Author’s Note
Watching the inauguration of Donald Trump for his second term, I was struck by something beyond the usual pomp and circumstance. The visible presence of top billionaires – Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and so many others – was not merely ceremonial. They were not just there; they were there to be seen and to gloat. Never since the independence of America has the State been so visibly captured by money and power for power’s sake. The foot soldiers, the masses of ultra-white gangs and groups, though outside the halls of power, served as the background voices, amplifying the spectacle. I feared for America and for the world these men were going to make or unmake.
Those scenes, and the news that has been coming out from them, formed the background for this essay. It is my attempt to understand the world we live in today, where power and wealth are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, and where the lines between democracy and oligarchy are becoming ever more blurred. This essay seeks to explore the historical, political, and intellectual roots of this phenomenon, drawing on examples from Nigeria, Russia, the United States, Eastern Europe, DR Congo, Rwanda and Germany. By examining the interplay of power, wealth, and oligarchy, we can better understand the forces shaping our world and the challenges we face in preserving democracy and equality.
Disclaimer
This essay is not an academic work but rather a private rumination am sharing with the general public. It is my attempt to respond to the growing unease since Trump’s second coming and the seismic effects it is already having across the globe. While I have drawn on authoritative sources and historical contexts to inform this essay, it is ultimately an interpretative and exploratory piece. Where this essay falls short, the fault is solely mine. My goal is to provoke thought and encourage dialogue about the pressing issues of power, wealth, and oligarchy in our time.
The 21st century has witnessed the reemergence of strongmen in politics and the consolidation of power by individuals with deep pockets, reshaping the global political and economic landscape. This phenomenon is not new; history is replete with examples of oligarchs and autocrats who have wielded immense power and wealth to influence the course of nations. However, the modern iteration of this dynamic is uniquely shaped by the forces of globalization, technological advancement, and the erosion of democratic institutions. This essay explores the interplay of power, wealth, and oligarchy in the 21st century, with a particular focus on Nigeria, while drawing on the histories of Russia, the United States, Eastern Europe, DRC, and Germany. By examining the historical roots of oligarchy and the rise of authoritarian leaders, we can better understand the trajectory of our current political landscape and the potential dangers it poses.
In the midst of great wealth and the rubble of crumbling democracies, a silent war is being waged – not with tanks or treaties, but with bank accounts, algorithms, and backroom deals. The 21st century has resurrected an ancient specter: the oligarch, a figure as old as the Medicis and Rothschilds, yet reinvented for a world where wealth transcends borders and power is coded in data. From Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where loyal billionaires commandeer state assets as personal fiefdoms, to Nigeria’s oil-soaked kleptocracy, where politicians and tycoons like Bola Tinubu, Aliko Dangote, Femi Otedola and the Dantata’s blur the lines between public office and private gain, a pattern emerges. Oligarchs – armed with fortunes that rival the GDPs of many nations – are no longer mere players in the political arena; they are its architects, rewriting the rules of governance to serve their interests.
This essay traces the bloodlines of this global phenomenon, where power and wealth fuse into a singular force. Consider Elon Musk, whose SpaceX ventures colonize orbits once governed by nations, or Jeff Bezos, whose Amazon empire dictates labor laws and tax policies while selling surveillance tools to governments. These are not anomalies but symptoms of a system where capital has become a political weapon, and democracy, as Jane Jacobs warned, risks becoming a “monstrous hybrid” of commerce and coercion. The stakes are existential: in Hungary, Viktor Orbán dismantles judicial independence under the guise of nationalism; in the Democratic Republic of Congo, warlords and multinationals pillage cobalt mines while children dig barehanded. Meanwhile, the ghosts of history whisper warnings – the Gilded Age’s robber barons, the Weimar Republic’s collapse, the Soviet Union’s implosion under the weight of its own corruption.
By unraveling the threads of power, wealth, and oligarchy – from the boardrooms of Silicon Valley to the oilfields of the Niger Delta – we confront an urgent question: Can democracies survive when the few command the wealth of the many? The answer lies not in despair but in understanding how these forces operate, adapt, and, crucially, how they might be dismantled. Through the lens of history, political theory, and the lived realities of nations held hostage by oligarchic rule, this essay charts a path toward reclaiming the promise of equity – before the grip of the few becomes the fate of us all.
The term “oligarchy” originates from the Greek words “oligos” (few) and “arkhein” (to rule), referring to a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. Historically, oligarchies have emerged in various forms, from the merchant elites of Renaissance Italy to the industrial barons of the 19th century. The Rothschild family, often cited as the epitome of financial oligarchy, exemplifies how wealth can translate into political power. As Heinrich Heine famously remarked, “Money is the god of our time, and Rothschild is his prophet.” The Rothschilds’ influence extended across Europe, financing wars and shaping the policies of nations. Theodor Mommsen’s assertion that the history of the House of Rothschild is of greater importance for world history than the domestic history of the state of Saxony underscores the profound impact that financial oligarchs can have on global affairs (Ferguson, 1998).
The 19th and early 20th centuries saw the rise of industrial oligarchs, such as John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie in the United States, who amassed vast fortunes through the control of key industries like oil and steel. These “robber barons” used their wealth to influence politics, often at the expense of the working class. The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few led to widespread social unrest and the eventual rise of labor movements and progressive reforms. However, the underlying dynamics of oligarchy persisted, manifesting in different forms throughout the 20th century (Chernow, 1998).
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the end of the Cold War and the triumph of liberal democracy, or so it seemed. But for those of us who lived through the Soviet Union’s dying days and the birth of the Russian Federation, the reality was far darker and more chaotic. I remember the suffocating uncertainty of those years – food shortages, hyperinflation, and the eerie silence of state-controlled media giving way to a cacophony of competing narratives. The word oligarch entered daily vocabulary alongside criminality and murder. It was not just a political term but a visceral reality. I recall walking past bullet-riddled cars outside my apartment in Moscow, stepping over shattered glass from overnight shootouts between rival gangs. A neighbor, an elderly woman who had survived Stalin’s purges, once muttered to me in the stairwell: “Russia has gone to the dogs.” She was right. The 1990s were a freefall into lawlessness, where state assets were pillaged by a ruthless new elite, and contract killings became as routine as the evening news.
