"In the gloriously mismanaged nation known as the Republic of a Thousand Promises, the supreme leader was none other than Mr. Promise-a-Plenty," Limbuk began a story. "His talent was truly remarkable: every time he spoke, the populace felt as though they were hearing a beautiful symphony, even though the content was often nothing more than an endless string of unfulfilled pledges.
One fateful day, Mr. Promise-a-Plenty announced a grand project called 'Golden Skies 2045,' which, he assured everyone, would catapult the Republic of a Thousand Promises into the status of a global superpower. The scheme involved building bridges made of clouds, underwater railways, and factories that produced pure happiness. The only minor snag? The national coffers were already bare, having been drained to purchase excessively plush executive chairs for government offices.
The citizens, quite understandably, began to get a bit tetchy. On social media, memes mocking "Golden Skies" exploded faster than a dodgy firework display. One particularly popular meme featured a goat attempting to fly, captioned: 'If the cloud bridges fail, at least the goats can learn to take wing.' This marked the so-called era of the 'Birth of Creative Opposition.' A kind of Renaissance after the Dark Ages in the Middle Ages period of European history.
A street artist known as Bung Caricature (roughly translated: 'Dude Cartoons') began painting satirical murals on the city walls. One of his masterpieces depicted Mr. Promise-a-Plenty climbing a ladder toward the clouds while the citizens below scrabbled in the dirt, desperately seeking scraps of food. The caption beneath the mural read, 'He's up in the clouds, dreaming; we're down here, starving.'
The mural went viral faster than a politician caught in a compromising position. Even the local kids started singing parody songs about Mr. Promise-a-Plenty's promises while playing hopscotch.
When the 'Golden Skies' project finally commenced, the government held a lavish opening ceremony. However, when the ribbon was cut, all that was revealed was a cluster of cloud-shaped balloons, emblazoned with the words: 'Coming Soon!' The people, thoroughly fed up with empty promises, erupted in uproarious laughter.
Peaceful protests sprang up everywhere. Farmers brought their produce to the gates of the presidential palace, chanting: "We need rice, not dreams!" Meanwhile, students developed a mobile game called "Promise Simulator," in which players had to dodge empty promises to win.
Finally, Mr. Promise-a-Plenty's term of office ended, his people became more creative in criticizing the government.. In his farewell address, he declared, 'I may have failed to build Golden Skies, but at least I managed to give you all a good laugh.'
The crowd roared with applause. The Republic of a Thousand Promises finally learned that humour is the most potent weapon against injustice—and that a good leader isn't one who makes promises, but one who actually keeps them.
Sometimes, laughter is more powerful than anger when facing political absurdity. And perhaps, just perhaps, politicians should consider delivering on their promises for a change. Wouldn't that be a novel concept?
Cangik then went on, "The involvement of oligarchs in supporting a president from nomination to governance has both advantages and disadvantages.
On one side, Oligarchs provide essential funding for political campaigns, allowing candidates to run effective advertisements, organize rallies, and reach more voters. Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer (2016, Doubleday) investigates how wealthy elites, particularly a network of conservative billionaires led by Charles and David Koch, influence elections in the United States.
Wealthy individuals and corporations fund political campaigns, often through Super PACs and dark money groups that do not disclose their donors. This allows them to push their preferred candidates without public scrutiny.
Billionaires invest in think tanks and academic institutions to promote policies aligned with their interests, influencing public opinion and legislative priorities. They fund conservative media outlets and propaganda campaigns to shape narratives and sway voters.
If oligarchs support a candidate, they may invest in economic projects, leading to job creation and industrial growth. According to Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson in Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (2012, Crown Publishing), elites shape economic policies primarily through the establishment and maintenance of extractive institutions, which concentrate power and wealth in their hands while suppressing broad-based economic growth. The authors argue that elites often resist inclusive institutions—such as secure property rights, free markets, and political participation—because such reforms threaten their privileged positions. By monopolizing political institutions, elites can enact laws and policies that serve their interests, ensuring that economic benefits flow to them rather than the broader population.
