Forms of Government: Monarchy, Democracy, Oligarchy & More - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com Forms of Government: Monarchy, Democracy, Oligarchy & More Watch short & fun videos Start Your Free Trial Today An error occurred trying to load this video. Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support. You must create an account to continue watching Register for a free trial Are you a student or a teacher? I am a student Start Your Free Trial To Continue Watching As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you succeed. Coming up next: Political Power: Political Parties, Interest Groups & Political Action Committees (PACs) You're on a roll. Keep up the good work! Your next lesson will play in 10 seconds 0:05 Power Defined Add to Add to Add to Want to watch this again later? Log in or sign up to add this lesson to a Custom Course. Custom Courses are courses that you create from Study.com lessons. Use them just like other courses to track progress, access quizzes and exams, and share content.

Teachers Organize and share selected lessons with your class. Make planning easier by creating your own custom course. Students Create a new course from any lesson page or your dashboard. From any lesson page: Click "Add to" located below the video player and follow the prompts to name your course and save your lesson. From your dashboard: Click on the "Custom Courses" tab, then click "Create course". Next, go to any lesson page and begin adding lessons. Edit your Custom Course directly from your dashboard. Personalize: Name your Custom Course and add an optional description or learning objective. Organize: Create chapters to group lesson within your course. Remove and reorder chapters and lessons at any time. Share your Custom Course or assign lessons and chapters. Teacher Edition: Share or assign lessons and chapters by clicking the "Teacher" tab on the lesson or chapter page you want to assign. Students' quiz scores and video views will be trackable in your "Teacher" tab. Premium Edition: You can share your Custom Course by copying and pasting the course URL. Only Study.com members will be able to access the entire course. Create an account to start this course today Try it free for 5 days!

Lesson Transcript Instructor: Melissa Hurst The governance of nations differs significantly based on who has power. This lesson will differentiate five forms of government: monarchy, democracy, oligarchy, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. Power Defined Sociology is the study of human social behavior, human development, organizations, and institutions. In order to better understand those institutions and how humans are organized, it is important to understand how societies are governed. This lesson will discuss and differentiate between the five main forms of power, or government, utilized in past and present societies: monarchy, democracy, oligarchy, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. Boy: Whoa, what's going on in that county? Girl: It looks like they aren't happy with their government. Boy: Why wouldn't they be happy? Can't they elect their leaders and play a role in their government? Girl: No! There are many forms of government in which people have no say in any matters, private or public. All societies are established under some form of power or government. The well-known sociologist Max Weber defined power as the ability to achieve goals even if some people in the society hold differing opinions and goals. Power takes on different forms in different societies. Let me tell you about the five basic forms of government.

Monarchy Let's begin with monarchy. Monarchy was the most common form of government until the 19th century. Monarchy is a form of government in which a single family rules from generation to generation. The power, or sovereignty, is personified in a single individual. There are two main types of monarchy that differ based on the level of power held by the individual or family currently in power. Absolute monarchy exists when the monarch has no or few legal limitations in political matters. Constitutional monarchies, which are more common, exist when the monarch retains a distinctive legal and ceremonial role but exercises limited or no political power. The most familiar example of a monarchy is the constitutional monarchy that exists in the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of the U.K. as well as monarch of fifteen other independent countries. She and the royal family have ceremonial roles but do not make up the laws that govern the people. Democracy Another form of government is a democracy. Democracy is defined as a form of government in which power belongs to the people. There are two forms of democracy. One is direct democracy, in which all eligible citizens have direct participation in the decision making of the government.

The second and more common form of democracy is representative democracy, in which citizens exercise their power through elected representatives. The elected representatives propose, develop, and create laws for the citizens to abide by. The most familiar example of democracy is the representative democracy that exists in the United States of America. Americans elect a president and representatives of Congress. Oligarchy The next form of government is oligarchy. Oligarchy is a form of government in which all power resides with a few people or in a dominant class or group within the society. These groups of people may be distinguished by royalty, wealth, education, or military control. Sometimes oligarchy governments are controlled by a few families who pass their power from one generation to the next. Unlike monarchs, however, oligarchs do not have to be connected by bloodlines in order to inherit power. For example, one family may have power for several years, and then the power may be shifted to another group of people or another family based on their military ties or wealth. These decisions are not influenced by the people. They are influenced solely within the small group of people with whom the power is held. The most well-known example is the former Soviet Union.

Other examples of oligarchy governments are found in the countries of China, North Korea, and Venezuela. Authoritarianism Governments can also impose their power in forceful methods. Authoritarianism is a form of government in which the people have no participation. The characteristics of authoritarianism include absolute obedience to authority by the people and ill-defined and often changing executive power. An example of this type of government is the country of Cuba. In Cuba, there is one leader that rules the country. Cuban citizens are not allowed freedom of speech, religion, or press. The inhabitants of the country are poor, while the leader is wealthy. Citizens of the country do not vote as the leader is already assumed. × What is an Oligarchy? (with pictures) What is an Oligarchy? Originally Written By: L. S. Wynn Revised By: A. Joseph Edited By: L. S.

Wynn Images By: Jorge Láscar, Thomas Owen, Bill Alldredge, Luisafer Last Modified Date: 12 December 2016 Copyright Protected: 10 most extreme places on Earth An oligarchy is a form of government in which most of the political power effectively rests with a small segment of society, typically the people who have the most wealth, military strength, ruthlessness or political influence. The word "oligarchy" from the Greek words olígos, which means "few," and archo, which means "to rule". Some political theorists have argued that all societies are inevitably oligarchies, regardless of their supposed political system. How Oligarchies Form Oligarchies are often controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and mentored to become inheritors of power, often at some sort of expense to those governed. In contrast with aristocracy — or government by the "best" — this power might not always be exercised openly, with some oligarchs preferring to remain "the power behind the throne," exerting their control through economic means. Unlike plutocracy , oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, either, because oligarchs can simply be a privileged cadre.