Vladimir Putin’s ascent to power in Russia cannot be understood without this context. To many, he appeared as a stabilizing force after the chaos of Boris Yeltsin’s rule – a promise of order in a nation drowning in disorder. But his rise was not a return to stability; it was a calculated rebranding of autocracy. Putin’s Russia became a state where power and wealth merged into a single entity. The oligarchs of the 1990s – men like Boris Berezovsky and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who had amassed fortunes by plundering Soviet-era industries – were either exiled, imprisoned, or forced into loyalty. In their place emerged a new caste of oligarchs, their fortunes tied not to free markets but to Kremlin patronage (Dawisha, 2014). I witnessed this transformation firsthand: the brazen gangsters of television movies were replaced by sleek businessmen in tailored suits, their violence now institutionalized, their crimes legitimized by the state.
Putin’s regime perfected a symbiosis between political power and economic control. The oligarchs who survived his purges learned to serve as extensions of the state, their wealth contingent on absolute loyalty (Gessen, 2012). Meanwhile, dissent was suffocated. I remember the slow erosion of civil liberties – the shuttering of independent media outlets, the sudden disappearances of journalists and activists, the state-sponsored propaganda that painted critics as traitors. By the mid-2000s, the illusion of democracy had fully dissolved. Elections became rituals, and the Kremlin’s grip on power tightened through a combination of nationalist rhetoric, manipulation of democratic institutions, and the systematic dismantling of opposition (Sakwa, 2008).
Russia’s trajectory under Putin is a stark lesson in how oligarchy and authoritarianism feed on chaos. The desperation of the 1990s – the hunger for stability, the fear of collapse – allowed a strongman to reframe repression as “order” and corruption as “patriotism.” But this order came at a cost: the suppression of free speech, the weaponization of the judiciary, and the transformation of politics into a zero-sum game where power is hoarded, not shared. The Russia I once knew, with all its flaws and fractures, has vanished. In its place is a regime built on the ashes of democracy, where oligarchs and autocrats thrive, and the rest of us are left to navigate the ruins.
Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States in 2016 marked a seismic shift in the nation’s political landscape. His campaign, fueled by the slogan “Make America Great Again,” resonated deeply with voters who felt alienated by globalization and disillusioned with the political establishment. Trump’s victory was not just a political upset but a cultural phenomenon, as he leveraged his celebrity status and business acumen to position himself as an outsider capable of disrupting the status quo.
Central to Trump’s appeal was his identity as a billionaire businessman. He presented himself as a self-made success story, though critics pointed to his inherited wealth and controversial business practices. His presidency blurred the lines between public office and private enterprise, with his businesses reportedly benefiting from his political position. This dynamic raised ethical questions about conflicts of interest and the influence of wealth on governance.
Trump’s administration was characterized by the appointment of wealthy individuals to key positions, many of whom had limited government experience but significant financial stakes in the policies they oversaw. This approach underscored a broader trend: the increasing entanglement of wealth and political power in American democracy. As investigative journalist Jane Mayer noted, “Trump’s presidency laid bare the extent to which money shapes political outcomes in the United States.”
Fast forward to 2025, Trump’s reelection campaign built on the foundations of his first term but with an even sharper focus on consolidating power. His second term agenda, often associated with the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” aimed to reshape the federal government by reducing regulatory oversight and promoting conservative cultural values. Critics argued that these policies will disproportionately benefit the wealthy elite, further exacerbating economic inequality.
The rise of Trump and his policies cannot be divorced from the broader context of the “oligarchic drift” in American politics. Scholars like Jeffrey Winters have highlighted how the United States has increasingly come to resemble an oligarchy, where a small group of wealthy individuals wields disproportionate influence over political and economic systems. Trump’s presidency, with its emphasis on deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy, epitomized this trend.
The human angle of this narrative lies in the stories of ordinary Americans who felt both empowered and betrayed by Trump’s leadership. While his populist rhetoric promised to uplift the “forgotten men and women,” many of his policies favored corporate interests and the affluent. This duality raises profound questions about the nature of democracy in an era dominated by economic inequality and the rise of the oligarchs.
As historian Timothy Snyder warned, “The erosion of democratic norms under Trump’s leadership serves as a cautionary tale about the fragility of democratic institutions in the face of concentrated wealth and power.” The interplay between Trump’s political rise and the broader phenomenon of oligarchic influence invites us to reflect on the future of democracy in the United States and beyond.
The political landscape of Eastern Europe has also been shaped by the rise of strongmen and oligarchs. In countries like Hungary and Poland, nationalist leaders have consolidated power by appealing to populist sentiments and undermining democratic institutions. These leaders often portray themselves as defenders of traditional values and national sovereignty, while simultaneously enriching themselves and their allies (Applebaum, 2020).
In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has pursued a policy of “illiberal democracy,” centralizing power and using state resources to reward loyalists. Orbán’s government has been accused of corruption and cronyism, with wealthy oligarchs benefiting from state contracts and favorable policies. Similarly, in Poland, the Law and Justice Party (PiS) has sought to undermine the independence of the judiciary and the media, while promoting a nationalist agenda that has polarized society (Krastev & Holmes, 2019).
The rise of these “ultras” in Eastern Europe reflects a broader trend of democratic backsliding in the region. The erosion of democratic norms and the concentration of power in the hands of a few have raised concerns about the future of democracy in Europe. The parallels with the interwar period, when authoritarian regimes emerged in response to economic and social upheaval, are striking (Hobsbawm, 1994).
Germany, often seen as a bastion of stability and democracy in Europe, has not been immune to the rise of populism and the influence of wealth in politics. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, founded in 2013, has capitalized on anti-immigrant sentiment and economic anxieties to become a significant force in German politics. While the AfD has not yet come to power, its rise has raised concerns about the resurgence of far-right politics in a country with a dark history of authoritarianism (Evans, 2003).
The Nazi era serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of allowing wealth and power to become concentrated in the hands of a few. The Nazi regime was supported by industrialists and financiers who saw Hitler as a means to protect their interests and restore Germany’s economic and military power. The result was a regime that unleashed unprecedented destruction and suffering (Kershaw, 2008).
The lessons of history are clear: the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few can lead to the erosion of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism. As John Maynard Keynes observed, “The German Empire has been built more truly on coal and iron than on blood and iron.” The economic foundations of power are often more significant than the military ones, and the control of key industries and resources can be a source of immense political influence (Keynes, 1919).
Nigeria, stands as a harrowing case study in the toxic interplay of power, wealth, and oligarchy in Africa – a system where a cabal of elites has hijacked the state, transforming public office into a private ATM. Since gaining independence from Britain in 1960, Nigeria has been trapped in a cycle of kleptocratic governance, where political instability and corruption are not anomalies but institutionalized features. As Chinua Achebe lamented in The Trouble with Nigeria (1983), “The Nigerian problem is the unwillingness of its leaders to rise to the responsibility of personal example, which is the hallmark of true leadership.” This failure is not accidental but engineered: the country’s vast oil wealth, which should have been a ladder out of poverty, has instead become a weapon of mass exploitation. Over 60% of Nigeria’s 220 million people live on less than $2 a day, while a tiny elite – less than 0.1% of the population – controls 80% of its oil revenues, according to the Natural Resource Governance Institute.
