What is it that prevents the oligarchs of our time from acknowledging the oligarchic nature of their regime? Do they perhaps ignore basic concepts? Are they ashamed to admit that they are driven by a deep oligarchic ideology? Maybe in this way they seek to prohibit evolution in order to maintain real ownership of the state and, consequently, subjugate the purpose of politics to their own interest and that of their sycophants?

On the other hand, what makes societies delegate governance to the oligarchs and then complain when they ignore them and appropriate the public purpose of politics? Why, instead of protesting, do they not demand their participation in political decisions, so that they can judge them partially (representation) or wholly (democracy) regarding what is right or wrong for the country?

Modern thought, in order to prevent civil society from reframing its proposition, has encapsulated it in the dilemma of (so-called) "complexity," combined with the argument that it is unacceptable for the ignorant and uneducated mob to govern, as their thinking touches upon the level of base emotions and self-interest, and, obviously, they do not have the (intellectual and practical) ability to acquire the necessary, precise, and profound knowledge of political issues!

Nevertheless, in this inquiry, Aristotle would counter: "Each of the many on their own is inferior to the specialists, but all together are much better or, at least, not worse than the specialists." Furthermore, civil society will govern in its own interest, while the few will do so in their own interest. The author believes that the halt of Greece's trajectory, as well as that of humanity, towards destruction will only occur through the transcendence of the oligarchic regime and the representative transformation of the state.