Frustrations of Democracy: Historical Perspectives on Resisting Elite Domination

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

As we enter the middle of the third decade of the 21st century, the prospects for democracy in many parts of the world appear unpromising; yet aspirations for better, more just democracies intensify.
This panel turns its attention to specific times and places—Italy, Germany, France, Spain, and India between the late 19th and mid-20th century—that witnessed suffrage expansion, the development of mass political parties, the deepening capitalist political economy, and the rise of nationalism, anti-colonialism, socialism, and fascism. All contributed to the constant reconfiguration and refinement of democracy.
In varying manners and degrees, the five thinkers in this panel—Robert Michels, Max Weber, Jean Jaurès, Salvador de Madariaga, and Mohandas Gandhi—viewed democracy as a fait accompli, carefully examining the challenges from its continued spread and backlash. While the fear of the unruly majority, which was as old as democracy itself, never entirely faded, these thinkers knew too well that recent experiments in electoral or mass democracies raised rather different concerns that modern democracy could usher in oligarchy, plutocracy, a pure bureaucratic rule, or other forms of the tyranny of the minority. Also, they keenly acknowledged that few prescriptions to either problem were without their own serious drawbacks. Democracy was found almost indispensable yet seldom entirely satisfying. In essence, these thinkers lived with the frustrations of democracy, both theoretically and politically, leaving perceptive insights into how to mitigate and endure them.
The five papers in this panel each examine and complicate, each in its way, the conditions under which modern democracy spawns promises and frustrations. Is modern democracy necessarily bound to oligarchy or mob rule? Can we confront elite domination entrenched in modern democracy, especially without promoting excessive anti-elitism that fuels an authoritarian or fascist fervor? On the other hand, can we criticize the danger of cheerleading plebiscitary leaders and their charismatic leadership without succumbing to the prevalence of procedural democracy that is often of service to a few political and economic elites? To what extent would it be reasonable to feed on the hatred of the few or the fear of the masses? How much optimism or pessimism can be warranted in modern democracy? What moral and political values can democracy exact? What kinds of political life can ordinary democratic citizens hope for?
Piano argues that Michels’ “iron law of oligarchy” points to the inevitability of minority rule but is not inherently anti-democratic. His theory, contrasting corrupt elites with passive masses, focuses not on criticizing the masses’ stupidity but on exposing elite domination. Thus, it does not preclude promoting democratic energies to thwart or mitigate the domination of elites.
Kim contends that Weber—Michels’ mentor—shares this same dismal perception of modern democracy. However, Weber takes issue more with unqualified power wielders and diagnoses resulting consequences. While recognizing Weber’s emphasis on political leadership, Kim turns to the frustrations of ordinary citizens, examining how their external conditions and internal expectations shape specific ethos and attitudes.
Giraudo notes that Jaurès critiques democratic parliamentarism for its oligarchic tendency. Jaurès suggests creating solidarity through trade unions in the socialist movement, recognizing interdependence between industries, and practicing dialogue, negotiation, and compromise. Jaurès’s critique of democratic parliamentarism, thus, can evolve into an endorsement of a morally superior form of democracy fostering a sense of solidarity with society.
In Dinnin’s view, Madariaga, like the other thinkers mentioned above, criticizes democracy tied to electoral systems and majority rule, pinpointing its inclination toward oligarchy and plutocracy. Instead, he advocates organic democracy. Dinnin’s study comprehensively analyzes Madariaga’s theory of organic democracy, noting that in the context of Spanish politics at the time, his anti-oligarchic theory could have favored Francoism gnawing at democracy itself.
Samnotra argues that Gandhi strongly criticizes parliamentarism and mass democracy as corrupt institutions; yet, he does not view Gandhi’s stance as anti-democratic per se. Gandhi places masses at the center of his political movements, infusing them with democratic energy. Samnotra reinterprets the democratic possibilities implicit in Gandhi’s movements, where masses can transform themselves into new, dignified subjects.
These historical and theoretical inquiries, though rooted in peculiar contexts, resound with enduring relevance, urging a better understanding of the nuances of democratic governance, challenges, and frustrations.

Sub Unit

• Division 1: Political Thought and Philosophy

Individual Presentations

• The Edge of Fatalism: Robert Michels and the Iron Law of Oligarchy - Natasha Piano, UCLA

• Max Weber and Four Mindscapes of Democratic Frustration - Juman Kim, Towson University

• Jean Jaurès and the Social Preconditions of Democracy - Peter Giraudo, Boston College

• Salvador de Madariaga’s Organic Democracy and the Problem of Oligarchy - Alec Francis Dinnin, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt

• Democracy against Non-domination: Gandhi and the Reversals of Republicanism - Manu Samnotra, University of South Florida

Chair

• Jeffrey E. Green University of Pennsylvania

Discussants

• Joshua L. Cherniss Georgetown University

• Ewa Atanassow Bard College Berlin