Real participation in mainstream politics is certainly something that for centuries has been reserved to the elite.
Though we have seen the prospects of change throughout the political world in candidates such as Bernie Sanders in the U.S. and Jeremy Corbyn in the U.K., there is undoubtedly the sense that Oxbridge graduates dominate the political establishment. This would certainly not be a problem if Oxbridge students were simply the smartest and best the country had to offer, but of course this is untrue. Only 7% of the population attended private schools but somehow they also manage to make up 44% of admissions at Oxford and 38% at Cambridge.
In the House of Commons these Oxbridge graduates make up 25% of the seats and in total those educated at private schools make up around 33%. This just goes to show that our representatives in many ways are cherry picked before they are even born, starting with the decision to send them to private schools. In fact the issue of political participation being received to an established elite is so bad that even cross party you wont find much disparity.
In the 2015 general election for example, the country was given a choice between an Oxford PPE (Philosophy Politics and Economics) graduate in David Cameron, and another Oxford PPE graduate in Ed Miliband. The fundamental issue with political participation being reserved to a political elite has been built up over many years of distrust and indifference between politicians and the electorate. This can be seen clearly in voter turnout at general elections since 1950 falling from 83.
9% to only 68.7% in 2017, this even being an improvement in comparison to the last few elections thanks to Jeremy Corbyn sparking some interest in the electorate. This fall in turnout is a clear indicator that trust has been lost in all parties as there is nothing left to excite massive groups of voters that are right in thinking that the choice of Oxbridge graduates they are given to lead them have nothing in common with the vast majority of the country. They have no idea what it is like to be on the dole or be homeless or live on or below the poverty line as many people in the U.K. continue to do. So it is no surprise that this same electorate feels insulted when an ex-Etonian feels he knows how much money is appropriate to give people to buy a loaf of bread or to maintain electricity in their homes. A representative cannot represent someone they do not understand anything about.
Undoubtably this system of cherry-picked MP’s and career politicians starves our democracy of its legitimacy, a system time and time again led by people from the same upper-class privileged backgrounds cannot boast that the U.K. or any capitalist system in the world for that matter is a meritocracy. The idea that anyone can become prime minister or that anyone can excel into elite jobs is untrue by the very nature of the work. The fact that many politicians spend their key moments in life at Oxford or Cambridge does not only mean they are equipped with a certain level of education, but more importantly for them and their families they are thrust into a world of who you know rather than what you know.
Friends made at Oxbridge undoubtedly will become colleagues in some way or another and this is why it is unsurprising that nearly all 12 members of the 2015 Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet were Oxbridge educated. A meritocracy would boast that it is the best man or woman for the job that eventually, gets the job, however in this case clearly an emphasis is placed on appointing old friends. Political development is an odd thought that is always advancing, as indicated by Kingsbury in his book Political Development, ‘political advancement is an end or a decent in itself.’ (Kingsbury 2007) Therefore the procedure of political advancement ‘in itself’ is similarly as essential as what it attempts to accomplish. There are various key hypothetical masterminds and belief systems, for example, Marx, Weber and Neo-progressivism that effect on the different methods of political advancement.
Karl Marx (1818-1883), never particularly expounded on political models, however through the understanding of his speculations, others, for example, Miliband, Lenin, Stalin and Mao have deciphered his perspectives into socialist political administrations (Hallas 1986). For Marx, governmental issues originated from the elucidation that society is comprised of various classes. The average workers was battling against the bourgeoisie or the elites who were the proprietors of property and capital. The elites ran the state, and their energy was seen as a type of mistreatment against bring down classes. Marx guessed that through classes holding together, equity will be made and the part of the state will totally shrivel away. Not at all like Marx, Weber (1864-1920), put critical accentuation on singular office and their capacity to decide the future as opposed to the class they were conceived in. This was begat the protestant hard working attitude and is utilised to clarify that the bourgeoisie buckled down and it was through their individual office that they achieved the riches and influence they picked up in the public arena (Kim 2012). Weber was powerful in our downplaying of the western political frameworks containing states, organisations and the military.
Weber trusted that the state has the power and obligation to oversee and really utilise physical power if essential (Kim 2012; Kingsbury 2007). Weber, examined ‘pioneer popular government’ and underlined the significance of appealing and statesmen-like pioneers, despite the fact that he wasn’t worried about the qualities of elites he trusted that political pioneers must be magnetic for majority rules system to be practical (Higley and Pakulski 2007). Neo-radicalism is a more contemporary type of legislative issues, creating through globalisation (Giddens 1999; Gray 1998).
It places solid accentuation on financial development through open markets, organised commerce and privatisation of the state (Murray and Overton 2011). For creating nations it played out in the Washington Consensus (Williamson 2004), which was executed through the World Bank and International Money Fund (IMF). Advancement focused on de-direction of market powers, through decreasing control over exchange and limiting use on social administrations, (for example, wellbeing and instruction), as it was trusted that the market is a more proficient approach to better jobs.
