Access to Information and Internal Structures of Partisan Groups: Some Notes on the Iron Law of Oligarchy

Abstract

Michel's notion of the inevitable and ironic transformation of groups with egalitarian intent into groups with oligarchical practices is examined through an analysis of thirty-four role playing partisan groups. Each group is a triad with an extended shared history or a history of equality that comes with friendship. Each group differentiated itself by selecting a representative to confront another student who played the role of a university dean. In nineteen of the groups the constituents obtained a news report of the outcome of those negotiations independent of their representative's report. In the other fifteen groups the constituents had to depend on their representative's report. In those groups that r,-lied solely on their representative's report, oligarchical interrelations emerged. This zontrasts with the news report groups who maintained egalitarian relationships while developing a political standpoint toward each other, the opposition and the future. We conclude that Michels' statement on organizational oligarchy is illuminated further by a consideration of an emergent monopoly of knowledge. Michels claimed that whoever says organization also says oligarchy. His interest in the complex relationship between any division of labor in an organization and the asymmetrical influence within the organization continues to engage social scientists on both macro and microsociological levels. Our interests, which explicitly address microsociological processes, are based on Michels' observation that oligarchical internal relationships are in contradiction to the goals of a representative democracy aimed at guaranteeing to all an equal influence and equal participation in the regulation of the common interests (Michels, 1962: 66). While Michels was more keenly aware of democracy as implemented in large groups, we suggest that his notion of the ironic transformation of groups with egalitarian intent into groups with oligarchial practices can be examined within small groups. Thus, in small as well as in large political or partisan groups, it is necessary, as Michels claimed, to empower some members of subunits to act on behalf of other members to serve as leaders, representatives and spokes