Advantages Of Democratic Elitism

Plural-elitism is the pluralistic relationship between multiple elitist groups in the government. Although no group may have power over another, the groups themselves are elitist which defies the pluralistic standpoint. In addition, the elitist groups may not hold the interest of the public above all else. It is seen that the American government is neither an elitist dictatorship, nor a system where power is evenly distributed to the full extent among the people. An example of the plural-elitism relationship in the American government can be seen in the relationship between all the states. Each state has a governing power in the capital which provides order over the entirety of that state. State government is usually run by upper-class white people who do not always look to the peoples’ best interest. These state governments exist in each state which creates a pluralistic sharing of power throughout the United State. Individual state governments and their relationships to one another across the United States exemplify a plural-elitism standpoint.

The elite theory believes that a small group consisting of powerful people holds the most power, and that this power is independent of a state's democratic elections process. Elite theory argues either that democracy is in all unrealistic, or that democracy is not able to be achieved within capitalism. Within the elite theory not everyone is going to have the power when making decisions only the most powerful group. Overall meaning the elite theory can determine the trajectory of the society, and therefore the conditions which the members of that society must exist and function. When considering who’s interest does the elite theory compromise it would be hard to find an answer considering that all these groups work together to protect each other’s

Referring in a detailed and specific way to a relevant aspect of US political institutions, personnel or processes, illustrate how US democracy can be considered elitist.

In America, our political system was just as greatly influenced by Caesar, which would create a place for democracy, where both classes of wealthy or poor, every citizen’s voices and opinions would be heard in our country. However the elites still resort to “gentlemen’s history” by arguing that whether the ignorant that believe that politics and history are only about power, the elitist still believed that living this way was the only way for them.

The Elite theory best helps explain another form of government being the Judicial Branch. The Judicial Branch of government is the technical term for the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court is the highest level of court and is looked as the interpreters of the Constitution. Their soul job is to help clarify the Constitution when parts of the Constitution aren’t so clear. The Supreme Court is made up of nine judges selected personally by the President and are approved by Congress. None of this is done by any outside group, you could argue however that other people somehow influence the opinion of one person or the other on a certain decision but overall very clearly this form of government is ran by elites. Although this branch is run by Elites that does not necessarily mean it should be ran that way. The Supreme Court is suppose to be the interpreter of the Constitution and it is said by Marshall, in the case Mabury vs. Madison, that the constitution is the “"the fundamental and paramount law of the nation.” This leaving the question to: Why would you want someone deciding the law of this nation when they aren’t even elected by the people they are running? Since the people are not involved in this

There is a lot of controversy over which government is the best, and honestly I don’t think there really is a best form of government but I believe there that some are better than others. Direct Democracy definitely has its flaws, it is the best option open to us at this time. It gives the people the power to get what they want. America is already a form of Democracy, it’s a Representative Democracy. So direct Democracy is not too far fetched.

As Habermas puts it “the relationship of the individual to the state has increasingly become one of client or consumer services, rather than citizen” (Roberts & Crossley, 5). Due to the limited agency (citizens’ roles) within this sphere, we can conclude that the ongoing competition and negotiation for a role in the public sphere ends with strictly dominant views. In such a monarchy, ordinary citizens such as lower classes and women have limited input when debating politics among other things. The ideal of a place where all opinions are counted, so to speak, fails to provide a sense of individual identity. This is due to the fact that it is pre-destined by the state itself and then turned back to the people- telling them what they will think about particular issues; shown especially through the controlling lens of the media.

The government in the United States supposedly revolves around American ideals such as equality and diversity; however, this is simply not the case as perpetuated by class inequalities. The meaning of democracy has been skewed in the United States to represent something entirely different than it did in 1776. Today, American democracy behaves more like an aristocracy, where the upper class exercises power within the government and state, influencing discourse and therefore the laws and resources in our country, which are purportedly “for the people”. Democracy is presumed to provide everyone with equal political power, but the government in today’s America, although seemingly following this ideal model, does not. Instead, the elite upper class has a monopoly over the political influence and are the sole benefactors from public policies due to their influence over the policy making process. The upper class has an overall benefit from class inequality, as it greatly impacts American ‘democracy’ through the significant power gained through money and status, leadership roles that impact government, and the influence in the policymaking process that creates upper class advantages.

