Giovanni Sartori, in his influential work Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis (1976), classified party systems based on the number of parties and their ideological distance, competitiveness, and coalition potential. His classification includes the following types:

1. One-Party System

• A single party monopolizes power, and opposition parties are either banned or function only as symbolic entities.
• Example: China (Communist Party of China), North Korea (Workers' Party of Korea)

2. Hegemonic Party System

• Other parties may exist legally but are not allowed to compete for power meaningfully.
• Example: Mexico under the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) before democratization

3. Predominant Party System

• Multiple parties exist, and competition is allowed, but one party consistently dominates elections over an extended period.
• Example: India under the Congress Party (1947–1977), Japan under the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)

4. Two-Party System

• Two major parties dominate electoral competition, with power alternating between them. Minor parties exist but have limited influence.
• Example: United States (Democrats vs. Republicans), UK (Labour vs. Conservatives)

5. Limited Pluralism (Moderate Multiparty System)

• Three to five significant parties exist, and coalition governments are common.
• Parties are ideologically not highly polarized, and bargaining among them is possible.
• Example: Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands

6. Extreme Pluralism (Polarized Multiparty System)

• More than five significant parties exist, with high ideological polarization.
• Party competition is often unstable, and coalition governments are frequent but fragile.
• Example: Weimar Germany (1919–1933), Italy (post-WWII until the 1990s)

7. Atomized Party System

• A large number of weak parties, with no dominant force, leading to political fragmentation and instability.
• Example: Post-Soviet Russia (1990s), some African and Latin American countries

In the latter half of the 20th century, particularly during the 1970s and 1980s, Latin America saw the rise of technocratic elites often referred to as "techno-boys." These individuals, trained in prestigious European and American institutions, played influential roles in shaping economic policies. A notable example is the group of economists known as the "Chicago Boys" in Chile, who implemented neoliberal reforms during Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship, guided by principles they learned at the University of Chicago.

Major Classical Elitists:

1. Gaetano Mosca (1858–1941):

1. • Major Work: The Ruling Class (1896)
   • Contribution: Mosca introduced the concept of the political class, a minority group that organizes and governs the majority. He argued that this political class is essential for the functioning of society because it brings order and leadership. Mosca's view of elitism is not necessarily cynical; he believed that an organized minority would always outmaneuver a disorganized majority due to superior organizational skills and leadership capabilities.

2. Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923):

1. • Major Work: The Mind and Society (1916)
   • Contribution: Pareto is known for his theory of the circulation of elites, which suggests that elites are constantly replaced by new elites in a cyclical process. Although elite groups may change, the structure of elitism persists. Pareto also highlighted that elites justify their power through myths or ideologies that resonate with the population, thereby maintaining control without direct coercion.

3. Robert Michels (1876–1936):

1. • Major Work: Political Parties (1911)
   • Contribution: Michels introduced the Iron Law of Oligarchy, which states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic they may be at their inception, will eventually develop oligarchic structures. He argued that complex organizations inevitably concentrate power in the hands of a few leaders who prioritize self-preservation and the maintenance of their authority.

Major Theorists of Democratic Elitism:

1. Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950):

1. • Major Work: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942)
   • Contribution: Schumpeter redefined democracy as a competitive process where leaders compete for the votes of the populace. He argued that democracy is not about direct participation but about choosing leaders who make decisions for the public. This competitive model ensures that elites govern, but their power is legitimized and checked by electoral processes.

2. Karl Mannheim:

1. • Major Work: Ideology and Utopia (1929)
   • Contribution: According to him, if elites take major decision on policy, it does not mean society is not democratic. In Mass democracy, all individuals can’t participate in forming a government or to take decision. But they can force their leaders to take decision in their interests or else they will remove them. Some is not possible in despotic society.

Explanation:

• Statement I: Robert Michels used the concept of the "iron law of oligarchy" to describe how political parties, despite their democratic ideals, eventually become dominated by a small ruling elite. This is a central concept in Michels' work, and it explains how power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few individuals or leaders in any large organization, including political parties.
• Statement II: Maurice Duverger's law states that the simple-majority single-ballot system (often called the first-past-the-post system) tends to favor the emergence of a two-party system. This is because such systems usually lead to the consolidation of political support around two major parties, as smaller parties struggle to gain representation.

The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery in 1865. The amendment states that slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited in the United States, except as punishment for a crime. The amendment also gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment through legislation.