Parliamentary Elite Integration in Six Nations

A subtle and yet simple argument is conventionally advanced about role of political elites in development of political systems. Shorn of all its qualifications and complexities, argument is reduced to this: establishment of viable national political institutions and emergence of effective governmental performance depend in some important measure upon cohesiveness, homogeneity, and unity exhibited by political leadership of a nation. For Mosca, effectiveness of governing stratum hinged on recruitment of its members from among dominant social types.' Keller stresses cohesiveness regarding values key to effectiveness of strategic elites, asserting that as societies become more differentiated a considerable degree of cohesion and consensus is needed at top.2 Lasswell believed that evidence from experience of industrialized societies supported an agglutination hypothesis--that elites would tend to show broad commonalities with respect to values.3 Field and Higley go so far to assert that the presence of a consensual unified elite is necessary for institutional stability and, hence, for all better features of political rule.4 Most succinct is perhaps Putnam's dictum: The argument that elite integration fosters political stability and effectiveness is very prevalent and very persuasive.5 If theory of elite integration, in its boldest form, is roughly correct, then we would surely expect political elites in industrialized societies to exhibit a greater degree of coherence, homogeneity, and unity than comparable elites in less advanced countries. Indeed, either directly or indirectly, analyses of role of elite integration in political development adumbrate this general expectation.6 This consanguinity between elite integration and political development has been described eloquently by Putnam.