Democracies are oligarchies in disguise. Discuss.
Taking simple definitions of democracy and oligarchy as the rule of “all the people” and “a small group of people” respectively, it would seem obvious that a state cannot follow both models simultaneously. However, the difference between substance and appearance may allow for the inner workings of modern political systems to be quite different from the façade, which in developed Western nations is almost universally of a ‘democratic’ state. In this essay I will discuss the historical background, theory and reality of this question; and conclude that, notwithstanding certain principled outliers, the original premise is correct.
It is basic human, and indeed animal, nature for groups of beings to have leaders and followers. In modern societies, this has led to a complex political machine, broadly meeting the populace’s needs and desires. In return for giving up power in day-to-day politics, the public is supposed to be able to wield the greatest control of all: that of deciding on the leaders themselves. If they have, in fact, lost that power, or much of it, then the society can no longer be considered democratic, and effectively becomes an oligarchy.
The virtues of democracy have been hotly debated since Ancient Greece. Plato worried of the possibility of 'mob rule’, where the uneducated had a greater voice than the learned and experienced. However, the political system of Athens at the time was highly democratic, arguably the most such system in human history. Therefore, the connection of oligarchy and democracy is not certain or necessary, despite its possible advantages.
At least ostensibly, today’s democracies seem very democratic. The main positions of power, such as members of legislative bodies, presidents etc. are voted for by the people. Universal suffrage and 'one man, one vote’ ensure public access to participation. While actual voter turnouts are low, the opportunity is there when the need or desire arises. If the powerful defy the 'wishes’ of the public, they can be removed in the next election through a vote for a better alternative. Unfortunately, this positive assessment requires many optimistic assumptions. Are those we elect acting in our interests, or their own? Are the elected even the true powers in our society? If these are, in fact, incorrect, then the conclusions must similarly be false.
Perhaps, as Pareto argued, there is a degree of elitism in modern politics. But, as long as the elites are forced to compete for popular support, and denied a continuous hold on power, it can be seen as a mainly democratic system. One such elite is the political party, present in all representative democracies. While they may have power beyond their numerical position, the competition between them may ensure that oligarchies are not allowed time to form and begin acting in their own interests.
However, the political party may well be one way to analyse how democracies are, in fact, merely a system of promoting oligarchical rule. The idea of the party developed mainly in the 19th and 20th centuries, as a way of gaining political power for a particular (though not necessarily directly defined) ideological, socio-economic, ethnic or cultural grouping. They seem, on the surface at least, a logical way to organise a democratic system on a large scale. However, especially in the past century, political parties have become more of a hindrance than a help to true democratic principles.
One particular problem with parties is their reason for being. While many started on ideologically idealist grounds, being a means to a specific end, they have become a means within themselves. For example, in Britain the Labour party began in the early 20th century as a voice for disenfranchised, working or lower class citizens. It sought to achieve a “fair” deal for such people, and remove particular social and economic barriers to their betterment. However, in the 21st century many of these goals have been met. Rather than declare its mission accomplished, the Labour party continues, merely widening its aims to ensure its own survival. Indeed, many of its decisions as a party in government could be said to directly contradict its original reason for being. In other words, despite starting as the building blocks of a thriving democracy, parties can, and most often do, become oligarchical in nature.
The most important tenet of democracy involves the power and voice of the people, which political parties claim to use as their primary compass. But are they actually 'moved by the people’? While they heavily utilise polling data to refine policies, the basic policy has already been decided by party 'elders’. Also, whether someone is more likely to vote for a party with a certain policy or sound bite, does not necessarily mean the person is explicitly endorsing that policy. Therefore, notwithstanding their obsession with elections, parties can be seen to take very little interest in the actual views of the populace.
Of course, one cannot simply vote, but must vote for something. In representative democracies, this means voting for politicians, who are overwhelmingly members of a main political party. How are such candidates chosen? The most democratic way would presumably be to hold 'primary’ elections to first choose the candidates, but that can be impractical when large numbers of candidates have to chosen. Therefore, the political parties do the job themselves. This gives them a great deal of oligarchic power, with the possibility of keeping out the candidate whom the voters would choose, due to other factors. For example, with the rise of national party image and branding, solidarity is seen as a major, if not the only, objective of a politician. Candidates who are considered “obedient” to the party line and leaders may well be favoured, even if they have other faults.
This undemocratic power is helped by frequent elections, which give numerous opportunities to remove 'troublemakers’ who are disobeying the party’s high command. Also, current politicians can be 'encouraged’ to follow the party line, with the threat of decreased help at the next election. In this way, the democratic notion of the people choosing the politician is perverted, with their role relegated to the rubber-stamping of a pre-selected candidate.