It also has been suggested that most communist states fit the definition of oligarchies. Societies also might become oligarchies by default, as an outgrowth of the shifting alliances of warring tribal chieftains, although any form of government might transform into an oligarchy at some point in its evolution. The most likely mechanism for this transformation is a gradual accumulation of otherwise unchecked economic power. Oligarchies also might evolve into more classically authoritarian forms of government, sometimes as the result of one family gaining ascendancy over the others. Many of the European monarchies established during the late Middle Ages began in this way. England in the 1200s Oligarchies also might become instruments of transformation, insisting that monarchs or dictators share power, thereby opening the door to power-sharing by other elements of society. One example of this process occurred when English nobles banded together in 1215 to force a reluctant King John to sign the Magna Carta , a tacit recognition both of the king's waning political power and of the existence of an incipient oligarchy.

As English society continued to grow and develop, the Magna Carta was repeatedly revised over the next decade, guaranteeing greater rights to greater numbers of people, thus setting the stage for British constitutional monarchy . South Africa in the 1900s A modern example of oligarchy could be seen in 20th-century South Africa, where the basic characteristics of oligarchy were particularly easy to observe, because the South African form of oligarchy was based on racism. After the Boer War, a tacit agreement was reached between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking whites. Together, they made up about 20 percent of the population, but this small percentage had access to virtually all the educational and trade opportunities, and the minority proceeded to deny these opportunities to the black majority even more than before. Although this process had been going on since the mid-18th century, after 1948, it became official government policy and became known worldwide as apartheid. This lasted until the arrival of democracy in South Africa in 1994, punctuated by the transition to a democratically elected government that was dominated by the black majority.

Ad anon985382 Post 67 The moment that the government politicians chose to betray, and to rule 'over' the will of the people, America became an oligarchy. anon351909 This really helped me on my project on oligarchy! vnapier07 Post 57 Whether or not a country is an oligarchy is entirely debatable. For example, some people would argue that Britain is an oligarchy due to how most of the bourgeoisie control most of the country, as well as the fact that there isn’t a fair distribution of wealth. However, are there really any examples throughout the world of a place where wealth is distributed effectively? Therefore, you could argue the world in general is based on oligarchic principles. anon339162 Post 54 I agree with Clayton. The new world order is definitely an oligarchy with a few families hidden behind the scene dictating the direction of economics, politics and military maneuvers worldwide. Read, timeline of the Rothschild families online or research it if you want to know who the world's puppet masters are.

anon326215 Post 53 To everyone who is arguing whether this or that state is an oligarchy, remember that as the article said, an oligarchy can exist independently from the government. For example, the healthcare system in the U.S. resembles an oligarchy. Deals are made between providers and insurance which consumers have no choice in, and furthermore, the consumers have no choice between different avenues of healthcare as would be the case in an open market. Rather, insurance dictates what will be covered and what will not be covered. It's not an option to pay out-of-pocket for anything other than minor issues because it is far too expensive. Hence, no one has an open market choice and prices keep rising. As a result of higher prices, insurance companies exert even more control. This cycle will probably happen over and over until a breaking point is hit, either by the healthcare industry itself or when consumers finally gain some courage and begin to speak up. Still, I doubt consumers could do so because the issue involves their very existence: health, well-being, and ability to survive. Either way, it'll get ugly and society will only have itself to blame (that includes those people directly responsible for this unethical system in the first place).

Post 50 "It also has been suggested that most communist states fit the definition of oligarchies." This is an example of the power of Bourgeois revisionism via the US media and education system. anon275385 What about any particularly famous examples? Like anything about Ancient Greece, or whatever? anon267637 Post 46 Yeah, this isn't really telling me some examples of where it's used in the world today. Like in the modern world right now with everything rising, where is oligarchy still used? And I don't think it's England because that's a constitutional monarchy. I just need some of examples, like in some rural areas of the world today, maybe oligarchy is used there? Well this article doesn't really give me many answers to the numerous questions I have right now. anon241805 What would it be like to live in an oligarchy government? Would it be harsh? Clayton Post 39 A Monolithic World Conspiracy has been implemented by a most elite group of people quartered in the circles of economic, social, political and military institutions.

Men like David Rockefeller and Nathan Rothschild are leading members in this New World Order or shall we refer to this powerful group of people the hidden Oligarchy? Nothing occurs on this planet other, than natural events, without the blessing of this dark and heartless menace. President John F. Kennedy warned of this World Monolithic power. His national emergency address in 1963 about this conspiracy very well have cost him his life. anon161599 Post 38 Egypt is a good example of a modern oligarchy. But i am not too sure if it still is but yeah, it's been one since 1953. anon150430 How are the rulers of the oligarchy decided? anon150085 Post 36 The united states is not an oligarchy exactly. It has tendencies of an oligarchy but is not. The united states is a democratic republic and according to Polybus's cycle after aristocracy comes oligarchy then democracy. Then Anarchy.

Anarchy-Monarchy-tyranny-Aristocracy-Oligarchy-democracy- Anarchy *repeat* anon109735 Post 34 How would the Bush family come to power through nazi money? And if you want my opinion,the US is turning more into socialism than an oligarchy. The united States of America is a democracy, for now. eventually we will turn into a socialist state, and this transformation will occur faster if liberals keep getting elected into power. anon106230 Post 33 Before people bash Glenn Beck. Sorry, but although you are correct you are missing that those like Glenn Beck are part of the established oligarchy by proxy. It's called controlling the issue. They are pretending to give you information but only give you the parts they want and always pointing a finger at "the other". This allows them to control the debate. This is classic American politics: give the illusion of choice. People should look for the information themselves and what you will find is that we all let this happen. Both sides not only sat by while "the farm was being given away", many embraced the financial worship and faith in all things monetary that allowed this to happen and resists change even today.

We didn't become an oligarchy over one election. It happened over decades, gained momentum starting with Reagan and continued until the present day. It's just blatant these days because they have converted the people to believe in power of the almighty dollar over all else. And when that happens, those with the money naturally become the rulers. #31: You talk a good game but you are just waking up to something that has gone on for a long time. How do I know you just woke up? Because of the language you use. You use the language not of one that sees the truth. but one that has been told what the truth should be. I am not saying this to bash you -- just to warn you. We are all both on the same side so don't take the warning as discouragement. I offer it for quite the opposite reason. We need to confront this with eyed wide open or people will just get distracted or apathetic and nothing will change. Sadly, it's because people can be divided so easily that we are not all striving for the same things. We should be but too many refusing to put aside their ideologies long enough to come together for the common good.

