Eliteosis - A Prelude to the Obituary of Democracy: How Elite Apologists and Elite-Centric Narratives Mop-Up Democracy in the Name of Democracy
By Dr. Iffat Naheed
Amid the discourse on power struggle between the elite and masses, criticism on populism as a political philosophy as well as so-called populist leadership abounds. However, for all the crass negative perceptions and presumptions concerning populism, what often goes unnoticed is the fact that this narrative is being propounded by none other than the very nemesis of populist approaches namely the elite and their apologists or protégés. The question therefore arises if the so-called populist leaders of today are actually true believers in the power of common man and the masses or just another façade used by the elite and their apologists to justify their so-called rational approach towards maintaining their power and reinforce their order over the societies.
Elite apologists have been prone to arguing for the rule of elite and perpetuation of their power over the states and societies in the very name of notions that elitism inherently contradicts including democracy. By its very essence, the political philosophy of elitism is premised on suggesting that in societies, power as a matter of necessity is concentrated in the hands of the political elite or privileged few who are in possession of resources and wherewithal of a state and accordingly perpetuate their domination over the entire socio-economic landscape through force and deception. These elite apologists proffer their elite-centric narratives by pretending to argue for the so-called “hyper-realism” in contrast to populist emphasis on power of the people i.e. political order based on egalitarianism. The elite apologists also employ jargons such as good politics, goal-orientation, rationality and responsibility in maintaining order in order to justify their hold over the power. In essence, therefore, elitism is presented as a politics-centered approach which argues for people’s needs rather than wants. All these jargons and ideals in reality present nothing more than oxymorons however. These self-deceiving notions stand in stark contradiction to the very essence of elitist aims and objectives but presented in a manner so as to appear in sync with society’s wider expectations of welfare.
In the following lines, we will first unsheathe the true nature of elite-centric narratives based on certain factual instances to elaborate the above points. We would also argue as to how the above elite-centric narratives being presented by elite apologists have caused the very foundations of democracy to crumble from within. Lastly, we would introduce the notion of “Eliteosis” to argue that the hypocritical tendency of the elite apologists to justify their authoritarian rule in the name of democracy leads the entire state structure and society to suffer from a diseased condition of elite domination, where certain segments of society not part of the elite are also made to believe the elite narratives as being representative of the common man and his expectations. This condition manifests in the socio-political elite deceitfully presenting themselves as populist, thus making a mockery of democracy and views as well as expectations of masses, just in order to maintain their power and order. It would accordingly be argued as to how the phenomenon of “Eliteosis” leads to the continued authoritarian rule by the elite while hiding behind the façade of democracy in order to secure their own group interests. The end result is that democracy is destroyed in the very name of democracy itself through use of such fake narratives by the elite and their apologists or protégés.
To begin with, by its very nature, elite-centric approaches are premised on authoritarianism and privileging the resourceful and powerful few. In order to justify their control over the state apparatus and resources however, the ruling elite and their apologists or protégés identify certain rules, values or norms for serving their peculiar interests and preserving their power. This peculiar social construct is necessarily binary in character that identifies those that form the “self” or part of the elite and the “other” that form the underprivileged or unprivileged. Owing to their unrepresentative character, the ruling elite then introduces such notions as good-politics, responsibility and rationality in order to justify their hegemonic and undemocratic control over the state apparatus and socio-economic milieu and resources while denying the same to the common man. This approach is essentially colonial in character and strikes at the roots of democracy. In addition, with a view to reinforcing the above, the rules of behavior and norms proffered by the elite and their apologists could at times be based on identity politics or certain value systems that serve the elite. The elite would then argue for the rule of that particular law established by it and for itself, in order to safeguard the above value system, even though this entire paradigm remains essentially unrepresentative in character. In addition, notions such as rationality are then used without identifying in detail as to what behavior constitutes a rational approach. As the elite apologists do not support intellectual discourse lest their unrepresentative character gets exposed, they tend to keep their jargons open-ended, complex in language and essentially dubious. By this, they attempt to avoid the questions pertaining to the very rationality or logic of their identified rules of order and behavior within a state; simply said the rationality of rationality or the logic of logic. One of the most undemocratic notions of elite-centric narrative is the focus on public “needs” rather than “wants”. This emphasis not only underpins the colonial nature of elitist control but also reinforces the binary of so-called responsible elite and hedonist common man, created by elite apologists. By keeping the prerogative of identifying what public actually needs, the elite tends to strengthen and justify their hold over the vital resources of state i.e. what is to be withheld from public and what is to be offered to them and also in what quantity.
