilson also classifies elites into open and closed elites. The US is considered as one of the most open political recruitment processes because of the system of primary elections. One does not have to be a dedicated party worker to get nominated and eventually elected. According to Wilson, it also explains why movie stars could become elected officials, as well. Most democratic societies have open elites hence outsiders have multiple opportunities to enter the elite circle; but there are also democratic societies which require aspiring politicians to serve apprenticeships in local or party politics. This is to prevent just anybody, especially those who are only famous, to get elected without any political experience.            On the other hand, closed elites are characteristic of authoritarian regimes wherein membership to the elite is controlled. In practice, however, there are also democratic regimes which also have closed elites, in a sense that ruling elites may hinder other members of the society from obtaining enough political leverage to become one of the political elite. For instance, I want to get in the elite circle because I have sufficient background, knowledge and skills to become a leader, but the circle is controlled and very elitist (snobbish). Do I have other options if I do not get recruited through achievement? Yes, by ascription such as by marrying a member of the elite, as Wilson stresses, or stage a revolt or a coup d’etat to overthrow the ruling elite.            Nevertheless, violent successions of the elites usually happen when there is no predictability or long-established rules in the change of leadership. In most advanced political systems, there are approved procedures in the transition and legitimation of leadership that would render the blood spill unnecessary. However, even if Wilson contends that unpredictable successions are common to authoritarian regimes and third world countries, he also cites examples to the contrary. He takes particular exception to the Party politics in China which has proven that orderly manner of succession is possible, even in an authoritarian system. To add to this example are a number of â€Å"illiberal democracies†in Asia wherein rulers could maintain their hold in power, yet such undemocratic rule were long accepted by the people.            Wilson also adds that there are other ways to make the elite’s hold on power legitimate such as tradition, charismatic appeal, accepted rational processes, and more importantly, capability of the political elite to deliver its promises to the people. The capability to perform to improve the welfare of the people could be a more powerful factor for legitimacy than election, and thus could make people’s obedience possible even if the rule is considered undemocratic. However, whether in democratic or authoritarian regimes, any elite that would exercise coercive force to command obedience from the people is bound to fail – and that is when we observe violent or tense transitions of political power.            Still, there is always a certain elite or a small group that would be most directly involved in the political processes. Even erstwhile socialist regimes which claimed to promote equality among the people have been ruled by elites, and have in fact used their position to perpetuate themselves in power. The widely-held notion of democracy is that of a representative democracy. As such, it has been a nagging controversy in the studies of elite that even the most democratic systems are not truly democratic because political leadership is in the hands of a representative elite that would never mirror the general citizenry. Wilson has provided enough empirical evidence that those who usually get recruited into the elite are from the middle and upper classes, educated, from dominant societal groups, and male. Even if the elite would recruit from the ranks of the masses, those who would enter the elite would soon acquire the certain values and perspectives that are characteristic of the elite. Thus they get absorbed into the system – and could not possibly reform the system. As such radicals view that only by changing the system itself, say, by supplanting a genuinely socialist one, that political elitism would end. The above proposition is grounded on the assumption that elitism is bad, as Wilson has scrutinized effectively. Breaking down this assumption brings us to the sub-assumptions that firstly, political elites always rules in its own best interests; and that secondly, the best political representation of a particular group is made by people who are from that group. Wilson debunks these assumptions for lack of sufficient empirical evidence. In the first instance, political elites ruling only on their interests can always be checked in democratic societies. In democratic systems wherein the succession of political power is determined by elections, the ruling elites would have to bend to the wishes of important portions of the population because they would ultimately need their support come election time. Of course, it is also possible that the political elite sincerely care for the people; that is why we now have welfare states and taxation systems that really hurt the rich and benefit the poor. The argument that one can best represent the interests the group where he or she comes from, at all times, may not always hold true since as Wilson explained in the text, new entrants to the elite may change their values by virtue of their position thus may render them useless in advancing his original group or class. A very concrete example would be the socialist Russian revolution which catapulted the working class into power, which in the long run only became a self-seeking and self-defensive class of its own.            Thus Wilson argues that a pluralist democracy, wherein various interests are articulated and political competition prevents domination of political power of a single set of elites, holds the answer to the controversy that bedevils the political elite. As such, the rule of the elites, per se, is not bad – as long as it is in the context of a working pluralist democracy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment