"Great, #IndonesiaGelap [#DarkIndonesia] is back! On February 17, 2025, the All-Indonesia Student Executive Board Alliance (BEM SI) held a demonstration called "Indonesia Gelap" in the Patung Kuda area, Central Jakarta. The following are seven of their demands: Repeal Presidential Instruction Number 1 of 2025, as it is perceived to harm the people; Demand transparency regarding the development and performance of the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) program; Reject attempts to revise the Mineral and Coal Law; Ensure timely and full disbursement of performance allowances for lecturers and educational staff without bureaucratic obstacles or deductions; Implement evidence-based policymaking, ensuring that new policies prioritize public well-being; Call for cabinet evaluation and police reform; Demand equitable access to higher education across Indonesia. The demands above represent a compilation of key concerns expressed by the protesters. Some lists also include demands to arrest and bring former president Joko Widodo to justice. Is our Tiger King about to morph into a cuddly orange cat Garfield? Maybe yes, maybe no!
And after drinking Hibiki Whisky, here comes Bahlul again, bloviating about the nationalism of #KaburAjaDulu, an Indonesian hashtag that has recently gone viral on social media, especially on the X platform and TikTok. The hashtag, which roughly translates to 'just escape first,' is used by young Indonesians to express their desire to move abroad for better opportunities.
The hashtag initially served as a space to share tips for finding jobs abroad, scholarship information, salary estimates, and insights into adapting to foreign cultures. Over time, it has evolved into a platform for young people to express their disappointment with conditions in Indonesia, including the rising cost of living, tax burdens, and employment struggle. The trend is also associated with the 'brain drain' phenomenon, where skilled Indonesian talents relocate to other countries for a better standard of living.
In response to the trend, some netizens have recommended countries like Germany, Japan, the United States, and Australia as ideal destinations. Others argue that the cost of necessities in Indonesia is relatively cheaper compared to other countries. 'Abah' said that contributing to Indonesia doesn't depend on one's location, but on how one benefits the country.
The hashtag is a challenge for the government to create more jobs and that it reflects a desire to increase competence and find better job opportunities abroad.
And then, there will be strong-arming those app drivers to cough up holiday bonuses? I guess the priority is just to squash those protests; whether they get paid is a problem for another day, or you can withdraw it later in Hong Kong, wink wink, nudge nudge." quips Cangik, like it's a philosophical debate and not just another lipsync in the Republic of Memes, Konoha.
"Now, let's continue our topic with the third type of Oligarchy, Religious Oligarchs (Clerics & Theocratic Rulers). Some religious leaders wield enormous political and economic influence, often controlling state policies. For example, in Vatican City, the Pope and cardinals influence global politics and finances. In Iran, the Supreme Leader and clerics dominate governance, controlling the economy through religious foundations (bonyads).
'Theocracy in America' by Ellis Sandoz was published in 2003 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers explores the concept of theocracy in the context of American political and religious history, examining the relationship between religion and governance in the United States. While he does not necessarily endorse the idea of a theocracy, he delves into the theoretical and historical perspectives on how religious authority could influence or align with political power.
When discussing Religious Oligarchs, Sandoz is referring to the idea of a small, powerful group of religious leaders or elites who hold significant influence over both religious and political spheres. This group could essentially exercise control over the religious and political decisions in society, possibly shaping laws and policies in a manner that reflects a specific interpretation of religious doctrine. In the context of his broader argument, Sandoz discusses the potential dangers of such a concentration of power, as it could lead to the suppression of individual freedoms and minority beliefs, counteracting the democratic principles on which America was founded.
Sandoz's examination of theocratic tendencies touches on the fears that certain religious groups might seek to impose their vision of governance, essentially forming an oligarchy where only a few hold decision-making power. This concept highlights the tension between the religious influence in governance and the ideals of democratic pluralism, where diverse beliefs and systems of government coexist.
Sandoz uses the term Religious Oligarchs to describe a scenario in which a small, elite group of religious leaders or authorities consolidate power and exert significant influence over both religious and political spheres.
Religious oligarchs represent a system where a select group of individuals, often clergy or religious elites, dominate governance. These figures hold dual authority, shaping laws and societal norms based on their religious interpretations.
Sandoz highlights that such concentration of power poses a risk to the democratic foundations of a pluralistic society. It undermines individual freedoms, religious diversity, and the separation of church and state, which are core to American governance.
While the U.S. has roots in religious principles, Sandoz warns against the rise of oligarchic control by religious elites. He points out that such control historically leads to authoritarian rule, where dissenting voices and minority beliefs are suppressed.
Sandoz contrasts theocratic rule by religious oligarchs with the principles of religious freedom enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. He argues that America's founders intentionally avoided a system where religious elites could dominate government, aiming instead for a balance between religion and politics.
Religious oligarchs, in Sandoz's view, often claim to represent moral and divine authority. This can lead to rigid governance that resists reform or differing perspectives, potentially fostering corruption and misuse of power under the guise of religious legitimacy.
Sandoz's critique is not a condemnation of religion's role in public life but rather a warning against the concentration of religious power in the hands of a few, which he sees as antithetical to the democratic ideals of equality, liberty, and justice.
Oligarchs are not limited to business magnates; they can be politicians, military leaders, religious figures, crime bosses, or media moguls. Their common trait is concentrated power and influence over government and society. Organized crime groups sometimes hold significant influence over governments, businesses, and law enforcement, this is the fourth type of Oligarchy, Criminal Oligarchs (Mafia and Cartels). 'Narcoland: The Mexican Drug Lords and Their Godfathers' by Anabel Hernández (Los Señores del Narco in Spanish, translated to English by Iain Bruce) , published in 2010 by Verso Books, dives deep into the nexus between organized crime and government corruption in Mexico.
Hernández uses the term Criminal Oligarchs to describe powerful individuals or groups who consolidate wealth and influence through criminal enterprises—particularly the drug trade—while embedding themselves in political and economic systems. These oligarchs are not limited to drug lords but often include politicians, businesspeople, and law enforcement officials complicit in the operations of cartels.
The work argues that drug cartels in Mexico could not reach their current level of power without the collusion of high-ranking officials and institutions. This symbiotic relationship gives rise to criminal oligarchs who benefit from and perpetuate systemic corruption. Hernández details how certain Mexican presidents, politicians, and law enforcement agencies have played key roles in enabling drug cartels to thrive. These criminal oligarchs exercise control beyond the drug trade, extending their influence into legitimate sectors of the economy. For instance, they launder money through real estate, banking, and other industries. Their activities destabilize democratic institutions and concentrate power in the hands of a few, perpetuating inequality and violence in Mexican society.
Hernández exposes how these figures enjoy impunity due to their connections with the state. Judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement are often compromised, allowing oligarchs to evade justice. She reveals specific examples, such as the Mexican government shielding certain cartels while targeting others to maintain a façade of law enforcement.
The work highlights how these criminal oligarchs have connections that transcend borders. They work with international criminal networks and benefit from the demand for drugs in countries like the United States. Their operations often have financial backing from foreign banks willing to turn a blind eye to money laundering. Hernández names individuals who exemplify this phenomenon, detailing their rise to power and their methods of maintaining control. She also describes how the Mexican government has systematically targeted whistleblowers and journalists who expose these truths. Notable examples include Joaquín 'El Chapo' Guzmán and his ties to influential figures within the government.
In Mexico, drug cartels influence local governments, police forces, and the judiciary, while in Russia, some oligarchs have ties to organized crime and use their wealth to shape politics.
The fifth type is Tech & Media Oligarchs (Digital & Information Control) Some oligarchs control digital infrastructure, media networks, and global communication channels. For example in the United States, billionaires like Elon Musk (X/Twitter), Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), and Jeff Bezos (Amazon/Washington Post) hold significant influence over public discourse. In China, tech giants like Tencent and Alibaba have close ties to the government.
'The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power' (2019, PublicAffairs) by Shoshana Zuboff explores how major tech companies, often referred to as "tech oligarchs," have gained unprecedented power through their control over digital information and personal data. Zuboff coined the term "surveillance capitalism" to describe the economic system where companies extract, analyze, and profit from data generated by users' online activities without their full understanding or consent.
The primary focus of surveillance capitalism is the commodification of personal data. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon harvest user data, often from multiple platforms, to create detailed profiles. These profiles are used for targeted advertising, influencing behavior, and in some cases, manipulating decision-making processes.
Zuboff argues that these companies don't just observe user behaviour but actively shape it. By leveraging algorithms, they can nudge users into particular actions, such as purchasing certain products or even influencing political opinions, thus creating 'behavioural futures markets.'
One of the central critiques of tech oligarchs mentioned in the work is their lack of transparency. The collection and use of data often happen without explicit consent from users. Even when users agree to terms and conditions, the scope and consequences of what they’re agreeing to remain unclear, making it difficult for individuals to exercise meaningful control over their data.
Zuboff highlights how surveillance capitalism shifts the balance of power, concentrating it in the hands of a few tech companies. This not only undermines individual autonomy but also enables companies to shape markets and societies at large. These corporations have unprecedented access to behavioural insights that allow them to influence political, social, and economic systems.
Zuboff also explores the challenge of regulating surveillance capitalism. Governments, according to her, often fail to effectively intervene, either due to the immense lobbying power of tech companies or a lack of understanding of the broader implications of data exploitation.
In summary, Zuboff' argues that digital and information control by tech oligarchs creates new forms of power that threaten democracy, autonomy, and privacy. Zuboff urges a need for new frameworks to address the ethical and societal challenges posed by surveillance capitalism.
Let's compare Oligarchy in Russia, China, and the United States. While all three countries—Russia, China, and the U.S.—have oligarchic elements, they operate differently based on historical, political, and economic contexts.
The United States is often considered a democracy, but elite control over politics, economics, and policymaking suggests elements of oligarchy. Wealthy individuals, corporate elites, and financial institutions significantly influence governance, often prioritizing their interests over the general public.
In their 2017 book, Benjamin I. Page and Martin Gilens argue that the United States has increasingly functioned as an oligarchy, where the political system disproportionately serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful, rather than the broader democratic majority.
According to Page and Gilens, Democracy is a political system where the majority of citizens have equal influence over government policies and decisions. Oligarchy is a system of governance where political power is concentrated among a small, wealthy elite who influence government policies in their favour.
How does the U.S. lean toward Oligarchy? According to Page and Gilens, economic elites and organized interest groups (such as corporations and lobbyists) have a disproportionate impact on public policy compared to ordinary citizens. Policies often align with the preferences of the wealthy, regardless of the majority opinion among the public. 'Ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over government policy, while economic elites and business-dominated interest groups wield substantial power.' Page and Gilens analyzed decades of policy decisions and found that when wealthy Americans support a policy, there is a 45% likelihood that it will be enacted. When average-income citizens support a policy, there is only a 30% likelihood that it will become law—even if a majority supports it.
Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, for example, despite public opposition, tax policies often reduce rates for corporations and high-income earners (e.g., the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act). Billions of dollars in subsidies and bailouts (e.g., during the 2008 financial crisis) benefit large corporations rather than small businesses or workers. Efforts to weaken programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are often driven by corporate and elite interests, despite their popularity among the public.
Page and Gilens identify several ways the wealthy and corporations dominate U.S. politics. Political candidates rely heavily on donations from wealthy individuals, corporations, and Political Action Committees (PACs). Politicians become more responsive to donors than to average voters. In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the top 1% of donors contributed over 75% of all campaign funding, giving them outsized influence over candidates and policies.
Corporations and wealthy interest groups spend billions lobbying Congress to shape policies in their favour. Policymaking is skewed toward corporate and elite interests, even when these conflict with public preferences. In 2018, over $3.5 billion was spent on lobbying in the U.S., mostly by corporations and trade associations. Sectors like pharmaceuticals, finance, and energy dominate lobbying, often opposing regulations that would benefit consumers or the environment. We will discuss about 'Lobbying' on the next session, bi'idhnillah.
Jane Mayer’s Dark Money (2016) provides a detailed investigation into how wealthy elites, particularly billionaire families like the Koch brothers, have shaped U.S. politics by leveraging their financial power to influence elections, policymaking, and public opinion. This work supports Page and Gilens' analysis by offering a deeper dive into the mechanisms through which the wealthy dominate the U.S. political system, steering it toward their own economic and ideological goals.
Mayer exposes the vast, often hidden networks of billionaire funding that undermine democratic processes. She describes how conservative billionaires fund think tanks, political campaigns, and advocacy groups to ensure that government policies favour their interests, often at the expense of ordinary citizens. A small group of ultra-wealthy individuals has manipulated U.S. politics to serve their financial and ideological interests, creating what Mayer calls a 'plutocracy' rather than a democracy.
Billionaires like the Koch brothers, Richard Mellon Scaife, and the DeVos family have poured billions into political campaigns, super PACs, and political advertising. By exploiting campaign finance loopholes (such as the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010), they have gained unprecedented influence over elections and policymaking. This aligns with Page and Gilens’ findings that economic elites and business interests disproportionately shape U.S. policy. Ordinary citizens’ preferences are often ignored because politicians are financially dependent on these donors.
Mayer reveals how billionaires created an elaborate, interconnected web of organizations—including think tanks (e.g., Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation), advocacy groups, and academic institutions—to spread their ideology and lobby for policies that benefit them. This network's influence ensures that policy outcomes align more with elite interests than the needs of the broader population, echoing the conclusions of Page and Gilens.
Mayer highlights how much of this funding is "dark money"—contributions that are untraceable due to loopholes in campaign finance laws. Billionaires deliberately fund public relations campaigns, advertisements, and "astroturf" movements (fake grassroots organizations) to sway public opinion while obscuring their involvement.
Mayer's work focuses extensively on Charles and David Koch, two of the wealthiest and most influential political donors in the U.S. They used their wealth to fund climate change denial campaigns; deregulation efforts to protect their oil and gas empire; politicians and judges who favour corporate interests.
The Koch brothers are an example of how economic elites use their resources to dominate policymaking, bypassing the preferences of ordinary citizens. Mayer argues that the growing influence of dark money has severely weakened U.S. democracy. Policies favour the wealthy minority while neglecting the majority; Citizens lose faith in the political system when they see it serving elite interests; Dark money fuels ideological extremism and political gridlock. These consequences mirror Page and Gilens’ findings about the U.S. functioning more as an oligarchy than a democracy.
Page and Gilens argue that wealthy individuals and corporations own a majority of major media outlets, shaping public opinion and limiting the scope of political debate. Media narratives often prioritize elite perspectives, marginalizing the voices of ordinary citizens.
Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988) and Benjamin I. Page and Martin Gilens' Democracy in America? What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do About It (2017) both explore the dynamics of power in democratic systems and their effects on public opinion and governance. While the former focuses on media control and propaganda, the latter centres on the erosion of democracy due to the influence of wealth and corporate power.
Chomsky and Herman argue that mass media in capitalist democracies does not serve as a neutral platform for free speech but functions as a propaganda system. They propose the 'Propaganda Model,' which explains how the media manufactures consent for elite interests through media outlets owned by large corporations with vested financial and political interests; Media dependence on advertising revenue skews content to favour corporate-friendly narratives; Reliance on government and corporate sources ensures that news reflects elite perspectives; Negative responses to dissenting voices discourage critical journalism; Anti-communism (and later, anti-terrorism or other dominant ideologies) acts as a control mechanism for framing public discourse.
Chomsky and Herman contend that this structure filters information and promotes narratives favourable to corporate and state elites while marginalizing dissenting viewpoints. The public's perception of issues is shaped not by open debate but by media narratives that reinforce the interests of those in power.
According to Page dan Gilens, growing inequality, erosion of public trust and political polarization are the consequences of oligarchic rule. In 2017, the top 1% of Americans controlled 38.6% of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 90% controlled less than 23%. Policies such as tax cuts for the rich and reduced corporate regulations exacerbate this divide. Citizens feel disillusioned with democracy when their voices are ignored. Only 20% of Americans trust the government to do what is right, a historic low. Elite domination fuels public resentment, contributing to political polarization and extremism.
The U.S. has had oligarchic elements since its founding, but they have evolved over time. In 19th-century Industrial Oligarchs ('Robber Barons'), figures like John D. Rockefeller (oil), Andrew Carnegie (steel), and J.P. Morgan (finance) created massive monopolies and had outsized control over the economy. They influenced government policies through lobbying, corporate donations, and control over industries.
