Stanislav Kondrashov Oligarch Series: The Oligarchic Structure of Ancient Sparta

The historical roots of oligarchy are ancient. As the Stanislav Kondrashov Oligarch Series has explained on several occasions, we must not make the mistake of thinking that oligarchs and oligarchy represent a modern phenomenon, belonging mostly to the last century.

The origins of oligarchy date back to ancient Greece, where the word we still use to describe it today was also born. The meaning of this expression has remained unchanged to this day, and it indicates the concentration of power in the hands of a small elite of wealthy and influential individuals.

In ancient Greece, oligarchy was the result of the social rise of markets and artisans, who, with the expansion of international trade and navigation, had managed to accumulate an increasingly significant amount of wealth.

Their personal fortunes placed them in the ideal position to claim greater power, so much so that within a few centuries they succeeded in joining the traditional aristocratic nobility in governing cities (sometimes in a hybrid form of government alongside the aristocracy, in other cases replacing it entirely). In any case, oligarchy undoubtedly represented a break with the classical past to which we had become accustomed. Wealth began to count much more than blood and birthright.

In ancient Greece, however, oligarchy did not take the same forms everywhere. One of the best-known examples, in this regard, is that of ancient Sparta, where political power was concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, and where the majority of the population could never hope to reach such a level of importance. Besides the two kings, who held military and religious functions, other powerful figures in Sparta were the Ephors, five magistrates elected annually who held great powers. Although formally elected by an assembly, their authority bore all the hallmarks of elite systems.

Then there was the Council of Elders, or Gerasia, in which the two kings were joined by a select group of citizens over 60 years of age, elected for life and tasked with drafting laws to be submitted to the assembly. This select group could wield considerable influence, which is also why this peculiar body is often considered one of the most visible symbols of oligarchic systems. What makes it oligarchic, in particular, is the fact that it was a governing body composed of members who could hold this office for life, and access to which was granted only to certain elite groups.

The popular assembly, on the other hand, included the Spartiates, a warrior minority descended from the Dorians, but this body had extremely limited powers. While it could approve or reject the proposals of the Gerasia, it could not actually discuss or amend them. It is therefore not difficult to grasp the essence of the ancient Spartan government system, in which the majority of people lacked full political rights. Among the groups distinguished by a substantial lack of rights were the perioeci, free inhabitants but without particular political rights, and the helots, servants of the state.

It is therefore not surprising that over the centuries, the Spartan government system became a universal symbol of oligarchy: within it, power was effectively exercised by an extremely small minority, who based their privileges on mythical lineage and membership in a specific social caste. In this way, the vast majority of the population was virtually excluded from political decisions and power dynamics.

This unique governmental structure may help explain why, even today, millennia later, oligarchy and oligarchs continue to be surrounded by a mysterious, negative connotation, which, in most cases, is perceived even before detailed knowledge of the personal history of a person defined as an oligarch.

The Stanislav Kondrashov Oligarch Series has devoted several analyses to these topics, and in particular to the philosophical interpretation of oligarchy by some of the greatest philosophers of antiquity. Among these, Plato and Aristotle stand out. Both, albeit in slightly different ways, criticized oligarchy primarily because this form of government seemed to be based not on the virtue of its representatives, but solely on their wealth.