A study, to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the studyâs opening question, âWho governs? Who really rules?â in this country, is:
âDespite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, â¦â and then they go on to say, itâs not true, and that, âAmericaâs claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatenedâ by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead âthe nearly total failure of âmedian voterâ and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.â
While I'm sure most of us already knew this, it's interesting to see that a study concluded this information. Though, I haven't checked out the study directly, yet.
Trust Sal to enter the discussion on a musical note. Try searching Axis of Justice.
I knew he was making a reference to Axis Of Justice, my point was why would he bring this up in WEPR? Doesn't he know you can't do that here?!
Democracy: A state in which people are allowed to choose representatives and then tell those representatives to do with issues, and the system has checks to prevent power grabs.
Oilgarchy: A government in which the rich have undue control over the government, and contrary to what may be the wishes of the general populace.
This is what confuses me, the main principles of these systems are completely different but there are slight similarities. I really have no idea how people can flat our say the U.S is an Oligarchy, but there it is.
Does an oligarchy need to be one where it is controlled by the rich? I would say the defining feature of an oligarchy is the control of the government by a small group, which can be distinguished by wealth (more often than not), but not necessarily so. I wouldn't also assert that as a rule of thumb, when an oligarchy is the mode of government, they enact policies that go against what most people want. I agree though, that more often that one desires and hopes for though, it does.
I found an article that analyses the study in greater detail. As usual, take it with a pinch of salt.
One sign of an oligarchical system slowly but surely creeping in is the establishment of political dynasties I suppose. The Bush and Kennedy families have always been prominent. And this happens on both sides of the aisle, the Democrats are going to field many second generation candidates for the Senate races this year. (Alison Lundegan in Kentucky, Michell Nunn in Georgia, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Gwen Graham in Florida, etc), but the Republicans have done so in the past and will do so too (Liz Cheney's former run in Wyoming, Shelley Moore in West Virginia, etc).
In fact, there are many many political families, and over the centuries (yes, centuries), that tends to snowball and ingrain their influence. At least that's an issue bipartisanship can be agreed upon....Haha...
Does an oligarchy need to be one where it is controlled by the rich?
OP mentioned "economic elites", which I remembered when I wrote those definitions.
This is what confuses me, the main principles of these systems are completely different but there are slight similarities. I really have no idea how people can flat our say the U.S is an Oligarchy, but there it is.
I don't think any government is clear cut one thing.
Yeah I know what Ash wrote....just pointing out that may be a narrow definition. Has no impact on what is the reality though. Just quibbling pedantically.
A dictatorship more or less refers to a government led and controlled by a person of immense power and influence, who rules through means that are undemocratic. All, or close to all political life/activity revolves around one person. More often than not, dictators rule through a ruthless mix of extreme fear, a cult of personality, and the backing of loyal military/paramilitary forces. People like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, are the more famous dictators. The term came from the Roman practice of appointing a single person to be the Dictator in times of great need and emergency, granting him sweeping powers. A famous Roman Dictator was Fabius Maximus, during Hannibal's time. Roman dictators were expected to, and most did, return their powers after the danger had passed, hence it never did have a negative connotation with the Romans. Until the time of Sulla, and subsequently, Caesar.
An oligarchy can be thought of as a government led by a small group of elites, which can be designed through a variety of means, wealth, blood, military hierarchy, etc. Most historical oligarchies have turned out to be authoritarian/totalitarian, traits which they share with a dictatorship. Oligarchies however, do not centre upon a single person with immense prestige and power. Examples include possibly, modern day China (With its Politburo members and political families descending from those who survived the Communist takeover in 1949 controlling the government), the USSR (after Stalin, where power was more decentralized amongst the ruling magnates) and perhaps modern day Russia, where Russian businessmen who made themselves after the collapse of the USSR hold vast political and economical power.
I would say that typical oligarchies and dictatorships often have traits that overlap each other, such as a disregard for civil liberties, suppression of political oppositions, tight control over the economy, etc. But an oligarchy does not have a cult of personality. It often outlasts dictatorships (which crumble, or evolve into other forms of authoritarianism after the charisma of a dictator fades with his death).
I'm just skimming very briefly by the two...hope others can point out more information, or my mistakes!
ok then, so to put it simple, a dictatorship centers on one person, while an oligarchy centers on a group of people correct?
according to your definition, all countries all oligarchic to some extent. In democracy, you center power in a group of people that was elected and chosen by the rest of the nation. since the group essentially control all other organization existing in the country ( even the media, that's why we have censorship), they would theoretically leave the rest of the country unable to share the power / control and manage it. unless you have 0 % corruption in your country, which is a pretty impossible goal, you would always have some oligarchic-democratic government
That wouldn't make sense though, because by all accounts almost no contemporary or historical would qualify. D:
Does that matter, though? America is generally labeled as a democratic country and many Americans would say the same thing. Those that pay attention know it's probably more on the oligarchy side, though.
I really have no idea how people can flat our say the U.S is an Oligarchy, but there it is.
I think the issue is that sometimes what the right do happens to be what the general populace wants, as well. But, I agree there should be more terms. We are guised under democracy but act more as an oliarchy.
Does that matter, though? America is generally labeled as a democratic country and many Americans would say the same thing. Those that pay attention know it's probably more on the oligarchy side, though.
Now that I think more and more about it, I don't think it matters. :L If they were talking about a direct democracy or a representative democracy, it would still be edging away. :L
