As Taylor Swift sings in " Castle Crumbling,” “Once, I had an empire in a golden age…”, power is fleeting and ever elusive, and if everyone had the means to run things, no one would really be in charge. But no matter how we break things down politically or try new systems of government to figure out the best way to operate, there’s always one singular issue that corrupts absolutely everything: people. Yet as history shows, humans have tried and tried to come up with a better and more effective means to run a government, and dating back into the ancient world, power and money have gone hand in hand, with the elite of countless civilizations establishing themselves as the ultimate control and authority at the top of the poop pile that is politics.
When we think of Ancient Greece and government, we may primarily associate it with the term democracy, or demokratia, meaning the government of the people, where representatives are elected to carry out the will and wants of its citizens (ideally) and can choose how the government functions. This was most prominent in Athens, a major city-state, but it was not the only system of government on the Greek Isles in the Mediterranean. Republics, developed from the Latin term res publica, or the people’s thing, refer to a government where the people hold power and, through a constitution, exercise it, as in the Roman Republic in the 6th- 1st centuries BCE.
But Greece also gave us another type of government that has become far more popular in the modern zeitgeist in the last century. Oligarchy, or the rule of the few over the many, developed among tribes in prehistory but rose to prominence in the ancient period, first in Corinth during the late 7th century BCE, then spreading throughout the Isles and appearing in Athens and Sparta alike at the end of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. Oligarchies typically entail a small group, usually the extremely wealthy and influential, such as military leaders, heads of religion, politicians, noblemen, and/or successful merchants, to acquire authority over the rest of the populace, who generally do not have much of a say over the plans, doings, and processes of these individuals or how they govern. The term oligarchia, coined by Greek philosopher Aristotle in the 4th century BCE, denoted the rise of nobility and governing elites who used their power to focus on their own wants and needs (feels familiar…).
Oligarchs tend to protect their own class and war with anyone who stands in their way, including enemies they made in business, battle, or politics, and ensure that the tiny percentage, the elite 1%, if you will, holds authority. A plutocracy, a variation of oligarchy, is when the wealthy dictate and run political power, as was often the case with most oligarchies. This tiny percentage of the population held not only most of the power (if not all of it), but also the means and access to most assets, military, and land, and could focus their actions and plans on their own desires (sounds VERY familiar).
Aristotle wrote in his treatise “Politics” that oligarchies were seen as somewhat better than a tyrannical state run by a single ruler, such as a king, pharaoh, or emperor. Still, this structure of government was not as good as democracies, which were the freest system. Democracy was best for all citizens, regardless of class, because it let them have a say in their government through elected officials. Oligarchies could have a constitution and include those of lesser social or wealth standing than others, but this was rare since power remained in the hands of the wealthy and influential who passed their office to their children (read: sons) rather than seek out external involvement from the populace (with the caveat that only citizens could take part in elections). Throughout Ancient history, oligarchies rose to prominence and became increasingly influential in the Mediterranean.
Ancient Corinth, Sparta, and Athens were all ruled by elite-led oligarchies. In 585 BCE, Corinth had a council of 80 men who oversaw the government. In contrast, Sparta had two kings from two families to oversee their city-state with the help and guidance of the Gerousia, or 28 elected elders who worked with the kings to pass laws, oversee state and religious affairs, and supervise the training of its warriors (I mean, what else are Spartans known for?). They would, in turn, submit proposals to the Assembly, made up of all Spartan citizens (who could be counted as such only if they could trace their lineage back to the original Spartans and had completed the rigorous military training expected of a Spartan warrior). Information collected by five ephors, or accusers, about the kings, Gerousia, and Assembly could force the kings and the elected officials to do their bidding in matters of business, diplomacy, law, military, and religion, simply by creating an inquiry into their “failures,” if they felt like it and, if the inquiry were successful, remove them.
Although Rome was a Republic for nearly five hundred years, it mixed systems, and by the end it was far more oligarchic than republican. In the original government structure, two distinct social classes of citizens could hold power in Rome: the commoners, or plebeians, and the patricians, or the noble upper class. Both held elections to choose representatives to serve in various offices, including financial officers (quaestors), praetors, military commanders and magistrates, and senators (even though it was originally designed so only patricians could take part). The system, of course, was designed to give more power to the nobility and the wealthy, who could take part in elections and hold land, while most of the population could not. Consuls, two individuals chosen by the Comitia Centuriata, or the popular assembly, served a year in the executive branch as heads of the army.
Rome's wealthy held most of the power and influence and could dictate wars and senatorial votes through violence, intimidation, bribery, or other unsavory means. These men held a tight grasp on military positions, the Senate, and other offices, stacking their authority in favor of noble families, who passed military and political seats to family members, siblings, children, and other allies. This not only established a more oligarchic government in the Roman Republic but ensured that power remained in the hands of a few.
That’s what makes ancient oligarchy feel so familiar today. A ballot gives each voter a voice, but wealth can buy a much louder one. It can pay for ads that shape which issues voters hear about, help a candidate stay in the race, or hire lobbyists who can keep pressing their case long after Election Day. A Roman senator might have needed a family name that opened doors. A modern donor can start with a checkbook.
References:
Aristotle. “Politics.” Translated by Benjamin Jowett. New York: Dover Thrift Publishing, 2009.
Alford, C. Fred. “The ‘Iron Law of Oligarchy’ in the Athenian Polis . . . and Today.” Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique vol. 18, no. 2 (1985): pgs. 295–312.
Raaflaub, Kurt A. “Democracy, Oligarchy, and the Concept of the ‘Free Citizen’ in Late Fifth-Century Athens.” Political Theory, vol. 11, no. 4 (1983): pgs. 517–44.
Syme, Ronald. “Human Rights and Social Status in Ancient Rome.” The Classical Outlook vol. 64, no. 2 (1986): pgs. 37–41.
