1. In our day, those "that advocate liberty and equality" all view "universal suffrage as the foundation of all sound government, government "based on the will of the majority. For most, "all flaws in representative government were attributed to incomplete or mistaken application of the principle of representation and suffrage."
But Mosca begs to differ:
[T]he assumption that the elected official is the mouthpiece of the majority of his electors is as a rule not consistent with the facts; and we believe that this can be proved by facts of ordinary experience and by certain practical observations that anyone can make on the manner in which elections are conducted.
Now Mosca has previously argued that in all forms of government the ruling class, an organized majority, "imposes its will on the disorganized majority." This happens "and to perfection" under the representative system.
For in an election the voters do not "choose" their representative. They do not get to choose "the candidate of their heart;" that would be impossible.
If his vote is to have any efficacy at all, therefore, each voter is fores to limit his choice to a very narrow field... two or three persons who have some chance of succeeding... those whose candidacies are championed by groups, by committees, by organized minorities.
And how "do thse organized minorities form about individual candidates?"
As a rule they are based on considerations of property and taxation, on common material interests, on ties of family, class, religion, sect or political party.
In fact, the representative system does not result in government by the majority, but it does allow certain social forces to "become organized and so exert an influence on government."
2. Mosca now looks at the details of how the suffrage system works out in practice. Even though the voters do not get the choose the candidate of their choice, the candidates still have to "win a weight of votes" to win the election and will make every effort to "win the good will of the voters."
In this way certain sentiments and passions of the "common herd" come to have their influence in the mental attitudes of the representatives themselves, and echoes of a widely disseminated opinion, or of any serious discontent, easily come to be heard in the highest spheres of government.
And every representative "knows that the discontent of the masses may at almost any moment bring about the triumph of a rival." Of course if one group -- say the poor -- are not represented in the assembly, then it is almost impossible for them to get their interests represented. The opposite is also true. If the "better elements" are only a slim minority in a city then the masses under the control of "ward heelers" will run over them.
At their best representative assemblies can provide a real "juridical safeguard" with public discussion of disparate political forces; an small organized minority can often "control the conduct of a large majority" and curb the bureaucracy. But equally, they can fall under the irresponsible domination of those who win elections and "speak in the name of the people."
The referendum can be fairly effective, but is not a panacea. Government is more than managing changes in the laws; it is also a question of managing and influencing the bureaucratic machine. And improvements "will always be more readily appreciated by the governing class," however corrupt.
3. The question then arises as to "the extent to which the state should interfere in the various departments of social life, and more specifically in business."
Many people think that "state" and "society" are separate and distinct, but Mosca insists that the state is merely the "organization of all the social forces that have a political significance... The state is... merely that part of society that performs the political function." Some people "contrast state management with private initiative," that what is done by bureaucrats in Germany and France is done by private individuals in England, often of course, prominent individuals that perform without pay.
4. Mosca notes that state bureaucracies and other political parties participate in the management of economic activities, including banking, public works, but not the actual management of economic production in any moderately advanced country. Although, of course, the managers of economic production "form a part of the ruling forces of society."
In general the intervention in economic enterprise of elements that exercise strictly political, in other words, legislative, administrative, or judiciary, control over society, has been harmful, and a large share in the pauperization that is afflicting a number of modern countries can be ascribed to that interference.
Managerial activities should be entrusted to those with the abilities required for performing them. But when activities are withdrawn from the bureaucracy or elected bodies, "there has to be present within society a class of persons who possess the capacities" to perform the task. For Mosca, juries, justices of the peace, and charity commissioners may not be up to the job.
On the other hand those who wish to broaden state activities ought to remember that the "state" is not necessarily the "organ of righteousness and moral progress." The "state" means "government officials and government clerks!... all very fine fellows... that nevertheless possess all human capacities and all human frailties."
[A]mong their interests [is] an interest in keeping their jobs or even in slipping into better ones if the occasion offers.
Next: Churches, Parties, and Sects
Or return to Contents.
No comments:
Post a Comment