"Let's say amen to that!" Cangik exclaimed to her bestie, Limbuk, urging her to not only "walk the talk", but also "do the talk" as they watched a cheeky kid sporting a t-shirt that read "Prosecute Jokowi." Limbuk responded, "Amen ,,, Amen ... Amen ... May the Almighty grant it" Limbuk then asked, "Cangik, what is Oligarchy?" Cangik replied, "In General, Oligarchy is a form of government or power structure in which a small, elite group holds disproportionate control over a country, organization, or institution. This ruling minority can be based on wealth, military power, political influence, religious authority, or corporate control. Aristotle classified oligarchy as the corrupt form of aristocracy, where the few rule in their interest rather than for the common good.
In modern political science, oligarchy is understood as a system where political power is concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, families, or corporate groups who influence government decisions behind the scenes. Jeffrey A. Winters in Oligarchy (2011) defines oligarchy as a system where wealthy elites use economic and political resources to maintain control, even in nominally democratic states.
In 'The Iron Law of Oligarchy' (1911), Robert Michels argues that all large organizations (including democracies) inevitably become oligarchies because a small elite always rises to dominate decision-making.
Oligarchy can also refer to an economic system where a small group of ultra-wealthy individuals or corporations dominate an economy, influencing policies to serve their interests. In 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' (2013), Thomas Piketty argues that wealth accumulation leads to oligarchic control because the rich use their economic power to influence laws, taxation, and markets in ways that perpetuate and expand their wealth.
Piketty's fundamental equation, r > g (where r is the rate of return on capital and g is economic growth), shows that wealth grows faster than the overall economy. This means that those who own capital (land, stocks, businesses) accumulate wealth faster than those who rely on labour income.
Over time, this dynamic concentrates wealth in fewer hands, leading to economic inequality and creating a class of ultra-wealthy individuals who can exert disproportionate influence over society.
As wealth becomes concentrated, the rich gain political power by funding political campaigns, lobbying legislators, and financing think tanks that advocate for policies favourable to their interests. This influence results in policies that reinforce wealth accumulation, such as tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of industries, and weakened labour protections.
Wealthy individuals and corporations push for lower income and capital gains taxes, inheritance tax reductions, and tax loopholes that benefit them. Piketty shows historical examples where high taxes on wealth and inheritance (such as in the mid-20th century) were instrumental in reducing inequality, but recent policy changes have favoured capital owners.
Oligarchs often use their influence to shape market structures, ensuring monopolistic or oligopolistic conditions that suppress competition and allow them to extract more wealth. This includes controlling key industries (technology, finance, real estate), setting wages, and influencing regulatory bodies to limit oversight.
Piketty warns that when wealth concentration reaches extreme levels, democracy itself is undermined. A small elite can dictate political agendas, restrict social mobility, and reduce opportunities for broader economic participation. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle: wealth leads to power, which leads to policies that further entrench wealth.
To counteract oligarchic control, Piketty advocates for progressive wealth taxes to redistribute excessive concentrations of wealth; higher inheritance taxes to prevent dynastic wealth; global financial transparency to curb tax evasion; and increased public investment in education and infrastructure to promote broader economic participation. Piketty’s analysis aligns with historical patterns, showing that when unchecked, wealth accumulation leads to oligarchic dominance, where economic power translates directly into political control.
In 'Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right' (2016), investigative journalist Jane Mayer explores how wealthy oligarchs, particularly the Koch brothers (Charles and David Koch), have significantly shaped U.S. politics through their vast financial influence. Mayer describes how the Kochs built a vast, interconnected network of wealthy conservative donors who funded think tanks, advocacy groups, and grassroots organizations. This network—sometimes referred to as the "Kochtopus"—was designed to push libertarian, anti-regulation, and free-market policies while opposing taxation, government intervention, and environmental regulations.
Mayer's work highlights how the Kochs and their allies funnelled massive amounts of money into elections at all levels—federal, state, and local. Following the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC (2010) decision, which deregulated political spending, the Koch network spent unprecedented sums supporting conservative candidates, often through dark money groups (which do not have to disclose their donors).
The Koch network funded think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and the Mercatus Center to produce research and policy recommendations aligned with their ideology. These institutions provided intellectual justification for deregulation, lower taxes, and climate change denial. Their influence extended to media campaigns, funding books, reports, and even university programs.
Mayer details how the Kochs, whose wealth comes largely from fossil fuels, played a leading role in opposing environmental regulations and climate policies. They financed organizations that cast doubt on climate science, lobbied against carbon taxes, and supported politicians who opposed environmental initiatives.
During Barack Obama's presidency, the Kochs and their allies intensified their political spending, supporting the Tea Party movement and funding attack campaigns against Democratic candidates. They aimed to derail initiatives such as the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and regulatory policies on industries like energy and finance.
Mayer argues that the Koch network was instrumental in pulling the Republican Party further to the right. By funding primary challengers against moderate conservatives, they pushed the GOP toward more extreme positions on taxation, deregulation, and government spending.
