Political Science

Since centuries, humans have been living in different societies, and they have continued to create different governing structures within their states to ensure law and order in the society. In the past, monarchy was the most common form of governance however, modern era has resulted in a number of alterations globally, and democracy is one of the significant outcomes of modernity around the world. In this regard, every country is now endeavoring to ensure and promote democracy in its region, and for such purpose, experts have carried out a wide-ranging analysis of factors related to democracy, such as media, politics, press, people, rights, etc. In brief, experts (Bachrach, pp. 93-97, 1967) believe that media has been the most fundamental requisite for democracy, as it enables the populace to be aware about different political and governmental processes that ensures transparency and preservation in the democratic system.
Democracy is synonymous to peoples liberty and autonomy that involves political liberalization that a society can achieve by effective contribution of media (Dalton, pp. 250-261, 2002). In this regard, the three notions democracy, politics, and media play a crucial role in ensuring freedom in the society, and thus, they have a deeper relationship between each other. However, this notion of relationship of democracy, politics, and media is not a simple thing, and thus, revolves around a number of contentious interpretations. Some of such controversies include the role of media, impact of media on the powerful and elite members of the society, and flaws of media that allow inadequate political leaders to adjust in the democratic process of a society. Some of the other matters involve democratic media, government intervention in media, role of media in political processes, etc.
All the queries incline further investigation and scrutiny of studies and factors related to the three notions of democracy, politics, and media. In this regard, the researcher has identified a number of theories that converse about the relationship of democracy with media, democracy with politics, and triangular relationship of the three. Some of the major theories (Webster, pp. 172-182, 2006) associated with democracy, politics, and media are liberal democracy theory, republican democracy theory, authoritarian theory, social responsibility theory etc. In other words, a number of experts have attempted to explain such relationship in diverse manners however, the paper has chosen the Elitist theory of Democracy.
It is one of the most critical theories in terms of analyzing the role of media in democracy and political process, and an optimistic endeavor of the theorist in characterizing the association of democracy with politics and media. In particular, the paper will attempt to analyze the theory of Elitist Democracy while focusing on the factors of democracy, politics, and media. In addition, the paper will endeavor to identify different aspects of the theory that converses about relationship of such factors, and any flaws that overlook some notions as compared to other theories related to democracy and media.
Elitist Democracy
The world is a huge platform for powerful and elite individuals to enjoy their privilege privately however, individuals with their intellectual capacities have been successful in creating the idea of government that performs the role of problem solver of every day issues publicly while respecting the private practices of the individuals living in a society. Theorists (Bachrach, pp. 93-97, 1967) believe that it is very imperative for a society to resolve issues and disagreements that is an essential factor for creating normative order in the society. In this regard, governments play a crucial role in enhancing the efficacy of societies by resolving disputes and supporting people living in. Although all theorists agree on this benefit and usefulness of the government, however, they disagree on one factor, the type of government that can ensure efficacy at the greatest extent. Analysis of the literature has indicated that so far, democracy has been the most popular order that allows the populace to perform different tasks in the most efficient manner, thus, creating order in the society.
Experts (Dalton, pp. 250-261, 2002) have indicated that democracy is an efficient solution to the complex issues that require habitual solutions however, democracy cannot resolve disputes alone and thus, governmental involvements in different processes of the society require the support of media that creates the relationship between the two. In every democracy, it is important that experts analyze things scientifically, as well as economically to identify most efficient solutions to the problems however, it is an agreeable fact that majority of the populace in a society do not have the knowledge level to understand different analyzing processes that are implemented to resolve problems of the society. In the result, some skilled people carry out the tasks of analyzing things scientifically and economically that result in a gap between the skilled and non-skilled, or privileged and non-privileged individuals in the society (Dye  Zeigler, pp. 57-63, 2008).
Due to this gap, societies usually confront different and diverse public opinions regarding a democratic decision, and thus, involvement and most importantly, agreement of every citizen on a specific decision becomes a major issue even in a democratic society. However, experts (McAuley, pp. 27-33, 2003) have indicated that a good society always keeps its populace aware of every decision-making process despite of disparities and differences in public opinions. At this juncture, democracy feels the permanent need of politics that governs different forms of democratic processes with the help of a forerunner leader representing a group of elite individuals from the society. However, with this tool of politics, a society confronts few problems that come with the benefits of politics (Dalton, pp. 250-261, 2002). The major problem is the limitation of democracy and politics that does not allow unskilled individuals of the society to intervene in the decision-making processes due to their intervention in the election process that although gives freedom and liberty to the populace to choose their own rulers, but at the same time, limits societies from participating further in the future.
