aetano Mosca introduced the term "political class" in Teorica dei governi e governo
G
parlamentare (1884), and further elaborated it in Elementi di Scienza Politica (1896). He
asserted that the political class's power stems from itsorganization.AccordingtoMosca,
organizedminorities—boundbycommoninterests—formcohesive,effectiverulinggroups
that dominate theunorganizedmajority.Heequatedorganizationwithpoliticalhierarchy,
which he deemed necessary for the survival of the state. His work offered a scientific
approach to understanding power dynamics, laying the groundwork for modern political
science by advocating a focus on the formation and structure of political classes.
ilfredo Pareto expanded on this idea, asserting that all individuals occupy different
V
hierarchicalpositions—social,political,intellectual,andsoon.Hereferredtoindividualsat
thetopasthe"elite,"atermheassociatedwithexceptionalabilitiesandvirtues.InTrattato
di Sociologia Generale (1916), Pareto emphasized the concept of elite circulation,
highlighting the transient nature of aristocracies and the merging ofelitesacrosswealth,
power, and intellect.
obert Michels, a student of Max Weber and a political activist, presented his major
R
contributions in Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie (1910). His
research focused on politicalmassparties,particularlytheGermanSPD,whichheinitially
supported. Michels reached a similar conclusion as Mosca: power is inevitably
concentrated in a small, organized ruling group. He labeled this ruling minority as an
"oligarchy," giving the term a negative connotation in contrast to Pareto’s more neutral
"aristocracy." Michels argued that organization inevitably leads to oligarchy due to the
"technicalindispensabilityofleadership,"coiningthephrase,"Whosaysorganization,says
oligarchy." For Michels, the organization itself catalyzes the transformation of leadership
into a self-serving elite, dividing political parties into twofactions:therulingeliteandthe
passive majority.
ichels’ empirical work provided substantial historical confirmation of Elite Theory,
M
solidifying its prominence in political science.
Classical Elite Theory: Pareto, Mosca, and Michels
heclassicalperiodofEliteTheorybeganinthelate19thandearly20thcenturies,marked
T
by the work of Pareto,Mosca,andMichels,oftenreferredtoastheMachiavellianSchool.
Thesetheoristspositedthateverysocietyischaracterizedbyanasymmetricaldistribution
of political power, which is both inevitable and stable over time.
Vilfredo Pareto
Pareto observed that all societies are divided into two strata:
T
● he elite: further divided into governing and non-governing elites
● The non-elite: the mass of the population
e emphasized thatelitestatusisbasedonexceptionalabilities—thosewhorankhighest
H
in areas like wealth, knowledge, and power. His concept of"circulationofelites"denotes
thatwhilespecificelitemembersmaychange,theexistenceofaneliteclassisperpetual.In
The Rise and Fall of the Elites, Pareto emphasized that human behavior is drivenmoreby
sentiment than logic, organized through residues (basic motives) and derivations
(rationalizations). Among these residues are:
C
● reativity (fox-like cunning)
● Persistence and strength (lion-like tenacity)
● Expressiveness, sociability, identity preservation, and sexuality
For Pareto, elites maintain power through a blend of fox-like cleverness and lion-like force.
Gaetano Mosca
osca introduced the concept of the “ruling class”, arguing that all societies are divided
M
between:
A
● small, organized minority that rules
● A large, unorganized majority that is ruled
In his The Ruling Class, Mosca claimed that political elites dominate duetoorganizational
superiority, and even in democracies, inherited power and family ties often perpetuate
elite status. He noted that in large societies, it becomes increasingly difficult for the
majoritytoorganizeagainsttherulingminority.Power,wealth,andinfluencereinforceone
another, making elite status self-sustaining.
osca also introduced the idea of “sub-elites”, such as bureaucrats, military officers,
M
scholars, and professionals, who play a crucial role in maintaining elite structures. He
advocatedforpersuasionovercoercion,recommendingthatrulingelitesalignpolicieswith
changing public opinion to sustain legitimacy.
Robert Michels
ichels’contribution,the“ironlawofoligarchy,”highlightstheinevitabilityofoligarchicrule
M
inalllargeorganizations.HisempiricalstudiesoftheGermanSPDledhimtoconcludethat
all organizations, including democratic ones, eventually become dominated by a small
groupofleaders.UnlikeParetoandMosca,Michelsemphasizedtheroleoforganizational
mechanics: “Who says organization, says oligarchy.”
hile Mosca saw organization as a tool to form political classes, Michels saw it as an
W
inevitable cause of elitist dominance.
