home Mobile phones Essence, basic theories of elites and selection systems. Classical Theory of Political Elites

Essence, basic theories of elites and selection systems. Classical Theory of Political Elites

, strength and so on. The mechanisms of this extension are very different. From the point of view of most early and some later theorists, the elites in the so-called democracies are not governed by the people, but by the ruling elite or several elites who are fighting for power. A number of modern concepts within the framework of this theory believe that society can control these elites using the right to vote, including for the possibility of nominating the most capable representatives of the people.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 5
Different interpretations of the term "elite".

Some believe that the authenticity of the elite is ensured by a noble origin, others classify the richest in this category, and others rank the most gifted. It is believed that joining the elite is a function of personal merit and dignity, while G. Mosca and V. Pareto believe that in order to be included in the elite, the social environment from which a person emerged is important, and only then personal sympathy or antipathy the leader.
Power in society can not exercise a single person, or all people at once. As a result, an organized minority appears, and it rules, because it is organized. “... The authority or authority of a leader is rooted in the support of supporters ...”, writes N. Machiavelli. In his opinion, all the main conflicts are unfolding between the elites: the minority that holds power and the minority that goes to power. Orientation to power, the desire to achieve it poses a potential danger to the social order, the guarantor of which is the one who already has this power. The demands made by the people are caused not by selfish drives and whims of individual citizens, which are too contradictory to each other, but by interests common to all people. These interests are the security and integrity of honor and property. For the sake of defending these interests, the people emerge from 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." In support of the theory of elites, Machiavelli put forward the assumption of the cyclical development of state forms: democracy; oligarchy; aristocracy; the monarchy.

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

A later representative of the theory of the elite was Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941). He analyzed political dominance based on an organizational approach. “... coordinated and uniformly acting people 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, valor and valor were valued, later money and wealth. But the most important criterion for selection into the elite is the ability to manage, the availability of knowledge about the mentality of the people, their national character. G. Mosca cited three ways of renewing the elite: inheritance, elections, or co-optation (replenishment of the composition of any organ by the missing workers without holding new elections, the willful introduction of new members).
He noted two trends in the development of the ruling class: the desire of the 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. 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 singled out autocratic and liberal types of governance. In the first, power is transferred from top to bottom, and in 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, fall into decay and are replaced by other minorities. Elites have a tendency to decline, and “non-elites” in turn are able to create worthy successors to 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 former elites lose energy, the one that helped them once gain a place under the sun.
He considered the rationale for the role of the elite to be the striving of society for social equilibrium, and this state is ensured by the interaction of many forces, called V. Pareto elements. He identified four main elements: political, economic, social and intellectual. Pareto paid special attention to the motivation of human actions, therefore 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,” Pareto wrote, “and individuals differ intellectually, physically, and morally.” It can be concluded that V. Pareto defined the elite by its innate psychological properties, and the main idea of \u200b\u200bthe term “elite” is superiority. He even developed a scoring system of ratings characterizing the 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 governance, and the second is far from the direct adoption of power decisions. This small class is held in power partly by force, and partly thanks to the support of the subordinate class. The “resource of consent” is based on the ability of the ruling class to convince the masses of their own rightness. The likelihood of agreement depends on the ability of the elite to manipulate the feelings and emotions of the crowd. V. Pareto wrote: "... government policy is more effective the more successfully it uses emotions ...". But not always the ability to persuade helps to stay in power, so the elite must be ready 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 characteristics of the political struggle, and the third is in the specifics of the organization's development. The development of democracy into an oligarchy is partly due to the psychology of the masses. Michels interprets the concept of mass as "... the totality of the psychic properties of the mass layman: political indifference, incompetence, the need for leadership, a feeling of gratitude to leaders, the creation of a cult of personality of leaders ..". These masses cannot manage the affairs of society themselves; therefore, an organization is needed that will inevitably divide any group into ruling and subservient. Michels later became one of the supporters of fascism, first in Italy and then in Germany. And the embodiment of the strong-willed class, which replaced the crisis parliamentarism, was fascism led by B. Mussolini.

Transformation of the public elite

Peaceful rotation of elites is considered essential for public health. However, as a rule, political power is concentrated in a very narrow circle of elected people, and it is very difficult to break into the influential oligarchs from the lower floors 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, which he inherited by birth. With such a closed elite, religious dogmas often arise, designed to consolidate the humility of the oppressed masses. In contrast, it is believed that a democratic society is based on the openness of the ruling elite, which is facilitated by the social mobility of labor reserves and selective technologies aimed at increasing the level of loyalty of the widest sections of the population. For example, at the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian sociologist Pitirim Sorokin investigated 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 came to the fore in the public life of America. 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 common success and prosperity of the whole country. In turn, the effective development of human civilization is possible only with timely updating of the elite.
In turn, the successful development of society is possible only with timely updating of the elites, 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 in the elite by the directive "election from above the Bilderberg Club" Bohemian Club, Committee of 300 and the like).

The ideas of political elitism, according to which the function of managing society should be performed by the elected, the best of the best, aristocrats, appeared in ancient times. These ideas are most clearly traced.
in the works of Confucius, Plato, Machiavelli, Carlyle, Nietzsche. But a serious sociological rationale for these ideas
have not received it yet. As a definite belief system, elitist theories were formulated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the works of Italian thinkers Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), Wilfred Pareto (1848-1923) and the German sociologist Robert Michels (1878-1936). G. Moscain the work "The ruling class" argued that in
all societies there are two classes: the class of governors (elite) and the class of governed. The ruling class is small, it monopolizes power and carries out managerial functions. The dominance of a minority is predetermined by the fact that this is the dominance of an organized minority over an inert, unorganized majority.
The ruling class seeks to consolidate its dominance, using its knowledge and experience in public administration, military power, priestly status, spreading and supporting in society the ideology that contributes to the legitimization of its power. The entry into the composition of the ruling class, according to G. Moski, is due to the following criteria: the ability to manage other people (organizational ability), as well as intellectual, moral and material superiority.
The ruling class is gradually updated. There are doubts in its development. An aristocratic tendency is manifested in the desire to transfer power to heirs or
closest associates, which gradually leads to the degeneration of the elite. The democratic tendency is realized through the inclusion of the best in the ruling class.
representatives from the managed class, which prevents the degeneration of the elite. The optimal combination of these two trends is most desirable for society, as will allow
to ensure continuity and stability in the leadership of the country and a quality update of the ruling class.
Theory « elite circulation » AT . Pareto
AT. Pareto, who introduced the term “elite” into political science, just like Mosca, he believed that all societies are divided into stewards (elite) and governed. In the elite, he distinguished two main types, successively replacing each other
friend: the elite of the "lions" and the elite of the "foxes". For "lions" is characterized by the use of power methods of government, conservatism. "Foxes" prefer to maintain their power
propaganda, they are masters of political and financial combinations, deceit, cunning, resourcefulness. The board of foxes is effective when the political system is unstable, when innovators, combinators are required. But the "foxes" are not able to use violence when it is necessary. Then they are replaced by the elite of the “lions”, which is ready to act decisively. The constant change of one elite to another is due to the social dynamics of society. Each type of elite has a certain advantage, which gradually ceases to meet the needs of society leadership. Therefore, ensuring the balance of the social and political system requires the constant replacement of one elite with another.
Pareto also singled out the ruling and non-ruling elites. Representatives that are part of the potential elite (counter-elite) are endowed with elite-specific qualities, but lack power because of their social status. Over time, the ruling elite begins to degenerate and inefficiently manage society, then the counter-elite, claiming power, is activated. But in order to come to power, it needs the support of the masses, which
it encourages action and with the help of which it overthrows the ruling elite. The next ruling elite will also lose its outstanding qualities over time, will decline and be removed from power by the new counter-elite. After some time, the process of "circulation of elites" will be repeated again and again. Pareto believed that the constant change and circulation of elites allows us to understand the historical movement of society, which appears as history
the constant change of aristocracy: their exaltation, domination, decline and replacement of the new ruling privileged minority. Therefore, revolution, from the point of view of Pareto, is only a struggle of elites, a change of the ruling and potential elite.
« Iron law of oligarchic tendencies » R . Michels
R. Michelsinvestigated the social mechanisms that give rise to the elitism of society, and came to the conclusion that the organization of society itself requires elitism and naturally reproduces it. In society, the "iron law of oligarchic tendencies." Its essence is that
the development of society is accompanied by the formation of large organizations. The management of such organizations cannot be carried out by all its members. For effective functioning, organizations (including political parties) require the creation of a hierarchically organized management system, which ultimately leads to the concentration of power in the hands of the ruling core and apparatus. Thus, the formation of the ruling elite. The ruling elite has advantages over ordinary members: it has more political skills, superior knowledge and information, and controls formal means of communication. Ordinary members of the organization are not competent enough, informed and often passive.
The ruling elite is gradually getting out of the control of its rank-and-file members, detached from them and subordinates politics to its own interests, taking care to maintain its privileged position. As a result, any, even a democratic organization, is really ruled by an oligarchic group whose members do not cede their power to the masses, transferring it to other leaders. In all parties, regardless of their type, "democracy leads to oligarchization." it
pattern of development of a political organization. Oligarchization means that power in the organization is concentrated in the hands of the governing apparatus, and the role of ordinary members of the organization in the decision-making process decreases.
The difference between the interests and ideological position of party leaders and party members is growing, with the prevailing interests of the leading link.
In essence, Michels formulated one of the first concepts of bureaucratization of the ruling elite.
The ruling and non-ruling elites
According to Pareto, individuals are unequal in physical, intellectual, moral relations. Therefore, social inequality seems to him a completely natural, obvious and real fact.
People who have the highest rates in a particular field of activity, make up the elite. Each field of activity has its own elite.
Pareto distinguishes between two types of elite: the ruling, that is, taking part in the exercise of political power, and the non-ruling. On the whole, social stratification is depicted in his theory as a pyramid consisting of two layers: its top is a small elite (the "upper layer"), and the rest is the bulk of the population ("lower layer"). Elites exist in all societies, regardless of form of government.
As synonyms for this term, Pareto uses the terms “ruling class”, “ruling class”, “aristocracy”, “upper stratum”, these are simply objectively “best” in a certain field of activity: “There may be an aristocracy of saints or an aristocracy of robbers, an aristocracy of scholars,
aristocracy of criminals, etc. " The problem, however, remains: how to determine the "best", the most competent, etc.? Pareto essentially ignored the relativity of “elitist” qualities and their close connection with certain social systems, each of which develops its own specific criteria for evaluating these qualities.
Pareto strives for a purely descriptive interpretation of the term "elite", without introducing an evaluation element into it. Nevertheless, he was unable to avoid the well-known inconsistency in the interpretation of this concept. On the one hand, he characterizes the representatives of the elite as the most capable and qualified in a certain type of activity, as a kind of result of natural selection. On the other hand, in the "Treatise" there are allegations that people can wear the "label" of the elite without possessing the appropriate qualities. Obviously, the second interpretation contradicts the first. Apparently, in the first case, Pareto means a society with an open class structure and a perfect system of social mobility, based on the principle of “natural selection”. In this case, elitist qualities and elitist status should coincide, but a similar situation, of course, is not common in history. And yet, on the whole, the idea that elites are formed from people who really have the appropriate qualities and deserve their highest position in society dominates in Pareto.
Characteristic features of the ruling elite: a high degree of self-control; the ability to capture and use for their goals the weaknesses of other people; ability to convince, relying on human emotions; ability to use force when necessary. The last two abilities are mutually exclusive, and control occurs either through sipa or through persuasion. If the elite is unable to apply one or another of these qualities, it leaves the stage and gives way to another elite that can convince or use force. Hence the Pareto thesis: "History is a cemetery of aristocracy."
As a rule, an exchange occurs constantly between the elite and the rest of the population: part of the elite moves to the lower stratum, while the most capable part of the latter replenishes the composition of the elite. The process of updating the upper layer of Pareto calls the circulation of elites. Due to the circulation, the elite is in a state of gradual and continuous transformation.
The concepts of the elites of Mosca, Pareto and Michels are united by the following ideas:
1. The special qualities of the elite associated with natural talents and upbringing and manifested in its ability to manage, or at least to struggle for power.
2. Group cohesion of the elite. This is the cohesion of the group, united not only by a common professional status, social status and interests, but also by an elite self-awareness, self-perception as a special layer, called to lead the society.
3. Recognition of the elitism of any society, its inevitable division into a privileged ruling creative minority and a passive, uncreative majority. This separation naturally follows from the natural nature of man and society. Although the personal composition of the elite is changing, its dominant relationship with the masses is basically unchanged. So, for example, in the course of history, leaders of tribes, monarchs, nobles and nobles, people's commissars and party secretaries, ministers and presidents changed, but relations of domination and subordination between them and ordinary people always remained.
4. The formation and change of elites during the struggle for power. Many people with high psychological and social qualities seek to dominate the privileged position. However, no one wants to voluntarily give them their posts and position. Therefore, a hidden or overt struggle for a place under the sun is inevitable.
5. The leading and dominant role of the elite in society. It performs the management function necessary for the social system, although not always effectively. In an effort to preserve and inherit their privileged position, the elite tends to degenerate and lose their outstanding qualities.