Theorists (Bachrach, pp. 93-97, 1967) have argued that although democracy is somehow a limited form of governance however, every government requires voluntary observance of the created laws and regulations in its society and force cannot be the solution every time to ensure obedience in the public. This requisite of fulltime voluntary compliance from the populace is a significant benefit of democracy that allows elite members to continue their democratic governance in the society. However, studies (Dye  Zeigler, pp. 57-63, 2008) have indicated that this voluntary compliance often becomes the most complex and critical issue due to lack of trust in the legitimacy of the democratic government. In other words, although government involves elites and skilled members, however, in this modern era of enlightenment, education has resulted in overcrowding of liberal and progressive individuals that often require evidence for the legitimacy of government and efficacy of governmental decisions in the society.
Due to this overcrowding of elites, it is possible that a group of skilled individuals will have a more effective solution to the problems that results in the creation of arguments and debates, another factor that deteriorates legitimacy and efficacy of the government. At this moment, although a political group of elites enjoys the governance, however, competition exists in the society that provides the opportunity to non-elites to decide the best solution without intervening in the governmental process (McNair, pp. 23-37, 2003).
Lastly and most importantly, it is a fact and the most critical issue of the democratic politics that although people choose elites to govern their society however, perfection has always remained absent in terms of commitment for the welfare of populace. Theorists (Webster, pp. 172-182, 2006) promoting the elitist theory have argued that democratic politics can always be taken in contrary to the private decision-making process. In other words, elite or non-elite will always be more dedicated and committed in private matters of hisher life, as compared to hisher dedication and enthusiasm in wellbeing and progress of the populace. This automatic absence of perfection has remained common in the democratic politics, and experts (Dye  Zeigler, pp. 57-63, 2008) believe that it is the most common factor of corruption in the governments. In this regard, no matter how patriotic a political leadership is, and no matter how much dedicated a group of elites portray, historical evidence has indicated that there has always been outright corruption in democratic politics that has transformed patriotic and revolutionaries into corrupt administrative management (McNair, pp. 156-163, 2003). Due to this third and major problem and limitation of the democratic government, media becomes the essential requirement in the relationship of democracy and politics.
In this regard, cynical theorists and experts (Dye  Zeigler, pp. 57-63, 2008) believe that democratic politics is another term for finding empirical formations that may portray outright corruption within boundaries, and that becomes the major objectives of chosen elites and skilled individuals in the government, and the major factor of transformation of patriotic leadership into corrupted or illegitimate government. It is an observation that election process in democracy resolves the critical issue of legitimacy and integrity of elites to some extent, as evidence have indicated intense challenge against non-democratic governments today in various societies while almost no intensity against the most corrupted governments globally. Thus, elections somehow provide a sense of ownership and proof of legitimacy to the populace, or in other words, cynics believe that democracy has now become a synonymous term to legitimacy, and so, even when a corrupted but democratic government exists, people consider it as legitimate and committed. On the other hand, a committed but non-democratic government confronts the issue in an intense manner.
Theorists of Elitist Democracy (McAuley, pp. 27-33, 2003) have pointed out that although elections is a tool of ensuring legitimacy, however, it has now become a platform of adding problems in the society. In other words, before the democratic elections, political leaderships put their all efforts in gathering accusations and criticisms of populace against the ruling government, in order to change the perspective of voters to gain legitimacy during the elections. Thus, one set of political representation attempts to affect the other party by making promises that in the long run, become the major tool of criticism against them. In this regard, cynics believe that in the short run, democracy and politics is an efficient process however, in the long run, it becomes a problematic controversy for chosen elites in the government.
Until now, it is evident that the relationship of democracy and politics through elections is a way of ensuring performance and dedication of the government. However, a one-time process that inclines elites to act intelligently, in order to illustrate the best and perfect structures of government that may not be empirical during governance however, might be applicable in covering the corruption in an efficient manner. Thus, relationship of democracy and politics requires the need of some other methodologies that may keep a continuous check on the elites and their utilization of governmental resources. Some experts believe that constitutional regulations and provisions are efficient tools in monitoring the intelligent methods of democratic governments however, throughout the history, such provisions have not been able to provide a permanent solution or preventive solution for the discussed problems, and thus, need of the third stakeholder becomes essential.
In other words, to achieve objectives of democracy and reduce its limitations, media and most importantly, a free media is the essential and most crucial partner of democracy and politics, and thus, completes the triangular structure that was incomplete with only democracy and politics. Although other theories may not emphasize the role of media to such extent, however, Elitist democrats have been feeling the need of media in a desperate manner. For some, only media can be another way of democratic governments to illustrate their solutions as the perfect ones, and cover their corruption amidst problems and grievances of innocent and non-elite populace.
