The Ramadan Mindset

"Ramadan is a month of immense spiritual renewal, discipline, and divine mercy," said Limbuk to Cangik after reciting the end surah al-Fath ,

مُحَمَّدٌ رَّسُوْلُ اللّٰهِ ۗوَالَّذِيْنَ مَعَهٗٓ اَشِدَّاۤءُ عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَاۤءُ بَيْنَهُمْ تَرٰىهُمْ رُكَّعًا سُجَّدًا يَّبْتَغُوْنَ فَضْلًا مِّنَ اللّٰهِ وَرِضْوَانًا ۖ سِيْمَاهُمْ فِيْ وُجُوْهِهِمْ مِّنْ اَثَرِ السُّجُوْدِ ۗذٰلِكَ مَثَلُهُمْ فِى التَّوْرٰىةِ ۖوَمَثَلُهُمْ فِى الْاِنْجِيْلِۚ كَزَرْعٍ اَخْرَجَ شَطْـَٔهٗ فَاٰزَرَهٗ فَاسْتَغْلَظَ فَاسْتَوٰى عَلٰى سُوْقِهٖ يُعْجِبُ الزُّرَّاعَ لِيَغِيْظَ بِهِمُ الْكُفَّارَ ۗوَعَدَ اللّٰهُ الَّذِيْنَ اٰمَنُوْا وَعَمِلُوا الصّٰلِحٰتِ مِنْهُمْ مَّغْفِرَةً وَّاَجْرًا عَظِيْمًا ࣖ

'Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating [in prayer], seeking bounty from Allāh and [His] pleasure. Their sign is in their faces from the effect of prostration [i.e., prayer]. That is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Gospel is as a plant which produces its offshoots and strengthens them so they grow firm and stand upon their stalks, delighting the sowers - so that He [i.e., Allāh] may enrage by them1 the disbelievers. Allāh has promised those who believe and do righteous deeds among them forgiveness and a great reward." [QS. Al-Fath (48):29]

Surah al-Fath is associated with divine victory and success, a great reminder that Ramadan is a time to conquer one's desires and achieve spiritual success. Al-Fath (Arabic: الفتح, al-fatḥ; meaning: "The Victory") is the 48th chapter (surah) of the Qur'an with 29 verses (ayat). The surah was revealed in Medina in the sixth year of the Hijrah, on the occasion of the Treaty of Hudaybiya between the Muslim city-state of Madinah and Makkan polytheists. Some people recite it to seek ease and blessings at the start of Ramadan.

"Ramadan isn't just about fasting from food and drink; it's an opportunity to reset your soul, purify your heart, and reconnect with Allah. Every moment of hunger and thirst is a reminder of your reliance on Him, deepening your faith and gratitude. Ramadan is a month of Transformation.

Ramadan is also the Month of the Quran. This is the month when the Quran descended, so let it descend into our hearts as well. Make it a habit to engage deeply with its words, reflect on its meanings, and apply them to your life.

Allah says,

شَهْرُ رَمَضَانَ الَّذِيْٓ اُنْزِلَ فِيْهِ الْقُرْاٰنُ هُدًى لِّلنَّاسِ وَبَيِّنٰتٍ مِّنَ الْهُدٰى وَالْفُرْقَانِۚ فَمَنْ شَهِدَ مِنْكُمُ الشَّهْرَ فَلْيَصُمْهُ ۗوَمَنْ كَانَ مَرِيْضًا اَوْ عَلٰى سَفَرٍ فَعِدَّةٌ مِّنْ اَيَّامٍ اُخَرَ ۗيُرِيْدُ اللّٰهُ بِكُمُ الْيُسْرَ وَلَا يُرِيْدُ بِكُمُ الْعُسْرَ ۖوَلِتُكْمِلُوا الْعِدَّةَ وَلِتُكَبِّرُوا اللّٰهَ عَلٰى مَا هَدٰىكُمْ وَلَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُوْنَ

'The month of Ramaḍān [is that] in which was revealed the Qur’ān, a guidance for the people and clear proofs of guidance and criterion. So whoever sights [the crescent of] the month,1 let him fast it; and whoever is ill or on a journey - then an equal number of other days. Allāh intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship and [wants] for you to complete the period and to glorify Allāh for that [to] which He has guided you; and perhaps you will be grateful.' (QS Al-Baqarah (2):185)

Doors of Mercy are wide open in Ramadan. Abu Huraira, radhiyallahu 'anhu) reported the Prophet's ﷺ saying, 'When Ramadan begins, the gates of heaven are opened.' A version has, 'The gates of paradise are opened, the gates of jahannam are locked, and the devils are chained." Another has, 'The gates of mercy are opened.' (Muttafaq alaih)

Ramadan is an Invitation to sincere du’a. Your heart’s whispers are heard loud and clear by Allah in this blessed month. He, Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, says:

'وَاِذَا سَاَلَكَ عِبَادِيْ عَنِّيْ فَاِنِّيْ قَرِيْبٌ ۗ اُجِيْبُ دَعْوَةَ الدَّاعِ اِذَا دَعَانِۙ فَلْيَسْتَجِيْبُوْا لِيْ وَلْيُؤْمِنُوْا بِيْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْشُدُوْنَ

'And when My servants ask you, [O Muḥammad], concerning Me - indeed I am near. I respond to the invocation of the supplicant when he calls upon Me. So let them respond to Me [by obedience] and believe in Me that they may be [rightly] guided.' [QS Al-Baqarah (2):186]

So don't hold back—ask for everything, from dunya to akhirah, and trust in His mercy.

Taqwa is the ultimate goal of Ramadan,  Allah mentions in the Quran,

يٰٓاَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ اٰمَنُوْا كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الصِّيَامُ كَمَا كُتِبَ عَلَى الَّذِيْنَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُوْنَۙ

'O you who have believed, fasting has been prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you that you may attain taqwa.' (QS. Al-Baqarah 2:183)

How to cultivate Taqwa in Ramadan? Deepen your relationship with the Quran. The Quran is the manual of Taqwa. Read it daily, reflect on its meanings, and let it guide your heart. Try memorizing even a small portion or revisiting ayat about Taqwa.

Perfect your Salah and increase in Nawafil. Make your salah more mindful—feel the presence of Allah in every sujood. Pray Taraweeh with devotion, and don’t miss Tahajjud—the time when du’as are most accepted.

Guard your tongue & heart. Taqwa isn't just about avoiding food and drink; it’s about purifying your thoughts, words, and actions. Speak good or remain silent, avoid arguments, and remove envy or grudges from your heart.

Make Istighfar & Du’a your daily habit. The Prophet ﷺ sought forgiveness more than 70 times a day—how much more should we?

Make a daily du’a list and ask for Taqwa specifically:

اللّٰهُمَّ إِنِّي أَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنَ الۡعَجۡزِ وَالۡكَسَلِ، وَالۡجُبۡنِ وَالۡبُخۡلِ، وَالۡهَرَمِ وَعَذَابِ الۡقَبۡرِ. اللّٰهُمَّ آتِ نَفۡسِي تَقۡوَاهَا، وَزَكِّهَا أَنۡتَ خَيۡرُ مَنۡ زَكَّاهَا، أَنۡتَ وَلِيُّهَا وَمَوۡلَاهَا. اللّٰهُمَّ إِنِّي أَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنۡ عِلۡمٍ لَا يَنۡفَعُ، وَمِنۡ قَلۡبٍ لَا يَخۡشَعُ، وَمِنۡ نَفۡسٍ لَا تَشۡبَعُ، وَمِنۡ دَعۡوَةٍ لَا يُسۡتَجَابُ لَهَا

'O Allah, I seek refuge in Thee from incapacity, from sloth, from cowardice, from miserliness, decrepitude and from torment of the grave. O Allah, grant to my soul the sense of righteousness and purify it, for Thou art the Best Purifier thereof. Thou art the Protecting Friend thereof, and Guardian thereof. O Allah, I seek refuge in Thee from the knowledge which does not benefit, from the heart that does not entertain the fear (of Allah), from the soul that does not feel contented and the supplication that is not responded.' [Sahih Muslim]

Practice Ihsan (Excellence) in everything. Taqwa is being conscious of Allah even when no one is watching. Fasting is not just with your body, but with your eyes, ears, and heart—avoiding anything that distances you from Him.

Give generously and seek Laylatul Qadr. The Prophet ﷺ was the most generous in Ramadan. Give charity daily, even if small. Seek Laylatul Qadr with devotion—it could be the night your life changes forever.

Taqwa is a lifelong journey, and Ramadan is your boost to reach it. Keep making du’a, stay sincere, and trust that Allah will guide your heart. May He bless you with a Ramadan full of barakah, mercy, and transformation!

Fasting is also meant to increase our gratitude, as mentioned before in Surah Al-Baqarah (2:185). When we abstain from food and drink, we realize how much we take them for granted. Hunger reminds us of those who lack basic needs daily, increasing our sense of appreciation.

Fasting helps us appreciate the gift of Iman and Islam. Not everyone has the blessing of knowing Allah, and fasting makes us more conscious of His mercy. By fasting, we feel weak without food—this reminds us that our health is a gift from Allah. We learn to be grateful for every breath, every sip of water, and every meal we enjoy.

Gratitude isn’t just feeling thankful but also expressing it through worship. We show gratitude by praying, reading the Quran, and increasing in good deeds.

The Prophet ﷺ was the most grateful servant of Allah, and he ﷺ would fast regularly, even outside Ramadan. Narrated by Aisha (رضي الله عنها) that the Prophet ﷺ used to stand (in prayer) at night until his feet would swell. She (رضي الله عنها) said to him ﷺ, ‘O Messenger of Allah, why do you do this when Allah has forgiven your past and future sins?’ He ﷺ replied,

أَفَلاَ أُحِبُّ أَنْ أَكُونَ عَبْدًا شَكُورًا

‘Should I not be a grateful servant?' [Sahih Bukhari & Muslim]

This shows that true gratitude is expressed through actions, not just words.

So, to show more gratitude this Ramadan, be mindful of Allah’s blessings while breaking your fast; give charity to those who struggle to find food; thank Allah for the guidance of Islam and strive to practice it more; and increase your du’a, dhikr, and salah as a form of shukr.

Ramadan is not just about fasting from food and drink—it’s a divine invitation to rediscover yourself, realign your heart, and reconnect with Allah.

Ramadan is a mirror. Ramadan strips away distractions—social gatherings, indulgences, even our daily routines—so we can see ourselves. Who am I without my habits? How much of my life is truly centered around Allah? Do I control my desires, or do they control me? This is the month to pause, reflect, and recalibrate.

The Ramadan mindset is more than just fasting. Think of Ramadan as a spiritual training camp—it’s not just about abstaining from food but also from negativity, bad habits, and distractions. This is your chance to build discipline and carry those positive changes beyond Ramadan.

May this Ramadan be the one that transforms you, elevates you, and brings you closer to Allah than ever before. Ameen, ameen ya Rabbul Alameen," Limbuk concluded.

Bahasa 

Oligarchy (8)

"Lobbying in politics refers to the act of influencing government officials, legislators, and policymakers to shape laws, regulations, or policies in favour of a specific interest group, organisation, or industry. Lobbyists may represent corporations, advocacy groups, unions, or other entities seeking to promote their interests," Cangik moved on.

"In 'Lobbying: The Art of Political Persuasion' (2008, Harriman House), Lionel Zetter defines lobbying as 'the process of seeking to shape the public policy agenda to influence government (and its institutions) and the legislative programme.' He also refers to it as 'the art of political persuasion.' Zetter explores the origins and evolution of lobbying, noting that the term's exact beginnings are debated but are rooted in either Westminster or Washington. One account suggests that in the 1860s, individuals aiming to influence President Ulysses S. Grant would gather in the lobby of the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., seeking opportunities to present their cases to him. Another perspective traces the term to the United Kingdom, where individuals would wait in the lobbies of the Houses of Parliament to engage with Members of Parliament. Over time, lobbying has developed into a structured profession, playing a significant role in shaping public policy and legislation.

Zetter emphasizes that ethical lobbying is paramount for maintaining public trust and the integrity of political systems. He discusses the necessity for lobbyists to adhere to strict codes of conduct, ensuring transparency, honesty, and respect for democratic processes. Regulatory frameworks vary globally, but common elements include mandatory registration of lobbyists, disclosure of lobbying activities, and restrictions on gifts or incentives to public officials. These measures aim to prevent undue influence and promote accountability within the lobbying profession.

Zetter's work explores how lobbying activities are financed, highlighting that funding can come from various sources, including corporations, non-profit organizations, and industry associations. Zetter notes that while financial contributions are a legitimate means of supporting advocacy efforts, they must be managed transparently to avoid conflicts of interest. He also examines the role of political donations, discussing how they can be used to gain access to policymakers but also how they are regulated to prevent corruption and ensure that political influence is not unduly purchased.

Zetter's comprehensive analysis provides a nuanced understanding of the ethical and financial dimensions of lobbying, underscoring the importance of robust regulations and ethical practices to uphold the legitimacy of political advocacy.

Lobbying is important in many countries, particularly those with democratic systems where policymaking is influenced by various stakeholders. The U.S. has one of the most developed lobbying industries, with strict regulations requiring lobbyists to register and disclose their activities. It is essential due to the complexity of policymaking at the federal and state levels, with businesses, unions, NGOs, and advocacy groups influencing laws. Financial contributions to political campaigns and PACs (Political Action Committees) play a significant role in policy influence.

Lobbying is influential in the UK, particularly in Parliament and government ministries. Think tanks, trade unions, corporations, and advocacy groups engage with politicians to shape legislation. There are lobbying regulations, but transparency concerns have been raised regarding informal lobbying activities.

Lobbying is crucial in Brussels, where the European Commission and European Parliament make decisions affecting 27 member states. Corporations, NGOs, and industries influence EU policies on trade, environmental regulations, and technology. The EU has a transparency register to monitor lobbying activities.

Lobbying is a regulated profession in Canada, with the Lobbying Act requiring transparency. It is important in influencing government policies at both federal and provincial levels. Sectors like energy, healthcare, and technology engage in lobbying to shape regulations.

Lobbying is a significant part of Australian politics, particularly in industries like mining, agriculture, and pharmaceuticals. Transparency and ethical concerns have led to lobbying regulations requiring lobbyists to register and disclose their activities.

Germany has a strong corporate and industry lobbying presence, especially in sectors like automotive, energy, and finance. Trade unions and environmental groups also lobby to influence government policies. The country has recently strengthened transparency laws for lobbying.

Lobbying is gaining prominence in France, with companies, unions, and advocacy groups influencing policy decisions. There are legal frameworks requiring lobbyists to register and disclose their activities. Corporate lobbying is particularly active in industries like defence, technology, and finance.

While lobbying is not as structured as in Western democracies, it plays a significant role in Indian business and politics. Large corporations, trade associations, and political consultants influence government decisions. Concerns about lobbying transparency and ethics remain a challenge.

Official lobbying is limited in China, but influence occurs through government relationships, business networks, and state-affiliated organizations. Foreign companies and domestic businesses engage in indirect lobbying through industry associations and partnerships.

Lobbying is important in shaping government policies, especially in sectors like agriculture, energy, and finance in Brazil. While lobbying is legal, there are concerns about corruption and lack of transparency. Recent reforms aim to improve accountability in political lobbying.

Governments rely on expert input from businesses, NGOs, and advocacy groups. Various stakeholders (corporations, workers, environmental groups, etc.) ensure their concerns are heard. Well-regulated lobbying can help ensure fair representation rather than backroom deals. Industries lobby for regulations that affect trade, labour laws, environmental policies, and taxation.

