Originally Posted by
ImmortalPig
Why not just have them sign contracts then? Have them draft their campaign promises as a legally binding document.
Why not, indeed?
Originally Posted by
ImmortalPig
I think you are referring to the power they hold not the proportion of people, but it's still such a loose definition.
The very reason it's 'disproportionate' is because there is a natural 'portion' that every citizen holds. It refers to both the power, and the proportion of people. You can't have disproportionate power without having inequity in numbers. They hold extremely more power than they should given their numbers. Disproportionate. Don't make me try to reduce this any further, it's very clear.
Originally Posted by
ImmortalPig
Sorry but I don't see how that would make it not an oligarchy? I thought that your definition was just that "A select group of people that hold extremely disproportionate power over everybody else"? How does removing corruption change that?
Corruption takes the power away from the people (by putting it in the hands of
them) which distorts representative governance. Remove corruption, remove the distortion. With the distortition removed, representative democracy is restored and the power is back in the hands of the people.
Originally Posted by
ImmortalPig
You say "A select group of people that hold extremely disproportionate power over everybody else." but later on you qualify it with "ruling class" and "doesn't represent the will of the people". Are these two concepts that you did not include as part of the definition actually part of the definition?
No, I said an aristocracy is an example of an oligarchy. Which it is. You've seen those questions on IQ tests, right? All aristocracies are oligarchies, but not all oligarchies are aristocracies. I only mentioned aristocracies so you and others reading might have them as points of reference with respect to oligarchies.
Originally Posted by
ImmortalPig
Is, for example, an aristocracy which takes into account and acts upon the will of the people still an oligarchy? How about if there is a high degree of class mobility too?
First question, yes. No matter how it acts (and you'd be hard pressed to find an aristocracy that truly represented the people anyway), the fact that power is concentrated to a small group of people makes it an oligarchy. On the second question, high class mobility (which you won't find in an aristocracy anyway (they tend to guard their power)) doesn't change that either, so yes, still an oligarchy.