Research Paper on Democracy and Dictatorship

Elite Power Theory and Plurality

The concept of power is central in conceiving political cleavages at local, regional and international levels. Every political player seeks to consolidate power in such a way that provides some sense of security, authority, and dominance over others. Elite theory is one of the concepts that help in understanding power. It explains power control in the modern civilization has become a prerogative of a small group of elites. The theory further contends that the minority group consisting of social elites wield power irrespective of the outcome of elections. According to C. Wright Mills, power is controlled by the elite who entrench their influence through three critical institutions of the military, government, and economy (Mills, 2005). Whereas Dahl concedes to the fact that people do not exercise their rights directly but through certain individuals who may form the elite group, there are various groups which counterbalance the exercise of such power (Keohane, 2015). He argues that the religious groups, human rights activists, trade unions and other forms of pressure groups have some influence that effectively a counter-balance the power elite with the effect of reducing the power that the ruling class of elites has in society.

Miler contends that the government, economic players, and the military provide an unfettered ground on which the elite establish bureaucracies that manipulate socio-political and economic power to suit various interests (Mills, 2005). In essence, he perceives the separation of authority such as in the United States of America as a strategy by the elite to diversify their control of the people. Furthermore, he castigates the exercise of power by this ruling class by positing that they exercise power without necessarily involving the public. The elite group work in cohorts and collude to exploit the vulnerabilities of the masses for personal gains (Mills, 2005). He illustrates his conception of the elite class by stating that when the elite civil servants retire, they become corporate executives and land plum government appointments resulting in a circulation of the elites within the society. Conversely, Dahl accents to the existence of disequilibrium in power distribution in the community but according to him, it dispersed among various socio-political groupings that act in competition with each other (Keohane, 2015). The stance contradicts Mill's perspective a single elite group consolidate a lot of power and entrench themselves as power monopolists that control all manner of activities.

Dahl conceives that while there is a group of elite in the society that has disproportionately more power than the rest of the people, their exercise of such authority is not absolute to the extent of establishing some sense of hegemonic influence over the entire realm of societal arrangement (Keohane, 2015). Instead, the exercise of the power owned by the government, military and businesses executives is controlled by various other organizations to the extent that they do not result in the establishment of totalitarian authority. In essence, while Mills argue that power is entirely owned and exercised by an elite group, Dahl defines elite power as the authority or influence that a group uses only to the extent allowed by other groups hence the concept of polyarchy (Mills, 2005). Polyarchy means that the elite group controls the society but with the strict checks and balances imposed by other representatives of the people.

Dahl advocates for plurality within his concept of polyarchy since he conceives it as the only way through which institutions can maintain dynamic checks and balances of each other. He argues that such a system institutionalizes a democracy. In essence, polyarchy provides a form of delegated democracy through which the citizens who do not have access to authority and control as the government and corporates exert their influence through civil rights organizations, labor unions and pressure groups (Dahl, 2005). The pluralism hitherto established prevents the organizations with greater power from entrenching dictatorship. According to Dahl, even if the ruling class possesses disproportionately more power, such authority remains limited by various arbiters such as the electoral agencies that provide room for regular and free elections (Dahl, 2005). He posits that even though pluralism does not result in a perfect democracy, allows the citizenry to exercise representative democracy that effectively minimizes the potential of influential individuals and people becoming despotic or authoritarian.

Whereas Dahl advocates for plurality, Mills reject it since it has the potential of resulting in unrest as the multiple centers of power compete or exude conflicting interests. In essence, he believes that the elite minority provides some sense of social order by leveraging selfish interests of the people through limiting their involvement in the society (Mills, 2005). Furthermore, he contends that despite the fact that the elite group constitutes a minority that wields power, they do not get involved in the conspiracy to manipulate the events of selfish interests. It means that the ruling class does not conspire to be oligarchs that do not respect the villi liberties, disregard constitutional principles and operate violently (Mills, 2005). In essence, they are not dictators but endeavor to prevent the society from falling into anarchy characterized by various strains of conflicting interests.