Elite Theory: Pareto, Mosca, and Michels
lite Theory is chiefly attributed to three early 20th-century European thinkers: Vilfredo
E
Pareto and Gaetano Mosca of Italy, and Robert Michels of Germany. Their work has
significantly influenced conceptions of power throughout the twentieth century.
Pareto contended that all societies are divided into three categories:
A
● small governing elite,
● A non-governing elite,
● The mass population or non-elite.
e maintained that while elites maycirculate,theirpresenceinsocietyremainsconstant.
H
Mosca similarly argued that governance by a small elite is inevitable due to superior
organizationandcaliber.Hebelievedthatanorganizedminoritywillinevitablydominatea
disorganized majority.
obert Michels, diverging from Pareto and Mosca, focused his analysis on specific
R
organizations. In his seminal work, heproposedthe"ironlawofoligarchy,"whichasserts
that all complex organizations, regardless of their democratic ideals, eventually develop
into oligarchies. He demonstrated the applicability of this law tosocialistparties,general
organizations, and even the Labour Party in England.
Elite Theory in the United States: C. Wright Mills
Inamoremoderncontext,C.WrightMillscontributedsignificantlytoEliteTheorywithhis
concept of the “power elite”. In The Power Elite, Mills argued thatintheU.S.,realpolitical
powerliesnotinelectedrepresentativesbutinintersectingelitesfrompolitics,themilitary,
and corporate business. These groups often operate behind the scenes, steering major
decisions irrespective of democratic processes. This theory aligns with notions of
corporatism, highlighting how institutional power often overrides the influence of the
electorate.
IntheAmericancontext,C.WrightMillsemergedasasignificantproponentofEliteTheory.
InhisrenownedstudyThePowerElite,Millsarguedthatpoliticalleaders,whetheroperating
publicly or behind the scenes, control American politics. His theory is nowregardedasa
form of corporatism, which posits that democratically elected officials are increasingly
losing power to institutional interests such as business and the military.
Robert Michels, James Burnham, and Charles Wright Mills on Elites
obert Michels, in his seminal work Political Parties: A Sociological Study of Modern
R
Democracy (1962), introduces critical dimensions of elite formation, focusing on both
organizational and psychological factors. He argues that political parties, even those
c ommittedtodemocracyandsocialism,inevitablyconcentratepowerinthehandsofafew
leaders due to the practical necessities of organization. These include coordinating
campaigns, mobilizing support, fundraising, managing finances, and maintaining legal
structures—tasks that require expertise and efficiency often unavailable to the general
masses. Consequently, party leaders gaincontrolovercriticalchannelsofcommunication
and resources.
sychologically, Michels observes widespread public apathy toward politicalengagement,
P
whichfurtherentrencheselitedominance.Leaderswhoremaincommittedtopublicaffairs
often maintain their positions by default. His study of European socialist parties,
particularly the German Socialist Party, reveals that despitedemocraticideals,leadership
remains centralized, leading to his famous principle: the "Iron Law of Oligarchy"—the
idea that all organizations, regardless of their democratic intentions, tend to develop
oligarchic structures.
J ames Burnham, in TheManagerialRevolution(1941),shiftsthediscoursebyemphasizing
the rise of a new ruling class: the managerial elite. Departing from classical Marxist
theory, Burnham agrees with Marx on the linkage between control over the means of
production and political power but suggests thatthecapitalistclasshasbeensupplanted
by technocrats and managers. According to Burnham, these managers—who control,
rather than own, productive assets—nowholdrealfunctionalpowerinmodernindustrial
societies.Thus,politicalpower,wealth,andprestigeincreasinglyliewiththosewhopossess
technical and organizational skills rather than capital.
harles Wright Mills, in his groundbreaking study The Power Elite (1956), provides a
C
comprehensive empirical, historical, and sociological analysis of elite dominance in
American society. Mills identifies a small, cohesive group occupying top positions in the
military, corporate, and political spheres—collectively termed the “power elite.” These
individuals make major national decisions without public accountability. The power elite
maintain their influence through control of mass media, which they use to shape public
opinion via flattery, manipulation, and entertainment. Building on Pareto’s foundation,
Charles Wright Mills argues that elites act as a cohesive unit with shared interests and
outlooks. According to him, power resides in institutions, not merely individuals, and
elite cohesion is maintained through common educational backgrounds, socialnetworks,
and access to exclusive circles. Although individuals from the masses may rise into elite
positions, this typically occurs within the framework of elite institutions, not by
challenging them
ills’ analysis refines and extends classical elite theory by emphasizing the institutional
M
basis of power rather than individual merit alone. He describes American society as
stratified into three levels:
