Conclusion: How Mill and Schumpeter Tell Us Today?

The review of the ideas of J. S. Mill (1806–1873) and J. A. Schumpeter (1883–1950) on democracy, political participation and elites has demonstrated that these were complementary in many points. Mill criticized J. Bentham (1748–18832) for assigning too much weight to the decisions of the majority. Similarly, Schumpeter opposed the concept of the “common good and will of the people”. Second, both philosophers, although they are prominent defenders of methodological individualism, widened their limits by treating human nature in the social sphere and the complexity of the human mind. Third, as Millian approached democracy as a state of society, Schumpeter discussed democracy based on the competition for leadership. Fourth, according to Mill, the interests of the rulers were based on the fear of maintaining or losing power. Similarly, Schumpeter emphasized that the primary goal of every political party was to defeat others to come to power or stay in power. Fifth, both emphasized that the rulers should be well educated and highly qualified for democracy to function. Finally, both Mill and Schumpeter criticized the classical approach that described democracy as the rule of the people or the will of the people.