Do any of you ever watch the school board meetings of the Lausd or any other terribly run school district. It is an oligarchy- a small group of corrupt bureaucrats elected by a small group of the population. They are corrupt, waste money, and do not know what is going on. If this is what you want to trust your country to-a group of corrupt pathetic idiots with major special and personal interests, but on a maximized scale, you probably already are a sycophantic oligarch. It is simply monarchic aristocracy, and it is simply wrong in se.

No modern government admits to being an oligarchy (rule by a small faction of persons or families); yet oligarchy is indisputably the most common form of government today. Most Third World countries, including most of Latin America, are fundamentally oligarchial: power and property are vested in a tiny group of people, ranging from <1-5% of the population. The forms of democratic rule have spread across the world in the past 20 years, but just as most new universities offer diplomas-but do not educate-most of the new democracies offer elections that have little influence over decision making. Power remains vested in foreign governments, corporations and the local oligrachies. Oligarchy is not as bad as it sounds, as oligarchies have a vested interest in peace and economic growth. By contrast, desperate and poorly educated voters in developing countries may by manipulated by demagogues into war and/or confiscating and taxing the wealth of the rich for their own short-term benefit, rather than capital investment (e.g. Venezuela). More oligarchial regimes (e.g. Mexico) tends towards public disinvestment, the formation of private monopolies, and the merciless exploitation of labor and the environment. Pure democracy is even worse, as it encourages suicidal levels of borrowing and taxation to win elections-and encourages local businessmen to send their money and families to Miami. The best system for developing countries is probably a combination of democracy and oligarchy, though developing countries tend to oscillate between the two extremes-the worst of both worlds.

a great idea is balanced out with an element of democracy, media(newspapers) and another party with the power to vito(like british house of lords) only. a system perhaps with the greatest theoretical potential, where the power is not put in the hands of one man, and not spread so thine that oil companies control a large part of it (usa). but with safty margines to ensure social stability.

This is actually worse than a dictatorship, because at least with dictatorship you have stability and direction. And an oligarchy is also susceptible to group think.

I'll have to go with kierchehof on that one. it is so honest! and why else would americans be supporting such a society if it was not so great? well yes they call it democracy but what do they know.

My favourite form of government. It didn't stray from its definition in practice, like democracy does. It gives you what it promises. It gets such a high rating for being honest.

i give oligarchy five stars not because it's an amazing wonderful system (which it isn't) but because, hitherto at least, there hasn't been a single system that's not an oligarchy at its core.

Ironic that y'all rated oligarchy so low. It's working out pretty damn well in the USA, and no average American idiot is any the wiser. Not a bad system, but personally I prefer Monarchy or Soviet-style socialism.

Hmmm.......The idea of a few people making all these decisions for me is baffling. I prefer a democracy more where the people have some say, not just a small faction of the government.

Convetionally this is a bad system, but purely because no one has found a way of making it work. Its main drawbacks are that humans will be humans and humans in power will seek out their own advancement and often not that of the people. If suitable legislative mechanisms were put in place to control oligarchs then this system would work, but without a very carefully planned system it is doomed to become a dictatorship.

What kind of oligarchy? A good one? A bad one?

There is a simple way to view this,to look at examples of Oligarchy from the past. Alexander the great was the leader in an Oligarchy,and he started on the path to world conquest. Julius Ceaser was the leader of an Oligarchy,and he sought world conquest. Hitler and Mussolini both had Oligarchies during WWII and they sought world conquest. George W. Bush has an Oligarchy of sorts and he's been starting quite alot of war lately. So I come to the simple formula Oligarchy=Unjust Warfare

They had a modern version of an oligarchy in post-communist Russia; that didn't work out very well. When you concentrate wealth in the hands of a few people, it creates massive inequality. This fuels social unrest which then creates a host of other problems. The Russian situation began after that the fall of the Soviet system. State owned industries were sold off to a select group of insiders with good connections to former President Boris Yeltsin. Although Russia is by name a democracy, these people have way too much power. The reason why democracy hasn't really grown in that country is because power changed hands from the communists to the oligarchs. Liberalization has occured, but it only benefits the powerful. The people need to be given a chance. Wealth needs to be more equally distributed to encourage the rise of a middle class of consumers.The bottom line is that this system concentrates too much power in the hands of a few and that is never a good thing.

Too many polititians! I believe in a strong united small government who know what thay are doing. less polititians = less tax.

Depends on the Oligarch. There are several examples of Oligarchy in Aristotle's Politics. There was a disastrous Oligarchy of the Thirty in Athens after Pericles during the Peloponnesian War (411 BC.)

Actually, oligarchy was used for a brief time in both ancient Greece and Rome and to a lesser extent in Phoenicia (which actually shaped an extremely effective constitution). Especially today, it would be inept and ineffective. However, when you think about it, both major candidates had influential political connections. Gore's father was a senator and obviously GW's father was president just a decade ago. Wealth and personal connections shouldn't have an impact in America, but because of the corporations we see today, that isn't the case at all.

Um, I don't THINK so. Government rule by a few people...that is the wake-up call for all hell to break loose. I really don't think I'd trust George Bush Jr., Dick Cheney, and John Ashcroft to try to run a country all by themselves. Neither would I trust Clinton, Gore, and Daschle. Leaving the decisions up to a few people is giving chaos the green light. A country needs strong government to hold it together, and preferably one that is not about to tip over from scale imbalance. I don't want Al Shrpton and Jesse Jackson, and I don't want Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. The government must make everyone feel safe. If they do not succeed in this, they have failed. Take care, everyone!

I've never liked the though of leaving the political power to just a few people, especially if it's not achieved, but a part of their family heritage! Do historical examples of oligarchy rules exist? If so, could anyone be kind to tell me about it? The fact is that I do know almost nothing about oligarchy, but would love to learn more about it! For me it seems like oligarchy is a mixture of monarchy & dictature, am I right?