Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
In what was probably the first comprehensive empirical study of political elites, published in 1976, Robert Putnam claimed that the main defect of the studies undertaken in the field was that the gap was unusually largebetween abstract, general theories and masses of unorganised empirical evidence (1976, ix). The only reservation to be made about this statement might be that the empirical evidence, at the time the book was written, had a mass character. Putnam then indicated that the questions of who rules? and of who should rule? were central in empirical and normative political science respectively. He added: Sage commentators, from Plato and Aristotle to our nightly television newscasters, tell us much about power and leadership, but their profundities, when carefully examined, often turn out to be incomplete and ambiguous (1976, 2). Thanks to Putnam's own work and to the many studies, sometimes comparative, during the last quarter of the twentieth century, the overall assessment made in 1976 can be modified in part: much is still unknown or only partly known, however. In particular, the geographical scope of the generalizations that can be made on the basis of the collected evidence remains limited. The key changes, which have occurred since 1976, have gone in three directions. The first change concerns the balance between theoretical and empirical studies. Perhaps the emergence of democracy in the West in the nineteenth century led to widespread dissatisfaction as the contrast between ideal and reality seemed to be vast: the very concept of elite thus became a battleground. That concept may have had a positive flavor for those who felt that the people needed guidance, a guidance that was provided by the newly established representative systems. Probably for many more, the adjective elitist and the substantive with which it was closely connected, elitism, indicated dislike, even rejection. That is because writers at the time stressed that rulers tended to use their authority to frustrate democracy. Hence the passionate debates between those who regarded the elite, not only as a necessity, but as a beacon, and those who felt that members of the elite were merely exploiting the positions of privilege in which they found themselves. These views gave rise to the abstract theories to which Putnam referred. Since the third quarter of the twentieth century, these heated debates have abated, however. Instead, detailed empirical studies gradually began to show that, at any rate in the West, extremist viewpoints about the role of the elite were simply unrealistic. A second major change is connected to the spread of empirical studies (see the chapter by HoffmannLange in this volume). The political elite came to be seen increasingly as autonomous from other segments of the national elite. Early studies had an essentially global sociological outlook; they apparently took for granted, indeed sometimes plainly stated, that there was one elite and that its political component was not merely closely associated to, but indeed undistinguishable from its social and even economic components. On the contrary, empirical studies showed that the political elite were different from other elite groups. At least in the West, this distinction occurred both because of recruitment and career characteristics and because of the nature of the problems which political elites had to address, nationally and internationally. Third, empirical studies gradually demonstrated that the dichotomous opposition between elite and mass was an unrealistic simplification. In western democracies, groups of various kinds contributed to filling the gap between the two levels. Moreover, among those who could reasonably be regarded as part of the elite, one needs to introduce major distinctions, such as among party activists, parliamentarians, and members of governments. Above all, twentieth century political life was at least ostensibly orchestrated, if not dominated, by leaders, who seemed markedly more powerful than the rest of the political elite. Despite these three major changes, all of which resulted from the increase in the number and scope of empirical studies, much remains to be done to ensure that we have a true overall picture of the nature and role of political elites in the contemporary world. There are some comparative studies, to be sure, but almost all of these have a limited geographical scope. Putnam's 1976 work was in many ways a heroic attempt at undertaking a worldwide survey, but the author was the first to recognize that what could be said on the basis of empirical data about political elites outside the West was limited in the extreme. The situation has not changed markedly in this respect in the subsequent three decades. Despite the fact that analyses of political elites outside the western world would provide an alternative perspective on the nature of elites, the bulk of the studies on political elites are still devoted to western countriesbasically to western and central eastern Europe as well as to Latin and North America (Czudnowski 1982, 1983; Dogan 1989, 2003; Higley and Gunther 1992; Higley and Dogan 1998; Higley et al. 2002; Williams and Lascher 1993; Yesilada 1999). The empirical