Though it is not as institutionalized or transparent as in countries like the United States or the European Union. Instead, lobbying in Indonesia often operates through informal networks, personal relationships, and business-political connections rather than formal lobbying firms or associations.

Lobbying in Indonesia is deeply tied to nepotism and patronage networks, where businesses, political elites, and interest groups influence decision-making through personal connections. Large companies, particularly in sectors like mining, palm oil, energy, and telecommunications, engage in lobbying to secure government contracts, permits, and favourable regulations.

Although political donations are regulated, businesses often support political parties or candidates in exchange for influence over economic and policy decisions. Organizations like KADIN (Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry) and APINDO (Indonesian Employers Association) act as lobby groups representing the private sector’s interests. International businesses and investors lobby the Indonesian government, often through diplomatic channels, consultants, or joint ventures with local companies.

Palm oil companies lobby against strict environmental regulations and seek subsidies. Companies in coal, gold, and nickel mining lobby for export policies and mining permits. Tech companies lobby for regulations affecting digital taxation, e-commerce, and data protection. Government infrastructure projects are heavily influenced by lobbying from large construction firms.

Unlike Western countries, Indonesia does not have clear lobbying laws, leading to a lack of transparency in how businesses and politicians interact. Indonesia has faced several high-profile corruption cases where lobbying efforts involved bribery and kickbacks rather than formal negotiations.

Some of the most influential industries in lobbying include the Palm Oil Industry, Influencing environmental regulations, export policies, and deforestation laws; Mining & Natural Resources, securing mining permits, negotiating tax breaks, and shaping energy policies; Technology & Digital Economy, Influencing internet regulations, data protection laws, and foreign investment rules; Infrastructure & Construction, lobbying for government contracts and public-private partnerships; Pharmaceutical & Healthcare, shaping policies on drug pricing, healthcare access, and foreign investment in hospitals; Tobacco Industry, influencing cigarette taxation and advertising regulations; Banking & Finance, lobbying for financial regulations, fintech policies, and foreign ownership laws.

Lionel Zetter examines lobbying practices across various regions, including the Middle East. While his work provides a comprehensive overview, specific details about lobbying in the Middle East are limited. However, it is noted that lobbying in this region often operates through informal networks and personal relationships, given the unique political and cultural landscapes. The absence of formalized lobbying frameworks, as seen in Western democracies, means that influence is frequently exerted through direct interactions and established connections within ruling elites and business communities.

Although Indonesia has an anti-corruption commission (KPK), enforcing transparency in lobbying remains a challenge. Efforts to increase transparency through public disclosure laws could formalize lobbying. Strengthening anti-corruption measures could help regulate how lobbying influences political decisions. Businesses may adopt more ethical lobbying practices as Indonesia integrates further into the global economy.

'Total Lobbying: What Lobbyists Want (and How They Try to Get It)' by Anthony J. Nownes (2006, Cambridge University Press) offers a scholarly yet accessible overview of the role of lobbying in American politics, drawing upon existing research and original data from interviews with numerous lobbyists across the United States. The work describes how lobbyists operate within all branches of government at the national, state, and local levels, providing a comprehensive view of lobbying beyond what is available in much of the existing literature.

Nownes defines lobbying as 'the process by which individuals and groups attempt to influence government decision-making.' This definition underscores that lobbying is not limited to professional lobbyists but includes various actors, such as businesses, interest groups, and even ordinary citizens who seek to shape public policy.

Because it encompasses a wide range of activities, strategies, and actors operating at different levels of government, Nownes describes lobbying as a complex phenomenon. He highlights that lobbying is not a single, uniform process but varies depending on the political environment, the policy issue at hand, and the resources available to lobbyists. His work also notes that lobbying occurs across all branches of government—legislative, executive, and even judicial—further adding to its complexity.

Nownes identifies multiple strategies that lobbyists use to influence policymakers. These strategies can be broadly categorized into direct lobbying and indirect (or grassroots) lobbying. In Direct Lobbying (Inside Strategies), lobbyists engage in face-to-face meetings with policymakers to present arguments, provide research, and advocate for specific policies. Interest groups and lobbyists often testify before legislative committees to shape policy discussions. Lobbyists sometimes write bills or amendments and provide them to legislators to introduce. They cultivate long-term relationships with lawmakers, staffers, and agency officials to gain influence over time.

In Indirect Lobbying )Outside Strategies), Lobbyists encourage the public to contact their representatives through phone calls, emails, petitions, or protests. Using advertisements, social media, and news coverage to sway public opinion and, indirectly, political decisions. Lobbyists often form alliances with other interest groups to amplify their influence. They support candidates financially or through endorsements to gain political leverage.

Nownes emphasizes that the effectiveness of these strategies depends on the political context, the issue being lobbied, and the resources available to lobbyists.

Nowness explores the effectiveness of lobbying by examining different factors that determine how much influence lobbyists can exert on policymakers. When an issue is not widely known or controversial, lobbyists can have a greater impact because there is less public scrutiny and opposition. Well-connected lobbyists who have relationships with lawmakers or government officials tend to be more successful. Organizations with significant financial resources can fund research, hire skilled lobbyists, and sustain long-term lobbying efforts, making them more effective. If an issue gains media attention and public support, lobbyists can use it to pressure politicians. However, if public opinion is strongly against a lobbyist’s goal, it can backfire. Knowing when to lobby—such as during the early stages of policy formation—can increase the chances of success.

Nownes also acknowledges that while lobbying is powerful, it is not all-powerful—policymakers have their own interests, constraints, and pressures that shape their decisions.

Nownes presents several key findings about lobbying in the United States, emphasizing its complexity, strategies, and impact. Lobbying occurs at all levels of government (local, state, and federal) and across all branches (legislative, executive, and even judicial). It involves a wide range of actors, including professional lobbyists, businesses, interest groups, unions, and even private citizens.

There is no single way to lobby—it is highly adaptable and varies depending on the issue and political environment. Direct strategies (inside lobbying) include personal meetings with policymakers, testifying before legislative committees, drafting legislation, and maintaining long-term relationships with officials. Indirect strategies (outside lobbying) involve mobilizing the public, media campaigns, coalition-building, and influencing elections through endorsements and campaign contributions. The choice of strategy depends on the nature of the policy issue, available resources, and political timing.

Lobbying is most effective when the public is not paying attention, as policymakers face less pressure from constituents. Lobbyists with personal connections to legislators and bureaucrats have a significant advantage. Groups with more money and expertise (e.g., corporate interests) tend to be more successful in influencing policy. Lobbying early in the policy process, especially in the drafting stage, increases the chances of success.

While some view lobbying as corrupt or manipulative, Nownes argues that it is a normal and necessary part of democratic politics. Not all lobbying is about corporate influence—many advocacy groups lobby for public interest causes, such as environmental protection or civil rights. Despite common beliefs, money does not always guarantee success—lobbyists still face political and institutional constraints.

Legislators and government officials are not easily swayed by lobbying alone—they balance multiple factors, including party loyalty, public opinion, and personal beliefs. Lobbying is one influence among many in policymaking, but it does not dictate decisions outright. Policymakers sometimes use lobbyists to gain expertise, research, and policy proposals, making lobbying a two-way exchange.

In highly technical issues (e.g., tax policy, healthcare regulation), lobbyists with expertise can have a greater impact since legislators rely on their knowledge. In highly visible and controversial issues (e.g., abortion, and gun control), lobbying is less effective because politicians prioritize public opinion and party alignment over lobbying pressure.

While lobbying focuses on influencing policymakers after they are elected, interest groups also try to shape who gets elected through campaign donations, endorsements, and political advertising. This creates a cycle where elected officials may be more receptive to those who support their campaigns.

Nownes concludes that lobbying is a pervasive and necessary feature of American democracy. While it is often seen as a tool for the wealthy and powerful, it is also used by public interest groups and grassroots movements. The effectiveness of lobbying depends on timing, relationships, resources, and the nature of the issue being lobbied.