The Nigerian political landscape has been shaped by a revolving door of military dictators and civilian kleptocrats. General Sani Abacha (1993 – 1998), perhaps the most brazen of the military strongmen, stole an estimated $5 billion from state coffers, stashing loot in Swiss banks and offshore shell companies. His civilian successors, like Olusegun Obasanjo (1999 – 2007) and Muhammadu Buhari (2015 – 2023), refined this predation under democratic veneers. Obasanjo, while touted as a reformer, privatized state assets in opaque deals that enriched allies like billionaire Aliko Dangote, Africa’s richest man. Buhari, despite campaigning as an anti-corruption crusader, presided over a regime where his associates, including Attorney General Abubakar Malami, were accused of siphoning billions through fraudulent oil contracts and “security votes” (Transparency International, 2022).
These leaders relied on a network of oligarchs who straddle politics, business, and traditional institutions. Take Aliko Dangote, whose $23.9 billion empire – spanning cement, sugar, and oil – thrives on state patronage. Dangote’s monopoly on cement production was cemented (pun intended) by Obasanjo’s policies, which imposed 35% tariffs on imports while granting Dangote tax holidays. Similarly, Femi Otedola, billionaire oil magnate and former chairman of Forte Oil, has bankrolled presidential campaigns in exchange for pipeline protection contracts, despite rampant oil theft in the Niger Delta. As journalist Richard Dowden notes in Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles (2008), “Nigeria’s elites operate like a cartel, extracting wealth with one hand and dispensing political favors with the other.”
The oligarchy is not static. A new generation of tech entrepreneurs, such as Tony Elumelu (founder of Heirs Holdings), have rebranded extraction as “philanthropy.” Elumelu’s $100 million Tony Elumelu Foundation, which claims to empower African entrepreneurs, doubles as a lobbying arm for his energy and banking interests. Meanwhile, Bola Tinubu, Nigeria’s current president and the so-called “Godfather of Lagos,” exemplifies the fusion of political and economic power. Tinubu’s reign over Lagos since 1999 has been marked by land grabs and crony contracts, such as the Lekki-Epe Expressway toll deal that funnels millions monthly to his private company, Alpha Beta. His 2023 presidential campaign, bankrolled by oligarchs like Dangote and Otedola, promised “Renewed Hope” but has intensified austerity measures that spare the wealthy.
The oligarchic stranglehold has fractured the very idea of Nigeria. In the oil-rich Niger Delta, where militants blow up pipelines to protest decades of marginalization, youth unemployment exceeds 50%. In the northwest, bandit warlords like Bello Turji (linked to politicians through ransom payments) terrorize villages, while in Lagos, millions live in slums beneath the glittering skyscrapers built with stolen funds. The social contract is broken: citizens no longer see themselves as stakeholders in a shared nation but as hostages to a criminal syndicate.
This erosion of national identity is by design. As political scientist Ebenezer Obadare argues, “The Nigerian state exists not to serve its people but to service its elites.” The 2020 #EndSARS protests, where youth demanded an end to police brutality and corruption, were met with live ammunition at Lagos’ Lekki Toll Gate – a facility owned by Tinubu’s cronies. Meanwhile, the oligarchs flaunt their impunity: Dangote’s $19 million mansion in Abuja overlooks a city where 70% lack clean water.
International actors enable this kleptocracy. Swiss banks harbor Nigerian loot, while British courts stall efforts to repatriate Abacha’s billions. Even the World Bank’s “ease of doing business” rankings, which praised Nigeria under Buhari, ignored systemic graft. As the NGO Resource Matters reported in 2023, “Nigeria’s oil sector is a black box, with $15 billion in annual losses from theft and sweetheart deals.”
Nigeria’s oligarchs have reshaped the nation into a paradox: a land of unimaginable wealth and unbearable poverty, where “Nigerianness” is reduced to survival in the shadow of extraction. Until the chains of oligarchy are broken – through grassroots mobilization, judicial accountability, and international pressure – the promise of Africa’s giant will remain a cruel joke. As social commentator Chima Anekwe wrote, “Nigeria is a country where the leaders are kings and the citizens are ghosts.” The tragedy is that the ghosts are now rising, and even kings should fear their wrath.
In her seminal work, Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics, Jane Jacobs presents a compelling lens through which to examine the moral decay plaguing Nigeria. She posits that societies function through two distinct ethical frameworks: the Guardian syndrome, rooted in governance and hierarchy, and the Commercial syndrome, driven by trade and innovation. Guardians – politicians and civil servants – are tasked with upholding the public good, shunning personal gain to maintain impartiality. Traders, meanwhile, thrive on competition and innovation, ideally avoiding coercion to foster fair markets. Jacobs warns, however, of a perilous overlap: when guardians dip into commerce or traders seize political power, the result is a “monstrous hybrid” that corrodes societal trust and institutional integrity.
Nigeria’s political landscape epitomizes this toxic fusion. The lines between guardians and traders have blurred into oblivion, creating a system where power and profit are indistinguishable. Take Aliko Dangote, Africa’s richest man, whose cement empire dominates 60% of Nigeria’s market. His ascendancy wasn’t forged through innovation but through state-sanctioned tariffs and tax exemptions orchestrated by political allies like former President Olusegun Obasanjo. Dangote’s $19 billion refinery, buoyed by state loans and land grants, positions him as a shadow policymaker – a trader wielding guardian-like authority. Jacobs’ admonition that “commerce becomes exploitative when it adopts guardian tactics” rings tragically true here.
On the flip side, President Bola Tinubu, the “Godfather of Lagos,” embodies the guardian-turned-trader. At some point, public infrastructure like the Lekki-Epe Expressway became personal revenue streams through opaque toll deals funneling millions to his private firm, Alpha Beta. His political machine, bankrolled by oligarchs such as oil magnate Femi Otedola, operates like a mercenary enterprise, trading appointments and contracts for loyalty. Jacobs’ critique of guardians who “take bribes to pervert their guardianship” finds stark validation in Tinubu’s reign, where public office is a conduit for private wealth.
The Niger Delta’s warlords, once mere oil bunkerers, now epitomize the violent marriage of commerce and coercion. Figures like Government Ekpemupolo (Tompolo) broker pipeline protection contracts with politicians, backed by state security forces. This nexus of force and profit, Jacobs warns, “destroys the moral basis of both systems,” transforming economic activity into a theater of extortion.