While promoting the above elite-oriented value system, the elite and their apologists also continue supporting their henchmen to rise up the power echelons, while pretending to represent the voice and expectations of masses or common man. However, while doing so, the elite continue to identify the acceptable values and norms to these identified so-called populist leaders as well as the tolerable limits of their so-called freedom of action. Therefore, while feigning opposition, these so-called populist leaders actually serve the interests of the elite.
There are numerous examples to elaborate the above points in our history. For instance, the conservative elite in Weimar Germany that was wary of losing their control over power and resources in the wake of rise of communism actually promoted Nazi Party and facilitated Hitler’s rise to power. This was done in such a manner that Hitler presented himself to be a populist leader, yet served the interests and expectations of the conservative elite by promoting authoritarianism. In a similar manner, in modern-day India, the rise of right-wing political forces such as Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) (India’s People’s Party) and Prime Minister Narendra Modi was actually facilitated by the resourceful and economically sound Hindu elite of the country. Accordingly, the identity politics being promoted under Modi is actually serving the very interests of the Hindu elite that aim to justify their existence through this approach and flourish on these ethnic and religious based binaries. Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban is another example in this regard. Orban is commonly presented as the so-called populist leader of Hungary. However, if we ponder in detail, he also continues to serve the interests of his friendly and influential elite in the country by preserving and promoting their economic interests, though employing identity politics to diverge domestic attention therefrom. Lastly, former Brazilian far-right President Jair Bolsonaro was also essentially promoted during the Presidential elections in Brazil during 2018 by the business elite of the country. During these elections, the Brazilian elite employed the tactic of populist rhetoric. However, this essentially was a façade aimed at protecting the interests of the Brazilian business elite. Throughout his tenure, therefore, Bolsonaro exploited his populist rhetoric in order to secure the interests of the Brazilian Business elite who felt threatened by his political rival Lula Da Silva’s left-wing politics.
In the above examples, it is evident that in order to justify their control, the ruling elite relied on a new social construct to create binaries of ‘self’ and ‘others’. The uncompromising nature of this social construct in the above historical instances can be gauged from the fact that it was based on the notion of take-it-or-leave-it approach. Those who were either not identifiable with or did not serve the purpose of state elite were set outside the social system as pariahs. It may be noted that all this was and is still being done in the name of democracy.
Another interesting feature of how the elite and their apologists enhance their influence and control over the state apparatus is through the use of propaganda, fake narratives and even fake conflicts with the so-called populist leadership which in reality does not represent the masses either. In order to justify their activities, the elite present their protégés as anti-elite while attempting to implode the populist struggle from within. The ruling elite also tends to overcomplicate the counter-narratives evolving in the masses by attempting to stigmatize them as overly simplistic and being based on emotions rather than rationality. The true leadership of the masses is therefore kept in the background through fact manipulation while elite protégés are brought to the forefront as populist leaders via the same deceitful means. This is all done without either defining rationality and its philosophical contours or answering any questions as regards the logic of their presented logic.
As mentioned earlier, the net effect of the above undemocratic approach is the state of “Eliteosis” looming large and destroying the very fabric of democracy from within. “Eliteosis” therefore manifests the diseased socio-politico-economic condition where the ruling elite of a state not only dominates its resources and power, but also serves as that state’s own opposition to justify its own preponderance. This therefore results in the mopping-up of democracy in the very name of democracy. The manner, in which the basic democratic principles are undemocratically denied to the masses in practice in the form of elite domination of political system, indicates that these political jargons used by the elite are nothing more than empty slogans aimed at keeping the true political leadership under check within the political system.
Dr. Iffat Naheed is a “Visiting Researcher” at the Balkan Studies Center (BSC), International University of Sarajevo (IUS), Bosnia & Herzegovina. She holds a Ph.D. degree in Political Science from the National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Balkan Studies Center (BSC).