On the other hand, an independent media is essential for completing the relationship with democracy and politics in a truthful manner, and can be very valuable in making enormous contributions in the democratic political process of a country. Theorists believe that even if corruption is endemic in the democracy and politics, exposure through free media can be a kind of medication and true democratic therapy for the non-elites. Thus, media can be a deterrent tool of reducing corruption in democracy and politics, and can play a crucial role in ensuring efficient performance of the governments. Theoretically, media is the most powerful stakeholder in the triangular relationship as it has the power of arranging the substitution of elites in the government through concrete revelation of evidence that itself is a notion of controversy and doubts (Tiffen, pp. 178-189, 1989).
In this regard, theorists (Horedt, pp. 41-49, 2006) of elitist democracy believe that even in this era of enlightened environment, intelligent individuals and skilled individuals out of the government do not have the ability to understand the democratic structures and its issues in a perfect manner. Therefore, the role of media as a watchdog can be the most imperative and crucial role of media in strengthening the relationship with democracy and politics. On the other hand, adversaries of this notion believes that media as only a watchdog can often become a problem of democracy and the country itself, and thus, the media should not focus completely on its role of watchdog, and must carry out evident steps as a potential stakeholder of democracy in an optimistic manner. In other words, media can play a balanced role by exposing critical evidence, such as the Watergate episode or Zardari scandal, and at the same time, may continue to carry out routine episodes as potential partner of democracy by focusing on publics problems and solutions. Thus, from an elitist democratic perspective, media is an important contributor in the relationship with democracy and politics however, its role is a controversial and complex issue that needs further investigation and scrutiny.
Besides media, elitist democracy theorists (McAuley, pp. 27-33, 2003) have attempted to characterize the role of private influential stakeholders in the society that contribute and benefit enormously from outright corruption in the government. In this regard, the question arises whether the role of media should remain limited to the elites on governmental positions, or whether the media should extend its role of watchdog in practices of private influential members of the society. Elitist democrats believe that modernization and globalization has resulted in greater amount of power in the hands of such private stakeholders, and thus, elitist democracy theorists emphasize more on the role of watchdog rather than the subject that can be privileged member in the government or elite firm in the private.
In other words, elitist democracy theorists believe that it is very imperative for the media to be out of reach of governmental elites and private privilege firms that may then allow it to perform its role in a true democratic manner. On the other hand, some theorists from the same school of thought have indicated the possibility of intervention of private elites in the media that can enable a perfect exposure of corruption and ineffectiveness of the government elites due to power and influence of private firms and organizations in this modern era. However, this notion of private involvement is a complex issue that receives different responses from the experts.
Additionally, a majority of theorists representing elitist democracy emphasizes that the role of media as supervisory body of both governmental, as well as private elites is pleasing and wanted however, it must not be the primary concern of media due to lack of importance of private firms in the relationship of democracy, politics, and media until now. It is anticipation that future theorists may transform the triangle into a square by including private firms as another elite component in the democratic process of a country due to modernization and globalization in the present era.
Until now, according to Elitist democracy theorists, the private corrupted elites do not possess greater risks as governmental elites are enjoying the monopoly in terms of arranging corruption on legitimate level. Thus, the media should focus primarily on the elites in government, in order to maintain the trust of non-elites and unskilled populace in the notion of democracy and politics, essential for the relationship, as well as important for continuance of this form of governance in the society. For instance, only governmental elites have the capacity to perform the way the Soviet Union carried out in the 20th century, and in a way, the USA performed in Vietnam, or the way governments in a number of countries are performing to benefit from public resources for their personal benefits. In this regard, advocates of elitist democracy emphasize that exposure of only the corruption of governmental elites will end the other major problems and eliminate the limitations of democracy in a significant manner.
Besides the watchdog role of media in the mentioned relationship, theory of the elitist democracy (Semetko  Scammell, pp. 29-36, 2000) has identified the power of populace that lies in the hands of media as well. In other words, exposure and check on the corrupted and illegitimate practices of elites in the government can be an efficient way of providing power to the public optimistically. In this regard, the media can be an observer, a watchdog, and a tool of exposure however, theorists believe that power remains with the public in the presence of democracy, but it is the responsibility of media to inform the populace of their power through efficient exposure of governmental incompetence.
