State capture 

is a type of systemic political corruption in which private interests significantly

influence a state's decision-making processes to their own advantage.
The term "state capture" was first used by the World Bank, around the year 2000, to describe the
situation in certain central Asian countries making the transition from Soviet communism.
Specifically, it was applied to situations where small corrupt groups used their influence over
government officials to appropriate government decision-making in order to strengthen their own
economic positions; these groups' members would later become known as oligarchs.[1]
Allegations of state capture have led to protests against the government in Bulgaria in 2013–2014
and Romania in 2017,[2] and have caused an ongoing controversy in South Africa beginning in
2016.

Defining state capture[edit]

The classical definition of state capture refers to the way formal procedures (such as laws and
social norms) and government bureaucracy are manipulated by private individuals and firms so
as to influence state policies and laws in their favor. State capture seeks to influence the
formation of laws, in order to protect and promote influential private interests. In this way it differs
from most other forms of corruption which instead seek selective enforcement of already existing
laws.[3]
State capture may not be illegal, depending on determination by the captured state itself,[4] and
might be attempted through private lobbying and influence. The influence may be through a
range of state institutions, including the legislature, executive, ministries and the judiciary, or
through a corrupt electoral process. It is similar to regulatory capture but differs in the scale and
variety of influenced areas and, unlike regulatory capture, the private influence is never overt.
[5]
 The private influences cannot be discovered by lawful processes,[citation needed] since the legislative
process, judiciary, electoral process, and/or executive powers have been subverted.
A distinguishing factor from corruption is that, while in cases of corruption the outcome (of policy
or regulatory decision) is not certain, in cases of state capture the outcome is known and is highly
likely to be beneficial to the captors of the state. In 2017 a group of South African academics
further developed the concept in a report on state capture in South Africa[6] Betrayal of the
Promise Report. The analysis emphasised the political character of state capture arguing that in
South Africa a power elite violated the Constitution and broke the law in the service of a political
project, which they believed unachievable in the existing constitutional/ legal framework.
Further, in cases of corruption (even rampant) there is plurality and competition of corruptors to
influence the outcome of the policy or distribution of resources. However, in state capture,
decision-makers are usually more in a position of agents to the principals, i.e., the captors, who
function either in monopolistic or oligopolistic (non-competitive) fashion.

Examples by country[edit]
Bulgaria[edit]
Main articles: 2014 Bulgarian Protests and 2020–2021 Bulgarian protests
Protests in Bulgaria in 2013–14 against the Oresharski cabinet were prompted by allegations that
it came to power due to the actions of an oligarchic structure (formerly allied to Boyko Borisov)
which used underhand maneuvers to discredit the GERB party.[7] Conversely, in 2020 large anti-
GERB protests broke out, accusing Borisov and his party of once again allying themselves with
oligarchic organizations, permitting corruption and undermining political opposition.[8]

Hungary[edit]
 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please
help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August
2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The state capture of Hungary began after 2010 when the former main opposition party, Fidesz–
KDNP, won the requisite two-thirds of the vote in the parliamentary election. This made
manipulation of the constitutional law and the Constitutional Court possible. Parliamentary
election laws were later changed to benefit the new governmental party. Step by step, the
different institutional applications, competitions, and tenders have been won almost exclusively by
organizations and individuals loyal to the government. The winners have frequently been relatives
of the governmental staff or otherwise connected with them. The management of different
institutions has been filled with persons loyal to the government. Independent applicants have
been rejected without explanation or by formal causes. The incomes of the government-
independent media evaporated and their fortunes fell.[9][10] The Hungarian government has wanted
also major influence on the distribution of the EEA and Norway Grants founding several
government independent organisation. Therefore, the founding has been stalled.[11]
The grants and advertising expenditures of the state-owned and government-loyal companies
have been directed to the purpose of the widely accessible propagandistic state media and to the
government-loyal press. The pro-government media foundation, the Central European Press and
Media Foundation (abbreviated as KESMA[12] in Hungarian) dominates the media landscape.
[13]
 The majority of the Hungarian population can only access government-influenced radio
stations. Only a single government-independent television channel has been tolerated as a
source of unfiltered news. The propaganda applies classical Machiavellian cunning, regularly
using war terms and touts three ostensible public enemies: "Brussels", "migrants" and "George
Soros".[14] Altogether, these proceedings provided additional two-thirds majority for the
governmental party in 2014 and 2018, and more unrestricted possibilities for the administration.
[clarification needed][15]

Latin American countries[edit]

Instances where politics have been ostensibly deformed by the power of drug barons
in Colombia and Mexico are also considered as examples of state capture.[1]

South Africa[edit]
Main article: Gupta family
Further information: The Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture
The pattern [of state capture] is a simple one. "You remove management, and put in compliant management. You
remove boards, and put in boards that are compliant. The rest is very easy. That has been the scenario at state-
owned enterprises.

