Most people believe they understand politics. They rarely study political history. They seldom investigate how global capital influences decisions. Yet they speak about politics with confidence. Not because they know, but because they see. And what they see appears absurd.
Some people, who are political junkies, and know the map may not be able to imagine politics as a regular people do.
Everywhere they look, politicians seem dysfunctional. On television, they argue like children. In parliament, they block each other over petty disputes. During interviews, they dodge every direct question. From the outside, politics looks like a soap opera performed by narcissists. No strategy, no depth. No coherence.
People say: “They’re all the same.” They say: “Nothing ever changes.” They say: “Politicians lie and steal.” And they say it with conviction. Because from their angle, that is exactly what it looks like.
When new laws pass, people ask, “Who thought of this nonsense?” When reforms fail, they assume incompetence. When scandals break, they roll their eyes. Most voters interpret politics through frustration, not through structural insight.
Some are slightly more aware. They know lobbyists exist; they suspect corporations buy influence. They believe that some laws are drafted by consultants. But even then, their understanding is vague. They don’t follow the paper trail. And they don’t study how deals are made. They only sense that power is somewhere else—but they cannot explain where.
Their view is shallow, but it feels complete. So they stop asking deeper questions.
Voter: Why this narrow view persists
This misunderstanding is not random. It emerges from how people experience the world. In daily life, people assess behavior based on character. They expect consistency. They judge honesty by tone, not by records. When someone acts irrationally, they blame the person, not the situation.
As a result, they apply the same logic to politics. If a minister changes their stance, they must be dishonest; if a leader avoids a question, they must be hiding something. If the government fails, it must be because they are stupid or corrupt.
What people don’t see, they don’t consider. They cannot imagine that a policy might be shaped by investors, they don’t realize that some speeches are reviewed by PR strategists and donors before delivery. They don’t know that intelligence agencies sometimes pressure elected officials behind the scenes. And they never suspect that a journalist might deliberately avoid certain questions because their salary depends on it.
Because the invisible remains invisible, people assume it doesn’t exist. This is why they see chaos instead of constraint.
Behind the scenes, a constrained machine
In reality, politics is not a free battlefield. It is a heavily managed machine. Every visible leader operates within a tightly packed constellation of interests. These include donors, media owners, lobby groups, party elites, financial institutions, foreign partners, intelligence agencies, and multilateral organizations.
None of these actors appear on campaign posters. Yet they influence what politicians can say, which policies they can push, and how far they can go.
For example, a prime minister might want to reform housing. However, the real estate lobby funds their party. Banks holding mortgage portfolios warn against disrupting the market. Media outlets owned by investment groups run headlines designed to undermine the proposal. And intelligence services quietly suggest “national stability” risks.
Under such pressure, the reform dies. Not because the leader is weak. Not because they are evil. But because the structure will not allow it.
Nevertheless, the public only sees the headline: “Prime Minister Fails to Deliver.” They blame the figure, not the system.
The system is not broken – it is clogged
Many people believe the system no longer works. That much is true. However, it is not broken in the way they think. It is not failing because of bad intentions. It is failing because it is clogged.
Modern political systems are overwhelmed by the number of actors involved. Too many competing interests demand a seat at the table. Corporations want favorable regulations. Civil service departments protect their turf. Intelligence agencies flag security risks. Foreign partners make quiet demands. Donors expect returns. And voters want everything to be fixed without changing anything.
No single decision can satisfy all of them. As a result, decisions get stuck. Reforms are stalled. Laws are diluted beyond recognition. Every major initiative must pass through a gauntlet of competing pressures—and few make it through.
This paralysis is misinterpreted by the public. They see it as laziness. Or cowardice. Or ignorance. But in truth, the system is gridlocked by design. It contains so many levers, constraints, and dependencies that nothing radical can survive. Even modest changes are subject to sabotage.
Multinational patron-client networks
What blocks the system most effectively are the global patron-client networks that structure elite power. These networks are not theoretical. They are visible to anyone willing to follow money and influence across borders.
At the top are dynastic families, global banks, and multinational investment firms. They fund think tanks, they own media. They bankroll political parties. And they influence appointments to international institutions. And they operate through legal, financial, and diplomatic channels that most citizens never encounter.
Below them are national-level clients—ministers, consultants, party officials, and media figures—who serve as intermediaries. Their job is to align policy with the expectations of their patrons. In return, they receive protection, funding, and political support.
This system works silently. Its power lies in anticipation. Politicians often do not need to be told what to do. They already know which positions are acceptable, which battles are unwinnable, and which truths are too dangerous to speak.
No law forbids them from acting independently. Yet almost none do. The risk is too high, and the rewards too distant.
Politics: The role of intelligence services
Alongside capital flows and lobbying sits another force: intelligence. These agencies do not merely gather information. They shape political outcomes. They monitor activist groups, pressure media outlets, and brief selected politicians. In some countries, they have the power to discredit, leak, or destroy careers.
When politicians speak against powerful interests, intelligence agencies may intervene indirectly. They leak compromising documents, they warn about reputational risks. They suggest that “foreign actors” may exploit dissent. Their influence is hard to track, but it is ever-present.
And because they operate in secret, most voters never imagine their impact.
Media as the shield
Every distorted system needs a shield. In this case, the shield is media.
While journalists perform valuable work, most large outlets are owned by billionaires, holding companies, or politically connected groups. These outlets do not need to lie. They only need to frame. By selecting which stories to tell—and how—they shape public perception.
Instead of exposing structural power, media focuses on scandals. Instead of analyzing institutions, it highlights individual failure. It feeds the idea that bad leadership explains political failure. And it keeps the public angry, confused, and distracted.
People continue blaming those who appear on screen. They never ask why only certain people ever appear.
The selection of weak leaders
Given these forces, only a certain kind of person rises in politics. Not the most intelligent. Not the most independent. But the most compliant.
Those who rise are people who know how to speak without saying anything. They do not challenge media narratives, they do not offend donors. And they do not surprise intelligence handlers. They memorize the limits of the system and work within them.
Strong leaders who challenge the structure are pushed aside. Either through scandal, silence, or internal sabotage. The result is a global class of empty suits—figures who represent nothing except the continuation of a clogged and decaying machine.
The public, once again, sees only the surface. They ask, “Why are our leaders so stupid?” But stupidity is not the problem. The system rewards predictability, not brilliance.
We can imagine politics – most people can’t
Understanding real politics requires imagination. Not fantasy—but systems thinking. It requires mapping connections, tracing capital, and recognizing silent incentives. Most people never develop this skill. And most institutions never teach it.
The result is a population trapped in misperception. They see theater, they miss the architecture, they see incompetence. They miss obedience. And they see slogans. They miss constraints.
We can imagine politics as it is—because we have seen how power functions. We know who writes the laws, who funds the parties, and who manages the silence.
But most people cannot. They live inside the clog, without seeing what blocks it. They keep blaming the puppets, never the strings.
Until that changes, nothing else will.
Leave a Reply