Various theories and viewpoints relating to distribution of powers

Elite theory- Classical elite theory was propounded by Pareto and Mosca. Elite theory developed in part as a reaction to Marxism. It rejected the Marxian idea that a classless society having an egalitarian structure could be realized after class struggle in every society. It regards Marxism as an ideology rather than an objective analysis of social systems.

According to Elite theory man can never be liberated from the subjugation of an elite structure. The term Elite refers to those who excel. The classical elite theorists identify the governing elite in terms of superior personal qualities of those who exercise power. However later versions of elite theory places less emphasis on the personal qualities of the powerful and more on the institutional framework of the society.

They argued that the hierarchical organization of social institutions allows a minority to monopolize power. Another criticism of the elite theories against the Marxian view of distribution of power is that the ruling class too large and amorphous a group to be able to effectively wield power.

In their view power is always exercised by a small cohesive group of the elite. Elite theory argues that all societies are divided into two main groups a ruling minority and the ruled. This situation is inevitable. If the proletarian revolution occurs it will merely result in the replacement of one ruling elite by another.

Elite Theory in the United States of America C. Wright Mills

Based on these theories originating in Europe, several sociological studies developed in the United States from 1920. They investigated the distribution of power in local communities. Most of them concluded that a small minority of people from either upper or middle class backgrounds were always predominant in a community.

The same people repeatedly get nominated to city councils and community bodies. This fact reiterated the concept of a governing elite in local communities, even in a supposedly democratic United States.

C. Wright Mills was the other significant supporter of elite theory. In his famous study, the Power Elite, Mills argued that political leaders were the principal groups that directed the American politics either from the background or sometimes through elected offices.

Mill’s theory today is identified as a version of corporatism, a proposition that dully elected representatives have been losing power to other institutional interests such as business and military.

Pluralism- Pluralists emphasize that power is not a physical entity that individuals either have or do not have, but flows from a variety of different sources. Rather, people are powerful because they control various resources.

Resources are assets that can be used to force others to do what one wants. Politicians become powerful because they command resources that people want or fear or respect.

The list of possibilities is virtually endless: legal authority, money, prestige, skill, knowledge, charisma, legitimacy, free time, experience, celebrity, and public support.

Pluralists also stress the differences between potential and actual power as it stands. Actual power means the ability to compel someone to do something; potential power refers to the possibility of turning resources into actual power. Cash, one of many resources, is only a stack of bills until it is put to work.

Martin Luther King Jr., for example, was certainly not a rich person. But by using resources such as his forceful personality, organizational skills, and especially the legitimacy of his cause, he had a greater impact on American politics than most wealthy people. A particular resource like money cannot automatically be equated with power because the resource can be used skillfully or clumsily, fully or partially, or not at all.

The pluralist approach to the study of power, states that nothing categorical about power can be assumed in any community. The question then is not who runs a community, but if any group in fact does. To determine this, pluralists study specific outcomes. The reason for this is that they believe human behavior is governed in large part by inertia.

That said, actual involvement in overt activity is a more valid marker of leadership than simply a reputation. Pluralists also believe that there is no one particular issue or point in time at which any group must assert itself to stay true to its own expressed values, but rather that there are a variety of issues and points at which this is possible. There are also costs involved in taking action at all-not only losing, but expenditure of time and effort.

While a structuralist may argue that power distributions have a r2ther permanent nature, this rationale says that power may in fact be tied to issues, which vary widely in duration. Also, instead of focusing on actors within a system, the emphasis is on the leadership roles itself. By studying these, it can be determined to what extent there is a power structure present in a society.

Three of the major tenets of the pluralist school are (1) resources and hence potential power are widely scattered throughout society (2) at least some resources are available to nearly everyone and (3) at any time the amount of potential power exceeds the amount of actual power. Finally, and perhaps most important, no one is all-powerful. An individual or group that is influential in one realm may be weak in another. Large military contractors certainly throw their weight around on defense matters, but how much sway do they have on agricultural or health policies. A measure of power, therefore, is its scope, or the range of areas where it is successfully applied. Pluralists believe that with few exceptions power holders usually have a relatively limited scope of influence.

For all these reasons power cannot be taken for granted. One has to observe it empirically in order to know who really governs. The best way to do this, pluralists believe, is to examine a wide range of specific decisions, noting who took which side and who ultimately won and lost. Only by keeping score on a variety of controversies can one begin to identify actual power holders. Pluralism was associated with behavioralism.

A contradiction to pluralist power is often cited from the origin of one’s power. Although certain groups may share power, people within those groups set agendas, decide issues, and take on leadership roles through their own qualities. Some theorists argue that these qualities cannot be transferred, thus creating a system where elitism still exists.

What this theory fails to take into account is the prospect of overcoming these qualities by garnering support from other groups. By aggregating power with other organizations, interest groups can over-power these non-transferable qualities. In this sense, political pluralism still applies to these aspects.

Power as Coercion: Max Weber:

Yet another form of power is coercion. Most rulers face the problem of legitimizing their position into authority. Authority is the right to rule. Relationships of authority are maintained in a hierarchical fashion. The German sociologist Max Weber provided an original analysis of the several bases of authority. He termed them as traditional, charismatic and legal-rational.

The first type is traditional. Weber says, “in traditional authority the present order is viewed as sacred, eternal and inviolable. The dominant person or group, usually defined by heredity, is thought to have been pre-ordained to rule over the rest. The subjects are bound to the ruler by personal dependence and a tradition of loyalty, further reinforced by such cultural beliefs as the “divine right of Kings.”

Charismatic:

Authority is Weber’s second type. Leaders are obeyed because they inspire their followers. Very often the masses that follow the heroes credit them with exceptional and supernatural qualities. However, the charismatic authority is normally a short lived affair.

Legal-rational is the third type. In this case authority is exercised through principles and obedience is to a government of laws. All modern bureaucracies appear to be authorities of this type.

In Max Weber’s own words, thus “power is the chance of a man or of a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action against the resistance of others.”