Stannis, all you've really done is distinguish between good elites, and bad elites. The Five Good Emperors are still (by the definition of "emperor") "elites". They were just good, moral, and competent elites, selected by a fellow member of the elite.
Edward I was of the elite. You don't get more "elite" than inheriting a crown from your father. And Richard I was actually a pretty shitty King.
I mean, you complained about a lack of true democracty, the need for "electoral reform", etc, and then hold up a bunch of absolutist (relatively speaking) Emperors and Kings as being good rulers. I agree that generally with you that they were good, but they were still the elite.
And perhaps more relevant to your point about elections, which Emperors/Kings were good and which weren't had absolutely nothing to do with how they elected. Because in just about every case, the good rulers you identified weren't elected at all.
Perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as possible as I was about to start a movie.
I. The point isn't whether which Emperor or King was an elite. The vast majority were, though some Emperors had very humble origins.
There is a difference between someone of the elite class ruling and elites as a class ruling. When someone was elected Emperor (for the most part, and it did become an elected office through acclamation as time went on) they generally ceased being a member of the elite as a class and became an entity in their own right and usually found themselves in opposition to Senatorial class. Augustus and the majority of his successors did hail from the Patrician and Senatorial ranks. However, as history shows, the second they assumed the purple they spent most of their time keeping the Senate in line. The same could be said of any King in mediaeval Europe. Whereas the King was, yes, an elite, the second they assume the throne they are now in opposition to the nobility who consistently scheme to undermine royal power for their own gain.
Moreover, you brought up the Republic as an example of where the elites as a class ruled without interference. The result was utter chaos and the collapse of the system because elites as a class, when allowed to rule unfettered, are driven by greed and fight amongst themselves to gain the most power and wealth.
@godfather, the Republic ended because it was no longer tenable as a system. Even before Caesar it was necessary for a Triumvirate to govern because the Senate couldn't. The Republic was dying and Caesar, or rather Augustus, put it out of its misery.
The grand point of all this is pointing out that throughout history,
there has been a necessary mechanism for constraining the elites as a class from completely ruling the polity as they run things into the ground. In the past, that mechanism was a strong monarchy, whether a Constantine or a Louis XIV, to suppress the avaricious designs of the nobility.
II.
In this day and age, the mechanism is the democratic process, which, in theory, is supposed to increase the voice of non-elites by ensuring they elect leaders who represent all of society. Clearly, this is no longer as an efficient mechanism as it once was even 35 years ago. Though, it should be noted that the Founding Fathers never intended for anyone but the elite to rule. In the US the democratic process of elections has been somewhat circumvented by the reality of anyone with money being able to essentially buy the services of representatives to serve their very narrow purposes.
The ability of the elite as a class to corrupt the process through enormous sums of campaign contributions and PAC money has seriously eroded the responsiveness of those elected to the vast majority of the electorate. The more and more the elites are able to tip the table in their favor, at the cost of everyone else, the more it effects the nation's strategic interests simply because the nation's best interests are not
their interests much of the time.
III. As for reform, the current distribution of representatives, as pointed out, was never meant to include so many people. When the formula was re-calibrated 100 years ago a Representative had a little 200,000 constituents. Now it ranges between 750,000 to near a million. It is simply impossible for the level of responsiveness intended for the role when a single person has to report to so many people. The other consequence of constituent bloat is the cost of campaigning that continues to skyrocket.
As for Campaign Finance Reform, it speaks for itself.
Elections awash in special interest money have one effect: It diminishes the voice of the many and amplifies the demands of the few. Lip service can be paid to parties representing the ideology of its voters but the reality has long been that elected leaders only really work for those who pay their campaign bills. Hard limits on individual, PAC and corporate (and union) donations will help the little guy have more of a voice.
I am not saying elites shouldn't have the most important role in governance. However, history shows us that national success seems to hinge on the perfect balance of constraint on elites as a class and the national interest.