This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
166
the hero in history

believe that those whose interests are affected by the policies of government should have a voice in determining those policies, either directly, or indirectly by controlling the makers of policy, the direction which the never-ending task of democratizing process must take is clear. Whether it does take that direction depends greatly upon us.

That there will always be a governing élite to administer government is true. There will also always be a medical élite to minister to our health. The governing élite will always have more power for good or evil than the medical élite. But it need not be more permanent or even as permanent as the medical élite. So long as the governing élite operates within a framework of a democracy, we have a choice between élites. Where élites must contend with out-élites, the victor must pay a price to the governed for victory. How high the price is depends in part at least on how much the governed ask.[1]

The great limitation of the thought of Mosca, Pareto, and Michels is their failure to appreciate the differential advantages of the specific institutions available in a democracy that enable us both to select élites and to curb them. They overlook the concrete ways in which the governed through pressure groups, strikes, public debates, committee hearings, radio discussion, telegrams to newspapers and their representatives, petitions, mass meetings, primaries, and elections actually contribute to moulding the basic policies and decisions of the government in a democracy.[2]

The crux of the issue raised by the contention that democracy is impossible because power is exercised by an organized minority may best be met by asking the following questions: Can a democracy get rid of its ruling élite? Can a democracy rid itself of a governmg élite more easily or at a lesser cost than a non-democratic society? There can hardly be any doubt about the answers. The evidence of politics and history shows that democracy can and has rid itself of governing élites, and that it can do so more easily than is generally possible in non-democratic

  1. “For the working masses every ‘final victory’ proclaimed by their victorious leaders, even if it is a real step forward, can be only another starting point in their endless struggle for more and always more.” Max Nomad, in his “Masters—Old and New,” The Making of Society, edited by V. F. Calverton, p. 892.
  2. Cf. the brief but excellent discussion of Glenn Morrow in Ethics, April 1942, pp. 299 ff.; also Arthur Bentley’s important but neglected study, The Process of Government, Chicago, 1908.