The consequences are dire. A 2023 survey reveals 89% of Nigerians distrust government institutions, viewing them as oligarchic tools. The nation’s oil wealth, rather than fueling development, entrenches a “rentier” mentality where elites plunder rather than produce. The 2020 #EndSARS protests laid bare a generation’s rejection of this kleptocratic “Nigerianness,” as youth confronted a state that serves oligarchs, not citizens. Jacobs’ observation that failed guardianship spurs youth to “disavow the social contract” resonates painfully here.
To salvage Nigeria’s future, Jacobs prescribes a strict separation of syndromes. Guardians must “shun trading,” and traders must “avoid coercion.” This demands institutional firewalls – laws barring politicians from commercial ventures – and judicial reforms to empower independent anti-corruption bodies. Grassroots movements like #EndSARS embody Jacobs’ call for “vigilant moral syndicates,” challenging a system where spoils eclipse the public good.
In the end, Nigeria stands at a crossroads. Jane Jacobs’ framework illuminates a crisis where moral boundaries have collapsed, and leadership, as Chinua Achebe lamented, remains a profound failure. To reclaim its promise, Nigeria must disentangle guardians from traders, restoring the ethical divide that sustains functional societies. Until then, the nation remains a cautionary tale of what happens when power and profit become one.
The reemergence of strongmen and oligarchs in the 21st century has significant implications for global politics and the future of democracy. The concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few undermines the principles of equality and representation that are the foundation of democratic governance. It also exacerbates economic inequality, as the wealthy elite use their influence to shape policies in their favor, often at the expense of the broader population (Piketty, 2013).
The rise of authoritarian leaders and the erosion of democratic norms pose a threat to global stability. History has shown that the concentration of power and wealth can lead to social unrest, conflict, and even war. The interwar period in Europe, marked by the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II, serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of allowing oligarchs and autocrats to dominate the political landscape (Hobsbawm, 1994).
Moreover, the global nature of the modern economy means that the actions of oligarchs in one country can have far-reaching consequences. The 2008 financial crisis, for example, was fueled by the reckless behavior of wealthy financiers who took excessive risks in pursuit of profit. The resulting economic downturn had a devastating impact on millions of people around the world, highlighting the dangers of allowing wealth and power to become concentrated in the hands of a few (Stiglitz, 2012).
Neo Nationalism, a resurgence of nationalist sentiment characterized by a fervent emphasis on sovereignty, cultural identity, and often xenophobic rhetoric, has increasingly become a tool wielded by power players and oligarchs to consolidate control, manipulate public sentiment, and destabilize democratic institutions. This phenomenon, which has gained traction across the globe, is not merely a return to traditional nationalism but a more virulent and calculated form that exploits the anxieties of globalization, economic inequality, and cultural dislocation. By framing complex socio-economic issues through the lens of “us versus them,” neonationalist leaders and their backers have successfully diverted attention from systemic failures and entrenched corruption, instead channeling public frustration toward marginalized groups, immigrants, and external forces. This rhetorical strategy has not only deepened societal divisions but also undermined the foundational principles of democracy, such as pluralism, tolerance, and the rule of law. The consequences of this shift are evident in the erosion of international cooperation, the rise of authoritarianism, and the unhinging of peace and stability in regions where democracy was once thought to be taking root.
The rise of neo nationalism – a 21st-century iteration of nationalism steeped in sovereignty, cultural identity, and anti-globalism – has become a potent vehicle for oligarchic consolidation, reshaping democracies into arenas where wealth and authoritarian rhetoric converge. From Trump’s “America First” agenda to Modi’s Hindu nationalism, this ideology thrives on public fears of globalization, yet its true beneficiaries are often the oligarchs who bankroll its champions. In the United States, Trump’s 2016 and 2024 victory’s, fueled by xenophobic rhetoric and protectionist policies like tariffs on Chinese goods, aligned seamlessly with the interests of industrial magnates seeking to stifle foreign competition. As US News noted, his administration’s rollback of environmental regulations and corporate tax cuts disproportionately enriched billionaires like the Koch brothers, whose networks funneled dark money into nationalist campaigns. Similarly, Brexit – a movement ostensibly about reclaiming British sovereignty – was propelled by oligarch-funded media empires like Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun, which stoked anti-immigrant sentiment while shielding offshore tax havens used by the elite.
In Hungary, Viktor Orbán’s “illiberal democracy” exemplifies the oligarchic-neonationalist symbiosis. Orbán’s dismantling of judicial independence and media freedoms, framed as defending Hungarian culture, has allowed cronies like Lőrinc Mészáros, a former gas fitter turned billionaire, to monopolize sectors from construction to tourism. As Democracy Journal reported, Mészáros’s firms now dominate public contracts, illustrating how neo nationalism serves as a smokescreen for wealth concentration. Likewise, India’s Modi has leveraged Hindu nationalist rhetoric to justify policies favoring industrial titans like Gautam Adani, whose empire ballooned amid relaxed environmental laws and state-backed infrastructure projects. In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro’s assault on Amazon protections catered to agribusiness oligarchs, transforming ecological preservation into a nationalist “anti-globalist” wedge issue.
The implications are dire. Neonationalist policies, cloaked in populist rhetoric, enable oligarchs to entrench monopolies, as seen in Russia under Putin, where energy magnates like Igor Sechin thrive on sanctions framed as “Western aggression.” Economically, this breeds stagnation: protectionism shields inefficiencies, while subsidies flow to loyalists. Socially, it fractures cohesion – Modi’s marginalization of Muslims, Bolsonaro’s attacks on Indigenous communities, and Trump’s vilification of migrants exacerbate divisions, distracting from oligarchic looting. Democracy itself erodes; Orbán’s gerrymandering and Brazil’s weaponization of judiciary systems exemplify how institutions are hollowed out to serve the few.
Yet neonationalism’s global isolationism also backfires. Brexit’s economic fallout – a 4% GDP drop – reveals the self-harm of protectionism, while Trump’s trade wars cost U.S. farmers $27 billion in exports. Oligarchs, however, remain insulated. Murdoch’s empire thrives on divisive media, Adani profits from Modi’s coal push, and Putin’s oligarchs exploit embargoed markets via shadow networks.
The antidote lies in exposing this nexus. As Foreign Affairs argues, combating neo nationalism requires dismantling oligarchic leverage: antitrust enforcement, transparency in political funding, and global cooperation to close tax havens. Without such measures, the marriage of neo nationalism and oligarchy will continue to redefine governance – not by the people, but for the plutocrats pulling the strings.
