Looking back on that century with a couple of decades' distance, I'd say oligarchy.
While remaining powerful, they are much less so than 1 to 4 of centuries ago.
Nowadays a tax raise or police blunder triggers very politically determinant reactions from fickle crowds (France, USA...).
IMHO during the past century the power went to the richest people (oligarchy) in way less zones than to mobs installing an "absence or impairment of a procedurally civil and democratic process". Think China, USSR, many countries in South-America, even many "democratic" Western nations...
I'd say Polybius was right on this one.
I don't know enough about china to say (but do know they have billionaires and hedge funds, à la the Quantum Fund), USSR had its nomenklatura (several of whom went on to literally be called oligarchs in the FSU), many countries in South America had juntas, etc.
Even somalia seems to be less an anarchy and more tribally organised.
Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTU2He2BIc0
Same for China: Mao and his followers weren't rich, and AFAIK rich Chinese are indigent compared to Emperors and their family/suit, and not very politically powerful.
Juntas were composed of high-ranking military, who AFAIK weren't rich (most came from the middle-class) nor became so.
Tribalism isn't oligarchic.
The recent pertinent exception are banksters, however their power (albeit non-neglectable) seems rather limited and focused on some Western nations (the 'Old Core').
> "Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos) 'few', and ἄρχω (arkho) 'to rule or to command'"
which agrees with my head-canon terms of "how large is the selectorate?"
- monarchy : "L'état, c'est moi."
- oligarchy : to do something, convince the inner circle
- democracy : to do something, convince an entire electorateAs you wrote: > china to say (but do know they have billionaires and hedge funds, à la the Quantum Fund), USSR had its nomenklatura (several of whom went on to literally be called oligarchs in the FSU),
I believed that your thoughts were on this "rule by the rich" track.
Your definitions may not always enable to distinguish oligarchy from democracy, because the "entire electorate", without any other specification, may be an "inner circle". This, indeed, is about "how large is the selectorate?", and "democracy", here (when it comes to distinguish it from "oligarchy"), implies a pure democracy ("universal suffrage" coupled to a "direct democracy").
As no such pure democracy exists nor existed, our debate seems moot. In more than one way delegation, more precisely the "Consent of the governed" concept ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed ), may be our central concept.
Moreover one may always argue that a pure democracy isn't sufficient to escape from oligarchy, because I can't see why 'Manufacturing Consent' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent ) wouldn't work.
One might hope to break a chain[3] of oligarchic transmission via transparency, democratisation, and restructuring, but Gorbachev's recent experience suggests any current oligarchies would be very wary.
As far as consent manufacturing goes, I'd claim Orwell's crimestop is exactly congruent to the "internalized assumptions, and self-censorship" of Chomsky et.al. (compare Girard's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimetic_theory or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23847087 or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23858477 . The FT and Le Monde often betray strikingly different assumptions as to the immediate viability of the EU, for example.)
[1] Compare the "cynical" circumlocution in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24689867 for the english word "revolt". (a geeky circumlocution: du tu tawu, "2 tau" as a verb, assuming that by that time π has been dethroned.)
[2] to what degree is the G7 Barnett's "Old Core" and the E7 his "New Core"?
[3] 1984 is subtler than popular culture gives it credit for. In principle, Oceania is a pure meritocracy, with inner party admission by examination. (I take Goldstein's "in principle" to mean that on the whole selective school students make it to the inner pary while comprehensive school students wind up in the outer.)
PS. Ellul I will have to explore. Mogut fo to pensa ere da belek amash to bang kapawu ong? (better to think of the cosmos yet steer one's own ship)
The most recent papal encyclical https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24684152 seems to echo Ellul in places...
I like how we (a vibrant multiparty democracy) do referenda: the referendum text gets put on the ballot, the current government makes a counterproposal "yes, we agree X is a problem but we believe Y is a better solution", and we get to vote either (a) for the referendum proposal, (b) for the government proposal, or (c), the most common option, to leave well enough alone.
Sili im mebi na ta bek, mogut fo na du im gut.