This chapter of the book talks about democratic elitism, more specifically about two of its approaches. One represented by Etzony - Halévy and the other one by Highley and Moore. Both have a varying view of elites and their workings. Both of them are explained and examined critically.
The approach of Eva Etzony-Halévy looks more closely at elite conflict. For proper functioning of democracy, the most powerful elites must be balanced against each other to overcome the unequality already created by raising them above ordinary citizen. Elite pluralism and elite autonomy are key terms of the theory. Elite pluralism describes the number of elites, elite autonomy (which is always relative) looks at the distribution of resources among them, so not one of the elites is profoundly more powerful than others. The theory is built on the comparison of Great Britain and the Weimar Republic, and of Russia and Poland at the end of the 1980's. The overlapping interests of elites and cooperation until the point of benefiting from it is sufficient for sustaining democracy, thus weakening the normative commitment of the elites. On the other hand, she highlights the institutionalization of this autonomy, which is
…show more content…
Issue consensus is very often difficult to attain. According to Highley and Burton (2006) value consensus and structural integration characterize elite consensus. The first term combines both kinds of consensus - democratic and issue one. The second term implies overlapping networks and communication which connects the elites. But the conflicts among the elite exist and probably always will. However, only very little attention is paid to them, and this should change. In order for elites to integrate (horizontaly), their interests have to overlap, and they have to be willing to overcome their differences based on the democratic