Nownes defines interest groups as organized entities that seek to influence public policy in ways that benefit their members or advance their causes. These groups can represent businesses, labour unions, professional associations, ideological movements, or public interest causes.

Lobbyists are often hired professionals who work for interest groups, but the two are not the same. Interest groups engage in many activities beyond lobbying, including public education, grassroots mobilization, and electioneering. Why do Interest Groups matter in politics? Interest groups bridge the gap between citizens and government by organizing collective action. They provide expertise and information to policymakers, influencing policy decisions. Through campaign contributions and endorsements, they shape who gets elected and re-elected. Interest Groups may use some tactics: meeting with policymakers, drafting legislation, testifying at hearings (direct lobbying); Mobilizing members to contact officials, protesting, or petitioning (Grassroots lobbying); using advertisements and news coverage to shape public opinion (media campaigns); contributing to candidates, endorsing political figures, running political ads (electioneering).

Nownes argues that while interest groups have significant influence, they do not always get what they want. Their effectiveness depends on resources, public opinion, political timing, and institutional barriers. While some criticize interest groups for distorting democracy in favour of wealthy elites, others view them as essential to democratic participation.

In The Lobbying Strategy Handbook: 10 Steps to Advancing Any Cause Effectively (2021, Oxford University Press), Pat Libby distinguishes lobbying from advocacy, emphasizing that while they are related, they are not the same. Advocacy is a broad term that refers to any effort to influence public policy, raise awareness, or promote a cause. It includes activities such as public education, media campaigns, and community organizing. Advocacy is generally unrestricted and can be conducted by nonprofits, individuals, and organizations without legal limitations. Advocacy includes a wide range of activities such as writing opinion pieces, organizing protests, or educating the public. Advocacy often aims at the general public to build awareness and mobilize support for an issue.

Lobbying is a specific type of advocacy that involves direct communication with government officials to influence legislation or policies. Lobbying is regulated by law, particularly for nonprofit organizations and registered lobbyists, who must follow reporting requirements and restrictions (such as limits on political campaign involvement).

Lobbying specifically involves direct efforts to influence lawmakers, such as meeting with legislators, testifying at hearings, or pushing for specific legislative changes. Lobbying targets government officials and policymakers to push for concrete policy changes.

Pat Libby emphasizes that all lobbying is advocacy, but not all advocacy is lobbying. Advocacy is a broader concept that encompasses various ways to push for change, while lobbying is a more focused, legal, and policy-driven effort.

'So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government' by Robert G. Kaiser (2009, Alfred A. Knopf) delves into how the rise of lobbying has led to the erosion of democratic processes in the United States. Kaiser, a seasoned journalist, provides an in-depth narrative on how lobbying has become a pervasive force, often leading to policy decisions that favour special interests over the public good. Kaiser highlights specific cases where lobbying efforts have resulted in significant legislative outcomes, raising concerns about the integrity of governmental institutions.

Kaiser, a veteran journalist, examines the rise of lobbying in the United States and its corrosive effects on democracy. He traces how lobbying has grown into a multi-billion-dollar industry, shaping policies to benefit special interests at the expense of the broader public.

Kaiser argues that lobbying has reshaped the priorities of Congress, shifting legislative focus away from public interest issues (such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure) and toward corporate and special interest agendas. This leads to policies that serve the wealthiest and most influential entities rather than the general population.

Since the 1970s, lobbying has expanded dramatically, with corporations and trade associations investing vast sums to influence lawmakers. Lobbying has become a profession, with firms specializing in policy manipulation, creating a self-sustaining industry that thrives on insider access and influence.

Lobbyists and interest groups funnel money into political campaigns, making elected officials increasingly dependent on special interest funding. This creates a system where politicians prioritize donors over voters, undermining democratic accountability.

Many former lawmakers and government officials become lobbyists after leaving office, leveraging their insider connections to influence policy. This 'revolving door' fosters a cycle of influence-peddling, where policy decisions are shaped by former insiders rather than the electorate.

Lobbyists often work to weaken regulations in industries like finance, healthcare, and energy, leading to deregulation that benefits corporations while increasing risks for ordinary citizens. Kaiser highlights how the financial sector’s lobbying efforts contributed to the 2008 economic crisis by pushing for lax oversight.

Special interest groups often dictate policy priorities, sidelining issues that do not align with their financial or political objectives. Kaiser describes how pharmaceutical companies, for example, influenced healthcare policies to protect high drug prices.

Large corporations craft legislation and push it through Congress with minimal public scrutiny. Kaiser details how telecom and energy companies have shaped policies to secure monopolistic advantages, often at the expense of consumers. He argues that lobbying exacerbates political polarization, as interest groups push lawmakers toward extreme positions that benefit their agendas rather than fostering compromise. This contributes to legislative gridlock, where meaningful reforms fail due to intense lobbying pressures.

Kaiser presents lobbying as a pervasive force that distorts democracy, making government more responsive to money interests rather than the needs of ordinary citizens. He argues that this system undermines public trust in government and calls for greater transparency and reform to reduce the dominance of special interests.

In Overview of Soft Corruption: How Unethical Conduct Undermines Good Government and What To Do About It (2017, Rutgers University Press), William E. Schluter, a former New Jersey state senator, explores the subtler forms of corruption that erode good governance. Unlike outright bribery or criminal misconduct, which are easily identifiable, soft corruption refers to legal but unethical practices that distort policymaking, often benefiting powerful interest groups at the expense of the public.

Lobbyists use legal but ethically questionable tactics to sway lawmakers, such as lavish gifts, free trips, and exclusive events that build personal relationships with legislators; Revolving door politics, where government officials become lobbyists after leaving office, using insider knowledge to shape policy; Ghostwriting legislation, where corporate or industry lobbyists draft bills that legislators pass with little scrutiny; Legal loopholes allow wealthy donors and corporations to exert disproportionate influence over elections and policy decisions; Super PACs (Political Action Committees) and dark money groups fund political campaigns, making politicians more accountable to donors than to voters. Public officials reward political allies with government contracts, jobs, or favourable regulations, even when they are not the most qualified candidates (Cronyism and Patronage). This leads to inefficiency and undermines merit-based decision-making. Legislators and policymakers own stakes in the industries they regulate, allowing them to pass laws that benefit their financial interests, Some lawmakers accept lucrative private-sector jobs after leaving office in exchange for favourable treatment while in power (conflicts of interest); Some politicians intentionally stall legislation or block reforms that would hold lobbyists and donors accountable. Gridlock often favours the status quo, which benefits entrenched interests over public needs.

According to Schluter, soft corruption refers to legal but unethical behaviour that distorts government operations, policymaking, and democracy. Unlike hard corruption, which involves illegal activities such as bribery and fraud, soft corruption operates within legal boundaries but undermines public trust and good governance.

Soft Corruption will erode public trust in government institutions; prioritize special interests over the general welfare; reduce accountability, as unethical but legal practices persist unchecked; weaken democracy by making elected officials more dependent on wealthy donors than on ordinary voters.

Schluter argues that while hard corruption (like bribery) is illegal, soft corruption is more insidious because it is harder to detect and legal in many cases.

Soft corruption does not violate laws outright but exploits loopholes in the system. Examples include excessive lobbying influence, political patronage, and conflicts of interest. Instead of paying bribes, special interest groups use campaign donations, favours, and networking to influence politicians. Legislators may prioritize donors’ interests over voters’ needs, shaping policies that benefit corporations and elites rather than the public.

Public trust in government declines when citizens perceive that politicians serve wealthy donors rather than the electorate. Government decision-making becomes biased toward powerful entities, reducing fairness and accountability.