Elites may oppose new technologies, industries, or economic structures that could undermine their economic dominance. For example, in 19th-century Russia, the Tsarist regime resisted industrialization to maintain control over the peasantry. Policies such as high taxation, monopolies, and forced labor (seen in colonial Latin America and the Soviet Union) allow elites to extract wealth from the majority while stifling economic progress. Even when faced with economic crises or revolutions, elites often adapt by modifying institutions in ways that preserve their power, as seen in post-colonial Africa, where new ruling classes maintained extractive institutions.
Many oligarchs have business acumen and connections that can help a government run more efficiently, ensuring policy implementation aligns with economic realities.
In The Road to Serfdom (1944, Routledge), Friedrich Hayek critiques central economic planning but acknowledges that limited forms of planning by elites can sometimes contribute to efficient governance. Hayek argues that while comprehensive central planning leads to totalitarianism, certain types of rule-based governance—such as setting up a legal framework for competition, protecting property rights, and maintaining stable monetary policy—can enhance economic efficiency.
He differentiates between 'planning for competition' and 'planning against competition.' The former involves governments establishing general rules that allow markets to function efficiently, while the latter involves direct control over production and distribution, which he strongly opposes. He concedes that elites (such as economists, policymakers, and legal experts) may play a role in designing frameworks that prevent market failures, ensure social stability, and provide public goods like infrastructure and national defense.
Oligarchs often have international ties that can be leveraged for diplomatic and economic benefits. David Rothkopf's Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making (2008, Farrar, Straus and Giroux) explores how elite networks shape global politics by analyzing a small, interconnected group of around 6,000 influential individuals who hold disproportionate power over international affairs. These elites include corporate leaders, politicians, financiers, media moguls, and intellectuals who operate across borders.
The superclass is linked through exclusive organizations (e.g., the World Economic Forum, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission) and informal networks that enable them to consolidate power and set global agendas.
These elites hold key positions in multinational corporations, governments, financial institutions (e.g., IMF, World Bank), and NGOs, allowing them to shape economic and political decisions worldwide.
They influence global policies through lobbying, think tanks, and advisory roles, often prioritizing corporate interests and economic liberalization.
The superclass uses media and academic institutions to shape public discourse, promoting globalization, free-market capitalism, and deregulation as dominant ideologies.
During economic or political crises, these elites coordinate responses through transnational cooperation, sometimes reinforcing existing power structures rather than addressing root issues.
Rothkopf argues that while these elites drive globalization and economic growth, their dominance can also lead to widening inequality, lack of accountability, and democratic deficits, as decisions affecting billions are made by a small, unelected group.
On the other side, Oligarchs expect returns on their investments, leading to policies that favor the wealthy over the general public. 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) argues that the wealthy and powerful manipulate regulations to their advantage, creating a system of 'regressive rent-seeking.' This leads to slower economic growth, rising inequality, and a lack of opportunities for innovation and competition. They focus on areas like finance, intellectual property, occupational licensing, and land-use regulations, showing how these policies benefit the elite while harming broader economic progress.
Excessive influence by oligarchs can undermine democratic institutions, turning governments into tools for elite interests. In Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America (2017, Viking), Nancy MacLean argues that excessive influence by oligarchs can undermine democratic institutions by transforming governments into tools for elite interests. She explores how economist James M. Buchanan’s work laid the intellectual foundation for a radical libertarian movement that seeks to restrict democratic governance in favor of policies that benefit wealthy elites.
According to MacLean, oligarchs achieve this by implementing constitutional and legal barriers (e.g., supermajority requirements and limiting voting rights), which make it harder for the majority to enact policies that regulate wealth and corporate power. Through privatization and budget cuts, they weaken public services such as education and healthcare, shifting power to private entities.
Wealthy elites fund libertarian think tanks and academic programs to spread anti-government ideology and influence public perception. Secretive funding networks allow oligarchs to influence elections and policymaking without transparency. By placing like-minded judges in courts, they ensure that laws favoring elite interests are upheld while progressive reforms are obstructed.
MacLean argues that these tactics have steadily shifted political power away from democratic participation and toward a small, wealthy elite, undermining the fundamental principles of representative government.
