The concept of “circulation of elites” is a foundational idea within classical elitist theories of politics, primarily advanced by Italian sociologists Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These theories fundamentally challenge the notion of popular sovereignty and posit that all societies, regardless of their political structure, are ultimately governed by a minority – an elite. The “circulation of elites” then explains how this ruling minority maintains its vitality, adapts to societal changes, or is replaced by a new elite, preventing stagnation or complete societal collapse.

Elitist theories emerged as a critical response to democratic and Marxist idealisms, arguing that the concentration of power in the hands of a few is an inevitable and universal feature of human organization. While Marxists focused on economic class as the determinant of power, classical elitists emphasized organizational capacity, psychological traits, and administrative skills as the basis for elite rule. The idea of circulation acknowledges that while elite rule is constant, the composition and characteristics of the elite are not static, providing a dynamic element to an otherwise seemingly deterministic view of power.

The Meaning of Circulation of Elites

The “circulation of elites” is a concept most prominently associated with Vilfredo Pareto, although similar ideas can be discerned in the works of Gaetano Mosca and, by extension, Robert Michels. It describes the process by which individuals move between elite and non-elite strata, and, more significantly, the process by which one governing elite is replaced by another. This replacement can be gradual and peaceful, or it can be abrupt and violent, leading to revolution.

Vilfredo Pareto’s Theory of Circulation

Vilfredo Pareto, in his seminal work The Mind and Society (1916), argued that societies are always divided into two main strata: a lower stratum, the non-elite or the masses, and a higher stratum, the elite. Within the elite, he further distinguished between the “governing elite,” who directly or indirectly play a significant role in government, and the “non-governing elite,” who may possess superior qualities in various fields (e.g., arts, sciences, business) but do not participate in political governance.

Pareto’s theory of circulation is deeply rooted in his concept of “residues,” which are fundamental psychological predispositions or sentiments that guide human behavior. He identified two primary types of residues relevant to elite behavior:

  1. Class I Residues (Residues of Combinations): Associated with cunning, shrewdness, innovation, imagination, and the ability to combine disparate elements to achieve new outcomes. Individuals with strong Class I residues are often adaptable, manipulative, and open to change. Pareto called them “foxes.”
  2. Class II Residues (Residues of Group-Persistence): Associated with conservatism, loyalty, tradition, strong moral conviction, and the use of force. Individuals with strong Class II residues are often resolute, direct, and resistant to change. Pareto called them “lions.”

Pareto argued that a healthy governing elite needs a balance of both “foxes” and “lions.” “Foxes” are essential for innovation, economic prosperity, and diplomatic maneuvering, while “lions” are necessary for maintaining order, upholding laws, and defending the state. The “circulation of elites” occurs because the ruling elite tends to become imbalanced over time.

  • When the elite becomes too “fox-like”: A ruling class dominated by “foxes” may become overly cunning, manipulative, indecisive, and too reliant on persuasion and financial machinations. They may lose the capacity or willingness to use force when necessary, leading to internal weakness, corruption, and an inability to maintain order. They become adept at subverting the law rather than upholding it.
  • When the elite becomes too “lion-like”: Conversely, an elite overly dominated by “lions” may become rigid, conservative, resistant to change, and excessively reliant on force. They may be unable to adapt to new circumstances, suppress dissent too brutally, and fail to innovate, leading to stagnation and discontent among the masses.

According to Pareto, when the governing elite becomes too skewed towards one type of residue, it loses its effectiveness and vitality. This creates an opportunity for individuals with the opposing dominant residue type, who are accumulating in the non-governing elite or even among the masses, to challenge and eventually replace the existing rulers. This process of replacement, either through co-optation (integrating new elements into the existing elite) or through revolution (overthrowing the existing elite), is the “circulation of elites.” If circulation is blocked, for instance, if the ruling elite becomes too closed off and fails to absorb talented individuals from below, then a revolutionary situation becomes more likely, as the suppressed energies and capabilities of the non-elite eventually burst forth.

Gaetano Mosca’s Contribution: The Ruling Class

While Mosca did not explicitly use the term “circulation of elites” as Pareto did, his concept of “the ruling class” and its constant need for renewal strongly implies a similar process. In The Ruling Class (1896), Mosca posited that in all societies, there is an organized minority (the ruling class) that rules over the unorganized majority. This ruling class derives its power from certain qualities or capacities that are highly valued in that society, such as military prowess, religious authority, wealth, or administrative skill.