The first classical concepts of elites arose at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.

The Italian jurist Gaetano Mosca, in a two-volume work, Fundamentals of Political Science, substantiated the idea that, in all societies, from the most medium-developed and barely reaching the rudiments of civilization to enlightened and powerful, there are two classes of people: the class of governors and the class of governed. The first is always more small, but carries out all political functions and monopolizes power, and the second, more numerous, is controlled and regulated by the second, in addition, it provides him with the material means of support necessary for the vitality of a political organism. Mosca also analyzed the problem of the formation (recruitment) of the political elite and its specific qualities. He believed that the most important quality of the formation of the political class (elite) is the ability to control other people, i.e. organizational ability, as well as material, moral and intellectual superiority over others.

According to the concept of this famous sociologist, the political class is gradually changing and in its dynamics there are two trends: aristocratic and democratic. The aristocratic tendency is clearly expressed in the desire of the political class to become hereditary, if not legally, then in fact. The prevalence of this trend leads to degeneration of the elite and social stagnation. The democratic tendency is expressed in the renewal of the political class at the expense of the most capable and active lower strata. Such an update prevents the degeneration of the elite and makes it capable of effectively managing society. The balance, Mosca said, between aristocratic and democratic tendencies is most desirable for society, for it ensures both continuity and stability in the government.

Regardless of G. Mosca, the theory of political elites was developed by Wilfredo Pareto in the scientific work “On the Application of Sociological Theories”. He also proceeded from the fact that the world at all times has the rule and should be ruled by a chosen minority endowed with special psychological and social qualities - the elites. This elite is distinguished from others by high efficiency and operates with high indicators in a particular field of activity. The totality of such individuals is the elite. It is divided into the ruling one, which directly or indirectly participates in governance and the non-ruling counter-elite. Counter-elites are people who also have psychological qualities characteristic of the elite, but do not have access to leadership functions due to their social status and various barriers. The development of society, as Pareto imagined, occurs through a periodic change, the circulation of elites. The reason for this circulation lies in the fact that the ruling elite seeks to preserve their privileges and pass them by inheritance to people with non-elitist qualities. This leads, on the one hand, to a qualitative deterioration in its composition, and, on the other hand, to a quantitative increase in the counter-elite. The latter, relying on the discontented masses, overthrows the ruling elite and establishes its own domination. In the history of such examples abound, and as we see the elite still comes to power, but with a different content than the former.

The contribution of Mosca and Pareto to modern political theory is mainly related to the determination of the structure of power and focus on the group nature of the implementation of power in any form.

Robert Michels, a representative of the Italian school of sociology, also made a major contribution to the development of the theory of political elites. The principle of minority rule was set forth in his work, “The Sociology of Party Organizations in Modern Democracy.” Robert Michels investigated the social mechanisms that give rise to the elitism of society. Agreeing with his predecessors, he emphasizes the organizational abilities, as well as the organizational structures of society, stimulating elitism and elevating the governing layer as the reasons for elitism. Michels formulated the so-called "iron law of oligarchic tendencies." This law is sometimes called the Michels Act. According to this law, the organization of society itself requires elitism and naturally reproduces it. The creation of large organizations inevitably leads to their oligarchization and the formation of the elite due to the action of a whole chain of interrelated factors. Human civilization is impossible without the presence of large organizations. Their management cannot be carried out by all members of organizations. The effectiveness of such organizations requires the rationalization of functions, the allocation of a leadership core and apparatus, which gradually but inevitably get out of the control of ordinary members, break away from them and subordinate the policy to the interests of their leadership and care only about maintaining their privileged position. The masses of members of organizations are passive and indifferent to the daily activities of organizations and politics as a whole. As a result, even in a democratic society, the oligarchic, elite group always always rules. From all this Michels made pessimistic conclusions regarding the possibilities of democracy.

