GUIDE QUESTIONS OLIGARCHY

Oligarchy is a society in which the rich are in control; the wealthy are extremely wealthy
and the poor quite poverty-stricken. The rich will not be able to sate their desire for more
and more wealth; for them the love of money will overtake their desire for honor. The
erstwhile timocracy thus declines to oligarchy.

In this oligarchy, the rulers will be chosen for their wealth alone. Money in and of itself
does not ensure a good political atmosphere; in fact, in such a state, the gap between
the rich and the poor will be so wide that the two classes (rich and poor) will be actively
antagonistic to one another. Eventually, the rich will become profligate, simply getting
and spending money, in no way of any service to the state; the poor will likely become
beggars or criminals, an impediment to the state. Thus we perceive the second kind of
unjust state.

1. An oligarchy is a power structure that allows a few businesses, families, or

individuals to rule. They have enough power to turn the county to benefit
them to the exclusion of other members.

They maintain their power through their relationships with each other. Oligarchy is
from the Greek word oligarkhes, and it means "few governing."

Three of the most well-known countries with oligarchies are Russia, China, and Iran.
Other examples are Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and apartheid South Africa.

A plutocracy is a subset of an oligarchy. A plutocracy is when the leaders are rich.

The leaders in an oligarchy don't have to be rich, even though they usually are. For
example, a high school ruled by a popular clique is an oligarchy. A plutocracy is
always an oligarchy, but there could be some oligarchies that aren't plutocracies.

An oligarchy can occur in any political system. In a democracy, oligarchs use their
relationships and money to influence the elected officials. In a monarchy or tyranny,
they have enough power and money to influence the king or tyrant.

The iron law of oligarchy states that any organization or society will eventually
become an oligarchy. That's because the people who learn how to succeed in the
organization gain a competitive advantage. The larger and more complicated the
organization becomes the more advantages the elite gain.

Oligarchs only associate with others who share those same traits. They become an
organized minority as opposed to the unorganized majority. They groom protégés
who share their values and goals. It becomes more difficult for the average person to
break into the group of elites. The following pros and cons summarize some of the
benefits and issues:

Pros

 Power is centralized within a leadership team, rather than involving everyone

in every decision.
 People can participate in activities, relationships and work while the group in
power handles the larger issues of the society.
 An oligarchy strives to keep the status quo, which breeds conservatism instead
of taking on risky ventures.

Cons

 The ruling class controls policies and legislation, and ends up with much
more wealth than the rest of society.
 As the ruling class gains more expertise, it tends to exclude outsiders, making
it tough for people to break in.
 Prevents new perspectives and diversity.
 Can limit available supplies to certain classes, fix prices, provide selective
benefits and restrict the economy, hinder basic supply and demand functions.
 Causes rebellion when people feel they can't join the ruling class, and
disruption and war when people no longer follow the rules.

Pros of an Oligarchy

Oligarchies exist in any organization that delegates power to a small group of movers
and shakers. Some power must be delegated to a group of expert insiders so that an
organization can function. In other words, it's not efficient for everyone to make all
the decisions all the time.

An oligarchy allows most people to focus on their day-to-day lives. They can
ignore the issues that concern society as a whole. They can spend their time doing
other things, such as working on their chosen career, cultivating relationships with
their families, or engaging in sports.

The oligarchy allows creative people to spend the time needed to innovate in new
technologies. That's because the oligarchy manages the society. They can be
successful as long as their inventions and success benefit the oligarchy's interests as
well.
The decisions made by an oligarchy are conservative since the goal is to preserve the
status quo. It’s therefore unlikely that any single strong leader can steer the society
into ventures that are too risky.

Cons of an Oligarchy

Oligarchies increase income inequality. That's because the oligarchs siphon a

nation's wealth into their pockets. That leaves less for everyone else.

As the insider group gains power, it seeks to keep it. As their knowledge and
expertise grow, it becomes more difficult for anyone else to break in.

Oligarchies can become stale. They pick people like them who share the same
values and worldview. This can sow the seeds of decline since they can miss
the profitable synergies of a diverse team.

If an oligarchy takes too much power, it can restrict a free market. They can agree
informally to fix prices which violate the laws of supply and demand.

If people lose hope that they can one day join the oligarchy, they may become
frustrated and violent. Consequently, they may overthrow the ruling class. This can
disrupt the economy and cause pain and suffering for everyone in society.

Three Causes of Oligarchies

An oligarchy forms when leaders agree to increase their power regardless of whether
it benefits society. The people in charge are very good at what they do, otherwise,
they wouldn't have risen to that level. That's how they can continue to take more
wealth and power from those that don't have those skills or interests.

A monarchy or tyrant system can create an oligarchy if the leader is weak. The
oligarchy increases its power around him or her. When the leader leaves, the
oligarchs remain in power. They select a puppet or one of their own to replace the
leader.

