Path to Power: 2024 - Democracy Disrupted?
Oligarchy is a system in which a small group of people control political power. These individuals consolidate their power within a narrow, interconnected ruling class, using the political power to craft a system that furthers their interests. While traditionally associated with the control of the state by wealthy individuals, oligarchic power may also derive from political nepotism or military influence, with these powers intertwining to support each other. Growing economic inequality has exacerbated the influence of economic elites. Their financial clout enables them to fund campaigns, control media narratives, shape public opinion and even directly run for office.
In more competitive democratic systems, oligarchic power is often split between antagonistic factions, often referred as polyarchy. In this format, distinct groups of elites compete with each other to obtain political power. However, neither group has an incentive to change the overarching system, so as economic inequality accelerates, policies that directly counter these interests become more difficult to enact.
In the country, the control of elite political dynasties over the national political scene continues. While, in multiple ways, the military directs the political space, the influence of parties headed by certain families cannot be ignored. This includes the Sharif family, one of the richest in the country, that controls the Pakistan Muslim LeagueN party, and the Bhutto family, that is firmly in charge of the Pakistan Peoples Party. In both cases, the parties have been headed by three generations of their respective families.
While economic inequality is pronounced, the influence of billionaires is less directly visible than in wealthier nations. However, the role of business elites, particularly in industries like mining and energy, has grown, and their support for political parties can influence electoral outcomes. For instance, FRELIMO, the ruling party, has been accused of aligning with business interests to maintain control over resource-rich region, and government officials have been embroiled in scandals related to private finance initiatives.
Oligarchic politics in the UK is characterized by disproportionate influence wielded by wealthy individuals, corporate interests, and foreign donors. Eton has educated 20 of Britain’s 58 prime ministers, including David Cameron and Boris Johnson (Kuper, 2022). Since 2010, the UK has been continuously lead by an Oxford University Graduate. This highlights the dominance of these institutions in shaping political leadership and sustaining elite networks in British politics Russian donors contributed significantly to the previous Conservative government, raising concerns about external influence on British politics. Evgeny Lebedev’s controversial elevation to the House of Lords sparked criticism, with allegations his appointment reflects the influence of wealth and personal connections over talent and merit. Meanwhile, Labour’s 2024 election victory saw extensive support from lobbyists, prompting debates over the role of vested interests in shaping party agendas and influencing the selection of parliamentary candidates over local constituency groups (Shone, 2024).
The 2024 presidential election underscores the growing influence of billionaires, whose financial clout shapes both campaign dynamics and public opinion. Figures like Elon Musk and Charles Koch have already made substantial contributions to right-wing causes. The vast sums of money spent on campaign ads and the influence of media moguls like Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News) on the Republican narrative demonstrate how billionaires can control media coverage and public discourse. The Harris campaign also received significant SuperPAC endorsement, and according to data provided by the FEC, wealthy donors giving at least $5 million to support a presidential candidate spent more than twice as much as they did in 2020 (Vandewalker, 2024). This concentration of financial power reinforces an oligarchic drift in American democracy, where economic elites have a disproportionate bipartisan influence in shaping policies.
According to Oxfam, the top 10% of the Indian population owns 77% of the total national wealth. In 2017, 73% of the wealth created was amassed by the richest 1%, whereas the poorest half of India’s population—670 million people— experienced only a 1% increase in their wealth. Growing economic inequality has exacerbated the influence of billionaires in Indian politics. This intertwining of market and state power muddies the functioning of the state as well as conduct of the elections. The financial clout of certain individuals, and business conglomerates, enables them to fund campaigns, control media narratives, and shape public opinion, contributing to an oligarchic drift in the country’s democratic system. More specifically, during the 2024 elections, the opposition focused on the issue of relationship between the ruling party and Adani enterprises, a multinational conglomerate based in India with close ties to Prime Minister Modi. Various news reports and opposition parties suggest that the government has provided favorable treatment to Adani’s business interests (Findlay and Lockett, 2020). These allegations included securing lucrative contracts for Adani, in addition to awarding significant government projects to the group, easing regulatory restrictions, and facilitating access to financial resources and land. This is complemented by the continued presence of dynastic politics within the country, as many political parties, including the Indian National Congress, are controlled by second or third generation members of the same families.