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2013. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: null; date: 06 April 2014
Political Elites
evidence at our disposal about the composition of political elites outside the West has improved over the past thirty years but can still be described as patchy. Differences in the nature of the political elite are manifestly large, enormous perhaps, between traditional and developing political systems, between dictatorships and democratic polities, including among the many types of emerging democratic polities, as well as between military and civilian regimes. Yet, one can only provide some insights into the nature of these elites, not give robust evidence of a truly general character. This chapter thus begins by examining the forms which political elite theory took from the end of the nineteenth century to the 1960s and 1970s. This theory constitutes the background against which empirical studies were subsequently developed. The chapter then concentrates in its second section on career patterns and looks at forms of recruitment as well as at duration and turnover among the political elite. In this respect, the bulk of the findings are drawn mainly from western experience. The third section examines the role of the political elite. Research often suggests that in some countries, despite apparent divisions, the political elite are socially and ideologically united. In the West at least, matters are appreciably more complex. There is a tension, both within the political elite and between that political elite and what can be loosely described as rather inchoate and often unrealistic expectations coming from below. Therefore, it does not seem that the western political elite is fundamentally united; nor is it true either that it is fundamentally disunited. More realistically, its various elements oscillate between efforts at broad compromises and attempts at implementing sharply contested viewpoints.
Political Elites
distinguishable or not from the social and economic elite of that country, second, the extent to which the elite is internally differentiated into lower and uppermost echelons, third, the nature of mechanisms by which individuals are recruited in the political elite and, fourth, the patterns of duration and turnover of members who belong to the political elite. The following sections examine the shared characteristics of elites, and then the characteristics that differentiate elites.
2.3 Differences: The Distinction between the Political Elite and the Rest of the Elite
Many elite theorists did not distinguish the political elite from the socioeconomic elite. In nondemocratic systems, the political elite are indeed undistinguishable from the rest of the elite, but in one of two entirely different ways. First, in traditional systems there is no political elite as such because the pyramidal social structure inherited from the past constitutes the backbone of political life. This is the case in some of the traditional monarchies which remain in the contemporary world, for instance Saudi Arabia or emirates in the Arabian peninsula (Perthes 2004). In these nations, there are no political institutions as such, merely a monarch who rules. Second, where traditional systems become unable to meet demands for change arising in some quarters of the society, these systems tend to be replaced. This often occurs through brutal revolutions, by dictatorships based on the military (not a political institution in the strict sense of the word) or on an entirely newly created single party arrangement (or a combination of both). There are many examples of such a development in the contemporary world, Libya being one of the most clearcut cases. Especially where a single party is created, a new elite attempts to impose, as in the case of communist or of some other progressive regimes, not just a different form of politics but a different social and economic structure. The political elite become so preponderant that it seems to encompass the whole of the elite. Thus, in this case, too, political and social and economic elites remain undistinguishable (Taras 1989).
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2013. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: null; date: 06 April 2014
Political Elites
This is not the case in western democracies and indeed to a large extent in emerging or less consolidated democracies (Best and Becker 1997; Eyal, Szelenyi, and Townsley 1998; Higley and Lengyel 2000; Shlapentokh et al. 1999). A democracy cannot be set up unless political institutions, such as a parliament and a pluralistic system of parties, are set up. Meanwhile, the preexisting social structure is maintained or at most modified only gradually. Therefore, those who operate the new political institutions have at least to coexist with those who are socially or economically powerful, even if numerous clashes occur. Gradually, the political institutions acquire greater strength if the democratic system is successfully maintained: a kind of modus vivendi emerges. A political elite, distinct from the social and economic elites, has come to be in existence (Borchert and Zeiss 2003).