The main directions of modern elite theories.
The concepts of the elites of Mosca, Pareto, and Michels gave impetus to broad theoretical, and subsequently (mainly after the Second World War), empirical studies of groups leading the state or claiming it. Modern theories of elites are diverse. Historically, the first group of theories that have not lost their modern significance are the concepts of the Machiavellian school (Mosca, Pareto, Michels, etc.) that have already been briefly considered. They are united by the following ideas:
1. The special qualities of the elite associated with natural talents and upbringing and manifested in its ability to manage, or at least to struggle for power.
2. Group cohesion of the elite. This is the cohesion of the group, united not only by a common professional status, social status and interests, but also by an elite self-awareness, self-perception as a special layer, called to lead the society.
3. Recognition of the elitism of any society, its inevitable division into a privileged ruling creative minority and a passive, uncreative majority. This separation naturally follows from the natural nature of man and society. Although the personal composition of the elite is changing, its dominant relationship with the masses is basically unchanged. So, for example, in the course of history, leaders of tribes, monarchs, boyars and nobles, people's commissars and party secretaries, ministers and presidents changed, but relations of domination and subordination between them and ordinary people always remained.
4. The formation and change of elites during the struggle for power. Many people with high psychological and social qualities seek to dominate the privileged position. However, no one wants to voluntarily give them their posts and position.
5. In general, the constructive, guiding and dominant role of the elite in society. It performs the management function necessary for the social system, although not always effectively. In an effort to preserve and inherit their privileged position, the elite tends to degenerate and lose their outstanding qualities. Machiavellian theories of elites are criticized for exaggerating the importance of psychological factors, anti-democracy and underestimation of the abilities and activity of the masses, insufficient consideration of the evolution of society and modern realities of the states of “universal prosperity ”, cynical attitude to the struggle for power. Such criticism is in many ways justified.
The value theory of the elite is trying to overcome the weaknesses of the Machiavellianists (N. Berdyaev, H. Ortega-i-Gasset). They, like Machiavellian concepts, consider the elite to be the main constructive force of society, however, they soften their position in relation to democracy and seek to adapt the elite theory to the real life of modern states. The diverse value concepts of elites differ significantly in the degree of protection of aristocracy, in relation to the masses, democracy, etc. However, they have a number of the following general settings:
1. Belonging to the elite is determined by the possession of high abilities and indicators in the most important areas of activity for the whole society. The elite is the most valuable element of the social system, focused on satisfying its most important needs. In the course of development, many old ones die in society and new needs, functions and value orientations arise. This leads to the gradual displacement of the carriers of the most important qualities of their time by new people who meet modern requirements. So in the course of history there was a change in the aristocracy, embodying moral qualities and, above all, honor, education and culture, by entrepreneurs, whose economic initiative needed society. The latter, in turn, are replaced by managers and intellectuals - carriers of knowledge and managerial competence that are so important for modern society.
2. The elite is relatively united on a healthy basis in the leadership functions it performs. This is not an association of people striving to realize their selfish group interests, but the cooperation of people who care primarily about the common good.
3. The relationship between the elite and the masses is not so much in the nature of political or social domination as in leadership, which involves managerial influence based on the consent and voluntary obedience of the governed and the authority of those in power. The leading role of the elite is likened to the leadership of the older, more knowledgeable and competent in relation to the younger, less knowledgeable and experienced. She meets the interests of all citizens.
4. The formation of the elite is not so much the result of a fierce struggle for power, but a consequence of the natural selection by society of the most valuable representatives. Therefore, society should strive to improve the mechanisms of such selection, to search for the rational, most effective elite in all social strata.
5. Elitism is a condition for the effective functioning of any society. It is based on the natural separation of managerial and executive work, naturally follows from equality of opportunity, and does not contradict democracy. Social equality should be understood as equality of life chances, and not equality of results, social status. Since people are not physically, intellectually, equal in life energy and activity, it is important for a democratic state to provide them with approximately the same starting conditions. They will come to the finish line at different times and with different results. Inevitably, social “champions” and outsiders will appear.
Valuable ideas about the role of the elite in society prevail among modern neoconservatives who claim that elitism is necessary for democracy. But the elite itself should serve as a moral example for other citizens and inspire respect for itself, confirmed in free elections.

The antithesis of pluralistic elitism is the left-liberal theory of the elite. According to the authors of this theory, the ruling elite occupies the upper level of power, which does not allow the rest of the population to determine real politics. Elitism is derived from the special psychological and social qualities of people. People from the people can occupy high posts in the social hierarchy, but they have no real chance. The ruling elite is not limited to the political elite. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe closeness of the ruling elite dominates.

