1. “Demos” in democracy: mass and elite

According to traditional concepts of democracy, “people” who are masters of the country are not the action body with common interest, organization and ideology. On the contrary, disputes on “people” are all over, among which the most common one is whether “people” means the mass or the elite.

Athens of ancient Greece is the birthplace of western democratic thoughts and entity. The democratic politics, other than autocracy of one monarch, or oligarchy of the noble, means that powers of administrating public affairs belong to all citizens rather than one person or some persons. In this sense, “demos” in democracy includes all citizens, regardless of their origin, status, property and morality. Greek statesman Pericles has once vigorously eulogized the democratic system of Athens:“The reason why our system is called democratic politics is that the political power belongs to all citizens rather than a few people.”

It seems that the idea “demos” refers to all citizens is close to “the rule of people” at most, but it is not the case. On the one hand, citizens in Athens of ancient Greece are males who are over 20 and whose parents are Athenian freemen, with adult females, slaves and outside people excluded. From this point of view, “demos” refers to a few people. On the other hand, “the mass” which account for the majority of citizens comes from distinct ranks and has different level of political accomplishment, most of whom have no ability to analyze complex social problems and easily get affected by emotions. Such people lack willpower of sacrificing personal and short-term benefits for overall and long-term benefits so that they are usually thought to be the last people for discussing national affairs. From “rule of Philosophy-King” proposed by Plato to “actions of the majority as individuals (they are usually called as ‘people')... are completely spontaneous, irrational barbaric and horrible” presented by Hegel, the mass are negatively described by political philosophers as “a mob” who has no capacity to deal with political affairs and turns out vulnerable to instigation and manipulation of careerists. Therefore, we are not surprised that mainstream thinkers before the mid-nineteenth century, including Socrates, Plato, Cicero, Aquinas, Montesquieu, regard democracy of “the mass” as a bad thing.

Essence of democracy lies in the involvement of everyone in decision-making. However, public decision-making requires highly professional skills and only those who have been specially trained and have mastered way of governance can make public decisions while the others cannot. This, therefore, makes numerous democracy theorists stand for the opinion that democracy does not necessarily mean rule of civilians or equal share of political power by people. It means, on the contrary, that “demos” in democracy shall refer to “the elite” which contains only a few people. The so-called elite, “originally refers to (and in most cases, still refers to) the best, the most excellent and noblest people”, represents, from the aspect of democracy in modern times, those people who are fully capable of judging and reflecting on political institutions and public policies. They behave rationally, with enthusiasm and competence for political participation, and with sense of responsibility and explicit will for political issues so that they are thought to be more qualified for gaining right of governance. In the eyes of elitist democracy holders, the mass will get no advantages concerning governance ability due to their great quantity. In fact, the mass, in most cases, will need guidance from the elite. Consequently, democratic politics is created by a few excellent people, that is, the elites, and the democratic politics means a kind of governance by elites or statesmen. Only if the mass respect the elite's authority, will democracy become possible and operable.

Elitist democracy holders strictly restrict the mass's role in democratic politics, or even regard the mass as an obstruction to decisionmaking, which absolutely deviates from the real meaning of democracy: by the people, that is, governance by the people. The essence of democracy is embodied in the possibility of everyone becoming a master of the country, so if the democratic politics we have been pursued is not based on all the people, what we encounter eventually will be “oligarchy”. On the other hand, however, we must notice the fact that democracy would be impossible without organization and guidance of elites. Lenin said:“Any class in history would never occupy a dominant position if political leaders and sophisticated representative who are adept in organizing and leading campaigns are not elected.” Simply from the aspect of ideology, blind support for unconstrained civilian governance or the idea that the people should share equal political power and make decisions on political issues will probably bring about democratic tyranny, or even totalitarianism.

Democracy essentially refers to “governance by the people” but necessarily depends on “governance by the elite”. The democracy, to a great degree, is actually a kind of donation from political elites to society. From this aspect, “demos” in democracy include “the mass”,“the civilians” and “the elite”. Political elites have played an indispensible role in promotion of democratization and the mass must accept their leadership and organization. If it is insisted that democracy represents governance by the people, it actually means that the elites are elected by the people for governance. However, elites' guidance and restriction to political life does not necessarily mean the denial of the mass's role in democratic politics. On the contrary, the rule of elites, if not permitted or recognized by the public, or if not consistent with the interests and political stance of the public, or if not effectively controlled and monitored by the public regarding their policies, actually runs in opposite direction to the democratic politics. To realize true democratic politics, we must create a system which integrates both elitism and populism and we must implement institutionalization between “the mass” and “the elite” so as to maintain appropriate balance.