Schluter argues that soft corruption is more dangerous than outright criminal corruption because it is harder to detect and remains legal. It leads to government inefficiency, favouritism, and policies that serve special interests rather than the public good. He mentions some examples of soft corruption: Lobbyists write legislation on behalf of corporations, which lawmakers pass with little scrutiny; Former government officials become lobbyists (revolving door politics) and use their insider influence to benefit private interests; Wealthy individuals and corporations donate large sums to politicians, ensuring favourable policy decisions; Super PACs and dark money groups allow anonymous influence over elections, reducing transparency; Public officials reward friends, family, and political allies with government jobs and contracts. This prioritizes loyalty over merit, leading to inefficient governance; Politicians delay or block reforms that would limit lobbying power, strengthen ethics rules, or increase transparency.

Schluter argues that soft corruption is more dangerous than outright criminal corruption because it is harder to detect and remains legal. It leads to government inefficiency, favoritism, and policies that serve special interests rather than the public good.

Schluter defines 'revolving door politics' as the movement of individuals between government positions and the private sector, particularly lobbying and industry roles, in ways that create conflicts of interest and undermine good governance. It refers to a cycle where public officials leave government jobs to work for private companies that seek to influence government policy—or vice versa. This practice allows corporations and special interest groups to exert undue influence over policymakers by leveraging personal connections and insider knowledge.

Many retired or resigned government officials take high-paying jobs as lobbyists, consultants, or corporate executives in industries they once regulated. These individuals use their insider connections and knowledge to influence their former colleagues and push corporate agendas. For example, a former senator joins a pharmaceutical lobbying firm to advocate for drug price regulations that favour large companies.

Corporations often place their executives into government positions, ensuring policies favour their business interests. Example, a former oil company executive becomes the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and weakens regulations on pollution.

Since former government officials often work in the industries they once regulated, they are less likely to enforce strict rules or push for reforms that hurt their future job prospects. This creates a conflict of interest, where decision-makers prioritize future career benefits over public service.

When the public sees government officials cycling between regulatory agencies and the industries they oversee, they lose confidence in the impartiality of government decisions. This leads to a perception that corporate interests control policy instead of voters.

The phenomenon of 'revolving door politics'—where individuals move between roles in the public sector and private industry, leading to potential conflicts of interest—is also present in Indonesia.

A 2018 Greenpeace report highlights how politically exposed persons (PEPs) in Indonesia often hold leadership positions in coal companies. This overlap between political roles and business interests can lead to conflicts of interest and policy decisions that favour the coal industry over environmental concerns.

Transparency International Indonesia has reported on the "revolving-door phenomenon" in the palm oil industry, where officials responsible for regulating the sector transition into roles within the industry, and vice versa. This movement can result in regulatory capture, where industry interests dominate policy decisions, potentially at the expense of environmental and social standards.

These instances illustrate how the interchange of personnel between public office and private industry in Indonesia can lead to policies that prioritize corporate interests, raising concerns about governance and public trust.

The Indonesian military has historically maintained a significant presence in state affairs, a legacy from the New Order era (1967-1998) when the armed forces were deeply embedded in political and social spheres. Despite reforms aimed at professionalizing the military and reducing its direct involvement in politics, retired military officers continue to occupy influential positions in government and political parties. For instance, since the democratic transition, several presidential tickets have featured former military generals, reflecting the enduring influence of military figures in politics. At the local level, retired officers have also pursued political office, though with varying degrees of success. Political parties often recruit these retirees, integrating them into civilian political structures.

This movement between military service and political roles exemplifies revolving-door politics, where the expertise and networks of retired officers are leveraged within civilian governance. While this can enhance security sector insights in policymaking, it also raises concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest and the militarization of civilian institutions.

In summary, revolving door politics in Indonesia manifests through the interplay between state-owned enterprises and political interests, as well as the transition of retired military and police officers into civilian governmental roles. Addressing these dynamics requires strengthening governance frameworks, enhancing transparency, and ensuring clear delineation between military and civilian spheres to uphold democratic principles."

[Section 9]

[Section 7]

Bahasa

Oligarchy (7)

"First things first, let’s catch up on the news," Cangik said as she opened a newspaper. "Indonesian Politics, Featuring a Plot Twist Nobody Asked For! In a shocking turn of events that has the nation reaching for its popcorn, a video of PDIP Secretary-General Hasto Kristiyanto spills the tea on Mulyono's alleged manoeuvres to kneecap the KPK (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi), Indonesia's anti-corruption commission

Hasto suggests Mulyono was playing a strategic game of chess to shield his son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, and son-in-law, Bobby Nasution, from the KPK's clutches. It's like saying, 'Hey, let's weaken the anti-graft body so my family can play SimCity without the fear of getting audited!'

According to Hasto, this all went down around the time Gibran and Bobby were eyeing mayoral seats. Hasto claims he warned Mulyono that their candidacies might attract unwanted attention from the KPK, potentially leading to some awkward 'caught red-handed' scenarios. But, plot twist, Hasto alleges that Mulyono, through a ministerial messenger, initiated the KPK law revision, even whispering about a $3 million budget to grease the wheels.

Of course, folks have chimed in with their two cents. One of 'the Ternak Mulyono' insists that the ex-prez resisted some of the revision's more eyebrow-raising points. Meanwhile, a political analyst thinks Hasto's video might just be a 'gertak sambal' – an empty threat – or a desperate counter-attack after Hasto himself got tangled up with the KPK.

Other public's reaction has been a wild ride. Many view this as the latest must-watch episode of "Mulyono vs. Banteng," complete with dramatic irony and commercial breaks.

A significant portion of the population is reportedly Googling 'Hasto Kristiyanto' to figure out why his opinion matters. Some are crying foul, suggesting this is all political manoeuvring disguised as justice. So, the burning question on everyone's lips: did Mulyono's $ 30 million come from the pockets of the rakyat, or did it detour through the scenic route of offshore accounts a.k.a money laundering? Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen!

As the drama unfolds, one thing is clear: Indonesian politics continues to be more entertaining than actual entertainment.

Disclaimer: This is satire. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental... or is it?

Now let's discuss some countries with minimal Oligarchic influence. First, Norway. Why? Norway has high transparency, strict campaign finance laws, and a strong social welfare system that prevents excessive wealth concentration. Norway has strong public institutions, progressive taxation and wealth redistribution, high level of press freedom.

In "The Nordic Theory of Everything: In Search of a Better Life" (Harper, 2016), Anu Partanen explores the societal structures of Nordic countries, highlighting how their policies foster individual autonomy and minimize oligarchic influence. Partanen emphasizes that universal access to high-quality services—such as education, healthcare, and childcare—ensures equal opportunities for all citizens, reducing dependence on powerful elites and market forces. This approach promotes social mobility and diminishes the concentration of wealth and power, thereby limiting oligarchic influence. By investing in robust public services and implementing policies that prioritize the well-being of all citizens, Norway exemplifies a society where individual empowerment and equality are paramount.

Second, Denmark. Why? Denmark consistently ranks among the least corrupt countries, with strong legal frameworks preventing business elites from dominating politics. Demark has strict anti-lobbying laws and transparent governance and corporate regulations.

Viking Economics: How the Scandinavians Got It Right—and How We Can, Too by George Lakey (2016, Melville House) argues that Denmark, along with other Scandinavian countries, has minimal oligarchic influence due to its strong democratic traditions, economic equality, and robust welfare state.

Denmark has policies that prevent excessive wealth concentration, such as progressive taxation, strong labour unions, and social safety nets. These limit the power of wealthy elites.

Danish workers have significant influence in policymaking through collective bargaining and high union participation. This prevents corporations and the wealthy from dominating politics.

Denmark consistently ranks among the least corrupt countries in the world, ensuring that political decisions serve the public rather than a small elite. The country has publicly funded education, healthcare, and social services, reducing dependence on private wealth and corporate lobbying. Denmark balances market efficiency with government intervention, ensuring that businesses do not amass unchecked power over society.

Lakey contrasts this with more oligarchic systems, such as the U.S., where the wealthy exert disproportionate influence through campaign financing and lobbying. He suggests that Denmark’s egalitarian culture and policy choices create a system where power remains broadly distributed among the people.