Many in today's political theater are too easily co-oped by established power (i.e. the majority of the Tea Party presently) and/or unwilling to let go of the illusions they hold on to even see the problems, let alone address them. I agree we must all come together but that's not going to happen as long as those like Glenn Beck can control the information. When the Republicans gain power again, you will see that this uprising and will to change is just an illusion and that people really don't want to know the truth, nor do they care if they are controlled, as long as it their brand of control they have to live under. Many people don't understand freedom, and don't really want freedom because the price is too high and their beliefs too ingrained to truly take the blinders off. I hope I am wrong, but just as I suspected this crash and rise of the fake "revolution" would unfold I fear nothing will really change, at least not in time. anon88474 Post 31 Before people bash Glenn Beck, or even the liberal media, do your own research. Read stated objectives in organizations, such as the Trilateral, Bilderberg, etc.

If you haven't actually read Saul Alinsky or Hillary's thesis, do so! Then, use higher level thinking: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. If you still think conservatives today aren't right, you're wearing blinders and won't let go of your own biases. Read what the founding fathers feared and tried to prevent. Unfortunately, they didn't listen to Patrick Henry and left some back doors open, and America's enemies infiltrated both the Republican and Democratic parties. Stop pointing fingers at past presidents, their party affiliations, and accusing people of being racist. Progressives were/are all fighting for the same thing: power. Don't you get it? Only a return to strict Constitutional law and common sense is going to save America! If you truly love this country, kick every incumbent out of office and replace them with a patriotic American who will put country first and party last. Educate yourself first, then you have a right to take sides. I know which one I'm on, and it sure isn't for an oligarchy, progressives with hidden agendas, or a welfare state. anon81767 Post 30 The US is an oligarchy.

The total assets of the top six banks in America is 60 percent of the United State's GNP. To add to that, they are also shareholders of the Federal Reserve. If you have control over the money of a nation, then you pretty much have control over most of the nation and its governmental institutions. I never understood why Tea Partiers and Republicans blame Obama and the government for the economic problems in America. Most politicians are just the bank's puppets. anon81393 Post 29 The U.S. is the most blatant form of a modern oligarchy. If you cannot see this, their mission has succeeded. anon81067 Post 28 A great example of an oligarchy is the Bush family. It came to prominence through Nazi money and slowly but surely weaseled their way into White House twice. The second time was more memorable since it was done with a blunt fraud produced by W Jr.'s brother. But you won't get any better example of oligarchic style of thinking then the agenda of the right-wing neocons: "Let's give more money to the rich so they can fund the economy". It is the single most obvious idiosyncratic statement in the history.

What this translates into is better education, more opportunities and ultimately more political and economical power to the rich. And behold, I give you the creation of the ruling class of people. Sounds like a direct road to oligarchy or rather plutocracy. P.S. whoever posted that oligarchy leads to socialism should go and read the definition of both in the dictionary. Oligarchy and socialism are polar opposites on the spectrum of resource distribution and government arrangement. Think and read before posting nonsense! anon73400 Post 27 Socialism to oligarchy. ann coulter, glenn beck, and rush limbaugh didn't get their jobs through a left-wing funded voter fraud organization (acorn, "gee, i don't remember, it's been 13 years"..."don't worry i call them.") and then once employed send their union thug pals to beat up black men in the street, then bribe and threaten U.S. reps to jam a 2.5 T HCB down the general public's throat and then lie with a straight face about all the billions being saved?

anon 58147 the only revolt you need to be concerned about are the 15 million criminals demanding free welfare, free WC, free education, free incarceration(see CA), free, free, free obama money. what will happen when the obama money runs out? hmmm? anon72876 Post 25 The whole explanation and using the apartheid system as an example for an oligarchy just is true, but only a half truth. I'm so tired of political correctness. If a white man kills he's a murderer. If a black man kills he reckons it's his culture. anon62671 Post 23 In response to post 22, it is indeed sad that the current White House and the 14 percent or so of liberals within this great country have turned us into an oligarchy. Proving this fact is the loud very minority whining about the majority being fed up with our country being driven by the long-standing oligarchy of liberals being allowed to dictate U.S. internal and external policy because of politically correct B.S.

We're tired of hearing how bad our society is from those who wouldn't leave here and go to where it is so much better because it's all a perpetuated lie, so that woe is me attitude dictates the U.S. oligarchy through the courts and white house. Please feel free to emigrate if freedom of speech only applies to the 14 percent or so, because we the people want our freedom of speech, freedoms and our country back. Good luck! anon58147 Post 22 Sadly, the United States has become an oligarchy. When the people do not speak up and allow the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and Wall Street execs to become greedy and even bring this country to its knees with the recent financial meltdown, democracy takes a hard hit. This hard hit was also manifested when Al Gore was the elected president, yet a mainly right-wing Supreme Court handed the presidency over to Bush, and we saw what an eight-year disaster that turned out to be! Until the people stop being manipulated by right-wing propaganda (from irresponsible nut cases like Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) rise up and protest, as they do in France, things will just get worse for most Americans.

I keep wondering how much worse it will have to get before the majority population revolts. anon56684 Post 21 Some fox news nuts are spreading more propaganda. pathetic. all the crazy right wingers need to come out and say its because obama is black. hell, under bush and Reagan together, fiscal responsibility went out of the window, yet none of them said a thing. the only president in recent times to bring the deficit to a surplus was clinton, and while they were anti-clinton he was white, so its all right. anon55444 The USA is not an oligarchy! anon54853 Post 19 yes, since the end of apartheid ended in South Africa, the poor have become poorer and the a new social class of elite rich have established themselves. Poor South Africa anon48001 how do they make decisions? do they just ask each other? anon47375 Post 16 there are no modern forms of oligarchy, unless you want to count the USA, though I believe we aren't there yet. anon43440 watch glen beck on fox channel TV to learn more about oligarchy government.

anon43432 Post 14 our US government is on the verge of being transformed into an oligarchy. this is the number 1 agenda of obama and his czars including some members of Congress. Beware! anon42677 Post 12 khilafah is the solution for mankind. it will rule world peacefully. by the will of god. Asim wisereal Post 11 Nigeria is a practical example of an Oligarchy in modern society if Nigeria. Since the Independence in 1960 till now, only one two region has been producing presidents and as matter of fact they are seeing themselves as the sole owners of Nigeria. They make rules for others to follow, if they say no to anything, everyone must accept it. These two regions are namely, Hausa/Fulani and Yoruba. but the hausa people are more dangerous because they never allow other regions to survive in politics, economics, socially or otherwise. anon37156 USA is an example of an Oligarchy katiesue does anyone know where i might find the history of oligarchical governments?! anon18079 this passage was very helpful with my report on an oligarchy.