Modern theories of elites are diverse. Historically, the first group of theories that did not waste modern significance are the concepts of the Machiavellian school (Mosca, Pareno Michels, etc.) that have already been briefly considered. They are united by the following ideas:
- 1. The special qualities of the elite associated with natural talents and upbringing and manifested in its ability to manage, or at least to struggle for power. political society elite
- 2. Group cohesion of the elite. This is the cohesion of the group, united not only by a common professional status, social status and interests, but also by an elite self-awareness, self-perception as a special layer, called to lead the society.
- 3. Recognition of the elitism of any society, its inevitable division into a privileged ruling creative minority and a passive, uncreative majority. This separation naturally follows from the natural nature of man and society. Although the personal composition of the elite is changing, its dominant relationship with the masses is basically unchanged. So, for example, in the course of history, leaders of tribes, monarchs, boyars and nobles, people's commissars and party secretaries, ministers and presidents changed, but relations of domination and subordination between them and ordinary people always remained.
- 4. The formation and change of elites during the struggle for power. Many people with high psychological and social qualities seek to dominate the privileged position. However, no one wants to voluntarily give them their posts and position. Therefore, a hidden or overt struggle for a place under the sun is inevitable.
- 5. In general, the constructive, guiding and dominant role of the elite in society. It performs the management function necessary for the social system, although not always effectively. In an effort to preserve and inherit their privileged position, the elite tends to degenerate, losing their outstanding qualities.
Machiavellian theories of elites are criticized for exaggerating the importance of psychological factors, antidemocracy and underestimation of the abilities and activity of the masses, insufficient consideration of the evolution of society and modern realities of welfare states, cynical attitude to the struggle for power. Such criticism is in many ways justified.

The value theory of the elite is trying to overcome the weaknesses of the Machiavellianists. They, like Machiavellian concepts, consider the elite to be the main constructive force of society, however, they soften their position in relation to democracy and seek to adapt the elite theory to the real life of modern states. The diverse value concepts of elites differ significantly in the degree of protection of aristocracy, in relation to the masses, democracy, etc. However, they have a number of the following general settings:
- 1. Belonging to the elite is determined by the possession of high abilities and indicators in the most important areas of activity for the whole society. The elite is the most valuable element of the social system, focused on satisfying its most important needs. In the course of development, many old ones die in society and new needs, functions and value orientations arise. This leads to the gradual displacement of the carriers of the most important qualities of their time by new people who meet modern requirements. So in the course of history there was a change in the aristocracy, embodying moral qualities and, above all, honor, education and culture, by entrepreneurs, whose economic initiative needed society. The latter, in turn, are replaced by managers and intellectuals - carriers of knowledge and managerial competence that are so important for modern society. Some modern proponents of the value theory of elites argue that only industrial and post-industrial society becomes truly elitist, since "class domination of private ownership has been replaced by the domination of groups, which are now recruited not by blood or property ownership, but on the basis of business qualifications."
- 2. The elite is relatively united on a healthy basis in the leadership functions it performs. This is not an association of people striving to realize their selfish group interests, but the cooperation of people who care, first of all, for the common good.
- 3. The relationship between the elite and the masses is not so much in the nature of political or social domination as in leadership, which involves managerial influence based on the consent and voluntary obedience of the governed and the authority of those in power. The leading role of the elite is likened to the leadership of the older, more knowledgeable and competent in relation to the younger, less knowledgeable and experienced. She meets the interests of all citizens.
- 4. The formation of the elite is not so much the result of a fierce struggle for power, but a consequence of the natural selection by society of the most valuable representatives. Therefore, society should strive to improve the mechanisms of such selection, to search for the rational, most effective elite in all social strata.
- 5. Elitism is a condition for the effective functioning of any society. It is based on the natural separation of managerial and executive work, naturally follows from equality of opportunity, and does not contradict democracy. Social equality should be understood as equality of life chances, and not equality of results, social status. Since people are not physically, intellectually, equal in life energy and activity, it is important for a democratic state to provide them with approximately the same starting conditions. They will come to the finish line at different times and with different results. Inevitably there will be social "champions" and outsiders.
Some supporters of the value theory of elites are trying to develop quantitative indicators characterizing its impact on society. So, N.A. Berdyaev based on the analysis of the development of different countries and peoples brought

"elite coefficient" as the ratio of the highly intellectual part of the population to the total number of literate. The elite coefficient of more than 5% means that the society has a high development potential. As soon as this coefficient dropped to about 1%, the empire ceased to exist, stagnation and ossification were observed in society.

Valuable ideas about the role of the elite in society prevail among modern neoconservatives who claim that elitism is necessary for democracy. But the elite itself should serve as a moral example for other citizens and inspire respect for itself, confirmed in free elections.

