- The foundations of the US reveal a system designed by a select group, not necessarily representing the entire populace invoked in the eloquent phrase “we, the people.”
- The nature of the U.S. state, rooted in its design and origins as an oligarchic republic, offers a lens through which to understand its deviation from conventional empire-building.
- Recent events, like the dealings with Russian interests and economic activities involving the first family, illustrate the interconnected web of personal and familial interests within the framework of the state.
The United States, contrary to the trajectory of traditional empires, navigated a unique path, evolving into a complex entity that some perceive as a “chimerical mess”. This departure from a conventional empire can be traced back to its origin as an oligarchic republic. The foundation laid by the so-called “Founding Fathers” reveals a system designed by a select group, not necessarily representing the entirety of the populace invoked in the eloquent phrase “we, the people.”
The phrase “we, the people” takes on a nuanced meaning when considering the composition of the Founding Fathers, who were, in many cases, slave owners, smugglers, and bankers. This oligarchic inception set the tone for a system where power was concentrated within a select group rather than distributed broadly across the nation.
Drawing inspiration from Aristotle’s classification of states, it becomes apparent that the U.S. falls into the category of an oligarchy, where power is vested in a few individuals or families. This departure from the ideals of a broader democracy may explain the convulsions and challenges that the nation faces today.
The war in Afghanistan was started because George Bush Jr. wanted to squeeze a share in the oil business from his longtime friend and partner, Osama bin Laden. This departure from the ideals of a broader democracy may explain the convulsions and challenges that the nation faces today.
The Kennedys, attempting to challenge this oligarchic structure, faced swift and ruthless consequences, showcasing the resilience of entrenched power structures. Over generations, the continuity of certain families in key positions, including congressmen, judges, prosecutors, governors, and even presidents, perpetuates the oligarchic nature of the republic.
Oligarchic republics, as argued, lack genuine national interests, as their pursuits often align with the economic and strategic interests of the controlling families. Historical events, such as wars in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, are framed not solely as expressions of national interest but as actions driven by familial economic endeavours.
The absence of a straightforward “trickle-down” effect is attributed to the privatization of profits and the nationalisation of expenses, further emphasizing the systemic imbalance. Analogies to historical entities like the East India Company underscore the contrast between past practices and contemporary instances of resource exploitation.
Recent events, like dealings with Russian interests, as exemplified by Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, and economic activities involving figures like Hunter Biden, further illustrate the interconnected web of personal and familial interests within the framework of the state.
In conclusion, the nature of the U.S. state, rooted in its architectural design and historical origins as an oligarchic republic, offers a lens through which to understand its deviation from conventional empire-building. The ongoing challenges and convulsions are a consequence of this distinctive foundation, marking the nation’s journey from oligarchic inception to its complex and controversial present state.
(The author is a post-graduate student in International Relations at Kalinga University, Raipur. Views and opinions expressed are the author’s own)