Sociological Perspectives on Political Power: From Oligarchy to Democracy

There are different forms of political representation in the world; the most common are:

• Oligarchy

• Theocracy

• Totalitarianism

• Monarchy

• Democracy

Among these, there are the most representative groups and, at the same time, the most unrepresentative ones. I think we should begin discussing them from a sociological perspective. To begin with, I would like to introduce certain theories that explain how to overcome oligarchy, starting from the micro-society level, such as professional companies. When considering democracy versus oligarchy, it becomes clear how easily one can transition from one to the other and back again. Both are fluid because, from democracy, hyper-specialization can easily allow the transition, as in a certain moment of governance, a few people become the owners of power.

To avoid arriving at this situation, there are several points to follow:

• Inclusive culture

• Rotation of roles and diffused leadership

• Dialogue and transparency in decision-making processes

(Osterman, 2006)

Here, we take into account two different contributions: a researcher, Robert Michels, who stated that every organization, even the most democratic, at a certain moment finds itself with power focused on an “elite”; and Osterman, who studied how to overcome this problem through qualitative research, finding that inclusivity is the answer.

Political Religion, Totalitarianism, and Dictatorships

Political religion is a term that identifies all totalitarian systems and includes symbols, rituals, and beliefs that imitate the traditional religious function. The central element is not only repression, but the active construction of a collective imaginary that becomes strong, full of values, and full of meanings for the people.

From the sociological perspective of conflict theory, we can understand how this approach helps explain the opposition between levels. As Gramsci pointed out, there is a division between the elite and the lower society, where the elite sometimes “loses” pieces that can be used to reverse the situation. Conflict theory teaches us this: the opposition of rules and how politics becomes something like a religion to follow and believe in.

(Besier, 2007)

Functionalist Perspective on Monarchy

But is it always negative to have someone representing us? From the functionalist perspective, the role of a monarch is not always negative, as they can unify the political classes and keep people united through a single figure that keeps classes organically connected. From this functionalist view, monarchy can be more than repression; it can express itself as the creation of a collective thought in which the State becomes the final source of values and meaning for the people. So here we see the rules of this logical framework:

• Symbolic unification

• Continuity of the dynasty

• Institutional counterpower

The parallel with electivity makes us think that elective power alone does not guarantee stability or prosperity.

(Guillén, 2018)

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism can be seen as the “carpet”: thanks to functionalism and conflict theory, we can see the macro view, but with symbolic interactionism, we understand the micro, what people think about dialogue, and how they react to this form of power.

Political Sociology: Its Meaning, Evolution, and Scope

Political sociology is what links politics and society by studying how power is distributed, acquired, and contested. If we think about what political sociology studies, we can say that its main focus is the power structure, starting from thinkers such as Marx (power as an instrument of economic control), Weber (types of authority and bureaucratic classes), and Tocqueville (democracy and civil society). The field is very broad, with many subtopics such as governance, electoral behaviors, social movements, and public policies. This perspective allows us to better understand conflict theories and to see the connection that exists between democracy and dictatorship from two sides: institutional structure and social effects.

(Rathore, 1986)

Democratic Theory and Network Governance

Governance paths can sometimes be lighter and better, as with network governance (Sørensen, 2002). The only problem is that, as we explored with Osterman, they can sometimes lose transparency, representativeness, and responsibility by neglecting important aspects of democracy. The most important points representing democracy and observed under the perspectives of functionalism and symbolic interactionism are:

• Representation

• Responsibility

• Transparency

• Inclusivity

Through these points, we understand how vital they are to describing what truly represents us, and we can also see how sociology helps us understand the renewal of the political system that governs us. It is like a living organism, and as such, it changes over time and space. Our Western democracy could be different from Eastern ones because the cultural “carpets” beneath them are different.

Conclusion

Sociology is our lens for connecting politics to society. I believe that, in some cases, politics does not truly represent society, leaving us struggling to understand why, how, and what mechanisms govern everything. Sociology provides that clarity; it is both our pair of eyeglasses, sharpening our vision, and our sunglasses, filtering and protecting our perspective. It is at once a vision and a teacher.

(803 Words)

References

Besier, G. (2007). Political religion, totalitarianism and modern dictatorships. Politeja, 7(1), 13–34.

Guillén, M. F. (2018). Symbolic unity, dynastic continuity, and countervailing power: Monarchies, republics, and the economy. Social Forces, 97(2), 529–556. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy044

Osterman, P. (2006). Overcoming oligarchy: Culture and agency in social movement organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(4), 622–649. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.4.622

Rathore, L. S. (1986). Political sociology: Its meaning, evolution and scope. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 1–10.

Sørensen, E. (2002). Democratic theory and network governance. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 24(4), 693–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2002.11029383