Moreover, experts (Horedt, pp. 41-49, 2006) have clarified that although media has a relationship with democracy and politics, however, it must now allow the elites to control it in anyway. Most importantly, the media should ensure the limited role of government even when it is in optimistic perspective, as theorists believe that even optimistic and encouraging role of democratic governments with media might be their intelligent act of creating basis for their outright corruption on the long run. Furthermore, the theory of elitist democracy has provided some more suggestions in terms of the role of media during the characterization of triangular relationship.
According to them, the media, while playing its role as a watchdog to monitor and exposure corruption and incompetence of government elites, must not in any way create doubts and controversies regarding the importance and legitimacy of constitutional structures of the government that is an essential implication for the media in elitist democracy theory. On the other hand, the media should continue to put efforts in the identification of issues as the major causes of divisions and disparities among political elites that can be an indirect methodology of exposing incompetence of the elites.
In this regard, experts (Webster, pp. 172-182, 2006) believe that disparity among elites can be the most evident and possible indication of incompetence, and thus, is the perfect way of directing such elites to alter their actions without intervening in the governmental process. Furthermore, elitist democrats have emphasized on the major focus on individual elites in the government, as honesty and proficiency of elites is the major notion of democracy and democratic politics, and thus, emphasis on the personality of individual democrats will be the effective strategy in evaluating appropriateness, as well as dedicated of elites in the relationship.
Lastly, theorists (Semetko  Scammell, pp. 29-36, 2000) have suggested that media should play an unbiased role as much as possible that will be very valuable in the continuation of triangular relationship. In other words, neutral representation of information is very imperative and can be crucial in acquiring public responses about the governmental performances. Finally, theorists of elitist democracy believe that such role of media is very beneficial for strengthening democracy and promoting efficient governance in any country due to couple of reasons. Firstly, they deem that the neutral provision of information by the media is a tool for governmental elites to acquire useful information that often is not available to them personally. In this way, media works as a partner in elitist democracy, and at the same time, plays the role of deterrent of outright corruption that reduces grievances and problems of the populace.
Other theories
In the elitist democracy, the theorists have emphasized primarily on the need and role of media as the major factor during the characterization of the relationship of democracy, politics, and media. However, it is an observation that other theories have been considering some other attributes of the relationship as more important than the media (Held, pp. 133-139, 2006). For instance, the elitist democracy theory focused on the role and responsibilities of media however, theorists from other school of thoughts have argued that elitist democrats have overlooked the major factor of the design of media that is a crucial factor and can decide the future status of governance in the society. The paper discussed some of the implications for media in the elitist democracy theory however, analysis of the liberal pluralist democracy (Habermas, pp. 4-8, 1991) has indicated some other suggestions that are essential for the relationship according to liberal pluralists. They believe that besides providing information on the incompetence of government elites, it is very important for the media to focus on the information that are putting interests of populace in jeopardy specifically. In response, elitist theorists have argued that although some incompetence of elites may not be putting interests of the public at stake on the short run, however, they would result in danger for populace on the long run and that is the major concern in elitist democracy (Held, pp. 133-139, 2006).
Another major role of media according to liberal pluralists is mobilization of unskilled members of the society in promoting democracy in the society. It is an observation that for elitist democrats, neither design nor recruitment of unskilled populace is important factor, and thus, there is a huge disparity between elitist theorists and liberal pluralists (Nylen, pp. 130-144, 2003) regarding interpretation of the relationship of democracy, politics, and media. Lastly, pluralists have indicated that in order to strengthen the relationship, the media should also put efforts to provide future demands of the populace that is an essential step that can help policymakers and other governmental elites in directing their actions in appropriate manner, a factor not important in elitist democracy (Habermas, pp. 208-216, 1991).

    Conclusively, analysis of the theoretical literature regarding the relationship of democracy, politics, and media has indicated that different schools of thought have attempted to characterize the relationship in their own way however, the cynical interpretation of the relationship from the perspective of Elitist Democracy theory has been efficient in understanding different aspects of the triangular relationship. Although the elitist theorists seem to overlook few factors, however, it is an observation that it has critically emphasize on the role of media that is crucial in strengthening the relationship, and imperative for continuance of the democratic form of governance in the society. Conclusively, the paper has discussed some of the significant aspects of the relationship of democracy, politics, and media in the light of specific theory of Elitist Democracy. Moreover, further analysis and investigation of the theory along with comparison of other theories in a detailed manner will enable in a more crucial understanding of the relationship that is the fundamental basis of democratic processes in majority of countries around the globe. It is an expectation that the paper will be beneficial for students, teachers, and professionals in better understanding of the topic.