anon17925 china, south africa, and previously, Sparta and Russia jobmorrison Post 3 I would like an answer to the last post, as I am working on the Citizenship in the World merit badge. Are there any modern examples of an oligarchy in the world today? anon10335 Oligarchy | Forms of Government Defined Follow us on Facebook & Twitter for news updates! WHO Controls the Government? There are two main aspects (NOT wings) of political systems within the different forms of governments: Social beliefs & Economic beliefs. Understanding these terms is essential to understanding WHY the 'right' and the 'left' are always throwing stones at each other. I believe IF the "Conservative Republican" FOX news channel REALLY wanted democrats to jump ship and sign on with the Republican Party, their CFR controlled corporate media outlet would just tell people the Truth about how OUR Constitutional Republic was designed - and CLEARLY define the terms to eliminate THEIR manufactured confusion clouding these simple issues. "The real rulers of Washington are invisible and exercise their power from behind the scenes." — Felix Frankfurter, U.S.

Supreme Court Justice "50 men have controlled America, and that's a high figure." — Joseph Kennedy, 1936 "By the time you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions. You may find you can get away with virtual Presidents, virtual Prime Ministers, virtual everything." — Bill Clinton Oligarch |ˈäliˌgärk; ˈōl-| noun: a ruler in an oligarchy. ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from Greek oligarkhēs, from oligoi ‘few’ + arkhein ‘to rule.’ Oligarchy |ˈäliˌgärkē; ˈōli-| noun ( pl. -chies): Oligarchy is literally rule by a few. A small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution : the ruling oligarchy of military men around the president. A state governed by such a group : the English aristocratic oligarchy of the 19th century. ORIGIN late 15th century: from Greek oligarkhia (probably via medieval Latin).

Oligarchy means "rule by a group," which is how most of the nations of the world are governed today and throughout history. Most of the nations of the world are ruled only by a powerful few. An Oligarchy is a form of government controlled by a group, council, or a board of directors. Oligarchies typically have no constitution nor charter - and the CONTROLLERS have the freedom to rule however they see fit. Citizens have no vote and must put up with whatever their tyrannical rulers decide to do with them. Most current forms of government, including the Queen of England AND her advisors, and especially communist governements like China and Russia, are almost all oligarchies. "Corporate ownership intermingled with secret society members, many of whom are employed in the media, may explain why Bilderberg, Trilateral, and CFR meetings are not reported by America's watchdog media. In fact, the membership lists of these societies read like a who's who of the mass media." — Jim Marrs in Rule by Secrecy WHO Controls an Aristocracy?

Aristocracy |ˌariˈstäkrəsē| noun: Aristocracy is rule by a traditional elite, held to be made up of 'the best' people, and is usually hereditary. An aristocracy is the highest class in certain societies, esp. those holding hereditary titles or offices. A form of government in which power is held by the nobility. A state governed by the nobility. A figurative group regarded as privileged or superior in a particular sphere. ORIGIN late 15th century: from Old French aristocratie, from Greek aristokratia, from aristos ‘best’ + -kratia ‘power.’ The term originally denoted the government of a state by its best citizens, later by the rich and wellborn, hence the sense [nobility,] regardless of the form of government (mid 17th century). ‎"Already THEY have raised up a money aristocracy. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson "The case for government by elites is irrefutable." — William Fulbright, Senator, 1963 WHAT Controls a Plutocracy?

Plutocracy |ploōˈtäkrəsē| noun: plutocratic. plutocratically. Government by the WEALTHY. Plutocracy is rule by the (necessarily few) very rich. A country or society governed by the wealthy. An elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth. ORIGIN mid 17th century: from Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos ‘wealth’ + kratos ‘strength, authority’. IMF "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson." — FDR WHO Controls a Technocracy? Technocracy |tekˈnäkrəsē| noun: The government or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts. An instance or application of this. An elite of technical experts. ORIGIN early 20th century: from Greek tekhnē ‘art, craft’ + -cracy . WHAT Controls a Regime? Regime |riˈ zh ēm; rā-| (also régime) noun: A government, esp.

an authoritarian government: system of government, authorities, rule, authority, control, command, administration, leadership. ORIGIN late 15th century (in the sense [regimen]): French régime, from Latin regimen ‘rule’ (regimen). Sense 1 dates from the late 18th century (with original reference to the Ancien Régime). A system or planned way of doing things, esp. one imposed from above. A coordinated program for the promotion or restoration of health; a regimen, system, arrangement, order, pattern, method, procedure, routine, course, plan, program. The conditions under which a scientific or industrial process occurs. WHO Controls a Cabal? Cabal |kəˈbäl; -ˈbal| noun: A secret political clique or faction : a cabal of dissidents. ORIGIN late 16th century (denoting the cabbala): from French cabale, from medieval Latin cabala (Kabbalah). Plot: If ONE PERSON comes up with a secret plan to do something, especially with evil or mischievous intent (Lone Gunman THEORY). Conspiracy: If MORE THAN ONE PERSON or groups are involved in the plot.

Cabal: usually applies to a small group of political conspirators Machination (usually plural) suggests deceit and cunning in devising a plot intended to harm someone. Intrigue: involves more complicated scheming or maneuvering than a plot, and often employs underhanded methods in an attempt to gain one's own ends. WHAT Controls a Cartel? cartel |kärˈtel| noun: An association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition : the Colombian drug cartels. • chiefly historical a coalition or cooperative arrangement between political parties intended to promote a mutual interest. ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from German Kartell, from French cartel, from Italian cartello, diminutive of carta, from Latin carta. It was originally used to refer to the coalition of the Conservatives and National Liberal parties in Germany (1887), and hence any political combination; later to denote a trade agreement (early 20th century) An Overview of America (JBS) Types of Government: Autocracy, Democracy & Oligarchy | The Classroom | Synonym Types of Government: Autocracy, Democracy & Oligarchy by Bethney Foster In a democracy, the people retain decision-making powers.