When oligarchs drive policies, income disparity widens, leading to public discontent and potential protests. In Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014, Harvard University Press), Thomas Piketty argues that excessive wealth concentration undermines social stability in several ways. When the rate of return on capital (r) exceeds the growth rate of the economy (g), wealth accumulates faster for those who already own assets, exacerbating inequality. This can lead to a society where inherited wealth matters more than effort and talent.
Extreme wealth concentration shifts economic power to a small elite, diminishing opportunities for social mobility and undermining the principles of meritocracy. The wealthy can influence policies in their favor, such as tax reductions and deregulation, leading to a self-reinforcing cycle where economic power translates into political dominance.
When wealth and income disparities widen, resentment grows among the lower and middle classes, fostering social unrest and reducing trust in institutions. Economic inequality can translate into unequal political influence, as the wealthy fund campaigns, shape media narratives, and lobby for policies that protect their interests rather than the broader population.
Piketty suggests progressive taxation and wealth redistribution as key solutions to counteract these destabilizing effects and maintain a fairer and more cohesive society.
A government too dependent on oligarchs may be forced to prioritize their interests over national concerns. C. Wright Mills’ in The Power Elite (1956, Oxford University Press) argues that a small group of elites—comprising leaders from the political, military, and corporate sectors—dominates decision-making in the United States. He describes how these elites hold concentrated power, make crucial political and economic decisions, and operate in ways that serve their own interests rather than those of the general public. Mills highlights that these elites are interconnected, often moving between roles in government, big business, and the military, reinforcing their dominance while limiting democratic influence from ordinary citizens.
Mills identifies three main institutions that form the core of elite power in the U.S.: Corporate Elite (leaders of large corporations and financial institutions who control economic resources); Political Elite (high-ranking government officials, including the President, cabinet members, and key policymakers); and Military Elite (top military leaders, especially those who influence national security policies). These groups, according to Mills, operate in a triangular structure, where their interests often align, and they collaborate to maintain their dominance.
The power elite make decisions that shape the economy, foreign policy, and laws with minimal input from the general public. Policies are often created behind closed doors, with decisions favoring corporate and military interests. Public opinion is manipulated through mass media, which is often controlled by corporate interests. Individuals within the power elite move between leadership positions in government, corporations, and the military. For example, former military officials become defense contractors, and corporate executives take government advisory roles.
This ensures continuity in elite control, preventing outsiders from gaining influence.
Mills argues that ordinary citizens and institutions like Congress have become increasingly powerless in influencing major decisions. Voters are given the illusion of participation through elections, but real decision-making happens among the elite. Political parties serve elite interests rather than genuinely representing the people.
The media, controlled by corporations, plays a crucial role in shaping public perception. Instead of challenging elite power, the media often reinforces the status quo by diverting attention from critical issues.
Mills highlights how military expansion and defense contracts benefit both corporate and military elites. The Cold War era (when he wrote his work) saw military spending justified by elite interests rather than genuine security needs. The concentration of power leads to policies that favor economic inequality. There is a growing disconnect between ordinary citizens and those who govern them. Public political engagement weakens as people feel powerless to influence decisions.
Oligarch-backed presidencies may benefit from financial stability and administrative efficiency but often at the cost of democratic integrity and social equality. The extent of their influence depends on legal structures, transparency, and public accountability.
Throughout history, oligarchies have maintained their dominance by concentrating wealth, influencing political systems, and controlling key industries. While no society can entirely eliminate the influence of powerful elites, various reforms can weaken oligarchic control and restore democratic accountability. These reforms must address economic inequality, political influence, media monopolisation, and transnational financial practices that allow oligarchs to evade responsibility.
One of the most crucial areas for reform is economic policy, as extreme wealth concentration is the foundation of oligarchic power. To prevent a small elite from accumulating disproportionate influence, many scholars and policymakers have advocated for progressive taxation, particularly on wealth and inheritance. By imposing higher taxes on billionaires and large estates, governments can redistribute economic power, ensuring that wealth does not remain concentrated in a handful of families for generations. Similarly, stronger antitrust laws are necessary to break up monopolies that dominate industries and stifle competition. Large corporations, particularly in the technology, finance, and energy sectors, exert immense political influence because their economic power allows them to shape policy in their favor. Enforcing regulations that limit monopolies can create a more level playing field and prevent corporate oligarchs from dictating government decisions.