The main provisions of the value theory of elites are the basis of the concepts of democratic elitism (elite democracy), which are widely used in the modern world. They are based on the understanding of democracy proposed by Joseph Schumpeter as a competition between potential leaders for the confidence of voters. As Karl Mannheim wrote, "democracy entails an anti-elitist tendency, but does not require going all the way to the utopian equation of the elite and the masses. We understand that democracy is characterized not by the absence of an elite stratum, but rather by a new recruitment method and a new elite self-awareness."

Supporters of democratic elitism, referring to the results of empirical research, argue that real democracy needs both elites and mass political apathy, since too high political participation threatens the stability of democracy. The elites are necessary, first of all, as a guarantor of a high-quality composition of leaders elected by the population. The very social value of democracy depends critically on the quality of the elite. The leading layer not only possesses the properties necessary for managing, but also serves as a defender of democratic values \u200b\u200band is able to restrain the often inherent to the masses political and ideological irrationalism, emotional imbalance and radicalism.

In the 60-70s. allegations of comparative democratism of the elite and authoritarianism of the masses were largely refuted by specific studies. It turned out that although representatives of the elites usually surpass the lower strata of society in accepting liberal democratic values \u200b\u200b(freedom of the individual, speech, competition, etc.), in political tolerance, tolerance of others' opinions, in condemning dictatorship, they are more conservative in recognizing socio-economic rights of citizens: labor, strike, organization in a union, social security, etc. In addition, some scholars (P. Bahrah, F. Nashold) have shown the possibility of increasing the stability and effectiveness of the political system by expanding mass political participation.

The principles of the value theory about the value-rational nature of elite selection in a modern democratic society develop the concepts of pluralism, pluralism of elites, which are the most common in today's elite thought. They are often called functional theories of the elite. They do not deny the elitist theory as a whole, although they require a radical revision of a number of its fundamental, classical principles. The pluralistic concept of the elite is based on the following postulates:
- 1. Interpretation of political elites as functional elites. Qualification preparedness to perform the management functions of specific social processes is the most important quality that determines elite membership. Functional elites are individuals or groups that have the special qualifications necessary to occupy certain leadership positions in society. Their superiority to other members of society is manifested in the management of important political and social processes or in the influence on them. "
- 2. Denial of the elite as a single privileged relatively cohesive group. In a modern democratic society, power is dispersed between various groups and institutions that, through direct participation, pressure, use of blocs and unions, can veto objectionable decisions, defend their interests, and find compromises. The relations of power themselves are volatile, fluid. They are created for specific decisions and can be replaced for making and implementing other decisions. This weakens the concentration of power and prevents the formation of a stable ruling layer.
There are many elites. The influence of each of them is limited to a specific field of activity. None of them are able to dominate in all areas of life. The pluralism of elites is determined by the complex social division of labor, the diversity of social structure. Each of the many basic groups - professional, regional, religious, demographic - identifies its own elite, protecting its values \u200b\u200band interests and at the same time actively influencing it. The differences between the elites of the most important public sectors are more significant than the differences between the layers of the elite belonging to the same sector.
- 3. The division of society into elite and mass is relatively, conditionally and often blurry. Between them there are relations of representation rather than domination or permanent leadership. Elites are controlled by maternal groups. With the help of various democratic mechanisms - elections, referenda, polls, press, pressure groups - it is possible to limit or even prevent the action of the "law of oligarchic tendencies" formulated by Michels and keep the elite under the influence of the masses. This is facilitated by the competition of elites, reflecting economic and social competition in modern society. It prevents the emergence of a single dominant leadership group and makes it possible for the elites to be accountable to the masses.
- 4. In modern democracies, elites are formed from the most competent and interested citizens, who are very free to be part of the elite and participate in decision-making. The main subject of political life is not elites, but interest groups. The differences between the elite and the mass are based mainly on the unequal interest in decision-making. Access to the leading layer is opened not only by wealth and high social status, but above all by personal abilities, knowledge, and activity.
- 5. In democracies, elites perform important public functions related to governance. Talking about their social domination is unlawful.
The concepts of elite pluralism are widely used to theoretically substantiate modern Western democracies. However, these theories largely idealize reality. Numerous empirical studies indicate a clear unevenness of the impact of various social strata on politics, the predominance of the influence of capital, representatives of the military-industrial complex and some other groups. Given this, some proponents of pluralistic elitism propose highlighting the most influential "strategic" elites, whose "judgments, decisions, and actions have important predetermining consequences for many members of society."

