“Write short note: Power of the elite and the masses in democratic societies.” (1983)
Democratic theory places sovereignty in the people; elite theory holds that a minority rules everywhere. In democratic societies the real question is the relationship between the two: whether the masses are a passive audience for elites or a force that constrains and renews them.
The elite-centred view: masses as passive
- Robert Michels (Political Parties, 1911): the masses are apathetic, want guidance and venerate leaders, so even democratic parties become oligarchies.
- Vilfredo Pareto: the masses respond to sentiment, and elites move them with derivations, ideologies that dress up interest as principle.
- C. Wright Mills (The Power Elite, 1956): an informed public has become a mass society of people who receive opinions from the media rather than form them in debate.
The democratic-elitist view: masses as judges
- Gaetano Mosca accepted that representative institutions and a broad sub-elite let the ruled influence the rulers.
- Joseph Schumpeter (1942) defined democracy as competition among elites for the people’s vote. The masses do not govern, but they decide who governs.
- Robert A. Dahl (Polyarchy, 1971): many competing minorities keep power dispersed and answerable.
Mutual dependence
- Antonio Gramsci: a ruling group secures lasting power through hegemony, the consent of the masses. Consent has to be won again and again, so the masses are never simply objects of rule.
- Michels’s paradox: the masses need organisation to press their claims, yet organisation produces new leaders who can drift away from them. Every gain in collective strength creates a fresh elite.
How the two are linked: Kornhauser
William Kornhauser (The Politics of Mass Society, 1959) classified societies by two variables:
| Non-elites weakly available for mobilisation | Non-elites highly available for mobilisation | |
|---|---|---|
| Elites hard to reach | Communal society | Totalitarian society |
| Elites easy to reach | Pluralist society | Mass society |
Intermediate associations such as unions, caste and professional bodies, and civil society protect both sides. They shield elites from mob pressure and shield the masses from manipulation. Where those associations are weak, populist leaders can mobilise masses directly.
Indian democratic experience
- Mass participation: Yogendra Yadav described a “second democratic upsurge” in the 1990s, when lower castes, the poor and rural voters began to vote in larger numbers. In 2024 turnout was 65.79%, and women’s turnout (65.78%) was slightly above men’s.
- Mass pressure works: the 2020–21 farmers’ movement won repeal of the farm laws, and a grassroots campaign produced the Right to Information Act (2005).
- Elite resilience: 93% of the MPs elected in 2024 were crorepatis, and 31% of Lok Sabha members come from political families (Association for Democratic Reforms).
- Direct links: welfare delivered through direct benefit transfers ties leaders to beneficiaries without intermediaries. This builds loyalty but thins the intermediate layer Kornhauser thought democracy needs.
Conclusion
In democratic societies elites hold concentrated power, and the masses hold the power to authorise, check and replace them. The balance depends less on elections alone than on a dense civil society that keeps elites accessible and citizens organised. Where that layer weakens, democracy slides towards either oligarchy or plebiscitary populism.