Beyond taxation and antitrust measures, labor rights reforms are also essential. Oligarchs often suppress labor movements to maintain low wages and maximize their control over the workforce. Strengthening labor unions, enforcing fair wage policies, and ensuring workers have a voice in economic decision-making can counterbalance corporate power. Countries such as Sweden and Denmark, which have strong labor protections and collective bargaining agreements, demonstrate how labor rights can prevent the rise of unchecked corporate oligarchs while ensuring economic prosperity.
While economic reforms target the root of oligarchic wealth, political reforms are necessary to reduce the ability of elites to manipulate governance. One of the most significant threats to democracy is the outsized influence of money in politics, particularly in electoral campaigns. Strict campaign finance laws, such as banning or capping corporate donations, can limit the ability of wealthy individuals and businesses to “buy” politicians. In many democratic systems, public funding of elections has proven to be an effective alternative, ensuring that political candidates rely on voter support rather than elite patronage.
In addition to campaign finance reform, lobbying regulations and transparency laws must be strengthened to reduce the behind-the-scenes influence of business magnates on legislation. In many countries, policies are crafted in secret meetings between politicians and corporate lobbyists, resulting in laws that favor the rich while neglecting the needs of ordinary citizens. By requiring full transparency in political donations and lobbying activities, governments can restore public trust and weaken the backdoor influence of oligarchs. Furthermore, limiting the number of terms politicians can serve helps prevent the entrenchment of political dynasties that often act as extensions of economic elites.
Another key area of reform is media regulation. In many nations, media ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy individuals or corporations, allowing them to shape public opinion and suppress narratives that challenge their power. Breaking up media monopolies and ensuring diversity in news ownership can prevent oligarchs from using mass communication as a tool for political and economic manipulation. Public funding for independent journalism, similar to the BBC model in the UK, can further protect the media from becoming an instrument of elite interests. Additionally, with the rise of digital misinformation campaigns, stronger regulations on social media platforms are necessary to prevent oligarch-backed propaganda from misleading voters and distorting democracy.
On a global scale, oligarchs exploit transnational financial systems to maintain their dominance, often by hiding wealth in offshore tax havens or influencing international trade policies. A coordinated global effort to close tax loopholes and enforce financial transparency is crucial in preventing billionaires from evading taxation and accountability. Recent international agreements, such as the OECD’s global corporate tax reform, represent steps in the right direction, but enforcement remains a challenge. Similarly, regulating the power of multinational corporations, particularly in the digital and financial sectors, can prevent them from exerting unchecked influence across multiple nations.
Despite the effectiveness of these proposed reforms, oligarchs will not give up their power without resistance. They often use their resources to lobby against policy changes, fund political candidates who protect their interests, and control media narratives that discourage reform efforts. Therefore, sustaining these reforms requires continuous public activism, legal enforcement, and institutional independence. A strong civil society, independent judiciary, and engaged citizenry are essential to ensuring that reforms are not reversed over time.
While eliminating oligarchy entirely may be unrealistic, history has shown that societies can limit elite dominance through economic regulation, political transparency, media independence, and international cooperation. The challenge lies not only in designing effective reforms but also in ensuring their implementation against the inevitable resistance of powerful elites. By addressing these systemic issues, democracies can reassert the principle that governments should serve the many, not the privileged few.
History tells us that various movements have successfully challenged oligarchic rule, proving that concentrated power is not an unshakable force. These successes often stem from a combination of popular resistance, institutional reforms, and shifts in economic power dynamics. While each case is unique in its circumstances, they share common themes of grassroots activism, legal battles, and government intervention to break the grip of entrenched elites.