A kind of ideological antipode of pluralistic elitism are the left-liberal theories of the elite. The most important representative of this area

Charles Wright Mills back in the 50s. He tried to prove that the United States is controlled not by many, but by one ruling elite. Left-liberal elitism, sharing some of the provisions of the Machiavellian school, has specific, distinctive features:

1. The main elite-forming trait is not outstanding individual qualities, but the possession of team positions, leadership positions. The ruling elite, according to Mills, consists of people occupying positions that give them opportunities to rise above the average of ordinary people and make decisions with major consequences. This is due to the fact that they command the most important hierarchical institutions and organizations of modern society. "They occupy strategic command posts in the social system, in which effective means are concentrated that provide the power, wealth and fame that they use."

It is the occupation of key positions in the economy, politics, military and other institutions that provides power and thereby constitutes the elite. This understanding of the elite distinguishes left-liberal concepts from Machiavellian and other theories that derive elitism from the special qualities of people.

2. Group cohesion and diversity in the composition of the ruling elite, which is not limited to the political elite, which directly takes government decisions, but also includes corporate executives, politicians, senior public servants, and senior officers. They are supported by intellectuals who are well settled within the existing system.

The unifying factor of the ruling elite is not only the common interest of its constituent groups in maintaining their privileged position and ensuring its social system, but also the proximity of social status, educational and cultural level, range of interests and spiritual values, lifestyle, as well as personal and family ties.

Within the ruling elite, there are complex hierarchical relationships. Although Mills sharply criticizes the ruling elite of the United States, reveals the connection of politicians with large owners, he is still not a supporter of the Marxist class approach, which considers the political elite only as spokesmen for the interests of monopoly capital.
- 3. The deep difference between the elite and the masses. People from the people can enter the elite only by occupying high posts in the social hierarchy. However, they have few real chances for this. The possibilities for the influence of the masses on the elite through elections and other democratic institutions are very limited. With the help of money, knowledge, and a well-developed mechanism for manipulating consciousness, the ruling elite virtually uncontrollably controls the masses.
- 4. The recruitment of the elite is carried out mainly from its own environment on the basis of the adoption of its socio-political values. The most important selection criteria are the possession of influence resources, as well as business qualities and a conformist social position.
- 5. The primary function of the ruling elite in society is to ensure their own dominance. This function is subordinate to the solution of managerial tasks. Mills denies the inevitability of an elitist society, criticizes it from a consistently democratic perspective.
Among modern theories of elites, several stand out. Historically the first is concept machiavellian school (G. Mosca, V. Pareto, R. Michels and others.), Which is characterized by the following provisions:
Machiavellian theories of elites are criticized for exaggerating the importance of psychological factors, anti-democracy, for overestimating the role of leaders and underestimating the activity of the masses, for not taking into account the evolution of society.
Representatives of Machiavellian school tried to overcome weaknesses value theory of elites(V. Ropke, Ortega i Gasset, etc.). They also consider the elite to be the main constructive force of society, but they take a softer position with respect to democracy, adapting the elite theory to the real life of modern democratic states. Different representatives of value theories do not have complete coincidence of views, but there are a number of general principles:
Valuable ideas about elites are also the basis concepts of democratic elitism, widespread in the modern world. Prominent representatives of this trend are R. Dahl, S.M. Lipset, L. Singer and others come from an understanding of democracy as a competition between potential leaders for trust and the vote.
The elitist theories of democracy see the leading layer as a group that not only possesses managerial qualities, but also defends democratic values, that can hold back the ideological and political irrationalism, emotional imbalance, and radicalism that is often inherent in the masses.
The idea of \u200b\u200ba value interpretation of the elite is developed and significantly enriched by concepts plurality of elites(O. Stammer, D. Riesman, S. Keller, etc.). These concepts are often called functional theories of the elite. They are based on such specific postulates:
The concepts of the plurality of elites in many ways idealize the real society. Observations show the uneven effect of different social strata on politics and the elevation of individual groups over all others.
Various ideological antipodes to the plurality of elites are various left-liberal theories of elites, in particular, ruling elite theory(R. Mills). Representatives of this area of \u200b\u200belite theories proceed from the fact that society is governed exclusively by one ruling elite.
The main points of these theories are:
The presence of different approaches in assessing the place and role of political elites in society indicates their importance in a scientific and practical sense. The elitism of modern society is beyond doubt. This is a political reality that cannot be overcome, but must be taken into account and effectively used.

Home and life. Psychology. Technics. State. Finance. Health. the Internet

Essence, basic theories of elites and selection systems. Classical Theory of Political Elites

Encyclopedic YouTube

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

Transformation of the public elite