According to a 2000 paper, “To the extent that contemporary scholars ask questions about social movement organizations, they tend to reinforce Michels` claim that bureaucratized and established organizations are more conservative in their goals and tactics, even though they generally do not explicitly participate in the iron law debate.” [15] However, the study found that the iron law was malleable and that, in certain circumstances, established unions could revitalize themselves and undergo radical changes in accordance with the wishes of their members. [15] The iron law of oligarchy resembles the concept of The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, a fictional book in the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) by George Orwell, who had written a review of James Burnham`s The Managerial Revolution a few years earlier. This book of fiction begins[19]: Michels pointed out several factors underlying the iron law of oligarchy. Darcy K. Leach summed it up briefly: “Bureaucracy is coming. When bureaucracy occurs, power increases. Power corrupts. [3] Every large organization, Michels argued, must create a bureaucracy to maintain its effectiveness as it grows – many decisions must be made on a daily basis that cannot be made by large numbers of disorganized people. For the organization to function effectively, centralization must take place and power will end up in the hands of a few. These few – the oligarchy – will use whatever means necessary to maintain and expand their power. [3] Bureaucracy by design leads to the centralization of power by rulers.
Leaders also have control over sanctions and rewards. They tend to promote those who share their views, which inevitably leads to an autonomous oligarchy. People rise to leadership positions because they have above-average political skills (see Charismatic Authority). As they advance in their careers, their power and prestige increase. Leaders control the information that flows through communication channels and censor what they don`t want the base to know. Leaders will also allocate significant resources to convince the grassroots of the correctness of their views. This is compatible with most societies: people are taught to obey those in positions of authority. As a result, the rank and file shows little initiative and expects leaders to exercise judgment and give instructions to follow. Jonathan Fox`s 1992 study focuses on how participatory subgroups can generate a degree of checks and balances within a member organization that can weaken, at least temporarily, the “iron law of oligarchy.” [9] In his 1943 book Gemeindefreiheit als Rettung Europas, published in its second edition in 1947, Adolf Gasser formulated the following demands for a representative democracy in order to remain stable, untouched by Michels` iron law of oligarchy: The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory first developed by the German-born Italian sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book Political Parties. [1] He argues that the domination of an elite or oligarchy as an “iron law” within any democratic organization is inevitable within the framework of the organization`s “tactical and technical necessities.” [1] According to a 2005 study, “Despite nearly a century of scientific debate on this issue. there is still no consensus on whether and under what conditions Michels` assertion is true.
[16] One criticism is that power does not necessarily corrupt the direction of organizations and that the structure of organizations can control leaders. [16] Another critical point is that Michels does not describe the conditions under which his thesis could be falsified, nor a clear definition of what constitutes oligarchy. [16] “Iron Law.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/iron%20law. Retrieved 22 October 2022. In 1911, Robert Michels argued that, paradoxically, despite their democratic ideology and mass participation dispositions, European socialist parties seemed to be dominated by their leaders, just like traditional conservative parties. Michels` conclusion was that the problem lies in the nature of the organizations. More liberal and democratic modernity made it possible to form organizations with innovative and revolutionary goals, but as these organizations became more complex, they became less and less democratic and revolutionary.