The Specter of Democracy: Origins of Elite Anxiety

The late 19th century witnessed a profound transformation in Western political life as democratic institutions expanded across Europe and the Americas. This period, beginning in the aftermath of the Paris Commune’s violent suppression in 1871, saw ruling classes grappling with an existential dilemma articulated by Italian political theorist Gaetano Mosca in 1895: all elites must ultimately submit to—and learn to manipulate—mass electoral politics once established. The Paris Commune’s brief existence had sent shockwaves through European ruling circles, revealing both the revolutionary potential of urban masses and the brutal lengths elites would go to maintain control.

Aristotle’s ancient observation that democracy inherently meant rule by the poor haunted propertied classes. The fundamental tension lay in reconciling constitutional governance with the reality that expanded electorates might pursue interests contrary to elite preferences. Throughout much of the 19th century, liberal regimes had maintained what French commentators called the distinction between “the legal country” (properied voters) and “the real country” (the disenfranchised majority). Property qualifications, educational tests, and aristocratic institutions like Britain’s House of Lords served as bulwarks against full democratization.

The Inevitable Tide: Democratic Expansion Across the West

Between 1870-1914, democratic reforms advanced with remarkable speed despite elite reservations. France, Germany, Switzerland and Denmark adopted broad male suffrage in the 1870s. Britain’s Reform Acts of 1867 and 1884 quadrupled the electorate from 8% to 29% of adult males. Belgium expanded its electorate from 3.9% to 37.3% after a general strike in 1894. By 1914, even traditionally conservative states like Austria and Italy had implemented universal male suffrage.

This democratic wave exhibited several key characteristics:
– Gradual but irreversible expansion, often following social pressure
– Persistent gender exclusion (though New Zealand, Australia and Scandinavian countries began granting women’s suffrage)
– Varied age requirements (from Switzerland’s 20 to Denmark’s 30)
– Creative elite countermeasures to dilute democratic impact

Notable exceptions like the Netherlands (resisting systematic democratization until 1918) proved the rule. Even Bismarck, while implementing universal male suffrage for the Reichstag, maintained Prussia’s restrictive three-class voting system. The era witnessed what historian Eric Hobsbawm termed “the democratization of politics and the politics of democratization”—a dual process where elites reluctantly accepted electoral expansion while developing sophisticated methods to manage its consequences.

Engineering Consent: Elite Strategies for Managing Mass Politics

Faced with inevitable democratic expansion, Western elites developed an array of institutional and cultural strategies to maintain substantive control while accepting formal democracy:

Constitutional Safeguards:
– Bicameral systems with powerful upper houses (Britain’s Lords, US Senate)
– Independent judiciaries and bureaucracies
– Federal structures dispersing power (Germany, US)

Electoral Manipulation:
– Gerrymandering (“electoral geometry” in Austria)
– Plural voting systems (Belgium’s extra votes for educated citizens)
– Open voting procedures enabling employer intimidation (Prussia until 1918)

Cultural Hegemony:
– National education systems promoting patriotism
– Invented traditions and royal pageantry (British coronation rituals)
– Colonial imperialism as unifying ideology

Social Control Mechanisms:
– Patronage networks and political machines (America’s urban bosses)
– Co-optation of labor movements through welfare reforms
– Strategic concessions during economic crises

These methods proved remarkably effective. As Keynes noted in 1904, newly enfranchised classes often lacked organization to fundamentally shift power balances. Socialist parties, while growing, remained divided between revolutionary rhetoric and pragmatic reformism. Nationalist movements sometimes proved more disruptive, particularly in multi-ethnic empires like Austria-Hungary.

The Birth of Modern Political Sociology

This period witnessed the emergence of systematic study of mass politics, as intellectuals sought to understand democracy’s implications:

– Mosca and Pareto developed elite theory, arguing all societies divide between rulers and ruled
– Robert Michels formulated his “iron law of oligarchy,” showing how organizations concentrate power
– Max Weber analyzed bureaucracy’s growing role in modern states
– Graham Wallas explored political psychology and non-rational voter behavior

Their works reflected elite attempts to scientifically manage what Mosca called “the art of governing.” The era also saw the rise of political polling, mass-circulation newspapers, and professionalized party organizations—all tools for both responding to and shaping public opinion.

Cultural Transformations: Ritual, Symbolism and Mass Society

Democratic politics necessitated new forms of political culture and communication:

Official Symbolism:
– National holidays (France’s Bastille Day from 1880)
– Monumental architecture glorifying state power
– Elaborate royal ceremonies (British monarchy’s public reinvention)

Popular Political Culture:
– Mass rallies and open-air speeches (Gladstone’s 1879 Midlothian campaign)
– Party newspapers and political cartoons
– Labor hymns like “The Internationale” countering national anthems

Commercial Parallels:
– Advertising’s emergence as persuasion science
– Mass entertainment venues accommodating political gatherings
– Sports events becoming nationalist spectacles

This symbolic arms race saw states competing with opposition movements to control potent imagery. Successful regimes like Britain’s monarchy skillfully blended tradition with popular appeal, while others like Germany’s Wilhelm II struggled to manufacture authentic connections.

The Pre-War Crisis: Testing Democracy’s Limits

By 1910-1914, Western democracies faced mounting pressures:

Labor Unrest:
– Wave of strikes across Europe (Liverpool 1911, Dublin 1913)
– Syndicalist challenges to parliamentary socialism
– Government concessions (British welfare reforms 1906-1914)

Constitutional Crises:
– Britain’s Lords vs. Commons conflict over Lloyd George’s budget
– Ulster resistance to Irish Home Rule threatening civil war
– French Third Republic’s perpetual cabinet instability

Cultural Anxiety:
– Bourgeois fears of “mass society” erosion
– Growing militarism and nationalist agitation
– Artistic modernism challenging establishment values

Yet when war came in 1914, most socialist parties supported their governments, revealing nationalism’s enduring power over class solidarity. Only in less integrated regions like Italy or Austria’s Slavic territories did significant anti-war sentiment emerge initially.

Legacy: Democracy’s Fragile Triumph

The pre-1914 democratic experiment left ambiguous legacies:

Short-Term:
– Demonstrated capitalism’s compatibility with limited democracy
– Created institutional templates for mass politics
– Failed to prevent nationalist explosions leading to war

Long-Term:
– Established welfare state as democratic stabilizer
– Revealed tensions between formal equality and substantive power
– Provided models for both democratic and authoritarian mass politics

As Lenin later observed, bourgeois democracies proved remarkably resilient when combining economic growth with limited concessions. Yet this stability remained geographically confined to Europe’s northwest and Anglosphere. The interwar collapse of many democracies showed how contingent pre-1914 arrangements had been.

The era’s fundamental paradox—expanding political participation alongside persistent elite dominance—continues shaping modern politics. Its lessons about managing mass societies, the power of symbolic politics, and democracy’s need for both legitimacy and effectiveness remain profoundly relevant today.