The work explains how the Kochs supported efforts to privatize public services, including education, by promoting charter schools and opposing teachers' unions. They also backed right-to-work laws that weakened labour unions, thereby reducing workers’ political influence.
One of Mayer's central revelations is how the Kochs operated largely in secrecy, using tax-exempt organizations and donor-advised funds to hide the sources of their political spending. This "dark money" strategy allowed them to exert influence without public scrutiny.
Jane Mayer’s Dark Money argues that the Koch brothers and their allies reshaped American politics by leveraging their immense wealth to fund a conservative movement that benefits the ultra-rich while eroding democratic accountability. Their influence, she contends, has not only changed policy outcomes but also undermined transparency and public trust in the political system.
Different forms of oligarchy exist, depending on who holds power: Plutocracy (rule by the rich e.g., Russian oligarchs, Wall Street billionaires); Military Oligarchy (rule by generals or warlords e.g., Myanmar, Egypt); Religious Oligarchy (rule by clerics or religious elites e.g., Iran’s Supreme Leader); Technocratic Oligarchy (rule by elite scientists and tech leaders e.g., Silicon Valley influence in AI policy).
The term oligarchy comes from the Greek word oligarkhia, meaning 'rule of the few.' Oligarchy has existed in various forms throughout history, shaping politics, economics, and societies. Greek city-states like Sparta and Athens were early examples of Ancient Oligarchies (500 BCE – 500 CE). Sparta was ruled by a small group of elite warriors, while Athens had an oligarchic period before democracy emerged. Rome started as a republic, but power was concentrated among elite senatorial families (Patricians). The Optimates (aristocratic conservatives) controlled the Senate, while the Populares tried to empower the lower classes.
Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita (often translated as The History of Rome) provides valuable insights into the structure, values, and challenges of the Roman Republic, particularly the role of the Senatorial oligarchy in shaping Roman governance.
Livy, writing during the reign of Augustus (1st century BCE), presents the early Roman Republic as a time of virtue, civic duty, and military discipline. His narrative often contrasts the Republic’s early years—marked by the struggle between the patricians (aristocracy) and plebeians (commoners)—with later periods of moral decline and political corruption. He glorifies figures such as Cincinnatus, who represented the ideal Roman leader: a selfless patrician who temporarily assumed power in times of crisis but voluntarily relinquished it.
Livy emphasizes the Senate as the stabilizing force of the Republic. The Senate, dominated by patrician elites, played a crucial role in governance by advising magistrates, controlling state finances, and overseeing foreign policy. Although theoretically an advisory body, its influence was immense. Livy portrays the Senate as a repository of wisdom and tradition, often acting as the protector of Rome’s interests. However, he also acknowledges moments when senatorial corruption and greed led to crises, such as during the late Republic’s social unrest and civil wars. A major theme in Livy’s work is the ongoing struggle between the patricians and plebeians for power. He documents key moments like the Secession of the Plebs, where the plebeians withdrew from Rome in protest of aristocratic dominance, the creation of the Tribunes of the Plebs, a magistracy designed to protect plebeian rights against senatorial overreach, and the passage of the Licinian-Sextian Laws (367 BCE), which allowed plebeians to become consuls, breaking the patrician monopoly on high office.
While Livy presents these developments as necessary, he often sympathizes with the patricians, suggesting that plebeian political ambitions sometimes threaten the Republic’s stability. Livy suggests that Rome’s decline was tied to moral corruption among the elites and the breakdown of traditional republican virtues. He contrasts earlier leaders, who prioritized duty over personal gain, with later figures like Julius Caesar, whose ambitions led to the Republic’s fall. The Senate, once the guardian of Roman values, became increasingly self-serving and unable to prevent civil war.
Since Livy was writing during the reign of Augustus—who had established the Principate after the Republic's collapse—his work serves as both a history and a lesson. He idealizes the Republic to highlight the dangers of political corruption and division, reinforcing Augustus’ claim that his rule was a necessary restoration of order.
Livy’s History of Rome portrays the Republic as a time of both great achievements and internal strife, with the Senate playing a dual role as both the Republic’s backbone and, at times, a source of its decline. His work serves as a moral and political reflection on how Rome’s oligarchic elite contributed to both the Republic’s success and its eventual downfall.
G. William Domhoff’s Who Rules America? (2022) provides a power structure perspective on oligarchy, particularly in the U.S. His framework revolves around who holds power and how elite groups dominate government and society. In Corporate Oligarchy (Plutocracy), who holds the power? Business elites, CEOs, and multinational corporations. for example in The United States: Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Fortune 500 companies. Domhoff argues that in the U.S., major corporations and financial institutions dominate government policy through lobbying, campaign financing, and elite networks. Policies favour tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, and corporate bailouts (e.g., the 2008 financial crisis). The interlocking directorates (CEOs serving on multiple corporate boards) strengthen this class's grip.
In Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else (2012), Chrystia Freeland explores how the increasing concentration of wealth among the global elite has led to what can be described as a corporate oligarchy or plutocracy—a system where the richest individuals and corporations wield disproportionate power over politics, policy, and society.
Freeland details how globalization and technological advancements have allowed a small group of individuals—especially in finance, technology, and multinational corporations—to amass unprecedented wealth. These billionaires and CEOs have more economic influence than many nation-states.
Freeland argues that extreme wealth enables the super-rich to shape laws and policies to their benefit, often at the expense of the middle and working classes. Plutocrats ensure their dominance by funding political campaigns, influencing regulatory decisions, and lobbying for tax policies that favour them.
Many of these elites justify their power by portraying themselves as self-made geniuses, attributing their wealth to talent and hard work rather than systemic advantages. Freeland critiques this narrative, showing how wealth consolidation often involves exploiting loopholes, regulatory capture, and monopolistic practices.
Plutocracy erodes democratic institutions as wealth translates into political control. Elected officials often serve corporate interests rather than the broader public due to their reliance on donations from billionaires and powerful lobbying groups.
Unlike the industrialists of the past who built factories and employed large workforces, modern plutocrats extract wealth through financial markets, digital platforms, and globalized supply chains, which often exacerbate inequality and disempower workers.
Freeland explores how the ultra-wealthy interact in exclusive networks, reinforcing their worldview while remaining disconnected from the struggles of the majority. This separation leads to policies and economic structures that benefit the elite while widening the inequality gap.
Freeland’s work paints a picture of a world where corporate oligarchy (plutocracy) is not just an economic reality but a systemic force that reshapes politics, culture, and governance. She warns that without reforms, this growing imbalance could lead to economic instability, social unrest, and the erosion of democracy itself.
In The Power Elite (1956), C. Wright Mills describes the concept of a Military-Industrial Oligarchy as part of his broader argument about the structure of power in the United States. His analysis highlights how power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite composed of corporate leaders, military officials, and political figures who work together to shape national policies, often to the detriment of democratic governance.
Mills argues that a close relationship exists between the military establishment and large corporations, particularly those in the defence industry. This results in a system where military needs and industrial profits become deeply intertwined. The defence sector benefits from constant military spending, war preparedness, and global conflicts, while the military gains access to advanced technology and vast resources.
High-ranking military officials often transition into political roles, influencing policies far beyond national defence. Civilian oversight of the military weakens as military officials gain direct influence over foreign policy, war decisions, and government expenditures.
Mills discusses how the Cold War reinforced the dominance of military-industrial alliances, making the United States a 'permanent war economy.' Defence contracts and war preparation drive economic policies, creating a system where war or the threat of war becomes a tool for economic and political control.
The rise of the military-industrial elite erodes true democratic participation, as decisions about war, defence budgets, and foreign policy are made by a small group rather than the broader public.
Public debate is often manipulated by propaganda that justifies military expansion and large defense budgets.
Mills' concept of the Military-Industrial Oligarchy foreshadows what later became known as the Military-Industrial Complex (a term popularized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961). His work critiques how the U.S. government, military, and corporate elites form a self-sustaining power structure that prioritizes war, defence spending, and elite interests over public welfare and democracy.
In The Spoils of War: Power, Profit, and the American War Machine (2021), Andrew Cockburn expands on the concept of a Military-Industrial Oligarchy by exposing how war and defence spending in the United States are driven primarily by profit motives rather than national security concerns. His work aligns with and updates the concerns originally raised by C. Wright Mills in The Power Elite (1956) but focuses more on the modern American war economy.
Cockburn argues that U.S. military interventions are often driven not by strategic necessity but by financial interests. Wars provide lucrative opportunities for defence contractors, weapons manufacturers, and private military firms that thrive on continuous military engagement.
Large corporations like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon exert immense influence over U.S. foreign policy, ensuring that military spending remains high. Pentagon contracts are often awarded based on political connections rather than effectiveness, leading to overpriced and underperforming weapons systems.
Defence industry lobbyists and former military officials maintain a revolving-door relationship with government positions, ensuring policies favour military expansion. This results in inflated defence budgets, unnecessary weapons programs, and prolonged military engagements overseas.
Cockburn highlights how threats—such as terrorism, China, and Russia—are often exaggerated to justify higher military spending. Intelligence agencies think tanks, and media outlets with ties to the defence industry play a role in fear-mongering to maintain public support for military buildup.
Much of the defence budget is spent on inefficient or obsolete programs that do little to enhance national security. Corruption, fraud, and waste are widespread, with little accountability due to the power of the military-industrial elite.
Cockburn’s The Spoils of War presents the Military-Industrial Oligarchy as a deeply entrenched system where profit motives drive U.S. military decisions more than genuine security needs. His work critiques how this elite network of military, corporate, and political figures ensures perpetual warfare to sustain their power and wealth, often at the expense of ordinary taxpayers and global stability.
In the following section, we will still discuss several forms of Oligarchy and we will compare Oligarchy in the United States, Russia and China, biidhnillah," Cangik concluded.
