The Place and the Role of Elites in Liberal Democracy

Yıl 2022, Sayı: 106, 1 - 34, 26.06.2022

Cennet Uslu

https://doi.org/10.36484/liberal.1096954

Öz

The classical understanding of democracy has been criticized on the grounds that it does not reflect the practical functioning of modern democracy and is unrealistic. Many theorists have attempted to develop a realistic theory of modern democracy based on empiricism. These writers, who are generally referred to as theorists of democratic elitism, argued that the elites are the dominant element in democracies, not the people or will of the majority. Based on empirical research; they argued that the public is uninterested, uninformed, irrational, short-sighted, self- interested when it comes to political issues, and has a more negative view of rights, freedoms and democracy than the elite. Based on the issue of scale and the research implications mentioned, they argued that elites have a fundamental place and a vital role in democracies. They concluded that representative democracy, and therefore elites make democracy possible in modern society. For the establishment and stability of liberal democracies; they argued that the elites should have a voluntary consensus on the basic rules and values of democracy, that there should be multiple elites instead of a single integrated elite, that the elites should compete for the votes of the electorate in order to take office, that the elites should have partially autonomy from their constituents and that the elites should have particular qualifications in terms of morality and competence.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Democratic Elitism, Competitive Democracy, Elite Consensus, Elites, People

Liberal Demokraside Elitlerin Yeri ve Rolü

Öz

Demokrasinin klasik anlayışı modern demokrasinin pratikteki işleyişini yansıtmadığı ve gerçekçi olmadığı gerekçesiyle eleştirilmiştir. Pek çok teorisyen modern demokrasinin ampirizme dayanan gerçekçi bir teorisini geliştirme konusunda girişimlerde bulunmuştur. Genel olarak demokratik elitizm teorisyenleri olarak anılan bu yazarlar, demokrasi yönetimlerinde halkın veya çoğunluğun iradesinin değil, elitlerin başat unsur olduğunu savundular. Ampirik araştırmalara dayanarak; halkın siyasi meseleler söz konusu olduğunda ilgisiz, bilgisiz, irrasyonel, kısa vadeli düşünen, kendini çıkarlarını gözeten ve haklar, özgürlükler ve demokrasi konusunda elitlerden daha olumsuz bir görüşe sahip olduğunu ileri sürdüler. Ölçek meselesi ve bahsedilen araştırma çıkarımlarına dayanarak elitlerin demokrasilerde hayatî bir yeri ve rolü olduğunu iddia ettiler. Temsili demokrasinin ve dolayısıyla elitlerin modern toplumda demokrasiyi mümkün kıldığı sonucuna ulaştılar. Liberal demokrasilerin kurulması ve istikrarı için; elitlerin demokrasinin temel kuralları ve değerleri üzerinde gönüllü bir uzlaşıya sahip olmaları, tek bir bütünleşik elit yerine çoğul elitlerin bulunması, elitlerin göreve gelebilmek için seçimlerde seçmenin oyu için rekabet etmeleri, elitlerin etkin yönetim için seçmenleri karşısında belli bir otonomiye sahip olmaları ve elitlerin ahlâken ve yeterlilik bakımından nitelikli olmaları gerektiğini ileri sürmüşlerdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Demokratik elitizm, rekabetçi demokrasi, elit uzlaşısı, halk, elitler