Georgian Dream was founded as a vehicle for the political interests of billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, whose personal wealth constitutes one fifth of the Georgian economy. It has been the party of power since winning the parliamentary election of 2012, with Ivanishvili’s money used to buy media outlets and votes directly at elections. He has leveraged his influence over the party to install loyalists across the institutions of state, subverting the norms of the separation of powers in establishing patronal networks of power. More recently, this strategy has seen the oligarch gain increasing influence over the internal security services, with his former personal security officer now heading the Ministry of Internal Affairs and having formerly been the Chief of Intelligence Services.This has retrenched Ivanishvili’s power over Georgia’s economic and political systems, and served to slow the country’s economic development by blocking access to the European market and the reforms required for accession. In this sense, Ivanishvili has created a system which serves to perpetuate his personal power and influence to the detriment to the interests of the Georgian people, which remain on the issues of unemployment and poverty reduction.
Growing economic inequality has also contributed to the influence of wealthy elites, where billionaires hold significant sway over political decisions. Figures like Patrice Motsepe, one of South Africa’s wealthiest men, have close ties with the ANC, and political advertisements and media influence from wealthy business magnates shape the narrative around key issues such as land reform and economic redistribution. Furthermore, political elites exploit their proximity to power to consolidate control over state resources and policymaking. During Jacob Zuma’s presidency, the Gupta family manipulated their ties to the executive, influencing ministerial appointments, securing lucrative state contracts, and facilitating the diversion of public funds into private hands, epitomizing the phenomenon of state capture (Arun, 2019). Ramaphosa’s farming scandal, involving the concealment of foreign currency allegedly stolen from his Phala Phala farm, underscores how economic elites use political office to shield questionable activities and maintain privilege.
An inheritance of colonial rule is the prevalent inequality in the country. While mainly generally a poor country, Mexico has extremely wealthy individuals. As such, ensuring the same weight on political matters is a challenge. An attempt to curb this is the creation of electoral legislation that makes it difficult for rich individuals to exert a disproportionate economic influence on political campaigns. The electoral authority audits private contributions to political parties, and campaign expenditures are capped by law. However, instances of individuals exceeding their allowed contributions or candidates overspending beyond legal limits, though rare, often result in legal consequences. Additionally, such individuals frequently wield disproportionate influence over mainstream media channels. A notable example is Ricardo Salinas Pliego, owner of one of the country’s most significant TV networks. After being accused of owing millions of dollars in taxes, Salinas Pliego launched an open campaign against López Obrador. Another example of the influence exerted by oligarchic elites on the political process is the case of the powerful businessman Claudio X. González. Although he did not acknowledge it, González was widely known as a political operator for the opposition against López Obrador. López Obrador accused him of orchestrating the selection of Xóchitl Gálvez as the opposition candidate. González also led an NGO that organized massive demonstrations against López Obrador and his policies.
National politics has long been characterized by an entrenched oligarchic structure. Joko Widodo (Jokowi) stood out as a political candidate because he did not arise from the military or a prominent political dynasty, in contrast to figures like Prabowo Subianto, a Suharto-era general and former son-in-law of the authoritarian leader (though now divorced). Rather than being driven by the influence of billionaires, this oligarchic nature is more accurately attributed to entrenched political and military networks, with Prabowo’s rise reflecting a reversion to the traditional political order. While significant attention has been given to Jokowi’s efforts to establish his own political dynasty, this development is better understood as his adaptation to a deeply entrenched and openly corrupt political culture that predates his leadership, including weakening Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) through legislative changes, such as the 2019 law that curtailed its independence by placing it under government oversight, and through the dismissal of key investigators under questionable pretexts (Hamid, 2021).