In a recent article in the newspaper De Morgen, Belgian sociologist Mark Elchardus argues that “democracy is possible only if political power cannot be bought with money.” Indeed, one of the most enduring questions in political thought is who actually wields power in a democracy. Is it the person elected by the citizens, or the person who has the financial resources to influence that person’s decisions?
In developing his argument, Elchardus looks to the history of the House of Fugger, one of the most powerful banking dynasties in 16th-century Europe, to highlight the timeless relationship between wealth and political power. The financial power of Jakob II Fugger was such that emperors, popes, and rulers depended on his financing. This story highlights a reality that we often (mistakenly) consider a feature of the past: namely, that economic power can be transformed into political influence and, ultimately, into power.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Five centuries later, despite political transformation, the question remains relevant. Can democracy preserve its essence when economic power grants some people disproportionate political influence?
The transition from hereditary monarchies to modern democracies marked a shift in the very conception of power. Political legitimacy ceased to derive from lineage, military might, or wealth, and began to be grounded in the sovereignty of the people, political equality, and the principle that public authority must be exercised for the benefit of the whole.
This development was neither self-evident nor linear. It took centuries of political struggles, institutional reforms, and social demands to shape the modern democratic state, whose defining feature is the separation and mutual checks and balances of powers.
However, the separation of economic power from political power remains an ongoing challenge. Economic freedom is a fundamental element of a liberal society, as entrepreneurship, innovation, investment, and wealth creation contribute to growth and an improved quality of life. The challenge arises when economic inequalities spill over into the political arena and gain the power to shape decisions that affect all citizens.
Money secures privileged access to decision-makers, funds political campaigns, shapes public discourse, and even influences the priorities of the political agenda. In the digital age, the ability to collect data and control large digital communication platforms with millions of users adds yet another dimension.
The case of Elon Musk in the United States is a prime example. His immense economic power, his influence in the digital public sphere, and his active involvement in politics highlight the complex—and often dangerous—relationship between power and political influence.
Clearly, democracy presupposes pluralism and the ability of different social and economic interests to be expressed. The crux of the matter, however, lies in two dimensions: ensuring that no single social group monopolizes claims and influence, and ensuring that economic influence is exercised transparently.
These are issues that must be addressed with institutional seriousness and not with facile generalizations. Suspicion toward entrepreneurship or the demonization of wealth are not solutions. On the contrary, the effective protection of democracy requires clear rules, independent oversight mechanisms, transparent financing of political activities, and meaningful accountability for those who exercise public authority.
Above all, a clear understanding of the limits of political and economic power is required. It is legitimate for businesses to have the opportunity to grow and to demand a stable and predictable institutional environment. Governments, however, must maintain their independence and make decisions based on the broader social needs, even when their decisions do not serve powerful economic interests.
Historical experience shows that the concentration of power, regardless of its form, poses risks to the political balance. Democracy, therefore, must ensure that no one can acquire unchecked power and that no private interest can supplant the collective will.
* Margarita Kaimaklioti is a political scientist, Deputy Secretary for International Relations of the Democratic Alarm and a member of the Executive Council of the Glafkos Clerides Institute.