Political Elites
2.6 Difference: Patterns of Duration and Turnover
Perhaps the most striking features of democratic political elites are the rapidity of the turnover and the shortness of the career. In contrast, there is a much slower turnover of political personnel in traditional regimes and in many dictatorships. In democratic systems, the turnover of elites tends to be low at what might be regarded as the periphery of the political elite, for instance in some of the party positions (as Michels had noted with respect to socialist parties in their early development). Meanwhile, members of legislatures, whether parliaments or congresses, remain in their seats, on average, for about a decade and a half. Elites exit from office not just because they are not reelected, but also because, especially in the United States, they are not reselected as candidates. Or, sometimes candidates withdraw because the excitement or rewards that the job provides do not match the expectations that the members may have originally had. Thus the parliamentary or congressional elites are renewed entirely, on average, twice in each generation. Yet this tenure is long when compared to the tenure of members of governments of democratic systems. On average, ministers and secretaries in western Europe are in office for three to four years, with a substantial minority being in office for shorter periods (Blondel and Thiebault 1991). The picture is different in postcommunist central eastern Europe: in these countries the duration of ministers in office is only two years on average (Blondel, MllerRommel, and Malova 2006). Admittedly, many of these government members will have been junior ministers or assistant secretaries for periods of about the same length. Yet, even if both these periods are added and indeed even if the average duration of tenure in the legislature (in parliamentary systems) is taken into account, one is rarely a member of the political elite for life in democratic systems. Only a few stars can be regarded as having made their whole career in politics. The former foreign minister of Germany, Hans Dietrich Genscher, is, for instance, a case in point. This may be regarded as a positive characteristic from the point of view of the circulation of elites. Thus, this feature of democracies can be regarded as providing further evidence of the superiority of democratic systems over all others. In contrast, a short career at the top implies that many members of democratic governments do not have the time to play a truly significant part in the development and implementation of policies. This may suggest, as has often been claimed, that a rapid turnover of the political elite entails that governments count rather little in comparison with permanent bureaucracies (Dogan 1989).
Political Elites
3.2 Patterns of Conflict and Consensus within the Political Elite
In some countries or at some occasions, members of the political elite tend to come to agree about adopting a common stance over key policies. More commonly, consensual politics has characterized a number of western European countries with respect to social or economic policies; other countries typically practiced confrontational politics. Moreover, in societies with strongly identifiable pillars, such as the Netherlands or Belgium, the idea often prevails that the parties representing these pillars should either govern together or at least be permanently associated in some of the key social policies affecting the country (Lijphart 1968, 1999). Such developments may provide a strong argument in favor of the view that the political elites are fundamentally united. Yet not only are these developments supported by the populations concerned, but they are also regarded by some scholars, and in particular by Lijphart, as a higher form of democracy than the forms practiced by the countries in which the political elite is sharply divided between government and opposition. Democracy is regarded by many as meaning above all broadly based participation rather than perpetual conflict. Thus, the kinds of arrangements at the levels of peak interest groups, parties, and national executives seem to provide better mechanisms for lower social strata participation than confrontational systems in which only a part of the population supports governmental policies. The most powerful criticism that can be levelled against the consensual system is that it enables the members of the elite to enjoy a more cosy life, somewhat sheltered from electoral fluctuations. The key parties may act together in ways that are regarded by some as being of the nature of a cartel (Katz and Mair 1995). Thus the political elite may or may not be ideologically united in western democracies. But the unity or disunity of the political elite reflects the extent to which that elite develops policies that are at least acceptable to the mass of the population. This does not mean that the relationship between the political elite and the mass of the population is always easy or that the people play always or even often a significant part in the policy directions taken by the political elite (see the section on masselite representation below). This only means that in western democracies the relationships within the political elite and between the political elite and the population are more complex and more subtle than the theorists had suggested (Strom, Mller, and Bergman 2003). This also means that there is a great need for more empirical studies which would make it possible to determine with precision what are the realistic limits of the divisions within the political elite and to what extent and in what circumstances a united political elite is at unison with the broad mass of the people.
