PLUTOCRACY: CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES AND CONSEQUENCES - CULTURE VOCABULARY - 2025

The plutocracy is a form of government or oligarchy in which a community is governed by a wealthy minority; in other words, it is a state that is controlled by a group of people belonging to the richest stratum of society.

Generally, the term plutocracy is used in a pejorative sense, since it is considered that this form of government violates democratic values ​​and the principles of equality, since this oligarchy is based on the exclusion of other social groups that, due to not having money They are not part of the political decisions of the State.

However, authors such as Rafael Atienza establish that any term with the Greek suffix - cracia ends up being exclusive, since said suffix refers to a particular form of government or power that marginalizes the rest of the population, such as theocracy, hierocracy - government of the priests - or bureaucracy.

In other words, according to this author, any term that has the suffix - cracia will always be exclusive because it necessarily implies that not everyone can command; power can only be given to a particular group of people.

Likewise, some experts consider that the different races have been losing their authorship in modern western societies, since at present they seek to defend democracy over any other form of government.

However, other authors such as Ariño Villaroya defend the possible configuration of a global plutocracy in the coming years, arguing that this social category is constantly growing since the globalization process that began in the eighties.

Etymology

In the plutocracy a wealthy minority has power. Source: pixabay.com

The term plutocracy (ploutokratía) comes from the union of two Greek words: it is composed of ploutos, which means “wealth”; and kratos, which means "power." For this reason, Rafael Atienza argues that all classes are exclusive, since it implies that kratos or power is characteristic of a specific group of people.

Contrary to other systems of government, such as capitalism, democracy or socialism, the plutocracy lacks a political theory to support it, which means that it has no philosophical arguments to support it as a governmental form.

Origins in classical antiquity

The first time that plutocracy appeared as a term was through the historian and military Xenophon, who used it to describe the political events that Athens was experiencing before the political reforms of Solon.

At that time the wealthy knights were the main owners of most of the territories and of the slaves, so they controlled the social and economic organization of the polis and kept the lower classes excluded from all political participation, ensuring only the benefit own.

The policies of these Greek knights caused great social and economic havoc within the polis, since those individuals who could not pay the tributes requested by the rulers automatically became slaves.

As a consequence, a set of reforms was carried out that introduced citizen suffrage for the first time.

Plutocracy in the Middle Ages

According to Rafael Sánchez Saus, an expert author in medieval history, during the Middle Ages it was not necessarily the oldest families that had access to power, as is generally believed. There was also a percentage of hierarchies that, through their wealth, consolidated their introduction into government rights.

In the same way, the author proposes that, underneath the arms and family shields, it is possible to perceive how wealth has been maintained as the only pattern that allows inventions, perpetuations or supplantation of political positions throughout the history.

This lasted until the beginning of the 19th century, when owning wealth was equivalent to having power, guaranteeing that any perpetuation had to be based on money, which has always been more important or fluctuating than lineage.

From the 19th century to the present

At the end of the 19th century, a change occurred in the perception of power, due to the fact that the link between the elements of money, prestige and rank were reached in different ways and it was no longer necessary to complement with any of the others.

For example, Queen Victoria decided to grant the last duchy to Hugh Wellington in 1874, who at that time was the richest man in England and had little connection with the nobility.

Despite the money, Wellington did not maintain any kind of participation in the public scene, nor did he obtain any kind of prestige.

This means that at that time power was found in the political leaders, while prestige was an emblem of the academic world, whether scientific or intellectual, regardless of economic capacity.

Today, many rulers continue to maintain large private fortunes, especially in the United States; However, the State can maintain itself without the political participation of the great magnates, since it has its own administration.

However, power is maintained through a close relationship with money, since it allows the acquisition of many goods. Despite this, political leaders are not chosen for their purchasing power, but for their speech and ideas.

In other words, for some centuries in the history of humanity money was power, while in our days power is money, since the rulers have the property of the State to carry out their political activities.

characteristics

The main characteristic of plutocracy consists in the fact that the control of a government is governed by economic forces or powers. This results in the enactment of laws that benefit only the wealthy.

Taking this into account, the following main characteristics can be extracted:

- Generally the rulers seek to favor their own needs, leaving aside the welfare of the population.

- In general, plutocrats can revoke the right to govern of a certain candidate who has been elected, without taking into account the voice of the people.

- Consequently, rulers must be accountable to plutocrats rather than ordinary citizens.

- As for the public powers, these are also governed by large and wealthy businessmen, since the institutions can only obey their instructions.

Examples of Latin American countries with plutocracy

The 24 friends: the oligarchy in Peru

During the aristocratic republic, which spanned from 1895 to 1919, there was an oligarchy in Peru (that is, a form of government in which power is controlled by a small group of people) that was dedicated to finance and mining, as well as well as agro-exports.

This group of Peruvian oligarchs made up the Civil Party at that time, which is why they are known as "the twenty-four friends."

This group was made up of bankers, businessmen, landowners, wealthy intellectuals, rentiers, and newspaper owners, who held power within their own circle for several years in Peruvian history.

Plutocracy today in Mexico

According to Manuel Bartlett, a Mexican economist and politician, Mexico is governed by a plutocracy, since in this country social activity is conditioned by the commandments of Washington DC and by the powers of the management and commercial society.

This is based on the idea that, within the Mexican market, these “business holding companies” demonstrate a monopoly position regarding the possession of some basic services and products, such as flour or cement.

Plutocracy can also be seen in some media: their shareholders account for up to 70% of Mexican radio, press and television.

Odebrecht scandal: plutocracy as a political model?

For some authors and researchers such as Hernán Gómez Bruera, the Odebrecht scandal responds to a kind of plutocracy within Latin America, since it was a cluster of corrupt transactions in which access to power was put up for sale as if it were of one more good.

The Odebrecht case is considered one of the most serious corruption scandals on an international scale, since several leaders from Latin America and some from Europe were involved in this event.

It is a kind of plutocracy in the most pejorative sense of the word, since large companies obtained favors and contracts through different Latin American politicians, who enriched themselves by selling public resources.

It is known that the infrastructure company Odebrecht financed several presidential campaigns, such as that of former president Juan Manuel Santos in Colombia, and Michel Temer in Brazil, who accepted up to three million dollars in order to buy the vice presidency.

Consequences

One of the main consequences of plutocracy is that it leads to the growth of social inequality, since there is no equitable redistribution of wealth because it is distributed through acts of corruption and favoritism.

This fact only favors the economic elite, leaving aside the majority of citizens.

Furthermore, plutocracy also prevents the healthy and transparent development of democracy, which results in a host of secret or hidden interests within the political margin.

Consequently, there may be tensions within the economic sphere, which addresses the needs of the people.

References

1. Atienza, R. (sf) Considerations on the term Plutocracia. Retrieved on March 1, 2019 from Rasbl Magazines: institutional.us.es
2. Bruera, H. (2017) Plutocracy as a model. Retrieved on March 1, 2019 from El Universal: eluniversal.com.mx
3. Reiner, R. (2013) Who governs? Democracy, plutocracy, science and prophecy in policing. Retrieved on March 1, 2019 from ResearchGate: reseachgate.net
4. Sanders, B. (2018) The Power of Plutocracy. Retrieved on March 1, 2019 from El Grano de Arena: archive.attac.org
5. Villarroya, A. (2015) Towards the configuration of a global plutocracy. Retrieved on March 1, 2019 from Fes Sociología: fes-sociología.com
6. Vizcaíno, G. (2007) Higher education in Latin America, Democracy or plutocracy? Retrieved on March 1, 2019 from CLACSO Virtual Library: Bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar