"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"
.jpg)