Mosca stressed that for the ruling class to maintain its dominance and avoid stagnation, it must continuously assimilate new elements from the lower strata of society. This “assimilation” or “co-optation” of individuals with talent, energy, or emerging forms of wealth and influence ensures the vitality and adaptability of the ruling class. If this process of renewal is insufficient, or if the ruling class becomes too exclusive and fails to adapt to changes in society’s underlying forces (e.g., economic shifts, technological advancements, or the rise of new ideas), it risks being overthrown by a new elite better equipped to organize the masses and command power. Thus, for Mosca, while elite rule is inevitable, the composition of the elite is fluid and subject to change, driven by the changing requirements for power and the need for new blood.

Robert Michels and the Iron Law of Oligarchy

Though distinct from Pareto and Mosca’s direct focus on state governance, Robert Michels’ “Iron Law of Oligarchy,” articulated in Political Parties (1911), reinforces the elitist perspective and implicitly supports the idea of circulation. Michels argued that even in democratic organizations, such as political parties or trade unions, the technical and administrative necessities of organization inevitably lead to the formation of an elite (an oligarchy) that monopolizes power.

While not explicitly a theory of “circulation,” Michels’ work implies that leadership positions within these organizations tend to become self-perpetuating. New leaders may emerge, but they quickly become part of the existing elite structure, adopting its norms and interests. Thus, power always resides with a few, even if the specific individuals change, a process that can be seen as a micro-level manifestation of elite circulation within specific organizational contexts. The “iron law” suggests that the form of elite rule is inescapable, even as the faces within that elite may change.

Elitist Theory of Democracy

The classical elitist theories of Pareto, Mosca, and Michels laid the groundwork for later elitist theories of democracy, particularly those developed by Joseph Schumpeter and later by pluralists like Robert Dahl (though Dahl is often seen as a counter-point to strong elitism). These theories largely abandoned the normative ideals of classical democracy (rule by the people) and instead offered a more descriptive, procedural definition.

According to the elitist theory of democracy, democracy is not about direct popular rule or the realization of the general will. Instead, it is primarily a method for selecting leaders. Citizens do not govern; rather, they choose between competing elites who vie for their votes. This competitive process provides a mechanism for accountability (elites must compete to gain and retain power) and allows for a certain degree of responsiveness, as elites must at least appear to address public concerns to win elections.

This view implies that the average citizen is largely passive, less informed, and primarily concerned with private matters. Their role is limited to choosing who will govern them, rather than actively participating in governance itself. The “circulation of elites” here ensures that the political system remains dynamic, allowing for the periodic replacement of one set of leaders with another, preventing a static, authoritarian regime and providing an outlet for discontent.

Six Criticisms Against the Elitist Theory of Democracy

While elitist theories offer a seemingly realistic and often cynical view of power, they have faced substantial criticism, particularly from normative democratic theorists, participatory democrats, and pluralists.

I. Undermines the Normative Ideal of Democracy

One of the most profound criticisms is that the elitist theory of democracy fundamentally strips democracy of its normative content and ideals. Classical democratic theory envisions popular sovereignty, self-governance, active citizen participation, and the potential for collective rationality. Elitist theory, by contrast, reduces democracy to a mere electoral mechanism for selecting leaders. It posits that the masses are largely incompetent, irrational, and apathetic, thus justifying their limited role. This perspective is seen as abandoning the core values of equality, political autonomy, and the ideal of a society where citizens actively shape their collective destiny. Critics argue that by defining democracy simply as a competition among elites, it legitimizes existing power inequalities and discourages aspirations for genuine popular control.

II. Neglects the Importance of Citizen Participation and Political Efficacy

Elitist theories often downplay or ignore the significant role of active citizen participation in shaping political outcomes. By portraying citizens primarily as passive voters who choose between pre-selected elite options, the theory overlooks the empowering and educative effects of political involvement. It fails to account for the impact of social movements, grassroots activism, protests, and civil society organizations in influencing policy, holding elites accountable, and introducing new issues into the political agenda. Critics argue that discouraging participation can lead to widespread apathy, alienation, and a weakening of democratic civic culture, ultimately making the system less legitimate and responsive.