In Nigeria, neo nationalism has taken on a particularly destructive form, exacerbating ethnic and tribal tensions that have long simmered beneath the surface. The country, Africa’s most populous nation and a regional powerhouse, is a mosaic of over 250 ethnic groups, each with its own cultural heritage and political aspirations. Historically, Nigeria’s federal structure was designed to accommodate this diversity, but in recent years, neonationalist rhetoric has weaponized these differences, turning them into fault lines of conflict. Politicians and oligarchs, seeking to maintain or expand their power, have stoked ethnic and religious divisions, framing elections and resource allocation as zero-sum games where one group’s gain is another’s loss. This has led to widespread violence, displacement, and a breakdown of social cohesion. For instance, the farmer-herder conflicts in the Middle Belt region, often portrayed as ethnic or religious clashes, are in part fueled by elite manipulation and the failure of governance. The result is a country teetering on the brink, where the promise of unity and progress is overshadowed by the specter of fragmentation and chaos. The crippling effect of this neonationalist rhetoric extends beyond Nigeria’s borders, as the country’s instability undermines regional security and economic integration in West and Central Africa, with ripple effects across the continent.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) presents another stark example of how neonationalism and elite manipulation can destabilize a nation and have far-reaching global consequences. The DRC, rich in natural resources such as cobalt, copper, and coltan, has long been a site of exploitation and conflict, with both internal and external actors vying for control of its wealth. Recently, neonationalist rhetoric has been employed by political leaders to justify crackdowns on dissent, suppress minority groups, and consolidate power. President Félix Tshisekedi’s government, for instance, has been accused of using nationalist rhetoric to marginalize opposition voices and centralize authority, often under the guise of protecting national sovereignty. Meanwhile, the ongoing violence in the eastern provinces, fueled by ethnic militias and foreign-backed insurgents, is exacerbated by the government’s inability or unwillingness to address the root causes of the conflict. The humanitarian crisis in the DRC, with millions displaced and countless lives lost, is a direct consequence of this toxic interplay between neonationalism and elite self-interest. Moreover, the global implications of the DRC’s instability cannot be overstated. The country’s mineral wealth is critical to the production of technologies that power the modern world, from smartphones to electric vehicles. Disruptions in the supply chain due to conflict and instability have far-reaching economic consequences, while the humanitarian fallout places additional strain on international aid systems and refugee networks.
The recent riots in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which have led to violent attacks on several embassies, are a stark manifestation of the deep-seated tensions surrounding the “Tutsi question” and the broader geopolitical dynamics in the Great Lakes region of Africa. These riots, fueled by long standing ethnic divisions and external interference, underscore how power, wealth, and oligarchic agendas intersect to destabilize nations and perpetuate cycles of violence. At the heart of this crisis is the complex relationship between the DRC and Rwanda, two neighboring countries whose histories are deeply intertwined yet marred by mistrust and conflict. The Tutsi question – a term often used to describe the political and social tensions surrounding the Tutsi minority in the DRC and their perceived ties to Rwanda – has become a flashpoint for violence, manipulated by political elites and oligarchs to advance their own agendas. This situation not only exacerbates ethnic divisions but also serves as a tool for consolidating power, controlling resources, and maintaining economic dominance in the region.
The Tutsi question in the DRC is rooted in the aftermath of the Rwandan Genocide of 1994, when hundreds of thousands of Rwandan Tutsis fled into eastern Congo, followed by Hutu militias responsible for the genocide. This influx of refugees and armed groups destabilized the region, leading to decades of conflict and the emergence of ethnic militias. In recent years, Congolese politicians and oligarchs have exploited these ethnic tensions to divert attention from governance failures and corruption. By framing the Tutsi minority as a “foreign” threat tied to Rwanda, they have stoked xenophobic sentiment and justified crackdowns on dissent. The recent riots, which saw attacks on embassies, including Rwanda’s, were ostensibly a response to perceived Rwandan interference in Congolese affairs. However, they also reflect a broader strategy by Congolese elites to use nationalism and ethnic scapegoating as a means of consolidating power. This manipulation of ethnic identity not only deepens divisions within Congolese society but also undermines efforts to build a cohesive and inclusive state.
Rwanda, under President Paul Kagame, has played a contentious role in the DRC’s instability. While Rwanda denies direct involvement, it has long been accused of supporting Tutsi-led militias in eastern Congo, such as the M23 group, as a means of securing its borders and exerting influence over the resource-rich region. Rwanda’s actions are driven by a combination of security concerns and economic interests, particularly its desire to control the flow of minerals like coltan and cobalt, which are critical to the global technology industry. However, Rwanda’s involvement has also been framed by Congolese elites as evidence of a broader Tutsi agenda to dominate the region, further inflaming tensions. This narrative serves the interests of both Congolese oligarchs, who use it to rally nationalist support, and Rwandan elites, who benefit from the chaos by maintaining access to Congo’s resources. The result is a vicious cycle of violence and exploitation, where ordinary citizens bear the brunt of the suffering while power players on both sides enrich themselves.
The riots in the DRC and the broader Tutsi question highlight how power, wealth, and oligarchic agendas are deeply intertwined in the region. In the DRC, political elites and oligarchs have used ethnic tensions to distract from their own failures and maintain control over the country’s vast mineral wealth. By portraying themselves as defenders of national sovereignty against foreign interference, they rally public support while diverting attention from their exploitation of Congo’s resources. Meanwhile, Rwandan elites benefit from the instability by maintaining access to these resources and strengthening their position in regional geopolitics. This collusion of interests between Congolese and Rwandan power players perpetuates a system where wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, while the majority of the population remains trapped in poverty and violence. The global demand for minerals like cobalt and coltan, which are essential for modern technology, further exacerbates this dynamic, as international corporations and foreign governments often turn a blind eye to the human cost of their supply chains.
The violence in the DRC and its connection to the Tutsi question have far-reaching global consequences. The instability in eastern Congo disrupts the supply of critical minerals, leading to price fluctuations and shortages that affect industries worldwide. Additionally, the humanitarian crisis in the region, with millions displaced and countless lives lost, places a strain on international aid systems and refugee networks. The situation also undermines efforts to promote peace and democracy in Africa, as it reinforces the perception that the continent is plagued by intractable conflicts driven by ethnic divisions and elite manipulation. To address these challenges, the international community must hold both Congolese and Rwandan elites accountable for their roles in perpetuating violence and exploitation. This includes imposing targeted sanctions on individuals and entities involved in human rights abuses, as well as supporting initiatives that promote transparency and good governance in the extractive industries. Furthermore, there must be a concerted effort to address the root causes of the conflict, including economic inequality, political disenfranchisement, and the legacy of colonialism.
