Comment: “In so far as national events are decided, the ‘power elite’ are those who decide them.” (2002, 20 Marks)
The line comes from the opening chapter of C. Wright Mills‘s The Power Elite (1956). It follows his definition of the elite as the political, economic and military circles that, as an intricate set of overlapping cliques, share decisions of national consequence. The claim is a radical, historical one: in postwar America, power lay in institutional command posts and not with the people. It describes concentration well but explains it thinly.
Unpacking the Claim
- Power as position. Power belongs to the command posts of the great institutions, not to personal qualities. Three hierarchies had become national and centralised: the corporations, the military establishment and the political directorate.
- Unity. A coincidence of interests, shared social origins (schools, clubs, marriage) and the interchangeability of personnel held the triangle together, as generals joined corporate boards and executives entered the cabinet.
- Decisions and non-decisions. The elite’s failure to act also carries national consequences.
- Three levels. Below the summit, Congress, parties and pressure groups form the middle levels, a semi-organised stalemate over secondary issues. At the base, the media turn a public of discussion into a manipulable mass society.
The Strongest Case
Dwight D. Eisenhower‘s farewell warning against the military-industrial complex (17 January 1961) confirmed Mills’s core thesis from inside the system. G. William Domhoff (Who Rules America?, 1967) carried the research forward.
Where Mills Stands
| Classical elitists | Mills | Pluralists | Marxists | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basis of power | Organisation, talent, psychology | Institutional position | Resources dispersed among groups | Ownership of production |
| Unity | One ruling minority | Interlocking triangle | Competing minorities | One class |
| Inevitable? | Yes, a universal law | No, a historical outcome | No; power stays dispersed | Ends with class society |
Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca and Robert Michels treated elite rule as a law of nature. Mills treated it as a reversible fact about one society, so his analysis was also an indictment.
Critiques
- Pluralist. Robert A. Dahl (“A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model”, 1958) required proof that a well-defined elite regularly prevails on key decisions against contrary preferences. Who Governs? (1961) found different minorities winning on different New Haven issues.
- Functionalist. Talcott Parsons (1957) faulted Mills’s zero-sum view: power is also a system’s collective capacity to reach goals.
- Marxist. Paul M. Sweezy (1956) called the “power elite” a ruling class without its economic basis. Ralph Miliband (The State in Capitalist Society, 1969) used Mills-style personnel data to show the state serving capital; Nicos Poulantzas replied that it does so structurally, whoever staffs it.
- Empirical. Mark S. Mizruchi (The Fracturing of the American Corporate Elite, 2013) found the postwar elite more moderate than Mills allowed and far less cohesive after the 1970s.
Indian Relevance
- The military vertex is missing in India, where civilian supremacy has held since 1947. Pakistan fits Mills better: Ayesha Siddiqa‘s Military Inc. (2007) maps the army’s business empire.
- Pranab Bardhan (The Political Economy of Development in India, 1984) found a coalition of dominant proprietary classes: industrial capitalists, rich farmers and professionals, including the bureaucracy. They bargained with one another rather than forming a single elite.
- The Supreme Court struck down electoral bonds (February 2024) because anonymous, unlimited corporate donations denied voters information about the business-politics nexus.
Conclusion
Mills was right that the decisions that matter most, on war, the economy and surveillance, are taken by a few who are hard to hold to account. He overstated their unity and underplayed structure. His statement works best as a standing question for every democracy: how narrow is the circle that decides, and who can call it to account?