Those powers may be exercised directly or given to represenatives through an election. Related Articles Similarities Between Totalitarianism & Democracy Autocracy, democracy and oligarchy are terms used to define different systems of government. The systems defined by these terms range from a government in which one person makes all decisions to a government in which decisions are made by all people. Autocracy Autocracy is “rule by one.” In an autocratic government, one person -- the autocrat -- has all the power and makes all the decisions. There are no laws or constitution that restrain the authority of the autocrat. The people who are governed have no processes, such as elections, through which they can express their desires for how their government operates. The advantages of an autocratic government are that decisions can be made and implemented quickly. However, individual rights are usually ignored and power is often maintained by force. Some autocracies are theocratic governments, in which the ruler claims to have been put in power by a deity. Democracy There are many different forms of democracy, but what makes a democracy different from all other forms of government is the participation of the people in decision-making. In a direct democracy, each individual has a vote in setting laws, rules and policy.

In other forms of democracy, such as a republic, the people elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. Most democracies include a constitution or bill of rights that restrain authority. Rule by law, along with the recognition of individual liberties, are among the benefits of a democratic system of government. However, when everyone has some degree of input in decision-making, the process of reaching a decision can take more time. Oligarchy In an oligarchy, a few rulers control the government. These rulers gain their power and maintain their authority as a result of their wealth or another form of influence. The oligarch rulers make decisions to benefit themselves financially and with little regard for the wishes or best interests of the people they govern. The oligarch may not be the official ruler of the country but may have close ties to and influence on those who are officially in power. According to Paul M. Johnson of Auburn University’s Department of Political Science, oligarchy “always has a negative or derogatory connotation.” Government Transitions A nation's government may not fit neatly into any one of the leadership styles described above. Systems are often in flux, and the process of a system transitioning from one type of government to another happens often.

One aspect of a government may operate like a democracy, putting power and decision-making in the hands of the people, while another aspect may cater to the wishes of the wealthy or repress freedoms. A government that has traditionally operated as an autocracy may begin allowing citizens to have limited decision-making power by holding a vote, while a government that has traditionally operated as a democracy may begin imposing new limits on particular activities. References oligarchy | government | Britannica.com government political system Oligarchy, government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes. Aristotle used the term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by bad men unjustly. In this sense, oligarchy is a debased form of aristocracy , which denotes government by the few in which power is vested in the best individuals. Most classic oligarchies have resulted when governing elites were recruited exclusively from a ruling caste—a hereditary social grouping that is set apart from the rest of society by religion, kinship, economic status, prestige , or even language. Such elites tend to exercise power in the interests of their own class.

It is a recurrent idea that all forms of government are in the final analysis reducible to the rule of a few. Oligarchs will secure effective control whether the formal authority is vested in the people, a monarch, the proletariat, or a dictator. Thus, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels insisted that, throughout capitalism , the key capitalists had controlled the government; they coined the dictum, “the state is the executive committee of the exploiting class.” The Italian political scientist Gaetano Mosca likewise insisted that a “ruling class” always constituted the effective oligarchic control. Vilfredo Pareto elaborated the idea in his doctrine of the “elite.” The modern tendency to analyze social patterns in terms of an “elite,” although greatly reinforced by Pareto’s theory, goes further back than Marx and Engels, who employed the term “elite” to describe the class-conscious communists, the leading group within the proletariat. Friedrich Engels, German socialist and supporter of Karl Marx, 1879.

Oxford Science Archive/Heritage-Images political system: Oligarchy One of the most famous modern uses of the term occurs in “ iron law of oligarchy ,” a concept devised by the German sociologist Robert Michels to refer to the alleged inevitable tendency of political parties and trade unions to become bureaucratized, centralized, and conservative . His reasoning was that, no matter how egalitarian or even radical the original ideology and goals of a party or union may be, there must emerge a limited group of leaders at the centre who can direct power efficiently, get things done through an administrative staff, and evolve some kind of rigorous order and ideology to ensure the survival of the organization when faced by internal division and external opposition. Subsequent writers of various persuasions have attempted either to expand on Michels’s thesis, extending it to legislatures, religious orders, and other organizations, or to restrict or criticize the thesis, charging that the iron law of oligarchy is not universal and that some unions and parties do maintain a viable system of democratic expression and governance. Similar Topics oligarchy facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about oligarchy bibliography The word “oligarchy” and the concepts which it symbolizes originated in ancient Greece.

In its basic use, the word identified one of the general forms of government recognized by the Greeks: that in which political government is conducted by a few persons or families. It was also used more narrowly, by Aristotle for example, to refer to the debased form of aristocracy, that is, to government by the few or by a faction. The term “oligarchy” was also used to refer to the small group of persons who enjoyed a monopoly of political control in oligarchic governments; the term usually had the added sense that the oligarchy ruled in its own rather than in the public interest. For Aristotle, classification of governments rested on two independent variables: the number of persons who ruled and the purposes served by their rule. Oligarchy was present when a few persons ruled for their own satisfaction. Development of the concept. The original uses of the term were associated with particular social and political regimes and with intellectual modes of analyzing them. Typically, societies were small and traditional and rested on established classes, including a slave class. Within Greek cities citizenship status often identified a large but still minority class that could at least claim to participate in political decisions.

Whatever the changes in political forms, this “upper class” was relatively stable by reason of property holding, authority relations with other classes, social position, and so on, and oligarchy could reasonably be expected to be succeeded by other known forms of government. Classical analysts found oligarchies to be endemic among ancient states, but they viewed them as unstable since they rested on military, economic, and leadership factors which were transitory as compared with the continuing forces which supported the relatively large upper classes in traditionalist societies. In the modern view, these classical conceptions, including oligarchy and the ideas associated with it, are far too simple for effective analysis. Indeed, classical writing makes it clear that the conceptions based on the formal structure of governments were not adequate even then, in spite of the particular emphasis given to form. Greek analysts dealt with the phenomena of power, with the importance of procedures, and, of course, with the paramount role of values. These matters were merged with discussions of political form, but the elements were not clearly discriminated. The subtleties and complexities of Greek political thought do not appear to good advantage in this particular classificatory system.

