The "Iron law of oligarchy" was
formulated by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his book "Political
Parties". According to this law, the formation of an oligarchy in
democratically run organizations is inevitable, and is the result of technical
reasons. Michels formulated this law after a study he conducted in
socialist organizations and trade unions in pre- World War I Europe .
Components
of the Iron Law of the Oligarchy
The law was created for many reasons:
Most democratic actions, like any action
taken in a large human society, require organization.
Most of the population is not interested
in political activity. The real workers have no power and ability to engage in
political activity.
Development of a strong organization is
necessary to achieve the goal of the group.
Strong organizations require strong
leadership.
Organizing on a large scale requires
splitting in the decision-making processes to committees, unequal division of
responsibilities for the design of the process, delegation of powers, etc.
An unequal division of responsibilities
leads to a concentration of power in the hands of committees and management in
two main processes, which reinforce each other:
Managers acquire the skills and
information necessary to improve their form of management, while non-managers
develop skills and information related to the practical execution of the work.
These gaps create power gaps within the organization and grow as the system
becomes more complex.
A manager is responsible for the
structure of the organization and therefore subordinates subordinates to him
and thus creates a center of power around him.
These processes are fixed and
strengthened due to two additional processes:
Subordinates develop a natural loyalty to
managers for various reasons, the main of which is a lack of interest, skill or
sufficient self-esteem to integrate into management.
Managers strive to preserve their power
for many reasons, the main ones being the privileges that accompany management,
identifying their power with the good of the organization and an abstract
aspiration to increase their social power.
Michels argues that the oligarchy has its own interests that mainly concern the preservation and increase of its relative power, interests that in many cases do not correspond to the goals of the organization and the benefit of the democratic society in which the organizations operate. A major example of such an interest is the conservatism of the organization, due to which organizations tend over time to be over-conservative (sometimes at the expense of the goals of the organization).
According to Michels, the iron ruleof the oligarchy is inherent in human existence and cannot be undone, but can
be reduced.
Processes for reducing the ability of oligarchies to take over
Michels claims that there are counter-processes in the company, which must be strengthened in order to reduce this process. Michels rarely mentions what these mechanisms are. But attempts at legislation around the world and various organizational processes have shown the ability to preserve more democratic organizations.
Promoting decentralized and multi-directional
communication : By promoting public communication that is not controlled by the
leadership, it is possible to create a public discourse around the conduct of
the leadership, and thus criticize it for positive or negative. If sanction
mechanisms are also established, the public will be able to impose its opinion
on the leadership. Communication that is not controlled by key factors, such as
the Internet , is preferable to communication that is centrally controlled,
such as television and radio . This will create a situation where everyone can
express their opinion and criticize the leadership.
Legislation bypasses representatives : In
states in the United States and Switzerland, it is customary to allow the
public to propose laws . If these laws are passed by a majority vote, these
laws are binding on the representatives. In this way the public can enforce its
opinion on the oligarchy, and prevent it from being the sole legislature.
The ability to impose sanctions on the
organization's leadership : Michels writes that the public is giving up its rights
because of apathy . While he is required to pay to the movement mechanism, in
order to sustain the movement, the public itself lacks any ability to control
its leadership, or to impose a sanction on it.
Critical education of the public :
Another major process is the vigilance and critique of the individual, which
depends on improving the social status of individuals in society and especially
their education (Michels attributes the main role of education in raising
the level of education).
Degeneration of the Socialist Struggle
Aside from the importance of the iron
rule of the oligarchy for a democratic organization, Michels argues
that there is another implication of his on what is known as the "
socialist struggle ." According to Michels, the formation of such an
oligarchy also depends on the nature of this struggle: the need for unification
creates advantages for the centralized conduct of socialist organizations. In
light of this, the formation of a strong oligarchy serves the struggle. This
process intensifies as the oligarchy becomes more established: any opposition
to it, becomes opposition to the struggle itself.
The need to expand the ranks and the need
to withstand strong and hostile external forces , brings the socialist
organization to moderate conduct . The organization tries to preserve its
achievements by institutionalizing the existing situation, knowing that the
extremes of the struggle will cause external and internal resistance, which may
harm the organization. The tendency of organizations to be conservative for
this reason, is closely related to the establishment of the oligarchy and the iron law of oligarchy: this
oligarchy is based on the institutionalization of the existing situation and
because its power is built on this situation, strives to preserve it. Every
oligarchy and conservatism serve each other.
Michels expands and argues that the
socialist organization creates within itself a social structure similar to the
structure it criticizes: oligarchic leadership and a broad lower class, lacking
involvement in government. Michels argues that it is precisely the
success of the socialist struggle (on a numerical scale) that results in a real
socialist change in society not taking place.
