Perhaps less hypocrisy and greater understanding of similarities and differences could create more peace and better governance in the world?
The concept of oligarchy is most often associated with Russia, where a small group controls large parts of the economy, politics, and media. However, critical perspectives on Western democracies show that governance there can also be viewed as oligarchic. In parallel, Oagal often uses the term organization-representative system of governance—organizational rule—when referring to Western so-called representative systems. In reality, it is political organizations that are represented through individuals, not the people through genuine personal choice.
New Zealand is one exception, where personal choice exists both through party lists and direct elections in constituencies.
Read more: Democratic deficits within political organizations propagate further
David Altman is a leading proponent of describing Western democracies as oligarchies. Altman is a professor of political science at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and was a guest researcher at Sampol at the University of Bergen in January 2024. In 2011, he published the book Direct Democracy Worldwide (book review on Oagal) with Cambridge University Press. In the book, drawing on philosopher Michael Walzer, he presents a perspective on Western representative democracies as oligarchies.
By applying the concept to systems of governance such as those found in Norway, Altman and Walzer raise questions about how power and influence are distributed even within systems that are meant to be democratic. When Western countries elevate themselves as noble democracies while other nations clearly observe that these countries in reality possess oligarchic structures with power concentrated among a small political elite, it becomes unnatural to look to these countries for inspiration.
With assistance from ChatGPT, Oagal has examined similarities and differences between an oligarchic system of governance in Russia and a more subtle form of oligarchic influence in Western democracies such as Norway:
Concentration of power: In both Western democracies and Russia, power is often concentrated among a relatively small group of individuals. In Russia, this is evident in the circle around the sitting president, including oligarchs who own large shares of the country’s resources and industry. Critics such as Altman point out that economic power in Western democracies may be concentrated among certain elites, such as business leaders, lobbyists, and powerful interest groups. These actors may exert disproportionate influence on politics and decision-making.
Economic influence: In both Western democracies and Russia, economic power plays a major role. In Russia, oligarchs control enormous fortunes and influence politics through their economic power. In the West, we see that large corporations and business interests may gain direct access to decision-makers through lobbying. While this is more regulated in countries such as Norway, economic interests can still exert significant pressure on political choices.
Decision-making processes may feel distant from the people: In both the West and Russia, decisions are made over the heads of the people. In Russia, democratic institutions are clearly weakened, and political processes are often controlled and inaccessible to ordinary citizens. In many Western countries, the distribution of power is experienced in practice as skewed, even though the system claims to be democratic. Real power structures are far more complex and less transparent than official democratic institutions suggest.
Read also: Western democracies are immature for unions such as the EU
The role of political institutions: In both Western regimes and Russia, power is concentrated around elites. In Western democracies, there is an impression that political institutions and systems are designed to ensure representation and participation by the people. The rejection in Norway of both constitutional proposals for more direct democracy and recommendations from the Electoral Law Committee on fairer representation in the national assembly exemplifies the Western political elite’s actual attitudes. That said, while power in the West is concentrated in an oligarchy of leadership within political organizations, power in Russia has become increasingly centralized around the president, with institutions weakened through direct control from the Kremlin.
Degree of democracy and rule of law: The greatest difference between Western democracies and Russia lies in how political institutions function. Norway, for example, is a strong rule-of-law society with free elections, an independent judiciary, and to a large extent a free press, even though it is heavily funded by and dependent on the state. Russia’s elections are, at best, managed, with authoritarian traits where the regime controls the media, the judiciary is subject to political pressure, and opposition is often suppressed. This creates a significant difference in the degree of popular participation and legal protection between Russia and Western democracies.
Legal regulation and transparency: In Western democracies, extensive legal frameworks exist to regulate the relationship between politics and economic power, with requirements for transparency and access to information. For example, public information is available on party funding, lobbying activities, and political party financing. In Russia, by contrast, transparency is limited. Many economic elites operate within a system of personal patronage and loyalty to the regime. There is little insight into how political power actually functions.
Civil society and opposition: In Western democracies, civil society plays a major role in monitoring power. With relatively free media, strong labor unions, and open public debate, there are multiple ways to hold elites accountable. Nevertheless, it is clear that oversight and control in practice are exercised through institutions that are either directly governed or indirectly shaped by the appointment of political party affiliates to leading positions. This is part of what Michael Porter and Katherine Gehl describe in their book on the political industry. That it is widely known that Western systems are not fully free and democratic in every respect—without this leading to meaningful change—underscores their oligarchic traits. In Russia, civil society is far more directly and openly suppressed. Opposition politicians and critical journalists risk imprisonment, exile, or worse. Public debate is largely controlled by the state.
De fleste av artiklene på Oagal er utarbeidet av redaksjonen. Innholdet fra redaksjonen er det fortløpende redaksjonelle arbeidet i Oagal. Redaksjonen driver undersøkende journalistikk, utvikler ideer til saker og utarbeider artikler ved hjelp av ulike tilgjengelige kilder og verktøy. Meningsbærende innhold og også reportasjer bærer skribentens navn.
0 Comments