The recent riots in the DRC, fueled by the Tutsi question and Rwanda’s contentious role, are a stark reminder of how power, wealth, and oligarchic agendas intersect to destabilize nations and perpetuate cycles of violence. By exploiting ethnic divisions and controlling access to resources, political elites in both the DRC and Rwanda have enriched themselves at the expense of ordinary citizens. The global consequences of this dynamic are profound, affecting everything from the supply of critical minerals to the stability of the Great Lakes region. To break this cycle, there must be a concerted effort to promote accountability, transparency, and inclusive governance. Only by addressing the root causes of the conflict and holding those responsible to account can we hope to build a more just and peaceful world. The stakes are high, and the time to act is now.
The rise of neo nationalism and its exploitation by power players and oligarchs represent a profound threat to global peace and democracy. By fostering division, undermining trust in institutions, and prioritizing narrow self-interest over the common good, this ideology has created critical tensions that are unraveling the social fabric of nations and destabilizing regions. In Nigeria, it has turned ethnic and tribal differences into instruments of conflict, crippling the country’s potential and threatening its future. In the DRC, it has perpetuated cycles of violence and exploitation, with consequences that resonate far beyond its borders. The challenge for the international community is to recognize and address the underlying causes of neo nationalism, from economic inequality to political disenfranchisement, and to promote inclusive and equitable governance that can counteract its divisive rhetoric. Failure to do so will not only jeopardize the progress of individual nations but also undermine the collective efforts to build a more just and peaceful world. The stakes are high, and the time to act is now.
The 21st-century oligarch is not just a wealthy individual but a prism through which the contradictions of our age – globalization’s promise versus its predatory realities – are refracted. From Roman Abramovich’s Kremlin-aligned empire to Aliko Dangote’s cement-and-oil dominion in Nigeria, these figures are both products and architects of systems where power and wealth fuse into a singular, self-perpetuating force. Together, they form a global oligarchic class that transcends borders, ideologies, and even morality, reshaping nations into mirror images of their own ambitions.
Take Roman Abramovich, whose rise from Soviet-era black-market trader to owner of Chelsea Football Club and key Kremlin confidant epitomizes Russia’s post-Soviet metamorphosis. His wealth, rooted in the privatization of state assets during the 1990s “shock therapy,” reflects a system where loyalty to Putin’s regime is rewarded with monopolies over nickel (via Norilsk Nickel) and oil. Abramovich’s influence extends beyond economics: his ownership of Chelsea became a tool of “sports diplomacy,” laundering Russia’s image while funneling oligarchic capital into London’s property markets. His story mirrors Russia itself – a nation where politics, crime, and commerce intertwine so seamlessly that, as journalist Catherine Belton notes, “the state is a vertical of patronage, and the oligarchs are its pillars.”
In contrast, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos represent a Western iteration of oligarchy, one cloaked in the mythos of innovation and frontier capitalism. Musk’s SpaceX and Bezos’ Blue Origin have privatized space exploration, domains once reserved for nation-states, while their terrestrial empires (Tesla, Amazon) dictate labor practices, environmental policies, and even urban planning. Amazon’s HQ2 bidding war, where cities groveled with tax breaks, revealed how corporate power now rivals governmental authority. Yet their influence is global: Musk’s Starlink satellites mediate Ukraine’s battlefield communications, while Bezos’ Washington Post shapes media narratives. Their power reflects a world where tech oligarchs operate as quasi-states, unbound by democratic accountability – a reality critiqued by economist Mariana Mazzucato as “the privatization of public purpose.”
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos stand as twin colossi, their influence weaving through policy, media, and public discourse with a potency that blurs the lines between private enterprise and public governance. Musk, the mercurial CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter), and Bezos, the architect of Amazon and owner of The Washington Post, exemplify a new breed of oligarchs whose wealth and control over critical industries grant them unparalleled sway over the levers of power. Their roles in shaping the Trump administration’s agenda – and the broader political landscape – reveal a troubling convergence of corporate ambition and state authority, one that echoes historical warnings about the dangers of concentrated wealth.
Elon Musk’s entanglement with Trump’s administration is a masterclass in informal power. Though lacking an official Cabinet position, Musk’s role as a senior adviser on “government efficiency” allowed him to advocate for slashing federal budgets and deregulating industries – policies that conveniently aligned with his companies’ interests. As Yahoo Finance reported, Musk lobbied aggressively against tariffs on Chinese auto parts, shielding Tesla from trade war fallout while undermining U.S. manufacturing competitors. His influence reached its zenith in 2023 when he threatened to withdraw Starlink satellite support during Ukraine’s counteroffensive, a move that PBS described as “a billionaire dictating battlefield logistics without electoral mandate.” This episode laid bare a stark reality: Musk, an unelected tycoon, could single-handedly alter the course of a geopolitical conflict, leveraging his control over critical infrastructure as a bargaining chip. “It’s privatization of foreign policy,” remarked Senator Elizabeth Warren, “where profit motives override national interest.”
Musk’s ownership of X (formerly Twitter) further weaponizes his influence. By gutting content moderation and amplifying pro-Trump narratives, he transformed the platform into a megaphone for conservative populism. His $75 million donation to a Trump-aligned Super PAC, as noted by Tech Champion, underscores his financial clout in shaping electoral outcomes. Yet, as MSN highlighted, this power remains ambiguously unaccountable: Musk’s directives require validation by Senate-confirmed officials, yet his proximity to Trump grants him de facto veto power over policies affecting his ventures. “He operates in the shadows of bureaucracy,” wrote The New York Times, “where lobbying meets legacy-building.”
Jeff Bezos’s influence, though subtler, is no less profound. During Trump’s first term, their relationship was openly adversarial: Trump derided Bezos as “Jeff Bozo” and accused The Washington Post of “fake news,” while Amazon sued the Pentagon after losing a $10 billion cloud contract to Microsoft – a decision Ars Technica linked to Trump’s personal vendettas. “The President’s animus toward Bezos was palpable,” noted a Pentagon insider, “and it bled into procurement decisions.” Yet by Trump’s second term, Bezos pivoted to pragmatism. Times Now reported his attendance at Trump’s 2025 inauguration, signaling détente. Behind the scenes, Amazon donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund, and BizNews revealed Bezos’s editorial shifts at the Post, emphasizing “free markets” and scaling back critical coverage of Trump – a move that quelled White House hostilities while safeguarding Amazon’s $38 billion in government contracts. “It’s a Faustian bargain,” remarked media critic Jay Rosen. “The Post trades its watchdog role for access, and Amazon gets a seat at the table.”