This accentuation on financial advancement had put legislative issues and the power relations inside society as a second thought for some nations (Hickey 2006). Essentially what has happened is that many developing nations were pressured by more capable contributor nations (Martin and Schumann 1997). In this way, the world elites can be contrasted with past colonisation hones in forcing approaches and systems, as an end-result of access into the worldwide market (Kingsbury 2007; Seers 1983).
It brings up the issue around nations’ office, rights and vote based system between countries in our worldwide world. As a result the neo-progressive approach has been elitist nations controlling and persecuting poorer nations through exchange (Kingsbury 2007; Martin and Schumann 1997; Murray and Overton 2011). Democratic government has been made by Western social orders as the zenith of political advancement (Kingsbury 2007). Vote based system can be characterised as ‘…
a type of govern in which residents either go about as the approach influencing specialist (to coordinate majority rule government) or are spoken to by others to make strategy for their sake (agent vote based system) (Kingsbury 2007).’ The Greek birthplaces of vote based system truly interprets as the ‘immediate lead,’ where subjects were engaged with voting on every neighbourhood choice (Kingsbury 2007). This idea of majority rule government has a fundamental component of volunteerism, where individuals take an interest (Kingsbury 2007), which connects to flexibility for individuals in the public eye (Sen 1999).
A dynamic common society is a piece of majority rules system where mass esteems and metro culture impact popular government and elitism (Benavides 2011). In any case, elites assume a noteworthy part in majority rules system. As indicated by Lev (in (Kingsbury 2007), ‘individuals getting chose (are frequently as of now elites)’ the elites would then be able to state much more financial or political (or both) control over individuals inside society.
Albeit every Western culture have distinctive models of vote based system and every one of these models speak to certain popularity based blemishes (Kingsbury 2007). The accompanying is required for majority rule government; political interest as common and political rights and portrayal and responsibility through reasonable, focused and comprehensive decisions (Benavides 2011; Kingsbury 2007). Many creating countries have utilised the term popular government and it essentially contrasts from its inception. Africa is an extraordinary illustration, where in many cases majority rule government has brought about the utilisation of brutality to pick up votes, making the vote based framework, non-popularity based. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe cases to run a majority rules system yet in actuality its tyrant administer, skirting on fascism (Makumb 2009). Democratic government has been scrutinised by some as not being socially significant, for instance Singapore which is viewed as a very viable nation, where individuals encounter a high caliber of life (Chong 2005). Vote based system isn’t a piece of the nation and need has been given to financial development as a component of the contention for Asian esteems (Kingsbury 2007; Sen 1999).
One of alternate worries with majority rule government originates from the Weberian contention, that individuals with the information and know-in what capacity ought to be in charge of settling on those choices, and not every person. This prompts the ‘stupefying’ of complex arrangement issues to speak to the majority (Kingsbury 2007). Authenticity of those chose is another focal topic to political improvement (Gilley 2006), deciding the viability of the majority rule government and nature of elites. The wide standards and methods utilised by specialist and how they are deciphered is the thing that constitute authenticity (Kingsbury 2007). Authenticity here alludes to the Weberian approach of ‘sane lawful’ in that it’s about those picked and the authenticity of the foundations made by governments (Fabienne 2010; Kingsbury 2007). Hence states with quality elites, that are more just for the most part has larger amounts of authenticity. Without authenticity states are at high danger of losing control and the elites have a tendency to wind up plainly additionally controlling and activist (Gilley 2006).
The way toward building foundations and their esteem additionally then wind up noticeably unimportant (Kingsbury 2007). Pivotal to the discourse of popular government and authenticity is the impacts of these ideas on the natives of creating nations. The thought of monetary advancement and the interrelationship with political improvement (Conteh-Morgan 2000) warrants top to bottom dialog somewhere else. As indicated by Benavides (2011), individuals in creating nations organize expert and solid initiatives over vote based system. Accordingly, reacting that in a few periods of a nation’s advancement of value elites (Levi 2006) are more critical than majority rules system. In any case, of the defects in majority rule government, without another feasible alternative, fine-tuning vote based systems is the main choice (Kingsbury 2007).Overall, it is clear that the elite have dominated mainstream politics around the entire world.
Clearer still is that this is not a coincidence but rather the result of careful calculation over decades of diplomacy and debate. The fundamental issue however is that the elite does not work in favour of their people as proven time and time again and the lack of trust felt by the people in their leaders is so prevalent that it has meant people no longer feel motivated enough to go out and vote in elections and for this reason democracy is greatly undermined. Democracy is further undermined by the fact that the U.K.
particularly is not the meritocracy it boasts to be as it is fundamentally untrue that anyone from any background can one day lead that country.