Democracy is not a good thing, but it is the best system we can find so far. ——Churchill. In today's society, democratic countries account for a large proportion, Joseph Schumpeter’s ‘elitist’ view of democracy has an indispensable influence in today's democratic countries. Joseph Schumpeter said: “The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.”（Schumpeter J. 1947）Joseph Schumpeter defined democracy as the method by which people elected representatives in competitive elections to carry out their will. For Schumpeter, the formation of a government is the endpoint of the democratic process (Adam P. 1999). In today's society, there are two different theories of Democracy: participation theory and elite theory. The purpose of this paper is to explore whether Joseph Schumpeter's 'elitism' democracy is still applicable today.
First, what is participatory theory? In democratic countries, participatory theory means it is a theory of knowledge that holds that meaning is enacted through the participation of the human mind with the world. As we all know, many countries in the world are democratic countries, such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, and so on. Most countries in the world want democracy. Few countries want to be labeled as non-democratic. In a way, democracy is a good way to run a country. A good example is in 1996, five years after Kazakhstan broke away from the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kazakh President Nazarbayev asked his advisers to draft a new constitution, declaring Kazakhstan a democracy. The referendum was overwhelmingly supported. Most people support democracy, which also shows the importance of democracy. The democratic system is the social-political order and rules formed on the basis of the concept of people's sovereignty and the combination of democracy and people. In short, the people are the masters. In today's society, participatory democracy and elite democracy are the most acceptable and popular.
The reason why people support the theory of participation is that how can a democratic country prove its democracy is to listen to the opinions and suggestions of the people. If it is unwilling to listen to the opinions of the people, how can it be called a democratic country? At the same time, participation theory has its disadvantages and advantages. First, the purpose of participation theory is to let people participate in politics, which is a good thing. People can understand the internal affairs of the country more directly and help the country develop better. The drawback of participation theory is that participants will come from all over the country, too many people will vote, and all the statistics must be long and difficult. On the other hand, the results of selection must be crucial, but the education level and quality of voters are uneven, which may lead to some wrong decisions, resulting in serious consequences.
People's participation in politics is good, but according to a 2007 survey of British people's participation in politics, 32% of British citizens feel that they are too busy to participate in politics, 22% are too uninterested in politics, 6% think that their participation will not achieve any goals, 2% think that they will not be listened to, 17% of citizens don't even know why they don't participate. The same study found that 19% of citizens had not participated in any voting or political activities in the past two or three years. Over time, these data have not changed significantly. From these surveys, we can see clearly that most people are not interested in politics and many people are not willing to participate in politics. This will lead some political extremists to use the system of participation theory to guide national politics in the wrong direction, which will lead to some irreversible consequences. From this, we can see that participatory democracy is to a large extent difficult to achieve.
To a great extent, the practice of contemporary Western democracy is guided by Schumpeter's democratic theory and elite democratic thought. According to the theory of elites, a few social elites with knowledge, wealth, and status should make political decisions and lead the social trend. The views and actions of these elites are more likely to be constructive to society. In other words, the outstanding ability or wisdom of these elites makes them particularly suitable for governing.
There are many advantages to elite theory. First, it's easier to organize as a minority elite. As the ruling class, or as the elite in power, they are organized. Because only when they are organized can they rule and take power. The elites are always easier to organize, but the scattered masses are difficult to organize; if the masses are organized, they are also organized by the elites and controlled by the elites. Compared with the theory of participation, everyone's participation in politics will bring about confusion in decision-making, and ultimately can't form decision-making, or form decision-making can't be implemented, which will cause society to lose order, so it can't meet people's needs for security, and the result is not worth it. Also, elites can rule because they have more knowledge and technology than ordinary people, and they have higher judgment and decision-making abilities. In particular, the knowledge and skills of the rule are unique to the elite. The reason why elites can become elites is that they have relative advantages in personal quality and knowledge level. Although participation theory can better reflect democracy, every country always needs elites to judge and make decisions when making some important decisions. Furthermore, the elite theory is more in line with modern people's demand for efficiency improvement and cost reduction. From the utilitarian point of view, letting a small number of elites govern the country can bring more benefits to people's society. These benefits include order, efficiency, less cost, higher return, etc. From the perspective of the needs of human social life, people are always pursuing to obtain greater returns with smaller costs and the most efficient.
In the efficiency of governance, minority Elite Governance is more efficient than majority governance, and minority Elite Governance has become a form of governance that can win in efficiency. From the perspective of the cost of the rule, the rule of the majority will certainly bring high costs, while the cost of the rule of the few elites is much smaller. No matter in terms of time, money, and manpower, most people's rule is a form of rule with high cost. A few elites' rules can reduce the cost to the greatest extent, and a few elites win in the cost of the rule. In terms of technical requirements, most people's rules can't require everyone to be an expert in politics or management. Because of professional differentiation and social division of labor, knowledge distribution is also uneven, so most people's rule is not rich in professional knowledge. While a few elites can concentrate their political or management expertise and have professional advantages in governing technology. elites once again win in technical requirements.