Joseph Schumpeter and the Issue of the Role of Elites in Democracy

Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950) was an economist, sociologist, and politician who laid the foundation of elite theory in his book titled Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. He was born in Austria-Hungary, acquired German citizenship, and later immigrated to the United States, where he became a professor at Harvard University. Schumpeter was extremely pessimistic about the masses. He believed that the elites of society should determine the fate of a democratic country for democracy to function positively; hence, he is referred to as the author of elite theory and a realist theorist. Schumpeter's aim in proposing elite theory was to make the idealistic aspects of democratic theories more realistic without denying the goals of a democratic system. He thought that classical democratic theories overemphasized the role of the people's will and elections while neglecting the role of leadership, i.e., the role of elites, without serious justification. The question he raised was whether the masses of a society are capable of taking responsibility for solving social issues. He answered this question entirely negatively. Schumpeter compared the challenge of government addressing the issues of a city to managing an industrial company. He was skeptical about the positive role of the masses in solving social and political issues and criticized them. In his view, citizens demonstrate their self-betrayal, especially during elections of political parties. He concluded that any politician who promises more to voters has a greater chance of gaining power. Voters, thinking they might find an opportunity for a better life, vote for the person who makes the sweetest promises to improve their lives. According to this theory, the body of voters, i.e., the masses, is susceptible to deviation and can be bribed in various ways, as they change their opinions under the pressure of a politician's words and promises with speed and excitement. Voters can even betray their own interests, act shortsightedly, and either forget their interests or fail to recognize them at all. Schumpeter distinguishes between constitutional monarchy and parliamentary monarchy, accepting only parliamentary monarchy as a democratic system. In his view, in a constitutional monarchy, the ministers of the country are still considered servants of the king, and therefore do not have a democratic function. In contrast, in a parliamentary monarchy, the king is obliged to give a positive vote to the cabinet chosen by parliament. Schumpeter believed that theory and social reality are two different categories. According to this scholar, there is a significant gap between classical democratic theories that base themselves on the positive will of citizens and the reality of the actions and performance of the masses; therefore, he believed that classical democratic theories should be changed and made more realistic. For example, an ordinary person has never learned to take serious responsibility for solving social problems, and for this reason, he has a reductive rationality and, beyond that, a lack of judgment and evaluation ability, despite having access to any kind of important information. Schumpeter writes that a citizen, even if he does not fall for a politician's words, can still behave entirely irresponsibly and can play a catastrophic role for a nation at certain historical twists. Political and economic groups or idealist politicians that form part of the elites can completely influence the will of the people of a country. According to Schumpeter, the 'will of the people' is the result of a social process and not its motivation and engine. In other words, voters do not determine the ruling policy with their own will; rather, their elected representatives, i.e., political elites, determine the living conditions of the voters. Schumpeter believed that elections are the main objective of a democratic order, and voters do not have political decision-making power in the country. The role of the common people is merely to bring a specific group to power. He viewed the outcome of these interactions positively and, with his realistic perspective, concluded that democratic governments do not mean the sovereignty of the people. In many historical examples, social elites have been able to better fulfill the people's demands and act more in favor of the people than the people themselves. Schumpeter acknowledges that political groups, such as the workers' movement or the unemployed movement and other social movements, reflect the political will of part of society, but he emphasizes that the political will of these groups only becomes effective when a leader or leaders pursue the goals of those groups. In other words, political will, if placed without elite leadership, can remain a hidden, latent reality in society for a long time and only manifests politically when elites stimulate and organize this social will or use it for their political propaganda. Furthermore, Schumpeter compares economic competition with political competition among elites. Political leaders also compete with each other, in democratic systems peacefully and sometimes violently. Of course, political competition in a democratic country is a given, while in dictatorships, political rivals are eliminated by force and violence. However, Schumpeter insists that even in democratic systems, there is no absolute freedom of opinion, and there are limitations to freedoms. Democracy and freedom have a difficult relationship with each other. The rulers of a democratic country can also limit certain freedoms, even though freedom is one of the main categories of a democratic country. Schumpeter insisted that voters do not have the ability to control those they have brought to power. For this reason, he has tried in his theoretical works to lower the expectation of the possibility of controlling politicians. In his view, people can only control their rulers by saying no, and at least in the modern democratic system, by denying and not voting for the ruling politicians, they can remove them from power. Schumpeter also presents another interesting point in his elite theory: the majority of the masses can also engage in undemocratic actions and act against the will of society. For example, the majority of the masses can bring a regime to power that does not represent the social demands of the people. Schumpeter believed that the general and collective will of a people does not necessarily mean public welfare and public interests. In other words, not all people are ever in agreement about their interests. He states regarding the will of different social groups or political individuals that political demands are not an instinctive issue of a group but must be led by elites who themselves are engaged in political competitions to gain political power in the country. The common people of society can only elect their preferred individuals to power by majority vote, without being able to exert real control over them. Schumpeter's effort has been to bring the theories of political science and sociology closer to social and worldly realities, rather than the other way around. For this reason, he is called a realist thinker.