Military-industrial oligarchy evolved in the 20th Century. Post-World War II, the U.S. developed a 'military-industrial complex', where defence contractors (e.g., Lockheed Martin, Boeing) shaped foreign and military policy. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against this in his 1961 farewell address.
In Modern U.S. Oligarchy, the Role of wealthy elites becomes dominant. Billionaire influence on elections, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision (2010) allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections, leading to billionaires financing political campaigns. Figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Charles Koch influence policies through campaign donations, think tanks and media control.
Financial institutions like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and BlackRock influence economic policies, often benefiting the wealthiest. The 2008 financial crisis highlighted how Wall Street elites were bailed out while average citizens suffered.
In Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System—and Themselves by Andrew Ross Sorkin (2009, Viking Press), the author details how Wall Street oligarchs played a pivotal role in shaping government responses during the 2008 financial crisis. Sorkin provides a gripping narrative of how influential figures in finance and government worked together in backdoor deals, urgent meetings, and frantic negotiations to prevent a complete economic collapse.
The work describes how individuals like Hank Paulson (then-Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO), Timothy Geithner (then-President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York), and Ben Bernanke (then-Federal Reserve Chair) collaborated closely with leaders of major financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup. Their shared backgrounds, revolving-door careers, and overlapping interests meant that Wall Street insiders had significant influence over government policies.
Sorkin highlights how decisions such as the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) were shaped under pressure from Wall Street executives, who argued that without government intervention, the financial system would implode. Critics argue this perpetuated the "too big to fail" mentality, as these bailouts protected large institutions while leaving taxpayers to bear the cost.
Wall Street's oligarchs leveraged the urgency of the crisis to push for immediate actions that would stabilize their firms, often framing their requests as necessary for the entire economy's survival. For example, during the Lehman Brothers collapse, decisions were made in haste, with Wall Street executives playing active roles in determining the outcomes.
The work portrays how the lack of substantial consequences for Wall Street leaders, despite their role in causing the crisis, reflected their sway over policymakers. While firms like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were allowed to fail or be absorbed, others were saved with taxpayer funds, further cementing Wall Street's dominance.
Sorkin's investigative account underscores the immense power wielded by Wall Street elites and their ability to influence government decisions to safeguard their own interests during one of the most critical economic crises in modern history.
In The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America by David Stockman (2013, PublicAffairs), the author delivers a scathing critique of how U.S. government policies have systematically favoured financial elites, leading to the corruption of free-market capitalism. Stockman, a former Congressman and budget director under President Ronald Reagan, argues that government interventions have distorted the economy, undermined capitalism, and entrenched cronyism.
Stockman is sharply critical of the 2008 financial crisis bailouts, particularly the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). He views them as blatant examples of crony capitalism, where the government used taxpayer money to rescue Wall Street institutions while neglecting Main Street. He argues that these actions rewarded reckless financial behaviour and protected the wealth of financial elites.
Stockman takes issue with the Federal Reserve's low-interest-rate policies and quantitative easing, which he believes artificially inflated asset prices and disproportionately benefited the wealthy. He contends that these measures have created bubbles in financial markets while doing little to stimulate the real economy or benefit the working class.
The Stockman work criticizes how major financial institutions were deemed "too big to fail" and thus received government protection, while smaller businesses and individuals were left to fend for themselves. Stockman argues that this approach undermines capitalism's natural corrective mechanism, where failing entities should be allowed to go bankrupt.
Stockman claims that government policies have been captured by financial elites, turning the state into a tool for corporate welfare. He traces this back decades, arguing that both Republican and Democratic administrations have prioritized the interests of Wall Street and large corporations over those of ordinary citizens.
The author criticizes interventions such as subsidies, bailouts, and deficit spending, which he believes distort market signals and misallocate resources. Stockman argues that these policies have created an economy dependent on debt and speculation rather than productive investment.
Stockman argues that government policies have created a moral hazard by encouraging risky behavior among financial elites. The implicit guarantee that the government will intervene to prevent systemic failures incentivizes reckless speculation.
Overall, Stockman presents The Great Deformation as an indictment of the financial and political system's failure to uphold the principles of free-market capitalism, instead allowing financial elites to manipulate policies for their benefit at the expense of long-term economic stability.
We shall continue the historical background of Oligarchy in the U.S. in the next session, bi'idhnillah."