Lenin’s Idea of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Mao’s Peasantry as an Agency of Revolution

According to Lenin, imperialism is a form of monopoly and highly associated with a capitalistic mindset. He asserts that dictatorship has led to the fragmentation of the world economy into two distinct camps consisting of a few industrialized exploiter nations and the majority who are oppressed. The result of this disparity is a dynamic tension in which the suppressed who are dependent on the wealthy endeavor to organize widespread liberation struggles to extricate themselves from the whims of the tyrant (Baggins, 1919). In his theory of proletarian revolution, Lenin asserted that there are underlying contradictions within the application of capitalism in the society which then enforces imperialism. The effect of this contradiction is that imperialism triggers a crisis which when left unattended progress into a revolution. He contends that some terminologies have been advanced by the oppressor to entrench dictatorship. For instance, some societies have been erroneously described using terms such as "free," "equal," "democratic" and "universal while the truth remains that the tyrants continue their express control of the means of production and political power (Baggins, 1919). According to Leninism, a pure democracy must be seen to exist, but without it, the many who are oppressed must form a united front to counter the oppressor.

Lenin posits that dictatorship does not necessarily takethe form of a universal suppression of a population in general but can take the form of class imperialism in which members of particular social and economic strata do not control the means of production and various freedoms. Therefore, when the oppressed class feels overwhelmed with the minority authoritarians, they strive to attain a transformation of the society from falsehood into truth, seek self-liberation through fighting against capitalism which promotes self-interests even in a multipolar society (Baggins, 1919). It is only through such a revolution that the community can progress as a united, peaceful and responsive unit with less imperialist cleavages.

Lenin argued that dictatorships entrench themselves through creating a few people with political and economic power that makes elevates them to the status of overly controlling capital while leaving a vast majority of people as a source of cheap labor. The dictatorship establishes itself as in the form of imperialist cartels with the primary focus of attaining self-interests at the expense of the many thus creating an imperialist war (Baggins, 1919). Such a war is not necessary intended to overturn the influence of the imperialist but rather attain a state of equality in social, economic and political quotas. Lenin subscribed to Marxist ideas by stating that imperialism which is the hallmark of dictatorships undermine not only the freedom of the oppressed but also the legitimacy of the oppressor. The underlying fact behind this notion is the fact that when the oppressed feels excluded, they can quickly form a united front and champion for a common interest which eventually result in a popular revolution. In fact, he advanced the idea of Marx by asserting that the working class cannot just rely on the already established state machine and wield it for their purpose, but instead have to come together and dismantle the status quo of oppression.

Similarly, Mao posits that apart from the existence of internal socio-economic and political disparities, imperialism promulgated by influential people result in an unstable society where the majority of classes are oppressed. Dictatorship takes place through domestic domination by the powerful or foreign suppression. As a response, Mao proposed the need for the establishment of a proletarian party and emancipation of the entire nation comprising of the majority its classes, to struggle against all forms of domination (Baggins, 1919). His stance is similar to that of Marx who noted that in a country where peasants constitute a majority of the population then they have the power to decide whether a proletariat can win and keep control or not. In the situation where the peasants remain homogenously conservative then the dictator or oppressor cannot succeed in consolidating influence and holding unchecked power indefinitely.

According to Mao, any party that sets forth to advance the agenda of liberation must, therefore, win the support of the majority peasants to win such a struggle. In essence, the peasant struggle must be synchronized with the clamors of the proletarian fight against dictatorship for it to achieve the desired goals (Baggins, 1919). The working class holds a position of influence, and direct feeling of the effects of capitalism such as the concentration of capital in the hands of a few tyrants hence their discontent can trigger the emancipation of humanity. Such an empowerment would result in the establishment of democracy for the underprivileged and underprivilged in the society which would appeal to peasants and workers from different sectors of the economy.

References

Baggins B. (January 3, 1919). "Democracy" and Dictatorship. Pravda. 28(2), 368-72.

Dahl, R. A. (2005). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. Yale University Press.

Keohane, N. O. (2015). Dahl's concept of leadership: notes towards a theory of leadership in a democracy. Journal of Political Power, 8(2), 229-247.

Mills, C. W. (2005). The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press.