Third, Sweden. Why? Sweden's political system is based on egalitarian policies that limit the ability of wealthy elites to control decision-making. Sweden has high social mobility and publicly funded elections.

In The Almost Nearly Perfect People: Behind the Myth of the Scandinavian Utopia (2014, Jonathan Cape), Michael Booth discusses how Sweden has relatively minimal oligarchic influence compared to many other countries. He attributes this to several key factors.

Sweden has historically pursued policies that reduce wealth concentration, including high taxation and strong social welfare programs. This limits the ability of a small elite to dominate politics or the economy.

Sweden has strong institutional frameworks that promote transparency and reduce corruption, making it difficult for oligarchs to exert undue influence on government decisions.

There is a deep-seated cultural emphasis on egalitarianism and consensus-driven decision-making, which discourages the accumulation of power in the hands of a few wealthy individuals.

Sweden has robust state intervention in key industries, which prevents the formation of monopolies and reduces corporate influence over politics.

Booth contrasts Sweden’s model with more oligarchic systems, where wealthier elites have disproportionate control over policy-making. While Sweden is not completely free from elite influence, its structures and policies significantly mitigate oligarchic power compared to other nations.

Fourth, New Zealand. Why? With a high level of government accountability and a well-regulated business environment, New Zealand has low levels of oligarchic control, an independent judiciary, and no significant political lobbying culture.

Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945, Routledge) critiques totalitarianism and defends liberal democracy as the best safeguard against authoritarian rule, including oligarchic influences.

New Zealand is often considered a country with minimal oligarchic influence because it embodies many of the democratic ideals that Popper advocated.

New Zealand has a well-established parliamentary democracy with transparent electoral processes and a proportional representation system (Mixed-Member Proportional, MMP) that prevents domination by a small elite. According to organizations like Transparency International, New Zealand consistently ranks as one of the least corrupt countries, suggesting minimal undue influence by oligarchic interests.

New Zealand has historically pursued policies that promote social mobility, wealth redistribution, and accessible public services, reducing economic inequality that often fuels oligarchic power. A strong legal system and media independence ensure accountability, preventing elites from consolidating excessive power.

Popper, who lived in New Zealand from 1937 to 1945 while writing The Open Society and Its Enemies, likely saw these attributes firsthand, reinforcing his view of the country as an example of an open society with limited oligarchic influence.

Fifth, Switzerland. Why? Switzerland has decentralized governance, direct democracy mechanisms, and a strong legal framework preventing oligarchs from dominating national politics. It can be said that Citizen-driven referendums limit elite influence and strong financial regulations as the key features.

In his work 'Why Switzerland?' (2015, Cambridge University Press), Jonathan Steinberg examines the unique political and social structures that contribute to Switzerland's minimal oligarchic influence. Steinberg highlights several key factors that limit oligarchic power in Switzerland.

Swiss citizens actively participate in decision-making through referenda and initiatives, ensuring that power remains distributed among the populace rather than concentrated in a select few.

The Swiss political system grants significant authority to cantonal and communal governments, fostering a decentralized power structure that prevents the rise of a dominant oligarchy.

Switzerland employs multi-member executive councils at federal, cantonal, and local levels, promoting collective leadership and reducing the likelihood of power consolidation by individuals or small groups.

These institutional arrangements, as analyzed by Steinberg, create a political environment where oligarchic influence is minimized, and governance reflects a broad spectrum of the Swiss population.

While no country is entirely free from elite influence, nations with high transparency, strong democratic institutions, and strict regulations on wealth accumulation tend to have minimal oligarchic control. However, even in these countries, economic elites may still have some degree of influence, particularly through media ownership and industry lobbying. In Oligarch-Free Countries, transparency, progressive taxation, social welfare, and press freedom, are prioritised to ensure that wealth and power do not concentrate in the hands of a few. Oligarch-controlled countries are experiencing high corruption, wealth inequality, and elite control over politics and media, leading to limited democracy and social mobility.

Many governments worldwide are influenced by oligarchs through direct business ties, political funding, or policy manipulation. The extent of this influence depends on a country’s legal framework, media independence, and public awareness.

Oligarchs influence government policy through various direct and indirect methods, ensuring that political decisions align with their economic and personal interests. Oligarchs fund election campaigns in exchange for favourable policies, tax breaks, and government contracts. Politicians become dependent on elite donors and prioritize their interests over the public's. Oligarchs hire lobbyists to influence lawmakers and regulatory agencies. They push for deregulation, reduced taxation, and laws that benefit their industries.

In the Captured Economy: How the Powerful Enrich Themselves, Slow Down Growth, and Increase Inequality by Brink Lindsey and Steven M. Teles ( 2017, Oxford University Press), the authors argue that economic policies in the U.S. have been 'captured' by elites who manipulate regulations and laws to their advantage. They explain how this regulatory capture leads to slower economic growth, rising inequality, and reduced competition. Policies that favour large financial institutions, allow them to take excessive risks while being shielded from the consequences through government bailouts.

Restrictive licensing requirements limit competition in various professions, disproportionately benefiting established practitioners at the expense of new entrants. Patent and copyright laws that extend monopolies beyond reasonable limits, stifling innovation while benefiting large corporations.

Zoning laws and building restrictions limit housing supply, increasing real estate prices and benefiting property owners while making housing less affordable.

The authors argue that these policies create economic inefficiencies and exacerbate inequality by protecting the interests of the wealthy rather than fostering broad-based economic growth.

Oligarchs own or fund media outlets, shaping public opinion and election outcomes. They suppress negative coverage of politicians who favour them and discredit opposition voices. The Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian (1983, Beacon Press) discusses how a small number of large corporations control the majority of media outlets, shaping public discourse and limiting diverse viewpoints. Bagdikian argues that corporate ownership leads to a few media giants dictating what news gets reported, influencing public perception. News coverage prioritizes commercial interests over public interest, often favouring advertisers and corporate stakeholders. Alternative perspectives, especially those critical of corporate power or government policies aligned with big business, are marginalized. With fewer owners, media content becomes uniform, reducing investigative journalism and critical reporting.

In 1983, Bagdikian warned about 50 major media corporations controlling most U.S. news. By 2004, this had shrunk to just five or six mega-corporations (e.g., Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, and CBS). Today, a handful of companies (e.g., Comcast, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, and a few others) dominate television, film, and digital media.

While traditional media is still influential, big tech companies (Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter/X) now control information flow through algorithms. These platforms determine what news reaches users based on engagement, often prioritizing sensationalism, clickbait, and ad revenue over factual reporting.

Corporate ownership prioritizes profitability, leading to cutbacks in long-form investigative journalism in favour of entertainment-driven news. Local newspapers, once vital for investigative reporting, have shut down or been acquired by hedge funds that cut costs at the expense of quality journalism.

Media organizations dependent on advertising often avoid stories that could offend major sponsors (e.g., pharmaceutical companies, and oil industries). Government partnerships with media (direct or indirect) can influence narratives, particularly in political coverage, foreign policy, and economic reporting.

The internet has allowed independent voices to challenge mainstream media, but it has also led to an infodemic—a flood of misinformation and biased reporting. Right-wing and left-wing media silos create echo chambers, reinforcing ideological biases rather than providing balanced reporting. Many reputable outlets (e.g., The New York Times, The Washington Post) now operate behind paywalls, restricting quality journalism to those who can afford it. Meanwhile, free news often consists of low-quality, ad-driven content.

Bagdikian’s warnings have materialized on a much larger scale. The combination of media monopolies, tech giants, and financial pressures has resulted in a system where news is often sensationalized, biased, or controlled by a few elite players.

Oligarchs ensure that courts, prosecutors, and regulators turn a blind eye to their activities. They use legal loopholes, bribery, or political pressure to avoid accountability. In Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (2012, Crown Publishing), Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson argue that elites manipulate institutions to maintain their power and economic advantage. Elites design political and economic institutions that concentrate power in their hands while preventing broader participation. These institutions ensure wealth flows to the elite at the expense of the majority. When there is a threat of institutional change toward inclusivity, elites resist reforms by suppressing dissent, rigging elections, or using legal frameworks to maintain control.

