Suchergebnisse

A modern conception of oligarchy, which can be housed under an authoritarian regime as easily as it can under a liberal democratic one, can affect our understanding of the potential national political repercussions of extreme inequalities of wealth. This article has two goals: (1) to conceptually analyse the meaning of oligarchy; and (2) to make a descriptive case for its use in the Thai context. The test case of contemporary Thailand shows what exactly an oligarch or oligarchy means under a military regime and the potential effects for national politics of an oligarchy based on material wealth. Utilizing Jeffrey A. Winters' Aristotelian-grounded conception of oligarchy for the contemporary world, this article argues that some political outcomes in Thailand are inexplicable without recourse to a modern variant of oligarchic theory and analysis. (JCSA/GIGA)

More than 100 years ago, Robert Michels laid out his theory of the 'iron law of oligarchy'. The main, and crucial, point Michels made is that oligarchy will always emerge; even in the case of genuine attempts to organise and run organisations in non-oligarchic or non-hierarchical ways, the iron law allegedly holds sway. This paper critically examines, and refutes, Michels' theory on theoretical and methodological grounds. It argues that his theory is in many ways insufficient and that his dictum of the unavoidability of oligarchisation is not as compelling and cogent as stereotypical references to it might imply. Moreover, the paper shows that alternative/democratic organisations actually have a whole range of means to avoid oligarchisation.

"To an American, oligarchy is something that happens somewhere else. In Oligarchy in America, Luke Winslow reveals oligarchy's deep intellectual roots and alarming growth in America. The book provides conceptual tools the lack of which have prevented Americans from recognizing oligarchy at home. Winslow argues that generic labels like "billionaires" for a class of ultra-rich masks the pervasive structures that entrench their power. He introduces instead the concept of democratic oligarchy-an institutional arrangement in which the ultra-rich form a class consciously creating and leveraging state power to accumulate wealth. Like a master class in political ideas, Winslow traces the intellectual lineage of oligarchy in the US. His lively and compulsively readable survey examines key rhetorical sources such as Herbert Spencer, Andrew Carnegie, Friedrich Hayek, Lewis Powell, Milton Friedman, Charles Koch, Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, and others. Oligarchy in America maps the connective web of oligarchic ideas uniting these disparate figures. By offering a lucid framework through which to view oligarchic ideas ambient in American culture, Winslow makes a vital contribution to readers and scholars of communication and rhetorical studies, public address, economics, and political science."

Abstract
In democracies around the world, the rich exercise a disproportionate share of political power. Democratic theorists universally condemn this. The current paper brings balance to this conversation by mustering a defense of limited oligarchy. I have two goals. First, I shall argue that we need not be overly despondent about the wealthy's outsized influence, for overrepresentation of the wealthy performs some good for us—good which might not be entirely obvious at first glance. Second, I hope to temper reform efforts that seek to limit the wealthy's influence. While the people should have a greater say than they currently do, the wealthy's influence should still be greater than what their numbers suggest. I ultimately embrace oligarchic bicameralism, an old idea that proposes ordinary persons be represented in the lower chamber of the legislature, and property be represented in the upper. This is accomplished through a combination of sortition and elections.

Desde 1895 hasta 1919, tan sólo con alguna interrupción, la oligarquía, a través del Partido Civil, controló directamente el Estado. En realidad, era la única clase que se hallaba política e ideológicamente organizada, gracias a determinadas circunstancias como el reducido número de sus integrantes, su concentración en Lima y una compleja red de vinculaciones entre sus principales sectores. En cambio, los sectores populares estaban desorganizados y excluidos del proceso político. Esta situación estaba condicionada por la desintegración económica y cultural del país. Recordemos que, aún en 1940, el 60% de la población mayor de 6 años era analfabeta, el 34% no hablaba español y el 66% vivía en la Sierra.

Desde 1895 hasta 1919, tan sólo con alguna interrupción, la oligarquía, a través del Partido Civil, controló directamente el Estado. En realidad, era la única clase que se hallaba política e ideológicamente organizada, gracias a determinadas circunstancias como el reducido número de sus integrantes, su concentración en Lima y una compleja red de vinculaciones entre sus principales sectores. En cambio, los sectores populares estaban desorganizados y excluidos del proceso político. Esta situación estaba condicionada por la desintegración económica y cultural del país. Recordemos que, aún en 1940, el 60% de la población mayor de 6 años era analfabeta, el 34% no hablaba español y el 66% vivía en la Sierra.