Kaynakça

• ACHEN, Christopher & BARTELS, Larry. (2016) “Democracy for Realists: Holding up A Mirror to The Electorate”, Juncture, 22(4): 269-275.
• ARON, Raymond. (1950) “Social Structure and the Ruling Class: Part 2”, The British Journal of Sociology. 1(2): 126-143.
• ARROW, Kenneth J. (1963) Social Choise and Individual Values. Wiley Press.
• BACHRACH, Peter. (1967) The Theory of Democratic Elitism. Boston: Little, Brown.
• BERELSON, Bernard R. (1952) “Democratic Theory and Public Opinion”, Public Opinion Qu«tnly. 16(3): 313-330.
• BOTTOMORE, Tom. (2001) Elites and Society, 2. Ed., Taylor&Francis.
• BURTON Michael G. & John Higley (1987) "Elite Settlements." American Sociological Review 52: 295-307.
• CAMMACK, Paul. (1990) “A Critical Assessment of the New Elite Paradigm” American Sociological Review. 55(3): 415-420.
• CAPLAN, Bryan. (2007) The Myth of the Rational Voter (Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies). Princeton University Press
• DAHL, Robert A. (1961) Who Geverns?: Democracy and Power in an American City. Yale University Press
• DAHL, Robert A. (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. London: Yale University Press.
• DAHL, Robert A. (2006 [1956]) A Preface to Democratik Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago
• DAHL, Robert A. (2015) Demokrasi Üzerine, Ankara: Phoenix Yayınları
• DOWNS, Anthony. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harper and Row Press
• FIELD, G. Lowell&John Higley&Michael G. Burton. (1988) "Elite Transformations in France, Italy, Japan and West Germany since World War II." Paper delivered to XIVth World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Washington DC.
• HIGLEY, John& Michael Burton,(2006) Elite Foundations of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield
• HIGLEY, John&Michael G. Burton. (1989) "The Elite Variable in Democratic Transitions and Breakdowns", American Sociological Review. 54:17-32.
• HIGLEY, John&Ursula Hoffmann-Lange&Charles Kadushin&Gwen Moore. (1991) “Elite Integration in Stable Democracies: A Reconsideration.” European Sociological Review 7: 35–53.
• KÖRÖSÉNYİ, András. (2009) “Beyond the Happy Consensus about Democratic Elitism”, Comparative Sociology. 8: 364–382.
• KROUSE, Richard W.(1982) “Polyarchy & Participation: The Changing Democratic Theory of Robert Dahl”, Polity. 14(3): 441-463.
• LANDEMORE, Helene. (2013). Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton&Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• LANE, Robert E. (2004) “Losing Toush’ in a Democracy”, Eltism, Populism, and European Politics, ed. Jack Hayward, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 33-66.
• LIPPMANN, Walter. (1993) The Phantom Public. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers
• LIPSET, Seymour Martin. (1962) Michels' theory of political parties; Introduction to Collier Books edition of Political parties. New York: Crowell-Collier Press.
• LONG, L.&S. E. Page. (2001). “Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents”, Journal of Economic Theory. 97(1): 123–163.
• MANNHEIM, Karl. (1956) Essays on The Sociology of Culture, Routledge.
• MAX, Hans & Heinrich Gerth & Charles Wright Mills, (1946) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology: Essays in Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• McCLOSKY, Herbert & Alida Brill, (1983) Dimensions of Tolerance: What Americans Think About Civil Liberties. New York: Russell Sage.
• McCLOSKY, Herbert. (1964) “Consensus and Ideology in American Polities'” American Political Science Review. 58: 361-82.
• MICHELS, Richard. (2009 [1915]) Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Democracy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
• MIIL, John Stuart. (2001) On Representative Government. London: The Electric Book Company
• MILLS, Charles Wright. (1956) The Power Elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• MOSCA, Gaetano. (1939) The Ruling Class. London: McGraw- Hill Book Company.
• PAKULSKI, Jan. (2012) “The Weberian Foundations of Modern Elite Theory and Democratic Elitism”, Historical Social Research. 37(1): 38-56.
• PARETO, Vilfredo. (1935) The Mind and Society. London: Jonathan Cape Limited.
• PATEMAN, Carole. (1976) Participation and Democratic Theory, London: Cambridge University Press.
• PRZEWORSKI, Adam & Susan Stokes & Bernard Manin (eds.) (1999) Democracy, Accountability and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• RIEDRICH, C.J. (1950) The New Image of the Common Man. Boston: Beacon Press.
• SAMPSON, Anthony. (1962) Anatomy of Britain. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
• SARTORI, Giovanni. (1962) Democratic Theory. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
• SARTORİ, Giovanni. (1978) “Ant-Elitism Revisited”, Government and Opposition , 13(1): 58-80.
• SCHUMPETER, Joseph A. (2003 [1943]) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Routledge Press, edition Taylor&Francis e-library.
• SNIDERMAN, Paul M. Vd.(2000) “The Theory of Democratic Elitism Revisited: A Response to Vengroff and Morton”. Canadian Journal of Political Science. 33(3): 569-586.
• SNIDERMAN Paul M. & Joseph F. Fletcher & Peter H. Russell & Philip E. Tetlock & Brian J. Gaines (1991) “The Fallacy of Democratic Elitism: Elite Competition and Commitment to Civil Liberties”, British Journal of Political Science. 21(3): 349-370.
• USLU, Cennet.(2022) Demokrasi, Ankara: Orion Yayınları
• WALDRON, Jeremy. (1995) “The Wisdom of the Multitude: Some Reflections on Book 3, Chapter 11 of Aristotle’s Politics”, Political Theory. 23(4): 563–584.
• WALKER, Jack L. A. (1966) “Critique of The Elitist Theory Of Democracy”, Political Science Review. 60(2): 285-295.