III. Oversimplifies the Nature of Power and Pluralism

Critics, particularly pluralist theorists like Robert Dahl, argue that the elitist theory often oversimplifies the distribution of power. While acknowledging the existence of elites, pluralists contend that power is not concentrated in a single, unified, or cohesive elite that acts in its own self-interest across all policy domains. Instead, power is dispersed among numerous competing groups, interest organizations (e.g., labor unions, business associations, environmental groups, professional lobbies), and institutions. Different elites may dominate different policy areas, and they often compete and bargain with each other. This pluralistic view suggests that no single elite can consistently dominate, and policy outcomes are often the result of compromises and shifting coalitions among these diverse groups. Elitist theory, particularly in its strong form, struggles to explain policy outcomes that do not clearly serve the interests of a monolithic ruling class.

IV. Fails to Account for Responsiveness and Accountability

If citizens’ primary role is limited to selecting elites, the mechanisms for genuine responsiveness and accountability become questionable. Critics argue that competitive elections, while important, are insufficient checks on elite power, especially if voter choice is constrained by limited options, media manipulation, and vast information asymmetry between elites and the public. Elitist theory often struggles to explain how elite decisions can be genuinely influenced by public opinion or how policies change dramatically in response to societal demands that are not initiated by competing elites. It tends to view elite power as self-perpetuating, with accountability being a weak, periodic mechanism rather than a constant pressure. The idea of “circulation” addresses how elites change, but not necessarily how they are forced to respond to the will of the people they claim to represent.

V. Tends Towards a Conservative Bias and Status Quo Maintenance

Many critics argue that elitist theory, especially in its most deterministic forms, exhibits an inherent conservative bias. By emphasizing the inevitability of elite rule and the limited capacity of the masses, it can be seen as rationalizing existing power structures and inequalities. It implies that attempts at radical social or political change are naive or futile, as power will always revert to a few. This perspective can discourage efforts towards greater democratization, social justice, and redistribution of power, instead encouraging acceptance of the status quo. It often overlooks systemic biases within the political and economic systems that naturally favor entrenched interests and make it difficult for counter-elites or popular movements to emerge and gain traction.

VI. Methodological and Empirical Shortcomings

From a methodological standpoint, critics raise concerns about the empirical verifiability and potential tautological nature of some elitist arguments. Identifying a truly cohesive, unified elite that consistently acts in its own unified interest across all issues can be empirically challenging. If evidence of non-elite influence emerges, some elitist arguments can be adapted to explain it away as “co-optation” or “manipulation” by the elite, making the theory difficult to falsify. Furthermore, research focused solely on formal positions of power may miss informal networks, behind-the-scenes influence, and the subtle ways power is exercised through agenda-setting and control over information. The focus on psychological traits (like Pareto’s residues) can also be seen as overly simplistic or deterministic, neglecting the role of structural factors and historical contingencies in shaping elite behavior and societal development.

The “circulation of elites” remains a powerful concept for understanding the dynamics of power within political systems. It highlights that while elite rule is a persistent feature of organized societies, the composition and characteristics of the governing minority are not static. This circulation, driven by various factors such as societal changes, the need for new skills, or the accumulation of psychological imbalances within the elite, serves to rejuvenate the ruling class and can prevent stagnation or revolution. It implies that power is not rigidly fixed but undergoes a continuous process of ebb and flow, absorbing new elements or being overthrown by them.

However, the broader elitist theory of democracy, which posits that democracy is merely a mechanism for selecting competing elites, faces substantial critique. While it offers a realistic counterpoint to idealistic visions of direct democracy, it is often criticized for undermining democracy’s normative ideals, underestimating citizen capacity and participation, and oversimplifying the complex, pluralistic nature of power distribution in modern societies. The debate between elitist, pluralist, and participatory democratic theories continues to shape academic discourse, reflecting fundamental disagreements about the nature of power, the role of citizens, and the ultimate goals of democratic governance. While elites undeniably play a crucial role in all political systems, the extent to which they are genuinely accountable to the populace, and the potential for broad-based citizen influence, remains a central point of contention.