This article presents a systematic review of the literature of oligarchy in Indonesia, which offers a distinctive interpretation of political change in Indonesia. The article argues that this literature is significant in two important ways. First, it invites ongoing rethinking of the ways in which authoritarian regimes fall. In the mainstream literature of democratisation, the fall of authoritarian regimes is often portrayed as the triumph of pro-democratic civil society mobilisation. Whereas many Indonesianists embrace this mainstream account in explaining the fall of the Suharto regime, the oligarchy literature suggests that its fall was driven not so much by the rise of civil society forces as by tensions between Suharto and oligarchs, in which the former was abandoned by the latter. Second, the oligarchy literature also compels a reappraisal of the nature of Indonesia's new democracy. Unlike the mainstream account of democratisation, which holds an optimistic view that the country is in the 'consolidation' stage towards a liberal democracy, the oligarchy literature sees political transition in Indonesia as a journey to an illiberal type of democracy: namely, oligarchical democracy. Adapted from the source document.

Since the inception of the United States, certain democratic principles have been inherent to the nation's political identity. Theoretically, this means that all citizens should receive equal representation and opportunity. However, income inequality has grown in recent years and shows no signs of slowing. Some argue that the wealthy are given unequal power over the government and society as a whole, creating an oligarchy. The viewpoints in this volume examine the development of the country from political, social, and economic perspectives to determine whether the country can still be considered a democracy.

This article presents a systematic review of the literature of oligarchy in Indonesia, which offers a distinctive interpretation of political change in Indonesia. The article argues that this literature is significant in two important ways. First, it invites ongoing rethinking of the ways in which authoritarian regimes fall. In the mainstream literature of democratisation, the fall of authoritarian regimes is often portrayed as the triumph of pro-democratic civil society mobilisation. Whereas many Indonesianists embrace this mainstream account in explaining the fall of the Suharto regime, the oligarchy literature suggests that its fall was driven not so much by the rise of civil society forces as by tensions between Suharto and oligarchs, in which the former was abandoned by the latter. Second, the oligarchy literature also compels a reappraisal of the nature of Indonesia's new democracy. Unlike the mainstream account of democratisation, which holds an optimistic view that the country is in the 'consolidation' stage towards a liberal democracy, the oligarchy literature sees political transition in Indonesia as a journey to an illiberal type of democracy: namely, oligarchical democracy.

"Economic power is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few, even as democratic movements worldwide allow for political power to be dispersed among the many. With their access to influence, the wealthy can shape and constrain the political power of the rest of the world. As the economic dominance of an elite minority coincides with the forces of globalization, is oligarchy becoming the dominant political regime? This collection explores the renewed relevance of oligarchy to contemporary global politics. By drawing out lessons from classic texts, contributors illustrate how the character of oligarchical regimes informs contemporary political life. Topics include the relationship between the American government and corporations, the tension between republican and oligarchical regimes, and the potential conflicts that have opened up between economic management and political life. On Oligarchy deftly illuminates the significance of this regime in the context of pressing global economic and political issues."--The publisher

"Economic power is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few, even as democratic movements worldwide allow for political power to be dispersed among the many. With their access to influence, the wealthy can shape and constrain the political power of the rest of the world. As the economic dominance of an elite minority coincides with the forces of globalization, is oligarchy becoming the dominant political regime? This collection explores the renewed relevance of oligarchy to contemporary global politics. By drawing out lessons from classic texts, contributors illustrate how the character of oligarchical regimes informs contemporary political life. Topics include the relationship between the American government and corporations, the tension between republican and oligarchical regimes, and the potential conflicts that have opened up between economic management and political life. On Oligarchy deftly illuminates the significance of this regime in the context of pressing global economic and political issues."--The publisher

During the decade 1960-1970 the student movement increased in intensity and influence. A vanguard organization of the movement was Students for a Democratic Society. From an obscure beginning, this splinter group from the League for Industrial Democracy advanced to lead the student movement during some of the most active years. By the end of the decade however, SDS had crumbled and had itself split into s~veral splinter organizations. Through an historical analysis one can see the oligarchical trend which SDS took during the latter part of the decade, a trend which resulted in the nearly total demise of the organization. One possible reason for this demise resulted from the student movement leadership role which SDS held, and the effects of this position on the internal functioning of the organization. This paper is an attempt to evaluate the organization, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) , in accordance with the principles involved in (1) the secondary relationships which Alexis de Tocquevi11e saw as necessary for a democracy, and (2) Robert Michels' "iron law of oligarchy." ; http://web.ku.edu/~starjrnl