To the extent that the word “oligarchy” was employed in the Roman and medieval periods, it appears to have been used in the Aristotelian sense of a perverted form of government. However, the emphasis on ideas and values of citizenship and law during the long period of Roman stability turned analytical attention away from forms of government as such. Even though the instabilities of feudalism did generate oligarchs, many of the writers of the early Middle Ages were more preoccupied with problems of legitimacy, since these problems had been given new urgency by the complexities of church-state relationships. Nevertheless, the word itself was coupled to its classical meaning and became an active term in political vocabularies following the rediscovery of Aristotle. In the late Middle Ages and early modern times, political instability among renascent states and a revival of secular realism restored earlier classificatory tools in significant measure. Machiavelli, for example, stipulated and used the Aristotelian classification of the types of government, including that of oligarchy, even though his political analyses could not be contained by them. Significant use of the term “oligarchy” by students of sociopolitical phenomena has lessened in recent centuries.

This is not to say that the term has been wholly abandoned or that notable efforts have not been made to adapt the concept of oligarchy to modern circumstances. Indeed, until relatively recently, general treatises on government have usually given some degree of credence to the classification of governments which contains oligarchy as one form (see, for example, Sidgwick 1891, or Wilson 1889). Some more specialized treatments have also sought to adapt the classical formula to new analyses. In 1832 George C. Lewis, mindful of parliamentary claims, adapted the classical scheme, including its oligarchical component, to the new realities of political sovereignty in his Remarks on the Use and Abuse of Some Political Terms. However, these adaptations were, at best, difficult to maintain in the context of the most important social phenomena among Western nations in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: industrialization and urbanization; the radical intensification of nationalism; the improvement and spread of representative parliamentarianism and of parliamentary democracy; warfare conducted as the total effort of national populations; autocracy redefined by twentieth-century totalitarianism; and political leadership vastly heightened by new technological and organizational resources.

In contrast to students of politics, spokesmen for ideological movements frequently used the concept of oligarchy to proclaim against degenerate oligarchs. Liberal and democratic reformers did the same thing in their works. Similarly, socialists discovered ruling coteries within the capitalist class. Their protests were in the language of opinion rather than systematic analysis. However, the scale of experience in which the classical concept of oligarchy was formulated could not produce, even for the socialist movements, ideas comprehensive enough to account for nationalism, or the complex semiegalitarianism of liberal societies, or the dynamism of historical necessity expressed through the warfare of classes. One group of twentieth-century scholars, including Ostrogorskii, Michels, Pareto, and Mosca, was particularly concerned with a redefinition of oligarchy and its successes and failures. These writers sought an accommodation between forces of social class and of elitism and found it, to a large extent, in the idea of class oligarchies. Michels’ “iron law of oligarchy” made the point most explicitly: elitist control within the party structures that are an implementing response to social conflict is as inevitable as class conflict itself.

Michels, in company with others, provided a usable new definition of oligarchy, which was distinctive but had obvious kinship with the traditional form-of-government idea. But it is pertinent that these writings and their constituent ideas are now almost always indexed under a heading like “elitism” or “leadership “rather than under the word “oligarchy.” Uses of the concept. The meanings associated with the word “oligarchy” have remained remarkably stable throughout the centuries. Dictionary definitions accord very closely with the classical uses of the word. As a matter of fact, Webster’s New International Dictionary does indeed recognize a wider range of meanings, including extrapolitical meanings, but “government by the few “remains the primary definition. Several concomitants to this unusual consistency are relevant. First, the word has retained its usefulness as a technical symbol for scholars whose interest in political phenomena is historical and descriptive rather than contemporary and analytical. Unlike many other key words, “oligarchy” does not require an elaborate etymology to establish historically prior uses. Second, the word and its associated ideas have not proved notably useful for nineteenth-century and twentieth-century analysis, and this period has witnessed its declining use by students of current societies.

Among many illustrations, it may be noted that in Agger, Goldrich, and Swanson(1964), the authors do not find it necessary to mention oligarchy, although the book is concerned with the power of elites. Nor does the elaborate classification system of the annual International Bibliography of the Social Sciences find room for the word. Finally, the new uses for the term, especially in its application to nonpolitical phenomena(for example, “oligarchy” in school systems) have been largely promoted by lay users. The epithet “oligarch “ is more apt to be found in a novel than in a technical treatise on politics. The political phenomena associated with what previously was labeled as oligarchy, that is, effective rule by a small and often irresponsible element in a society, have been given great attention by current analysts. However, data assembled for the analyses and the methods used make the inadequacy of the concept of oligarchy apparent almost at once. Some contrasts will make the point. First, traditional treatments of oligarchy tended to restrict the role of the oligarch to simple control relationships based on command. Current analyses of leadership by a minority define a plurality of roles and include conditional responses between leaders and followers.

Second, the simple distinction between the few and the many is replaced by a continuum of relationships among members of a polity who display quite different responses at different times and under differing circumstances. Interrelations between different social strata, groups, and organizations, including their leaders, and political leaders are repetitive and contingent. Third, the concept of power runs through a range marked at one end by forced compliance backed by penalties and at the other by the gentleness of influence and persuasion. The formal classical specification of oligarchy as a class of government largely avoided the question of the techniques and other means by which this form of government was maintained. Finally, contemporary analysis of elite leadership is broadly social rather than narrowly political. Politically relevant leadership by “the few “is located at many points in the society and not in the halls of government alone. In conclusion, therefore, what has happened to the concept of oligarchy in recent decades may be taken as an index to what has happened in the social sciences. Thomas P. Jenkin bibliography Agger, Robert E.; Goldrich, Daniel; and Swanson, Bert 1964 The Rulers and the Ruled: Political Power and Impotence in American Communities. New York: Wiley.

American Academy OF Arts AND Sciences 1954 Totalitarianism. Edited with an introduction by Carl J. Friedrich. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press. →Proceedings of a conference held at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, March 1953. Barker, Ernest (1918) 1960 Greek Political Theory:Plato and His Predecessors. 5th ed. London: Methuen. Friedrich, Carl J.; and Brzezinski,Zbigniew K. (1956) 1965 Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. 2d ed., rev. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. Lewis,George C. (1832) 1877 Remarks on the Use and Abuse of Some Political Terms. New ed. Oxford: Thornton. Michels, Robert (1911) 1959 Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: Dover. → First published as Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie.