Instead of allowing competition, elites often absorb potential challengers into the system through patronage, privileges, or corruption. Elites may use coercion, legal restrictions, or even military power to prevent the rise of alternative power structures that could challenge their dominance. By controlling key economic sectors, elites prevent innovation and competition, ensuring that wealth remains concentrated.

Oligarchs place allies in government positions to push policies that benefit their businesses. After serving in government, officials join private firms or advisory boards controlled by oligarchs.

David Rothkopf's work Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making (2008, Farrar, Straus and Giroux) explores how a small, interconnected group of elites wields disproportionate influence over global politics, economics, and society. According to Rothkopf, these elites—comprising around 6,000 individuals—control international institutions, multinational corporations, governments, and media networks. Their power is reinforced through exclusive gatherings like the World Economic Forum in Davos, Bilderberg meetings, and other closed-door events where major global decisions are often shaped outside democratic processes. Rothkopf argues that this superclass operates beyond national borders, prioritizing their interests and shaping policies that benefit their wealth and influence, often at the expense of broader populations.

Oligarchs use their influence to secure monopolies in energy, finance, telecom, and media. They prevent competition by using political connections to pass restrictive regulations. Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014, Harvard University Press) discusses wealth concentration and economic inequality. Piketty highlights how wealth accumulation and political influence enable elites to shape policies in their favour. According to Piketty, oligarchs and wealthy elites use several mechanisms to secure monopolies. Wealthy individuals finance political campaigns, lobby policymakers, and influence regulations to maintain market dominance and prevent competition.

Many oligarchs in post-Soviet states and other regions accumulated wealth through privatization of state assets, gaining control over key industries like energy and telecom. The high return on capital compared to economic growth (r > g) allows the rich to reinvest their wealth into monopolistic ventures, making it harder for new competitors to enter the market. Wealthy elites often own or influence media outlets to control public discourse, protect their interests, and suppress regulatory pressures.

Piketty's broader argument suggests that inherited wealth and political power create self-reinforcing monopolistic structures in capitalist economies.

Oligarch-funded think tanks, universities, and NGOs promote policies that favour elite interests. They influence academic research, ensuring economic and political theories align with their goals.

In Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America (2017, Viking), Nancy MacLean argues that oligarchs influence economic policy through academia by funding libertarian and free-market research institutions, university programs, and think tanks. She highlights how wealthy individuals, such as Charles Koch, have strategically invested in academic networks to promote ideas that align with their political and economic interests.

MacLean traces this strategy back to economist James Buchanan, whose work in public choice theory was used to challenge government intervention and justify policies favouring privatization and deregulation. She contends that through endowments, grants, and professorships, oligarchs shape academic discourse, ensuring that free-market ideology gains legitimacy and influence over public policy, often without transparency regarding the financial backers' motives.

In The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (2007, Metropolitan Books), Naomi Klein argues that elites use crises—whether economic collapses, natural disasters, or political upheavals—to rapidly implement neoliberal policies that would otherwise face public resistance. She describes this as "disaster capitalism," where moments of collective shock are exploited to push through privatization, deregulation, and austerity measures that benefit corporations and the wealthy.

Klein traces this strategy to economist Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics, showing how their ideas influenced policy shifts in countries like Chile under Pinochet, post-Katrina New Orleans, and post-Soviet Russia. She argues that crises create a window of opportunity for radical economic restructuring, often at the expense of democratic decision-making and social welfare.

Oligarchs influence government policy through campaign financing, lobbying, media control, judiciary manipulation, industry monopolization, and shaping public discourse. Their ultimate goal is to maintain and expand their power while ensuring policies work in their favour.

In the next section we will discuss lobbying in politics and its relationship with the oligarchs, bi'idhnillah."

[Section 8]

[Section 6]

Bahasa

Oligarchy (6)

"While the U.S. maintains democratic institutions, its policies, elections, and economy are heavily influenced by corporate elites, billionaires, and financial institutions. Many scholars argue that the U.S. operates as a "plutocratic oligarchy", where money dictates power rather than the democratic will of the people," said Cangik to continue.

"In Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World (2018, Knopf), Anand Giridharadas exposes how wealthy elites maintain and reinforce oligarchic control while pretending to help society. He argues that these elites engage in philanthropy, social entrepreneurship, and impact investing to appear benevolent, but their actions ultimately serve to protect and expand their power and wealth.

Elites promote private-sector solutions to social problems rather than systemic changes, ensuring that the structures benefiting them remain intact. They resist policies like progressive taxation, labour rights, or breaking up monopolies. Instead of addressing root causes, they fund charitable initiatives that make them look generous while avoiding any real sacrifice. This allows them to maintain influence over how social problems are addressed. They integrate reformers into elite spaces, such as TED Talks, Davos, and corporate-sponsored fellowships, where radical ideas are softened or depoliticized.

By funding think tanks, universities, and media, they shape public discourse to ensure that meaningful structural reforms—such as wealth redistribution—are dismissed as unrealistic or extreme. They push the idea that doing good and making money can go hand in hand, ignoring how profit-driven motives often perpetuate inequality rather than solve it. Giridharadas argues that true change requires confronting power structures rather than relying on the benevolence of the ultra-rich.

In Russia, oligarchy refers to the wealthy business elites who gained immense economic and political power after the fall of the Soviet Union. These oligarchs control vast industries like oil, gas, and banking and often have direct ties to the Kremlin.

Catherine Belton’s book 'Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took On the West' (2020, William Collins) details how former KGB operatives, including Vladimir Putin, leveraged state power to build a political-business oligarchy in Russia. She argues that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, former KGB officers regrouped to regain control, infiltrating key institutions and industries. Unlike the 1990s oligarchs who amassed wealth independently, Putin’s allies, many of whom were from his St. Petersburg KGB circle, used state mechanisms to accumulate and redistribute wealth.

Putin empowered siloviki (security service elites) to manage state industries, ensuring loyalty and eliminating rivals. Key industries, especially oil and gas (like Gazprom and Rosneft), were brought under Kremlin control, funding geopolitical ambitions. Offshore financial networks and Western enablers helped launder money, allowing Russian elites to influence global politics.

Belton presents this transformation as a KGB-driven project to consolidate power, reverse post-Soviet liberalization, and expand Russian influence abroad.

After the USSR collapsed, President Boris Yeltsin privatized state industries, leading to a small group of insiders acquiring immense wealth. Oligarchs like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Roman Abramovich, and Boris Berezovsky became billionaires overnight by taking control of former Soviet assets. Many of these oligarchs financed Yeltsin’s re-election in 1996, cementing their influence over politics.

David E. Hoffman's The Oligarchs: Wealth and Power in the New Russia was published in 2011 by PublicAffairs. Hoffman explores how Russian oligarchs emerged from the power struggles of the Soviet era, particularly during the transition from a state-controlled economy to privatization in the 1990s. He details how a small group of well-connected individuals took advantage of economic reforms under Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika and Boris Yeltsin’s privatization policies.

The sudden shift to a market economy created opportunities for insiders to acquire state assets at extremely low prices. A controversial policy in which state-owned companies were effectively handed over to private investors in exchange for loans to the cash-strapped Russian government.

Many oligarchs had ties to Soviet bureaucrats, which allowed them to manipulate the system for personal gain. Wealthy businessmen gained influence by controlling television networks and newspapers, often shaping public opinion in their favour. The lack of strong laws and regulations enabled oligarchs to operate with minimal oversight.

Hoffman provides in-depth profiles of figures like Boris Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and Roman Abramovich, showing how they leveraged their wealth to wield immense political power in post-Soviet Russia.

When Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, he forced oligarchs to pledge loyalty to his administration. Oligarchs who resisted—like Mikhail Khodorkovsky (Yukos Oil)—were jailed or exiled. Putin replaced independent oligarchs with state-aligned oligarchs (e.g., Igor Sechin, Gennady Timchenko, Alisher Usmanov).

In "Kremlin Winter: Russia and the Second Coming of Vladimir Putin," (2019, Pan Macmillan), historian Robert Service examines how Vladimir Putin transformed Russia's oligarchic system to consolidate his political power. Upon assuming the presidency in 2000, Putin sought to reassert state control over the economy and diminish the political influence of oligarchs who had amassed significant wealth and power during the 1990s.

Service details how Putin implemented a strategy to bring these oligarchs under Kremlin oversight. This involved legal actions and, in some cases, imprisonment of prominent figures who resisted state control, thereby sending a clear message to others. By selectively targeting non-compliant oligarchs and fostering alliances with those willing to align with his administration, Putin effectively restructured the oligarchic system. This realignment ensured that economic elites remained subservient to the state's political objectives, thereby reinforcing his authority and centralizing power within the Kremlin.

This approach not only curtailed the autonomy of Russia's wealthiest individuals but also integrated their economic resources into the state's strategic framework, aligning business interests with national policies and Putin's vision for Russia's resurgence on the global stage.

Wealthy elites still control major industries, but their power depends on their loyalty to Putin. Sanctions after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine targeted oligarchs, revealing their deep ties to the Kremlin.

In Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia? (2014, Simon & Schuster), Karen Dawisha argues that Vladimir Putin's rise to power was not accidental but rather a well-orchestrated plan by a network of KGB operatives, criminals, and oligarchs who sought to control Russia's political and economic system for personal enrichment.

She details how this group has used state institutions, security forces, and economic levers to enrich themselves while suppressing political opposition. Rather than Russia being owned by its citizens or governed democratically, Dawisha presents evidence that a small elite surrounding Putin controls the state, its resources, and its economic policies. This kleptocratic system ensures that wealth and influence remain concentrated among Putin’s loyalists, particularly those with backgrounds in intelligence and security services.

So, the term Putin’s Kleptocracy refers to a system in which state power is used for large-scale corruption and self-enrichment by Putin and his inner circle. Dawisha describes how this network of former security officials and business elites accumulated wealth by controlling key industries, manipulating state institutions, and eliminating political opposition. She portrays Russia as a state where personal loyalty to Putin determines economic and political fortunes, rather than rule of law or democratic principles.

China’s oligarchy is state-led rather than business-led. Communist Party of China (CPC) controls the government, economy, and military, while elite families and corporate allies dominate business sectors. In 'The Party: The Secret World of China's Communist Rulers' (2010, Harper Perennial), Richard McGregor examines how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) maintains its grip on power through economic control and censorship. McGregor reveals that, despite economic liberalization, the CCP retains a firm hold over key institutions, including government ministries, the military, media, and major corporations. This control ensures that economic activities align with party objectives, preventing the rise of alternative power centres. Additionally, the CCP's Propaganda Department oversees both public and private media, regulating information dissemination to shape public perception and suppress dissent. By embedding party committees within private enterprises and maintaining influence over the judiciary and law enforcement, the CCP integrates itself into the fabric of Chinese society, effectively controlling economic and informational spheres to sustain its authority.

In 1949, Mao Zedong established the People’s Republic of China (PRC) under strict Communist control. In the 1980s, Deng Xiaoping introduced market reforms, allowing private businesses to emerge while the CCP maintained political control.

Ezra Vogel's Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China (2011, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press) explores how Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms led to the rise of a new class of politically connected billionaires in China.

Deng's reforms, particularly the move toward a "socialist market economy," allowed private enterprise and foreign investment to flourish, but within a system where the Communist Party maintained control. Vogel explains that as state-owned enterprises were restructured, officials and their families leveraged their positions to gain stakes in newly privatized industries, often securing lucrative government contracts and land deals. The introduction of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) further enabled party elites to amass wealth through foreign partnerships, often blurring the lines between political power and economic privilege.

While Deng did not intend to create a class of crony capitalists, Vogel argues that the lack of institutional checks on corruption and nepotism contributed to the rise of billionaire entrepreneurs with deep political connections.

Red Roulette: An Insider’s Story of Wealth, Power, Corruption, and Vengeance in Today’s China by Desmond Shum (2021, Scribner) provides a firsthand account of how China's business oligarchs navigate the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) framework. He explains that business elites thrive by maintaining close ties with Party officials. They act as intermediaries between state power and market forces, securing lucrative deals through personal relationships (guanxi). Entrepreneurs rely on political patrons to gain access to resources, permits, and contracts. These relationships, however, are precarious—when a patron falls out of favor, their business allies also become vulnerable.

The Party exerts control over private wealth, ensuring that business leaders remain loyal. Even successful entrepreneurs can be targeted for political reasons if they are seen as a threat or become too independent. While presented as reform efforts, crackdowns often serve to consolidate power. Entrepreneurs close to rival factions risk losing their businesses and freedom. The CCP increasingly pushes private firms to align with national goals, including technology development and global expansion, reinforcing the Party’s dominance. The CPC controls the military, banks, and major industries (energy, tech, real estate). Private businesses can grow, but only if they serve Party interests. Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign (2013-present) removed oligarchs who posed threats to the Party’s rule.

In China’s Gilded Age: The Paradox of Economic Boom and Vast Corruption (2020, Cambridge University Press), Yuen Yuen Ang explores how corruption in China’s oligarchic system paradoxically fuels economic growth. She argues that not all corruption is equally damaging—China’s system predominantly features "access money," a form of transactional corruption where businesses pay officials for access to lucrative opportunities, such as land, contracts, and policy advantages. Unlike predatory corruption (which stifles growth by extorting businesses), this type of corruption incentivizes officials to facilitate economic expansion, creating an environment where growth and corruption coexist.

Ang contrasts China’s model with other countries where corruption is more extractive, showing how the structure of political incentives in an authoritarian, decentralized system enables both high growth and high corruption. However, she warns that this model is unsustainable in the long run, as unchecked corruption leads to inequality, inefficiencies, and risks of systemic collapse.

So, who has the most Oligarchic System? It it United States? Oligarchy operates indirectly through corporate influence, lobbying, and campaign financing. Or Russia? Oligarchy is more centralized, with direct control by Putin and the Kremlin. Or perhaps China? The most state-controlled oligarchy, where business elites serve the Communist Party, or they are removed.

Michael Lind’s The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite (2020, Portfolio/Penguin) argues that modern oligarchs—primarily the managerial elite—shape global politics by centralizing power in technocratic institutions, multinational corporations, and cultural organizations, effectively sidelining the working and middle classes from meaningful political participation.

Decision-making is increasingly transferred from elected representatives to unelected bureaucrats, judges, and international organizations, reducing democratic accountability. The managerial elite supports free trade, deregulation, and outsourcing, benefiting from global markets while leaving domestic working-class populations economically vulnerable.

Elites control major media, academic institutions, and corporations, shaping public discourse and suppressing dissenting viewpoints through ideological gatekeeping. Labour unions, religious organizations, and community institutions that once counterbalanced elite influence have been weakened or co-opted, reducing ordinary people's ability to organize politically.

Lind does not explicitly rank countries in terms of oligarchy, but he implies that Western liberal democracies, particularly the U.S. and parts of Europe, have become highly oligarchic. He critiques the U.S. as a prime example where corporate and managerial elites exercise disproportionate influence over government policy, labor relations, and cultural narratives, making it a leading contender for the most oligarchic system.

It is indeed difficult to find a country completely free from the influence of oligarchs, as wealth and power tend to be concentrated among elites in almost every society. However, some nations have stronger safeguards against oligarchic influence due to strict regulations, transparency, and well-functioning democratic institutions. In the next section, we will discuss some countries with minimal Oligarchic influence. Bi'idhnillah"

[Section 7]

[Section 5]

Bahasa