The political party is not the only means of showing how democracies are often essentially oligarchies in disguise. Equality is often used as a 'proof’ of democracy’, with every citizen being equal under the law and politics. However, despite the rhetoric, humans are not equal creatures. We are not born, or develop, equally: physically, mentally or emotionally. For this reason, even if the letter of the law is equal, its application and results may well not. Perhaps a 'true’ democracy, with equality for its citizens, would have to slant rules towards weaker members of society. For example, while everyone may have equal access to government grants, some are more proficient at applying for and receiving them. This seems to indicate an undemocratic inequality of the system.
In a strange way, the very concept of “democracy” rules over us in an almost oligarchic manner. It is the dominant ideology in developed Western countries, with no alternative being seriously considered for good government. This is displayed in the essay “The End of History?”, which described “Western liberal democracy” as the “final” ideology humans will need. To suggest another system, or to critique the current one, is seen as political heresy, with the aim of plunging the country into anarchy or dictatorship. This indoctrination is accomplished through the media, which has a consistent pro-democracy bias. Undemocratic states will receive negative coverage, whether they are performing well or not. Education plays a part too, seen in Illich’s “hidden curriculum”, whereby the slant of teaching is moved towards the ideology of the current system. In America this means idolizing the Founding Fathers; in Britain it rests with critiquing ancient kings. By adulthood, citizens are so certain they live in a democracy, that any evidence to the contrary will be ignored or laughed away. This makes running an oligarchical system much easier, and indeed self-sustaining; as the power inherent to oligarchy can be used to indoctrinate the next generation, thereby allowing a greater grab of power, ad infinitum.
The book “Political Parties” (Michels, 1911) is perhaps the premier study of why organisations seem to become oligarchic over time. It developed the famous “iron law of oligarchy”, describing such a process as inevitable. The reasons given for this can be summarised as “technical”, “organisational”, “gratitude” and “immobility.” The book is focused organizations such as parties and trade unions, but the concepts can be applied to the wider democratic system. Technically, democracy may well be impossible. Some decisions simply cannot be taken by all, which leads to hierarchies of decision-makers. This is followed by the 'delegation’ problem, whereby not all citizens can meet to discuss every problem. So, some are sent to meetings and develop specialist knowledge unknown to their peers. This specialization creates a a certain division between the leaders and the public, enhancing the existing hierarchy in an undemocratic way.
At this point, with power invested in the hands of a few leaders, some would consider it 'kept in reserve’, until the public decide to take it back. However, while eager to increase their own control, humans are less willing to relinquish it. For this reason, leaders tend to organise themselves into controlling groups, in the interest of increasing their current power and making it more entrenched.
As shown earlier, through the media and education, people are taught to be positive towards “democracy” as a concept. This gratitude extends to the personification of democracy, i.e. politicians, and changes the style of the interaction. Instead of the public putting the government in power, the people feel obedience and respect for their leaders. This encourages political decisions to remain unquestioned, and detracts from any hope of a democratic system.
A final point made by Michels, and a central factor of this discussion, is the immobility of the citizenry of a state. In the end, a country may attempt any number of wonderful democratic innovations. But, if many of the people are ignorant or apathetic towards the system, then oligarchy may simply form from necessity. Democracy’s focus on 'people power’ makes the assumption that the people really want to be in power, which is generally true. But the relative peace and prosperity of the last half-century in the Western world has left many comfortable with their position, and giving tacit, if not vocal, support to an oligarchic system. As long as they are kept safe and happy, with good public services and at least a façade of public input, then the populace seems quite content to not peer too closely at the current state of their vaunted 'democracy’.
However, if democracies are not distinct from oligarchies in our current system, this may be no bad thing. Even when hidden and intangible, oligarchy does provide certain advantages to pure democracy, despite the obvious drawbacks. For example, it can be viewed as more meritocratic, as values other than 'electability’ are favoured by the political elite. It may be more beneficial for the powers over financial policy in a government to be the country’s top economists, rather than its most photogenic. Oligarchy also provides a degree of stability and experience. The core elite can remain in power for decades on end, developing expertise that would be impossible under the volatility of democracy. No matter how high the performance, every democratic government will eventually be turfed out as the thrill of a new beginning becomes too strong for the electorate. This is despite the fact that keeping a successful government may well be in the best interests of the country.
In conclusion, while democracy certainly makes for a compelling ideal, it can be seen that today’s modern democracies are not far removed from oligarchies. An autocratic future where the populace was forced to fight for democratic principles may change the situation, but I currently see no imminent changes to the system of a democratic polishing over the oligarchic core.