4 Conclusion
The concept of the political elite developed gradually out of the broader concept of the elite which sociologists came to use, especially in the later nineteenth century, to attempt to summarize the nature of the link between the rulers and the ruled. The concept of elite was perhaps easily applicable to those countries in which the social structure was relatively stable or where changes brought about by a revolution tended to be imposed from above. Its validity came to be markedly more dubious in the context of the politically complex societies which democracies, and especially western democracies, have become. This is probably why theories about the character and role of the elite have been more numerous up to the middle of the twentieth century than afterwards. It does not follow that the concept of the political elite should be discarded, for instance in favour of purely institutional definitions. The concept of the political elite has a twofold advantage. On the one hand, it induces scholars to reflect upon the links between the members of the different political institutions which play a part in shaping the nature of political decision making. On the other hand, the concept also forces scholars to consider the relationships between the political elite and the social and economic elite. Yet it does remain the case that the concept of elite is necessarily relatively imprecise and that it minimizes to a substantial extent the levels which exist among those who belong to it and indeed the clashes that occur among elites. The use of the concept of political elite can therefore help markedly our understanding of political life, but on condition that it be treated, not as a rigid notion which is uniformly applicable, but as a flexible tool which takes into account the immense complexities of the power relationships between human beings.
References
BEST, H., and BEC K ER , U. eds. 1997. Elites in Transition: Elite Research in Central Eastern Europe. Opladen: Leske & Budrich. and COTTA, M. eds. 2000. Parliamentary Representatives in Europe 18482000. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BLON D EL, J. 1973. Comparative Legislatures . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 1985. Government Ministers in the Contemporary World. London: Sage. and MllerRommel, F. eds. 1993. Governing Together. London: Macmillan. and MALOVA, D. 2007. Governing New European Democracies . London: Macmillan/Palgrave. and THIEB AULT, J. L. eds. 1991. The Profession of Government Minister in Western Europe. London: Macmillan. BOR C HER T, J., and Z EISS , J. eds. 2003. The Political Class in Advanced Industrial Democracies . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CAR R OLL, S. ed. 2003. Women in American Politics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2013. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: null; date: 06 April 2014
Political Elites
CAMP , R. A. 1995. Political Recruitment across Two Centuries: Mexico 18841991. Austin: University of Texas Press. COLTON , T., and TUC K ER , R. eds. 1995. Patterns in PostSoviet Leadership. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. CZUD N OWSK I , M. ed. 1982. Does Who Governs Matter? Elite Circulation in Contemporary Societies . DeKalb: Northern Illinios University Press. ed. 1983. Political Elites and Social Change. DeKalb: Northern Illinios University Press. DAHL, R. 1961. Who Governs? New Haven: Yale University Press. DALOZ, J. P. 2002. lites et representations politiques . Pressac: Presses universitaires de Bourdeaux. DOG AN , M. ed. 1989. Pathways to Power. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. ed. 2003. Elite Configuration at the Apex of Power. Leiden: Brill Press. EULAU, H., and CZUD N OWSK I , M. eds. 1976. Elite Recruitment in Democratic Polities . London: SAGE. EYAL, G., SZELEN YI , I., and TOWN SLEY , E. 1998. Making Capitalism without Capitalists: Class Formation and Elite Struggles in PostCommunist Central Europe. London: Verso Publications. FER N AN D ES , J. A. 1970. The Political Elite in Argentina. New York: New York University Press. HER MASSI , E. 1972. Leadership and National Development in Africa: A Comparative Study . Berkeley: University of California Press. HIB B IN G , J. R. 1991. Congressional Careers: Conteurs of Life in the U.S. House of Representatives . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. HIG LEY , J., and DOG AN , M. eds. 1998. Elites, Crisis, and the Origins of Regimes . Oxford: Oxford University Press. and GUN THER , R. eds. 1992. Elites and Democratic Consolidation in Latin America and Southern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. and LEN G YEL, G. eds. 2000. Elites after State Socialism . Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. et al. eds. 2002. Postcommunist Elites and Democracy in Eastern Europe. London: Macmillan/Palgrave. KATZ, R., and MAIR , P. 1995. Changing models of party organization and party democracy: the emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics 1: 529. KER STIEN S , T. 1966. The New Elite in Asia and Africa. New York: Praeger Press. KITTILSON , M. 2006. Challenging Parties, Changing Parliaments: Women and Elected Office in Contemporary Western Europe. Columbus, Oh.: Ohio State University Press. KLIN G EMAN N , H., STOESS , R., and WESSELS , B. eds. 1991. Politische Klasse und politische Intitutionen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. KLUG MAN , J. 1989. The New Soviet Elite. New York: Praeger Press. LAUR EN TIU, S. 2004. Patterns of Elite Recruitment in PostSocialist Romania. Bukarest: Editura Ziua. LIJPHAR T, A. 1968. The Politics of Accomodation. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1999. Patterns of Democracy . New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. LOVEN D USK I , J., and NOR R IS , P. 1993. Gender and Party Politics . London: SAGE. MIC HELS , R. 1962. Political Parties . New York: Free Press. MILLS , C. W. 1956. The Power Elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MOSC A, G. 1939. The Ruling Class . New York: McGrawHill. NOR R IS , P. ed. 1997. Passages to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. and LOVEN D USK I , J. 1995. Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in British Parliaments . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. NYE , R. A. 1977. The AntiDemocratic Sources of Elite Theory: Pareto, Mosca, Michels . London: Sage. OYED IR AN , O. 1979. Nigerian Government and Politics under Military Rule. London: Macmillan. PAR ETO, V. 1968. The Rise and the Fall of the Elites . Totowa: Bedminster. PEN N IN G S , P. 2000. Consequences of ministerial recruitment for the functioning of cabinets in western Europe. Acta Politica, 1: 86103. PER THES , V. ed. 2004. Arab Elites . London: Lynne Riemer. PUTN AM , R. D. 1976. The Comparative Study of Political Elites . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. ROSE , R., and MISHLER , W. 1994. Representation and Effective Leadership in PostCommunist Political Systems . Glasgow: University of Strathclyde
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2013. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: null; date: 06 April 2014
Political Elites
Press. SAD R I , H. A. 1997. Revolutionary States, Leaders, and Foreign Relations: A Comparative Study of China, Cuba, and Iran. New York: Praeger Press. SHLAPEN TOK H, V. et al. eds. 1999. The New Elite in PostCommunist Eastern Europe. College Station, Tex.: Texas A&M University Press. SIN YAVSK Y , A. 1997. The Russian Intelligensia. New York: Columbia University Press. STEEN , A. 1997. Between Past and Future: Elites, Democracy and the State in PostCommunist Countries. A Comparison of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Aldershot; Ashgate Press. 2003. Elites in the Politics of the New Russia. London: Routledge. and GELMAN , V. eds. 2003. Elites and Democratic Development in Russia. London: Routledge. STR OM , K., MLLER , W., and BER G MAN , T. eds. 2003. Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies . Oxford: Oxford University Press. TAR AS , R. ed. 1989. Leadership Change in Communist States . Boston: Unwin Hyman Press. TAVAR ES D E ALMEID A , P., COSTA PIN TO, A., and BER MEO, N. eds. 2003. Who Governs Southern Europe. Regime Change and Ministerial Recruitment 18502000. London: Frank Cass. VIAN ELLO, M., and MOOR E , G. eds. 2000. Gendering Elites: Economic and Political Leadership in 27 Industrialised Societies . London: Macmillan. WILLIAMS , S., and LASC HER , E. L. eds. 1993. Ambition and Beyond: Career Paths of American Politicians . Berkeley: University of California Press. YESILED A, B. A. ed. 1999. Comparative Political Parties and Party Elites . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Z AN G , X. 2003. Elite Dualism and Leadership Selection in China. London: Routledge.
Jean Blondel
Jean Blondel is Professorial Fellow at the European University Institute, Florence, and Visiting Professor, University of Siena.
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2013. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). Subscriber: null; date: 06 April 2014