7. CONCEPT AND THEORY OF ELITE

For a long time, political scientists of various directions spoke against the concept of "political elite" for various reasons. Western political scientists, who advocate the concept of political pluralism, argue that this concept is permissible to use only in relation to low-organized societies, but it is completely unacceptable for analyzing the political system of a post-industrial society. Nevertheless, the concept of "elite" is now firmly established in the sociological and political literature.

The term "elite" comes from the French word elite, which means "the best, the selective, the chosen, the chosen people." In political science, the elite refers to those who received the highest index in their field of activity . Equivalent concepts to the concept of "elite" - "ruling elite", "ruling stratum", "ruling circles".

In its original etymological meaning, the concept of the elite does not contain anything anti-human or anti-democratic and is widespread in everyday language. So, for example, they often speak of elite grain, elite animals and plants, sports elite, etc. It is obvious that in human society there are natural and social differences between people that cause their unequal ability to manage and influence political political processes, and this gives rise to raise the question of the political elite as the carrier of the most pronounced political and managerial qualities.

The theory of elites began to be actively developed at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. such large representatives of European political thought, as G. Mosca, V. Pareto, R. Michels, and others. They proceeded from the fact that with any form of power a minority that Pareto called "elite" and G. Moska was "political class" , manages the "incompetent" masses. "At any time and in any place, - wrote G. Mosca, - all that in management is the prescriptive part, the exercise of power and contains command and responsibility, there is always a competence of a special class, whose elements can vary in a variety of ways from specifics of the century or country; however, no matter how this class develops, it is always formed as an insignificant minority against the masses controlled by them.

Three qualities, according to G. Mosk, open access to the political class, to the elite: military prowess, wealth, priesthood. Later he clarified that this class should be created on the basis of intelligence, abilities, and wealth. Mr. Mosca describes three ways in which the political class consolidates power and renews itself: inheritance, elections, co-optation. On the one hand, all political classes tend to become hereditary, if not de jure, then de facto. This desire is so strong that when a certain state is established legally, it is clear that in fact it has existed for some time. On the other hand, there are always new forces that are trying to change the old ones.

Depending on which trend prevails, either the closing and crystallization of the political class, or its more or less rapid renewal, takes place. G. Moska called the first tendency the aristocratic, the second the democratic one. But he gives preference to that society, which is characterized by a certain balance between these tendencies. For the ruling class, he believed, a certain stability was necessary.

In the works of a prominent Italian political scientist V. Pareto, society appears as a pyramid with the elite at the top. The most gifted from the bottom rise to the top, replenishing the ranks of the ruling elite, whose members, in turn, degrading, "go down" to the masses. There is a circulation, or "elite circulation". V. Pareto attributed the manager two main qualities: the ability to convince, manipulating human emotions, and the ability to use force where necessary. Strength and control are instruments of domination throughout history.

In the book "Sociology of political parties in a democracy" (1911), an Austrian scientist R. Michels explored the problem of "party elite - party masses". Using the example of social democratic parties, he showed that irreversible oligarchic tendencies inevitably arise in democratic organizations. Even the most democratic leaders "deproletarize" over time. The party apparatus is detached from rank-and-file members, acquires self-sufficient significance, turns into a "party elite." Gradually, power is concentrated in the "higher structures of bureaucracy." As a result, the leaders of the organization acquire a number of major advantages: they have wider access to information, tangible assets, have better training, and are able to make decisions. The trends that impede the implementation of democracy were pointed out by R. Michels, who are more difficult to systematize, since they are rooted in the essence of human nature, in the essence of the political struggle.

French political scientist L. Boden believes that the political elite is made up of people who have a high position in society and because of this influence the social process, people who have intellectual and moral superiority over the rest of the people. The founder of political science M. Weber believes that the political elite is made up of charismatic personalities. A. Toynbee says that the elite is a creative minority opposing the non-creative majority, etc. Thus, the approaches of Western political scientists to the notion of "elite" are quite different. But, nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish two main approaches to this problem : value and structural-functional.

Proponents of the value approach explain the existence of the elite by some “superiority” (intellectual, moral, psychological, etc.) of some people over others.

The adherents of the second direction emphasize the exceptional importance of management functions, which determine the exclusivity of the role of people performing these functions.

The structural-functional approach ignores the class character of the ruling elite, sins the absolutization of the formal mechanism of power, and the advocates of the value concept reduce everything to the fact that the elite are bold, wise, far-sighted people. However, studies invariably refute this claim. In real life, these are often cynical, mercenary, corrupt, non-disruptive individuals.

The political elite is a large social group with a certain level of political influence, which is the main source of leading cadres for the institutions of power of any state or community.

It follows from the above that the elite covers the most influential circles and groups of the economically and politically dominant class. These are people who have concentrated in their hands large material resources, technical and organizational means, the media, professional employees, politicians, etc. But the political elite is not just an arithmetic sum of rulers and rulers. This formation is more complicated. The point is not only that its members concentrate power in their hands by monopolizing the right to make decisions, to set goals, but this is, first and foremost, a special social group that is based on deep internal relations of its constituent politicians, ideologues, etc. d. They are united by common interests, which are associated with the possession of the levers of real power, the desire to preserve their monopoly on them, and not to allow each member to take such a position.