I'm not entirely sure what you call "contemporary", but I will take the perspective of a political theorist and cast a broad net. This answer isn't going to be comprehensive, but I hope it gives you starting point on some excellent reading (and thinking!) :
What you don't want: Classical Liberalism
First of all, let's talk a minute about the relationship between ruling and the ruled. In the late 18th century, political theorists divided society into two parts: civil society and the state. Civil society generally focused on the domestic affairs (organizing a family) and the economy (which is how families are supplied with goods). The state manages and organizes civil society.
How are they related? Philosophers like Hegel thought that the state was beyond civil society. Since civil society was the realm of economics, this means the state is above personal economic interest. This idea was eventually extended into the notion of an "objective utility maximizer": a government which manages citizens to reach the optimum economic capacity. (For more information, read Hegel's "Elements of the Philosophy of Right")
Generally, classical liberalism assumes that all individuals have equal political capacity. Or at least, that there is no meaningful difference (an idiot's vote is equally as good as a genius's because political representation is not based on intelligence or judgment, but just because we are all legal equals).
One view that opposes this is what I'll call anti-rationalism, as espoused by the Marquis de Sade. His view* is that human beings are not rational - we are principally motivated by our own emotions. Reason can only confirm what we really want. For example, a person prone to poor eating will rationalize eating unhealthy foods. Since we are at our core unreasonable creatures, no government could ever really maximize our liberty or efficiency.
Given all of this, why would we have government at all? According to Sade, no person can fulfill their desires on their own. So, we come together and mutually fulfill each others' desires.
This line of thought is surprisingly influential, although few attribute it directly to Sade. Fundamentally he points out problems in our society: we actually give people the authority to rule over others, which (predictably) they exploit to fulfill their own desires.
If you are in to anarchism, this should sound a lot like mutualism. One of the core differences is that mutualism is typically framed as in terms of mutually beneficial economic (and possibly rational) relationships, while anti-rationalism is framed as being driven by (irrational) impulses.
Recommended reading: "Philosophy in the Boudoir" by Marquis de Sade.
Sade presents all his works as dialogues, so there is always some debate about which characters actually espouse his views.
Although not recent, Calvinist doctrine is still influential in political thought (at least in America). One basic doctrine of Calvinism is predestination: that we are born into our place in the world, as ordained by God. God also specifies what we are to become.
Since God directs where we are born and what we may become, there is nothing "better" about rulers than those they rule. It is simply a matter of God's will.
Although Calvin was writing way back in the 16 the century, this idea is still out there. In the early 20th century steel magnate Andrew Carnegie wrote a book called "The Gospel of Wealth" which was based on a similar premise. And of course you can still find people talking about this in some traditional churches.
The society Calvin (and later writers in similar veins) had in mind was definitely hierarchical in the sense that one person controlled another. However, it wasn't because one person was "better", just that God had ordained them for that role. Although some would say this indicates that person is better in God's eyes, for many Calvinists this amounts to claiming to know God's mind, which is heretical.
Juche and the Masses
North Korea's current stated philosophy is "juche" (Self-Reliance). As part of this view, society is divided into three segments: peasants, workers, and professionals. All three are (theoretically) equal and contribute to societal good. In practice, professionals will typically govern peasants and workers because their aptitude is organizational or intellectual, but they are not superior. Only by having all three classes work together can the country be successful.
In some ways, this resembles Confucian philosophy in that it ascribes a certain role to individuals and requires everyone to fulfill their duty. Outside of Asia, this is also the view of the Ancient Greek stoics - which have been very influential on military philosophy for the last 2000 years or so. Last I knew, the Army staff college (in the USA) was requiring their students to read the Enchiridion, a stoic book which places no value on being the commander, but encourages every person to make the decisions life presents them.
I don't know of any primary documents available in English regarding juche. For recommended reading, probably start with wikipedia.