One of the most well-known examples of successful resistance to oligarchy is the Progressive Era in the United States (late 19th to early 20th century). During this time, industrial magnates like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan wielded enormous influence over both the economy and politics. These business elites controlled vast industries, manipulated government policies in their favor, and exploited workers with little regard for their well-being. However, public outcry against economic inequality and political corruption led to a series of progressive reforms aimed at reducing the power of monopolies and political machines. Key figures such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson spearheaded efforts to regulate industries, break up monopolies through antitrust laws, and introduce democratic reforms like the direct election of senators and campaign finance regulations. These measures significantly weakened the influence of economic oligarchs and reasserted democratic governance in the U.S.
A similar example can be found in post-World War II Japan, where sweeping reforms dismantled an entrenched oligarchic structure. Prior to the war, Japan was dominated by zaibatsu, powerful family-owned conglomerates that controlled large portions of the economy and maintained close ties with the government. After Japan’s defeat, American-led occupation forces dismantled these corporate dynasties through strict anti-monopoly policies, forcing the breakup of the zaibatsu into smaller, independent firms. This effort helped create a more competitive and equitable economic system, reducing the power of business oligarchs and fostering a period of rapid economic growth under a more inclusive model. While Japan later saw the rise of new corporate conglomerates (keiretsu), the post-war restructuring demonstrated that oligarchic power can be challenged through legal and economic interventions.
Another significant instance of resistance to oligarchy took place in South Korea during the 1980s. For decades, the country had been ruled by military-backed regimes that maintained close alliances with chaebols—massive, family-controlled industrial conglomerates such as Samsung, Hyundai, and LG. The government’s economic policies largely favored these corporations while suppressing labor rights and limiting democratic participation. However, the South Korean people, particularly students and workers, led mass protests and strikes demanding democratization. In 1987, this pressure culminated in the introduction of free and fair elections, which marked the beginning of a democratic transition. Although chaebols still hold significant economic power today, South Korea’s resistance movement demonstrated that popular mobilization could dismantle an oligarchic political system and force the government to become more accountable to its citizens.
Latin America also provides examples of societies pushing back against oligarchic control. In the early 2000s, Bolivia experienced a major uprising against economic elites and foreign corporations. For years, Bolivia’s natural resources, particularly its gas and water supplies, were controlled by foreign companies and a small domestic elite, leading to widespread poverty and inequality. When the government attempted to privatize water, a mass movement known as the "Water War" of 2000 erupted, leading to violent protests that ultimately forced the government to cancel privatization plans. A few years later, similar movements led to the election of Evo Morales, Bolivia’s first Indigenous president, who nationalized key industries and redirected wealth toward social programs for the country’s poorest communities. While Bolivia has faced political turbulence since then, this period remains a powerful example of grassroots resistance successfully challenging entrenched economic oligarchs.
Another compelling case is the Indian independence movement against British colonial rule, which was not just a struggle for national sovereignty but also a fight against an economic and political oligarchy. The British Raj functioned as an oligarchic system, where British elites and a small class of Indian collaborators controlled trade, land, and political decisions while exploiting the majority of the population. Through nonviolent resistance, civil disobedience, and economic self-sufficiency movements led by Mahatma Gandhi and others, India gradually undermined British control. The famous Salt March of 1930 was a direct challenge to the British monopoly on salt production, symbolizing the power of mass mobilization against an elite ruling class. India’s independence in 1947 was not just a political victory but also a triumph over an entrenched economic oligarchy that had dominated the country for centuries.
While these examples demonstrate that resistance to oligarchy is possible, they also reveal a crucial lesson: reform is rarely permanent unless institutions are continuously strengthened to prevent oligarchic resurgence. Many of the nations that successfully challenged oligarchic rule later saw the return of elite dominance in new forms, whether through corporate consolidation, political dynasties, or military influence. This reality highlights the importance of ongoing civic engagement, legal frameworks that prevent elite capture, and international cooperation to regulate economic and political power.
Ultimately, successful resistance to oligarchy requires a combination of public mobilization, legal action, and economic restructuring. Whether through the trust-busting efforts of the Progressive Era, the democratic uprisings in South Korea, or the economic nationalism of Bolivia, history shows that concentrated power can be challenged when societies are committed to equity, accountability, and democratic governance," Cangik concluded."