Oligarchies can also arise in a democracy if the people don't stay informed. This
happens more when a society becomes extremely complex and difficult to
understand. People are willing to make the trade-off. They allow those with the
passion and knowledge to rule to take over.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-politicalscience/chapter/forms-of-
government/

https://vittana.org/10-oligarchy-pros-and-cons-list

2. Conclusions
According to folklore, French revolutionary ideas were embraced by a Third Estate
that felt overburdened and crushed by a hefty tax burden. This perspective is found
in contemporary visual propaganda, which depicts commoners carrying the weight of
the nobility and clergy.
Based on this, it is reasonable to believe French taxes were increased significantly
through the 1700s – but this was not the case. Taxes rose in some areas (Paris most
notably) and fell in others. Overall levels of taxation increased in the half-century
preceding the revolution but this increase was not large enough to incite revolution
on its own.
As Gail Bossenga puts it: “the real problem with French taxation seems not to have
been its crushing weight but its inequities, inefficiencies and imperviousness to true
reform”. In the public mind, taxation with no regard for equality, efficiency or
accountability was just as intolerable as being grossly overtaxed.

1. Taxation is considered an important cause of the French Revolution. The

accepted view is during the 1700s, France’s taxation regime became excessive,
inefficient and unfair.
2. The French were subject to a range of direct taxes (payable to the royal
government) and indirect taxes (payable on items like salt, wine and tobacco) as well
as feudal payments.
3. Direct taxes were collected by royal officials, while indirect taxes were collected by
the fermiers-généraux or ‘tax-farmers’, an unpopular group accused of rampant
greed and corruption.
4. Tax liabilities varied widely across France. The gabelle or salt tax, for example,
was levied at much higher amounts in Paris and surrounding provinces than in
southern France. The nobility and clergy were also exempt from some direct taxes.
5. A commonly-held view in the 1780s was that the Third Estate was being overtaxed
and forced to carry the tax burden of the First and Second Estate. While the reality
was more complex, it was clear the taxation regime was in dire need of reform.
3. If I were to raise my opinion, I would say that it depends upon the laws enforced
in a country for not all countries are agreeable to such laws like buying a property to
acquire citizenship. Some countries restrict land ownership to citizens only. As a
legal citizen of two countries, you would be able to purchase property in either – or
both – countries. If you travel frequently between the two countries, this might be
especially useful since property ownership might offer a more economical way to live
in two places The good thing when this so happen is that there comes capital
investment in which you give to the economy of such country but the other side or
the effect of it is dual obligation to both countries where you have citizenship can
also result to Double Taxation just how The United States imposes taxes on its
citizens for income earned anywhere in the world. If you are a dual citizen living
abroad, you might owe taxes both to the United States and to the country where the
income was earned. Income tax treaties are in effect, however, between the United
States and many other countries that reduce or eliminate a U.S. citizen’s tax
liability in the United States
4. As to what I understand and I could say Marx theory agrees to Socrates, Marx
believed that capitalism contained the seeds of its own destruction. He described
how the wealth of the bourgeoisie depended on the work of the proletariat.
Therefore, capitalism requires an underclass. But Marx predicted that the continued
exploitation of this underclass would create great resentment. Eventually the
proletariat would lead a revolution against the bourgeoisie. The final struggle would
lead to the overthrow of capitalism and its supporters. Marx wrote that modern
bourgeois society 'is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of
the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.'
Following the proletariats' defeat of capitalism, a new classless society would emerge
based on the idea: 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs'. In such a society, land, industry, labour and wealth would be shared between
all people. All people would have the right to an education, and class structures
would disappear. Harmony would reign, and the state would simply 'wither away'.
5. Yes, Since wealth directly translates to power and political control, the political
elite perpetuates itself throughout the country by means of political dynasties. These
political dynasties represent and dominate the elite state of our country that can even
be best characterized as a plutocracy which is a society characterized by the control
of a few people based on great wealth and income. Although people vote in periodic
elections touted to be a central feature of electoral democracy, it is just a façade,
because it is just used to legitimize oligarchic rule. There is in reality no
representative or participatory democracy. What we have been suffering to endure is
the perennial spectacle of political dynasties perpetuating their material control our
political life.

Oligarchy has long been implied in our 1987 Constitution when it expressly
mentions “political dynasties” that it seeks to abolish. But it does not seek such
abolition by its text. Instead, it requires a law from Congress for such an
abolition. For the longest time, Congress has not made such law, allowing political
dynasties to thrive in an oligarchy. This same oligarchy represented by political
dynasties is incompatible with democracy itself.

GUIDE QUESTIONS DEMOCRACY

Next in the series of flawed forms of government, says Socrates, is democracy. This constitution of
the state comes into being when the poor rise up against the rich and conquer them, slaughtering
some and banishing the remainder from power. Socrates acknowledges the appeal of the
democratic state, comparing it in a striking simile to an embroidered robe that is spangled with every
sort of flower. Yet despite the superficial appeal of every kind of liberty, the variety and disorder of
democracy are likely to trample the finer principles of virtue and good government, and the
democratic man becomes the prey of myriad desires. On a more philosophical level,
Plato was concerned that democracy stood in opposition to expertise.
Just as one would want a skilled doctor rather than a randomly selected
citizen to perform brain surgery, so Plato felt that in matters of laws, city
planning, administration, and so on, the city was better off being run by
experts. He also was concerned about corruption and thus in
the Republic argues that the Guardians should not be allowed to own
private property at all so that they will not be swayed by personal gain
but will always consider what is best for the city.

