"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."