Bezos’s philanthropy, like the $10 million to the With Honor Fund (Money.com), masks a strategic calculus: supporting bipartisan veterans’ campaigns ensures allies in Congress sympathetic to Amazon’s tax avoidance and anti-union stances. Meanwhile, Amazon’s PACs funnel millions into races favoring deregulation, entrenching a cycle where policy follows profit. As the watchdog group United for Respect found, Amazon spent over $20 million in the 2024 election cycle, backing candidates who opposed antitrust reforms and labor protections. “This isn’t charity; it’s a protection racket,” said former FTC chair Lina Khan. “Bezos buys silence while his empire evades scrutiny.”
Together, Musk and Bezos epitomize the oligarchic capture of democracy. Musk’s Starlink saga illustrates how unelected billionaires can sway geopolitical outcomes, while Bezos’s Post exemplifies media power consolidating in the hands of corporate titans. Their influence thrives on systemic vulnerabilities: lax antitrust enforcement, porous campaign finance laws, and the erosion of institutional firewalls between commerce and governance. “We’re witnessing a Gilded Age 2.0,” warned economist Thomas Piketty, “where wealth isn’t just concentrated – it’s weaponized.”
To curb such power, history offers precedents. The trust-busting of Standard Oil in 1911 and the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine, which until 1987 mandated balanced media coverage, once checked corporate overreach. Today, movements like #UnplugAmazon and congressional pushes to regulate SpaceX’s satellite dominance channel similar resolve. The EU’s $2.7 billion fine against Google in 2017 for antitrust violations provides a blueprint for dismantling monopolies, while reversing Citizens United could stem the flood of dark money into elections. “We need a new Progressive Era,” argued Senator Bernie Sanders, “where democracy isn’t auctioned to the highest bidder.”
Media transparency laws could further peel back the curtain. Requiring outlets like The Washington Post to disclose ownership interests influencing editorial policies would mitigate conflicts of interest. “When Bezos tilts coverage, it’s not journalism – it’s lobbying,” said media scholar Victor Pickard.
In the end, Musk and Bezos are symptoms of a system where wealth eclipses democracy. Their power isn’t merely in controlling policies but in reshaping the very idea of governance – a world where, as historian Nancy MacLean warns, “liberty becomes the freedom of the rich to rule.” The antidote lies not in vilifying individuals but in dismantling the architectures that crown them kings. As the #EndSARS protests in Nigeria and India’s farmer uprisings against Mukesh Ambani’s agro-monopolies have shown, collective action can reclaim power from oligarchs. The question is whether America, once a beacon of democratic ideals, will heed these lessons before its institutions become mere subsidiaries of Silicon Valley and Seattle.
Africa’s oligarchs, however, expose the rawest edges of this phenomenon. Aliko Dangote, Africa’s richest man, built his $23.9 billion empire on state-sanctioned tariffs protecting his cement monopoly – a policy engineered by political allies like former Nigerian President Obasanjo. Dangote’s planned oil refinery, subsidized by billions in public loans, positions him as both a “savior” of Nigeria’s energy crisis and a profiteer from its dysfunction. Similarly, Isabel dos Santos, daughter of Angola’s ex-president, turned her father’s 38-year reign into a personal ATM, siphoning state oil revenues into offshore accounts and telecom ventures. Her infamous “Luanda Leaks” revealed how African oligarchs, like their Russian counterparts, treat national treasuries as family heirlooms.
Yet the oligarchic playbook is universal. India’s Mukesh Ambani controls 40% of its telecom sector and 30% of refining capacity, leveraging political ties to sidestep antitrust laws. Mexico’s Carlos Slim, once the world’s richest man, dominated 70% of its telecom market through regulatory capture, stifling competition until public outcry forced reforms. Even “philanthropic” oligarchs like Warren Buffett and George Soros wield outsized influence: Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway lobbies for tax breaks that save billions, while Soros’ Open Society Foundations shape global human rights agendas – earning him vilification by autocrats from Orbán to Putin.
Collectively, these figures expose a paradox: oligarchs are both creatures and creators of their ecosystems. In Russia, they are extensions of the state; in the U.S., they are its shadow partners; in Africa, they are neo-colonial extractors. Their power thrives on systemic vulnerabilities – weak institutions, globalization’s regulatory gaps, and the commodification of politics. Sheldon Adelson, the late casino mogul, spent $150 million on Trump’s 2016 campaign to advance pro-Israel policies, illustrating how oligarchs turn elections into auctions. Meanwhile, Vladimir Potanin’s Nornickel mines nickel for electric car batteries, profiting from green energy demands while polluting Siberian towns – a microcosm of how oligarchs commodify both progress and suffering.
Africa’s Patrice Motsepe and Tanzania’s Mohammed Dewji reveal another layer: oligarchs as “benefactors” who mask extraction with philanthropy. Motsepe, South Africa’s mining magnate, funds education initiatives while his companies lobby against mine safety reforms. Dewji, Tanzania’s richest man, champions agricultural “self-sufficiency” while his MeTL Group monopolizes imports, inflating food prices. Their duality – saints in boardrooms, predators in markets – mirrors a global trend where oligarchs rebrand exploitation as empowerment.
The world, in turn, becomes a hall of mirrors. Russia’s oligarchs export corruption to London’s luxury real estate; American tech titans privatize public infrastructure; African dynasties hoard resources while their nations drown in debt. The result is a planet where, as historian Timothy Snyder warns, “wealth becomes a weapon,” and democracy a veneer for oligarchic rule.
Yet this is not inevitable. The #EndSARS protests in Nigeria, India’s farmers’ revolt against Ambani’s agro-monopolies, and the global push to “unplug” from Big Tech signal a growing reckoning. The challenge, as Jane Jacobs cautioned, is to disentangle the “guardian” role of governance from the “commercial” thirst for profit – to rebuild systems where power serves people, not the other way around. Until then, the oligarchs will remain both our mirrors and our jailers.
The 21st century has unveiled a stark paradox: amid unprecedented technological progress and global interconnectedness, the ancient specter of oligarchy has reemerged with renewed vigor, weaving its influence from the corridors of Washington to the oilfields of the Niger Delta. From Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where loyal oligarchs like Igor Sechin and Alisher Usmanov consolidate power through state-captured energy empires, to Donald Trump’s America, where tech moguls and billionaires blur the lines between governance and self-enrichment, the concentration of wealth and authority in the hands of a few has become a defining crisis of our era. This pattern echoes globally – Viktor Orbán’s Hungary dismantles judicial independence to entrench his Fidesz party, while in Nigeria, figures like Bola Tinubu and Aliko Dangote exemplify a system where political office and corporate monopolies are mutually reinforcing tools of extraction. Even in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the scramble for cobalt and coltan by foreign conglomerates and local warlords perpetuates cycles of violence and poverty, illustrating how resource wealth fuels modern oligarchies while destabilizing nations.