The power elite is able to exert power over society. The power elite’s control over politics demonstrates how inequality is functional. This validates the class-domination theory of power, which is distributed based on economic power. By controlling economic resources, the power elites political influence in government shapes law and those involved in government to the power elites benefit. In today’s American society these laws have impacted both the corporate community and the elite. Furthermore, the author’s portrayal of the elite displayed how the elite have control concerning choices in government policies, elections, and laws.

In the modern world, most of the countries have democratic government, which means that decisions are made by the people, who rule and govern the state. However, there is not a single state that practices perfect democracy due to different reasons. Governments are too big, which makes it very complex for every citizen to have a voice in decisions. Or, governments are claimed to be democratic, but in practice they can be close to authoritarian or even totalitarian regimes where one person has a power to make and enforce laws. Political power is not allocated evenly among all members of society, so, in this or that way, governments tend to fall in the hands of the few, whom we can call the elite or the power elite.

Democracy is often referred to as the rule of the many, but Aristotle called this definition incomplete. In his book “Politics”, he explained that in a city if the majorities are aristocrats and if they have political authority, then it is an aristocracy not a democracy. He therefore defined democracy as when “free people have authority and Oligarchy as when the wealthy have it” (1290b). Plato viewed Democracy as a flawed system with too much inefficiency that would make any implementation of a true democracy not worth it. While Aristotle viewed democracy as a system that could work if it is limited to certain restrictions and if it is the regime that best fits the culture of the people to be governed. In this essay it will be argued that Plato’s view on democracy as a flawed system is more prevalent or more compelling if the current political arena around the world is observed.

Schedler argues that authoritarian regimes – particularly since the end of the Cold War era have been replaced by electoral authoritarian regimes that combine the façade of electoral democracy with systemic abuse of democratic procedures. They have reproduced institutional arrangements present in the democratic system, such as elections, the legislative and judicial powers, and independent local governments. However, these institution creations are never meant to become autonomous, rather manipulative in order to be instruments of pretentious delegation of power from the executive.

one essential conviction, expressed in the word democracy itself: that power should be in the hands of the people. Although democracy today has been slightly inefficient in this idea, with the wealthy, elite class challenging this right, “it nevertheless claims for itself a fundamental validity that no other kind of society shares….” To completely understand the structure of democracy, one must return to the roots of the practice itself, and examine the origins in ancient Greece, the expansion in the Roman Empire, and how these practices combined make what we recognize as today’s democratic government.

Empiricism is the theory that experience, rather than reason, is the source of knowledge, and in this sense it is opposed to rationalism. This general thesis can receive different emphases and refinements; therefore, philosophers who have been labeled empiricists are united generally and may differ in various ways. The Empiricist Revolution helped facilitate discussion on real world, political problems. Since this revolution, philosophers and political theorists have developed two different ideas on what politics should be about and how a government should be ran: politics should be about making citizens more virtuous vs politics should be about the “basics” like security and property rights. Throughout this paper, I will be analyzing these two different outlooks on politics and presenting a case for both.

Churchill’s claim that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” is deliberately provocative and intended to challenge the reader’s simplistic ideal that democracy is without faults. There are an estimated 114 democracies in the world today (Wong, Oct 3rd lecture). A figure that has increased rapidly in the last century not necessarily because democracy is the best form of government, but primarily for reason that in practice, under stable social, economic and political conditions, it has the least limitations in comparison to other forms of government. Be it the transparency of a democratic government or the prevalence of majority rule, all subdivisions of democracy benefit and hinder its