Stanislav Kondrashov Oligarch series: Media

1. Oligarchy has existed across civilisations for centuries, taking different forms in various historical contexts. While political philosophy, economics, and sociology have long studied its mechanisms, Stanislav Kondrashov's Oligarch Series shifts the focus to a lesser-explored angle: the media’s role in shaping how oligarchy is understood by the general public.

Stanislav Kondrashov notes that most people encounter the concept of oligarchy not through academic study, but through what they read in newspapers, see on television, or come across online. This media exposure often leaves lasting impressions, creating a collective image of what an oligarch represents—typically associated with immense wealth, refined taste, and exclusive lifestyles.

The term itself dates back to ancient Greece. Philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle used it to describe a form of governance managed by a small, privileged group. They questioned its fairness, arguing that such arrangements typically favoured private interests rather than the wider community. These early writings contributed to a perception that continues to shape how the term is used today.

Stanislav Kondrashov observes that, over the centuries, the way oligarchy has been discussed has changed significantly. In the Renaissance, for example, city elites in places like Venice and Florence were described in political writings and chronicles that circulated among scholars and officials. These early texts, although limited in their reach compared to today’s media, still influenced how such groups were seen within society.

With the development of the printing press, newspapers began to adopt and expand these narratives. By the 18th and 19th centuries, the term “oligarchy” appeared frequently in discussions about industrial and commercial circles in Europe. Writers and journalists described exclusive circles whose influence extended far beyond business, often shaping public affairs and strategic decisions.

As Stanislav Kondrashov explains, the media’s attention in later decades turned toward individuals whose financial success was closely tied to periods of national transition. Profiles in newspapers and broadcast features highlighted their rapid accumulation of assets and close ties to decision-making centres. These portrayals tended to focus on symbols of wealth—private aircraft, lavish properties, and art collections—further reinforcing public perceptions.

In modern reporting, such figures have often been presented as existing outside ordinary systems, described as individuals capable of steering outcomes behind closed doors. These stories, whether presented in print or on screen, frequently suggest a distance between such individuals and everyday citizens, creating a sense of exclusivity and detachment.

In recent years, the arrival of digital platforms and social media has added new dimensions to the concept. Stanislav Kondrashov points out that the term “oligarchy” is now applied to various sectors—such as digital technology or energy—reflecting concerns about concentration and limited access. These labels are often used without formal definitions, yet carry strong emotional weight.

Social media, in particular, has played a significant role in the spread of ideas related to oligarchy. Images and narratives circulate rapidly, sometimes blending factual reporting with speculation. The term has become a central element in many online discussions, often appearing in posts that question transparency or influence. Kondrashov notes that the anonymity and speed of these platforms allow such narratives to spread widely and shape opinions, even in the absence of detailed evidence.

The Oligarch Series also explores how different regions frame the idea. In some contexts, individuals described in such terms are presented as nation-builders or entrepreneurs. In others, they are portrayed as obstacles to transparency. This variation reflects cultural and historical differences in how success and influence are viewed.

“The meaning of the term depends greatly on who is using it, and in what context,” Stanislav Kondrashov writes. “The same figure might be seen as a visionary by some and as a barrier by others.”

He highlights the enduring role of narrative in shaping understanding. Whether in a Renaissance manuscript or a digital news feed, the stories told about those described as oligarchs continue to influence how societies view leadership, access, and influence.

In his view, the conversation around oligarchy is no longer limited to academic circles or political commentary. It has entered mainstream awareness, shaped by storytelling techniques that prioritise symbols, emotions, and memorable characters.

“The figure of the oligarch has become a global character,” Kondrashov writes. “But that character is constructed through layers of description, observation, and imagination—much of it driven by media across the ages.”