Democracy within Oligarchy

Maybe it is just too easy to discredit the notion of inclusivity as a criterion for democracy. There must be some other criteria that capture the essence of what people think of as democracy. If we are to exclude representation as a component of a democratic government, then it is difficult to imagine what a viable criterion would be. Those who think it is undemocratic to be represented, as opposed to being directly involved in government, are going to have a difficult time constructing a viable government.

To take a different tack, it may be helpful to consider the point of view put forth by Winters in his book Oligarchy. He suggests that all societies are basically organized in terms of relative wealth, with the most wealthy, the oligarchs, controlling whatever governmental structure there is. He describes the Athenian and Roman governments as ruling oligarchies, ones where rival oligarch provisionally agree to cooperate, or at least rotate control of running the government. This means that the oligarchs at least partially disarm—while engaging in making decisions for the larger society—and that they adhere to certain rules and practices.

Such ruling oligarchies are democratic only in the sense that the oligarchs allow the “people” to have some limited control over the decision making. Such power to the people serves to moderate the conflicts between individual oligarchs. Even oligarchs need followers. Giving their followers some power to influence decision making requires the oligarchs to orient their activities to pleasing their followers, and increasing the number of their followers. The rivalry between oligarchs becomes one of who can enlist the largest number of followers, and thereby overcome the influence of other oligarchs. Debate in the assembly is over which of the oligarchs, or his appointed orator, can best manipulate the members of the assembly to support his position. The oligarchs, especially in Rome, were very careful to make sure that the debate did not go beyond these bounds.

This was “democracy” in Athens and Rome. It did reduce the ever present potential for conflict between oligarchs, and promote peace and security within the strict constraints imposed by the oligarchs, but there was no sense in which government was of or for the people, and it was inherently unstable.

Modern governments are relatively more stable and secure, and oligarchs have relatively less direct influence on decisions made by the governments, but the oligarchs are still effectively in charge, and the people, the rest of the population, have influence only to the extent allowed by the oligarchs. Today the rule of law and the sanctity of property serve to protect the oligarchs from threats to their wealth. In Winters’ view the protection of wealth has always and always will be the overriding goal of the oligarchs.