A paperback edition was published in 1962 by Collier. Sidgwick, Henry (1891) 1908 The Elements of Politics. 4th ed. London: Macmillan. Wilson, Woodrow (1889) 1918 The State: Elements of Historical and Practical Politics. Boston: Heath. Cite this article Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography. MLA BIBLIOGRAPHY The term oligarchy refers to a form of government in which political power is in the hands of a small minority. The word oligarchy derives from the Greek word oligarkhia (government of the few), which is composed of oligoi (few) and arkhein (to rule). This definition does not necessarily distinguish oligarchy from other forms of government. Autocracy, for example, can be viewed as a form of oligarchy in which “the few” refers to a single individual, though autocracies, especially when they take the form of dictatorships, have commonly been associated with greater use of coercion. Democracy, some argue, is also characterized by a “rule of the few” because most political decisions are made by a small section of society.

The key factor differentiating oligarchy and democracy is the fact that in democracy political decisions are made by representatives who can be voted out of office by the citizens in regularly scheduled elections. Direct democracy, where the people decide on policies without the intermediation of representatives, is an exception. Therefore, it can be useful to think of the different types of government as being located along a continuum that runs from autocracy to direct democracy. Furthermore, oligarchies are not confined to national politics; oligarchies can also emerge in local government (e.g., Hunter 1953) or in other organizations, such as labor unions. THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY The most influential treatment of the politics of oligarchy is Political Parties (1911) by German social scientist Robert Michels (1876–1936). The focus of Michels’s work was the German Social Democratic Party, but his analysis had clear references to other types of social institutions, including national government. Michels’s conclusions were highly pessimistic from a democratic point of view. He argued that the necessity of organization for any large-scale social institution would sound the death knell for democratic governance.

Famously, Michels went so far as to state, “Who says organization, says oligarchy” (1962, p. 365). The need for organization concentrated political power in the hands of a select few whose position at the apex of the organization served to solidify their standing. In Michels’s view, the advantages conferred upon the leaders of the organization eliminated the possibility of democratic control through leadership elections. These advantages included greater access to information, greater ability to communicate with the organization’s members, and the opportunity to develop political skills. Combined with the “incompetence of the masses,” evidenced by a lack of participation by ordinary members, which Michels saw as being due to the members’ lower degree of education, the division of labor, and organizational obstacles, the political power of the leadership was ensured. Differences in knowledge and education also gave the appearance that the division between the leaders and the led was natural. If democratic government is defined as a form of government that serves the interests of its members, rather than being defined in procedural terms, nothing thus far suggests that democracy is impossible. However, the final component of Michels’s theory was that the interests of the leaders and the members would inevitably diverge.

As the heads of the organization, the leaders’ interests become identified with their institutional position rather than the interests of the organization’s members. The leaders’ primary concern becomes protecting their position and serving their own ends using the organization as their means. Despite Michels’s pessimistic conclusion about the prospects of democracy, it appears that relatively few governments identified as oligarchic in the literature followed the route he described. Instead, oligarchies have appeared as a consequence of, for example, the devolution of monarchical rule (e.g., in England under King John in the thirteenth century) or the concentration of economic influence (e.g., in Florence around the turn of the fifteenth century and in Chile in the 1830s). RESEARCHING OLIGARCHY Since Michels’s seminal contribution, there have been few systematic studies of the politics of oligarchy. There are several reasons for why this has been the case. First, many of the issues raised by Michels are not specific to oligarchy as such but have far wider applicability. Representative government has been analyzed extensively in the context of democratic governments. Similarly, whether ordinary members can control their leaders is taken up in the literature on principal-agent theory.

Both issues are at the core of Michels’s argument. Second, while the term oligarchy is commonly used, there exists no clear, universally accepted definition of oligarchy in the literature (Payne 1968; Leach 2005). Most scholars agree that oligarchy involves the concentration of political power in the hands of a minority, but this form of government has few other universally accepted defining characteristics. Third, because oligarchy is not necessarily seen as incompatible with (free) elections, the line between oligarchy and democracy becomes blurred. The most frequently cited factor distinguishing oligarchy from democracy is that admission into the class of oligarchs is restricted in some manner to a subset of the citizenry. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) classified oligarchies on the basis of types of restrictions on participation in government, where participation depended on property qualification or heredity (Whibley 1896). South Africa during the apartheid era, where the majority was disenfranchised on the basis of race, serves as an example of another possible type of restriction.

The failure to settle on a definition of oligarchy means that comparative studies, such as The Logic of Political Survival (2004) by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, James Morrow, Randolph Siverson, and Alistair Smith, provide perhaps the most general insights into the politics of oligarchies. Rather than classifying governments as autocratic, democratic, or oligarchic, Bueno de Mesquita and his coauthors instead focus on the size of the group that has a say in the selection of the government or leader and the size of the coalition that the government needs to stay in power. Bueno de Mesquita and colleagues find, for example, that the characteristics associated with oligarchies (i.e., smaller coalitions) tend to reduce economic growth and government expenditures but to increase corruption. The issue of membership in the governing class also looms large in accounts of the decline of oligarchies. J. Mark Ramseyer and Frances Rosenbluth’s (1995) account of Japan ’s Meiji oligarchy highlights two problems an oligarchy must solve to survive: it must prevent the membership from being expanded, and, at the same time, it must provide for rules of succession.

Ramseyer and Rosenbluth show that oligarchies may be vulnerable to competition for political influence among the oligarchs, which may induce them to mobilize previously excluded sections of society. For the same reason, oligarchs may be unable to agree on institutions that govern succession within the oligarchy. In the Soviet Union , by contrast, the Communist Party provided institutions that checked the actions of the oligarchs, although the rules guiding succession were somewhat ambiguous (Hammer 1990). SEE ALSO Aristocracy; Aristotle; Democracy; Elites; Elitism; Power, Political; Republic Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Alastair Smith, Randolph Siverson, and James Morrow. 2004. The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hammer, Darrell P. 1990. The USSR: The Politics of Oligarchy. 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview. Hunter, Floyd. 1953. Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Leach, Darcy K. 2005. The Iron Law of What Again? Conceptualizing Oligarchy across Organizational Forms.