Socrates never exactly hated democracy but rather criticized it. He rather claimed that
voting was a skill which required critical thought which required concern for social welfare
and the welfare of the state instead of self interest. He also believed that a vote for everyone
stood in opposition to expertise. While democracy reinforced freedom of individuals, he
argued that order was to be preferred over the freedom democracy instilled in the hands of
a common man.

Socrates opinion of the order holding the precedence over freedom was an
unpopular kind, but a point to ponder nevertheless. The control given to the
common man promotes freedom but it would inevitably lead anarchy as
 everyone would make decisions based on the interests of the self-leading to a
huge conflict of interest while long term goals of the state and its well-being
will get ignored.
1. I can say that the Philippine democracy is a workable and best due to the
following reasons, It encourages personal involvement.
In one way or another, it is the people who control their own fate
under the scope of a democracy. They can choose to vote or
choose not to vote. They can vote for certain policies and against
others. Whether they are in the majority or not, there is always the
possibility of freely expressing a personal opinion. That is a level
of freedom that other forms of government do not always provide.
It promotes equality.
Within a democracy, every vote is weighted with the same value. It doesn’t
matter what your gender identification happens to be. It doesn’t matter how
much money you make. It doesn’t matter where you live, what religion you
prefer, if you’re a jerk, or if you’re the nicest person who has ever lived.
Everyone gets a vote with the same value, even if it is through an eligible
representative, and that basic structure promotes equality on a vote level.
It de-centralizes governmental power.
A government with power over the people can dictate how populations live
their lives. In a democracy, the governmental power is de-centralized because
it lies in the hands of each voter. If an elected official isn’t doing their job, then
they can be voted out of office during the next election. In a true democracy,
each vote is its own source of power. That makes it easier for people to stay
in control over the direction of chasing their dreams.
2. The problem with democracy as we assert is that we have forgotten the
importance of having intellectual democracy for It requires
voters to be intelligent to be effective.
In a democracy, it is possible to cast a vote without having any
knowledge about what is being voted on. For this governmental
structure to be effective, it is necessary for every voting individual
to be well-versed on the subject matter being voted upon. Without
that knowledge, an unnecessary or potentially harmful piece of
legislation could be passed.
It focuses solely on the needs of the majority.
Within the structure of a democracy, those who find themselves in the minority
on a decision will feel like their country didn’t listen to their ideas and
perspectives. If someone finds themselves in the minority on a consistent
basis, then they may begin to feel marginalized. The majority could even
attempt to enact policies that harm the minority without protective structures in
place to prevent such an action.

3. Democracy does not only happen during elections but it should be even
after elections we are productive to do the right thing for the best
development of our country. More significantly, while the Philippines has
embraced the democratic traditions of participation and the freedom of
choice and expression, the longer-term challenge remains to deepen the
quality of its democracy. Building political parties on ideology and merit
rather than personality, strengthening accountability mechanisms within
government, creating alternative sources of reliable information, and
enabling the electorate to make informed choices – there is clearly much
more work that needs to be done, despite the progress that has been
made.
 Fundamentally, democracy is a process. A citizen-centric process. The goal
of a democracy is not to guarantee outcomes, but rather to ensure that
people are front and center driving the process. In a democracy, the people
are sovereign — the highest form of political authority. Power flows from the
people to the leaders of government, who hold power only temporarily. It is
not sufficient if a government guarantees basic rights for its people if citizens
are not actively involved in the governance effort itself. Simultaneously, a
government is not sufficiently listening to citizens if it is not providing
adequate and effective basic social services and focused on curbing
economic inequality.
 Thus, to improve democracy, we must focus on improving the process,
with an end goal of robust citizen participation. To secure vigorous and
healthy participation, it is incumbent to improve democratic norms and
implement structures that promote active participation. A more robust
and active citizenry will lead to the successful implementation of more
equitable and sustainable policies. A focus on process leads to better
outcomes.

The next step, however, has to be taken by the electorate itself. We have seen how a
strong mandate for change has made change happen – now we just need to sustain it
by demanding continuity.

1. No, for what happened there was not a pure democratic thing. It was a
self-ambition of activists groups to form a new kind of government under
the administration of Marcos. They just use the Filipino citizens for
sympathy to get rid of Former President Marcos but their goal was to
reform the government into a communist one, to establish their own. How
does It show democracy when it did corrupted the mind of the many
individuals and yet even to the present, these groups and organizations
keep saying that they are fighting for democracy when they aren’t at all.
True democracy is intellectual, it establishes fair and balance, It may able
to express one’s expression of stand but still It thinks the interests of the
common good towards to what would be the best and righteous not to
what the majority wants. The rally and protest that happened before did
not procure a change, there was no development after all, so it was a
waste of efforts due to wrong action and intention.