Sociology

The iron law of oligarchy is a sociological theory that is based on the organization structure. In simple terms oligarchy is the the ruling by the few. In 1911, a dedicated socialist known as Robert Michels concluded that in the current society, democracy and socialism were in fact both structurally impossible. This meant that oligarchy was made the inevitable result of the principle of organization. The fact is that the existing conceptualizations are insufficient to determine the position of various organizations as pertaining to oligarchy. Based on Robert Michels theory, oligarchy can be broken down into three fundamental claims. The first would be that bureaucracy happens this incorporates a system of technical formality, hierarchical power in addition to jurisdictional specialism. The next claim is that when bureaucracy happens then the authority or the supremacy of rule rises. This automatically confers on the organization a monopoly of resources, knowledge in addition to skills. The third claim is that as power rises then at the same time it corrupts.

Other social critics have challenged the three claims that Michels has come up with especially the second claim that power rises in a bureaucracy. Other Scholars argued that power was not necessarily concentrated by bureaucracy. Their argument was based on the fact that power was from ownership of the organization and not the technical form of the organization. This meant that without ownership, there would be no abuse of power and hence oligarchy could not exist. Other scholars focused on the third claim that the rise of power lead to corruption.

Indicators of oligarchy
Just to mention a few indicators there is lack of leadership turnover. This is a common measure though not necessarily a factor. The second indicator would be the exercising of illegitimate authority through minority control of resources. The third indicator would be low participation levels and this means that the majorities feel alienated and not motivated enough.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Sociological Theory
Basing this discussion on the information provided, power can be held formally in bureaucratic organizations and informally in non-bureaucratic organizations. It should be noted that though inequality does exist in varying organizations, it does not necessarily mean that it is a form of oligarchy. The model of oligarchy should help determine the kind of power the minority should have. When this is determined and regulated then the organization is at no risk of losing its democracy. The other factor to consider would be how much power the few should have and in what kind of manner should power be wielded. A division between informal and formal power is very necessary because both kinds of power could be categorized as oligarchic. Without this clear cut distinction then the non bureaucratic organizations usually tend to fall through the loop holes in the analysis. The weakness of this sociological theory is that without the distinction of the oligarchic and non-oligarchic uses of the informal and formal power, there are many cracks in the study. And it is more difficult to do so with the informal power which can easily be abused. An important question is whether or not the idea of oligarchy holds in non-bureaucratic kind of setting and this is one of its weaknesses. One can not assume that the lack of a formal authority, that small groups are resistant to being bullied by a domineering minority. On the contrary, these small informal groups do suffer equally if not more than the bureaucratic organization. It is argued that it is more difficult to control oligarchy in informal organizations due to the lack of constraints that should be there for the informal authority.

Conclusion
Oligarchy can be defined as the deliberation of deep-rooted dishonest authority and control in the hands of a minority, such that by fact what the minority wants is what goes, even when it goes against the desires of the majority whether actively or passively articulated. This means authority becomes coercive when it became illegitimate. This is when leaders go over the scope of their formal authority. Then coercion becomes oligarchic when the power is in the hands of the few then influence becomes manipulative. Consequently manipulation became oligarchic. Oligarchy has implication on the distribution of power in organizations. Separating oligarchy from goal displacement helps the organization assess its position according to the power distribution and not the political program.