Sociological Theory 23 (3): 312–337. Michels, Robert. [1911] 1962. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Trans. Edan and Cedar Paul. New York: Free Press. Olson, Mancur. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Payne, James L. 1968. The Oligarchy Muddle. World Politics 20 (3): 439–453. Ramseyer, J. Mark, and Frances M. Rosenbluth. 1995. The Politics of Oligarchy: Institutional Choice in Imperial Japan. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Whibley, Leonard. 1896. Greek Oligarchies: Their Character and Organisation. London: Metheun. Indridi H. Indridason sociology chapter 6 at Florida International University - StudyBlue StudyBlue 1..Which of the following would a socialogical example of the term "group". a tennis fans b.

pedestrians on a street c. nursing majors at a university d. people sitting on a bus nursing majors at a university 2.What is the sociological name for strangers waiting in line to buy concert tickets? a. group d. social category b. clique e. social collection c. social aggregate 3.Which of the following is not a characteristic of social groups? a. common goals d. group life expectancy of at least three months e. shared norms group life expectancy of at least three months 4. the most important quality that is missing in secondary groups is a. group goals 5..Which of the following is an example of a primary group? a. members of a local historical society. b. all the passengers on a given train c. college students d. members of a national honor society members of a natinal honor society 6. .Secondary groups c. usually have specific goals. d. are characterized by less intimacy than primary groups e. all of the above are characteristics of secondary groups all of the above are characteristics of secondary groups 7..Someone who occupies a central role of position of dominance and influence in a group would be a: a. coordinator e. none of the above leader 8.

People have formed a social group when they: a. have a purpose b. share certain role expectations c. attach importance to what they're doing together d. begin to feel special in contrast with others e. all of the above. all of the above 9. How would a sociologist describe you and the people you meet and talk to at the bus stop everyday on your way to work? a. secondary group 10.Which of the following is something groups must do in order to function effectively? a. choose leaders e. all of the above all of the above 11.School class rings, code words, and special handshakes all serve what function? a. define group boundaries d. gain entry into reference groups e. make members feel good define group boundaries 12.Instrumental leadership refers to leadership which emphasizes the a. necessity of absolute compliance from members b. emotional well-being of members.' c. personal satisfaction of job performance by all members. d. use of tools in the decision-making process e.

completion of tasks by members completion of tasks by members 13.A formal rationally organized social structure (with) clearly defined patterns of activity in which ideally, ever series of actions is functionally related to the purposes of the organization. a. gesellschaft d. bureaucracy 14.In general, social groups, reguardless of their nature, have which of the following? a. Permanence beyond the meeting of members. b. Means for identifying members, c. Goals or purposes 15.Which of the following statements about reference groups is correct? a. People experience anticipatory socialization if they want to join a group badly enough. b. Reference groups only influence their members. c. Membership in a reference group is an ascribed status. d. Reference groups only influence behavior in positive ways. e. Reference groups are of almost no importance in modern societies people experience anticipatory socialization if they want to join a group badly enough Advertisement 16.Three students stay after class to go over their notes. This group would be called a a. triad c. triage. b. dyad. d. trio triad 17.At a restraurant eight people sit down to eay.

and as the meal progresses the break up into smaller groups to talk. These smaller groups are called a. dyads. c. out-groups 18Which of the following is a characteristic of an association? a. It can be characterized as a special-interest group. b. It is created to serve a specific purpose c. It has official ways of doing things d. all of the above e. none of the above all of the above 19.People who meet together and contain few enough members so that all members know one another. a. total group d. deviant group b. aggregate e. out group c. small group 20. Who first developed a framework to describe bureaucracies: a. Karl Marx e. Emile Durkheim Max Weber 21. Which of the following would NOT be reguarded by Weber as a major characteristic of bureaucracy? a. heavy reliance on written rules and regulations b. a clear-cut division of labor c. a tendency toward favoritism and nepotism d. a clear distinction between public and private spheres e.

None of these a major characteristics of bureaucracy according to Weber a tendency toward favoritism and nepotism 22 .A characteristic of bureaucracy is that power and responsibility making a typically_____. a.informal an unplanned. b. democratic and open to discussion c. horizontal. e. longitidinal. hierachical 23. What term is used to describe how an organization's written rules and regulations apply equally to all its members with no exceptions due to social or psychological differences? a. impartiality c. c;ear-cut division of labor d. hierarchical delegation of power and responsibility e. Distinction between public and private spheres impartiality 24.According to Robert Michels, oligarchy often develops in bureaucracies a. if there are no reference groups b. when there are too many people to permit group decision making c. when leadership is too authoritarian d. if leaders are not selected from the appropriate-class backgrounds. e. when the level of creativity among members is too limited for de,pcracu when therare too many people to permit group decision making 25. Michels' Iron Law of Oligarcy holds that bureaucraces a. eventually lead to political dictatorship. b.

are inevitable in any democratic society. c. are outdated forms of social organization d. always become dominated by a small, self-serving elites e. eventually come to meet the needs of their member always become dominated by a small, self-serving elites 26. Someone who occupies a central role or position of dominance and influence in a group a.Leader d. Superior c. Boss Leader 27.The style of leadership in which the leader actively proposes tasks and plans th guide the group toward achieving its goals. a. Expressive d. Hostile c. Bureaucratic instrumental 28. The stlye of leadership in which the leader works to keep relations among group members harmonious and morale high. a. Expressive d. Hostile Oligarchy | Article about oligarchy by The Free Dictionary Oligarchy | Article about oligarchy by The Free Dictionary Related to oligarchy: autocracy oligarchy (ŏl`əgärkē) [Gr.,=rule by the few], rule by a few members of a community or group. When referring to governments, the classical definition of oligarchy, as given for example by Aristotle, is of government by a few, usually the rich, for their own advantage.

It is compared with both aristocracy aristocracy [Gr.,=rule by the best], in political science, government by a social elite. In the West the political concept of aristocracy derives from Plato's formulation in the Republic. The criteria on which aristocracy is based may vary greatly from society to society. ..... Click the link for more information. , which is defined as government by a few chosen for their virtue and ruling for the general good, and various forms of democracy democracy [Gr.,=rule of the people], term originating in ancient Greece to designate a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. ..... Click the link for more information. , or rule by the people. In practice, however, almost all governments, whatever their form, are run by a small minority of members. From this perspective, the major distinction between oligarchy and democracy is that in the latter, the elites compete with each other, gaining power by winning public support. The extent and type of barriers impeding those who attempt to join this ruling group is also significant. oligarchy

Question: An oligarchy describes a leadership group comprising people who are?
Answer: Few