These modern dynamics are not novel but rooted in historical precedents. The 19th-century industrial barons – Rockefeller, Carnegie, and the Rothschilds – pioneered the fusion of economic might and political influence, crafting systems where wealth dictated policy. Today’s oligarchs, whether Silicon Valley titans or Gulf state princes, replicate this blueprint, leveraging globalization and deregulation to amass power that transcends borders. Yet the consequences are graver: social media algorithms manipulate democracies, offshore tax havens drain public coffers, and authoritarian strongmen exploit disillusionment to erode civil liberties. The lesson of history, from the collapse of Weimar Germany to the Soviet Union’s kleptocratic decay, is unambiguous – when oligarchy replaces accountability, societies fracture.
The influence of oligarchs on the global stage is both vast and insidious, weaving through economies, governments, and societies with a quiet, often unchecked force. Figures like Roman Abramovich, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Aliko Dangote exemplify how concentrated wealth and control over critical industries translate into political power. Abramovich, once a shadowy figure in Russia’s post-Soviet privatization frenzy, now epitomizes the fusion of commerce and statecraft. His ownership of Chelsea FC, while lauded for revitalizing the club, also served as a soft-power tool for the Kremlin, laundering Russia’s image abroad while his fortune remained tethered to Putin’s regime. Similarly, Elon Musk’s ventures – from Tesla’s electric car dominance to SpaceX’s colonization of space – have redefined industries traditionally governed by public policy. When Musk threatened to withhold Starlink satellite services during Ukraine’s counteroffensive, he demonstrated how a single billionaire could sway geopolitical outcomes, bypassing democratic oversight entirely. Jeff Bezos, through Amazon, has reshaped global labor practices and urban economies, while his ownership of The Washington Post underscores the media’s role in shaping narratives favorable to corporate interests. In Nigeria, Aliko Dangote’s cement monopoly, bolstered by state-sanctioned tariffs, stifles competition and entrenches dependency on his conglomerate, blurring the line between public infrastructure and private profit.
These men are more of a problem than solution because their power thrives on systemic inequities. Their wealth often derives from monopolistic practices, regulatory capture, or exploitation of weak governance – not innovation alone. Take Isabel dos Santos, Africa’s once-richest woman, whose empire collapsed after the “Luanda Leaks” revealed how she siphoned Angolan state funds into offshore accounts. Her story mirrors a global pattern: oligarchs extract wealth from public resources, leaving societies poorer and more fractured. In the U.S., the Sackler family’s role in the opioid crisis illustrates how oligarchic influence can devastate communities while evading accountability. Even “philanthropic” figures like Warren Buffett and George Soros, despite their charitable veneers, wield disproportionate sway. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway lobbies for tax loopholes that save billions, while Soros’ Open Society Foundations, though aimed at promoting democracy, are weaponized by autocrats like Viktor Orbán to stoke anti-Semitic conspiracies and justify crackdowns on civil society.
Mitigating this influence demands systemic reforms. First, robust antitrust enforcement must dismantle monopolies. The EU’s $2.7 billion fine against Google in 2017 for privileging its shopping service offers a template, though such efforts remain piecemeal. Second, closing tax havens and implementing global wealth taxes, as proposed by economists like Thomas Piketty, could curb the offshore hoarding that shields oligarchic wealth. The Pandora Papers, which exposed hidden fortunes of leaders like Jordan’s King Abdullah, reveal the scale of this challenge. Third, campaign finance reforms are critical. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which unleashed unlimited corporate spending in elections, must be reversed to prevent figures like Sheldon Adelson – who funneled $150 million into Trump’s 2016 campaign – from treating democracy as a pay-to-play scheme.
Counterpoints to oligarchic power lie in strengthening democratic institutions and grassroots movements. South Korea’s breakup of chaebols like Samsung in the 1990s, though incomplete, shows how state intervention can recalibrate corporate power. Similarly, India’s farmers’ protests in 2020–21 forced Modi’s government to repeal laws favoring Ambani’s agribusiness ventures, proving collective action can check oligarchic overreach. Technology, too, can be harnessed: blockchain-based transparency initiatives could track illicit financial flows, while decentralized platforms might dilute the social media monopolies of figures like Mark Zuckerberg.
History offers both caution and hope. The Gilded Age’s robber barons met their match in trust-busting laws and muckraking journalism. Today, movements like #EndSARS in Nigeria and the global push for climate justice channel similar energy, demanding accountability from elites who profit from planetary and social crises. As Jane Jacobs warned in Systems of Survival, the moral decay of mixing “guardian” governance with “commercial” greed can only be halted by reasserting boundaries – ensuring that public institutions serve the many, not the few. The path forward is neither simple nor certain, but the alternative – a world where oligarchs reign as unelected kings – is a risk no democracy can afford.
Heinrich Heine’s warning that “money is the god of our time” resonates with chilling prescience. In Nigeria, oil riches line the pockets of elites while 63% of citizens languish in poverty; in Eastern Europe, oligarchs like Ukraine’s Rinat Akhmetov commandeer industries under the guise of privatization; in the DR Congo, child labor mines lithium for electric cars as foreign profits eclipse local suffering. This global erosion of equity is not incidental but systemic, a testament to how unchecked capitalism and corrupt governance intertwine.
The Gilded Age’s excesses spurred antitrust laws and labor rights, proving that collective action can curb oligarchic power. Today’s movements reflect a growing insistence on accountability. Jane Jacobs’ admonition to separate “guardians” of governance from “traders” of commerce remains vital: institutions must be fortified, transparency enforced, and civic engagement revitalized.
The challenge is clear: to dismantle systems where wealth eclipses justice and power silences dissent. As Chinua Achebe observed, Nigeria’s plight is a “failure of leadership,” but this diagnosis extends globally. Democracy, equality, and the common good are not passive inheritances but ongoing pursuits. In a world where oligarchs wield unprecedented influence, the imperative is not merely to resist but to reimagine – to ensure that the 21st century becomes an era of renewal rather than repetition. Only then can we transform Heine’s lament into a rallying cry for a world where prosperity serves the many, not the few.
Follow us on all social media platforms @dailyquery for news and analyses around the globe.