- Mcebisi Jonas, former Deputy Finance Minister; explaining the process of state capture.[16]

In 2016 there were allegations of an overly close and potentially corrupt relationship between the
wealthy Gupta family and the South African president Jacob Zuma, his family and leading
members of the African National Congress (ANC).[17][18][19][20] South African Opposition parties have
made claims of "State Capture" following allegations that the Guptas, said to be close to
President Jacob Zuma, his family and other ANC leaders, had insinuated themselves into a
position where they could offer Cabinet positions and influence the running of government.
[21]
 These allegations were made in light of revelations by former ANC MP Vytjie Mentor and
Deputy Finance Minister Mcebisi Jonas that they had been offered Cabinet positions by the
Guptas at the family's home in Saxonwold, Johannesburg.[22]
A COSATU protester in Cape Town holding a protest placard calling for the prosecution of "all people
involved in the state capture activities." The protest was against government corruption and state capture in
the administration of South African President Jacob Zuma.[23]

Mentor claimed that in 2010 the Guptas had offered her the position of Minister of Public
Enterprises, provided that she arranged for South African Airways to drop their India route,
allowing a Gupta linked company (Jet Airways) to take on the route.[24][25] She said she declined the
offer, which occurred at the Guptas' Saxonwold residence, while President Zuma was in another
room. This came a few days before a cabinet reshuffle in which minister Barbara Hogan (then
Minister of Public Enterprises) was dismissed by Zuma. The Gupta family denied that the meeting
took place and also denied offering Mentor a ministerial position.[26] President Zuma claimed that
he had no recollection of Vytjie Mentor.[27]
Deputy Finance Minister Mcebisi Jonas said he had been offered a ministerial position by the
Guptas shortly before the dismissal of Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene in December 2015, but
had rejected the offer as "it makes a mockery of our hard-earned democracy‚ the trust of our
people and no one apart from the President of the Republic appoints ministers".[28] The Gupta
family denied offering Jonas the job of Finance Minister.[29] In 2016, Paul O'Sullivan's 'Forensics
for Justice' published a report, which alleged that South Africa's criminal justice system had been
'captured' by the underworld.[30]
Following a formal complaint submitted in March 2016 by a catholic priest, Father Stanslaus
Muyebe,[31] the Guptas' alleged "state capture" was investigated by Public Protector Thuli
Madonsela. President Zuma and Minister Des van Rooyen applied for a court order to prevent the
publication of the report on 14 October 2016, Madonsela's last day in office.[32] Van Rooyen's
application was dismissed, and the President withdrew his application, leading to the release of
the report on 2 November 2016. On 25 November 2016, Zuma announced that the Presidency
would be reviewing the contents of the state capture report.[33] He said it "was done in a funny
way" with "no fairness at all," and argued he was not given enough time to respond to the public
protector.[34]
Zuma and Van Rooyen denied any wrongdoing[35] whilst the Guptas disputed evidence in the
report and also denied being involved in corrupt activities.[36][37][38][39] In an exclusive interview
with ANN7 (belonging to the Gupta Family), South African President Jacob Zuma said 'State
Capture' was a fancy word used by media houses for propaganda proliferation. He said that a
real state capture would include seizure of the three arms of the constitution - Legislative,
Executive and Judiciary - which has never been the case in South Africa.[40]
The report recommended establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry into the issues
identified,[41] including a full probe of Zuma's dealings with the Guptas, with findings to be
published within 180 days. In May 2017, Jacob Zuma denied the allegation of blocking an attempt
to set up a commission of inquiry to probe state capture.[42] The report led to the establishment of
the Zondo Commission of Inquiry in 2018, set up to investigate allegations of state capture in
South Africa.
In May 2017 a group of academics convened by Mark Swilling and including Ivor Chipkin, Lumkile
Mondi, Haroon Bhorat and others, published the Betrayal of the Promise report, the first major
study of state capture in South Africa. It helped galvanise civil-society opposition to the
unconstitutional developments in South Africa Civil-Society Response. The analysis was further
developed in the book Shadow State: the Politics of State Capture written by Ivor Chipkin and
Mark Swilling [43]
The 2017 book How to Steal a City details state capture within the Nelson Mandela Bay
Metropolitan Municipality in South Africa during the Zuma government.
Economic impact[edit]
On 11 September 2017 the former Finance Minister, Pravin Gordhan, estimated the cost of state
capture at 250 billion rand, in a presentation at the University of Cape Town Graduate School of
Business.[44] The South African news publication The Daily Maverick estimated that state capture
cost the country roughly R1.5 trillion (roughly US$100 billion) in the four years preceding 2019.
[45]
 South African Reserve Bank economist, David Fowkes, stated that the negative impact of state
capture on the country's economy was worse than expected, stating that it likely reduced GDP
growth by an estimated 4% a year.[46]

United States[edit]
Donald Trump and his administration have faced allegations of attempting state capture and
colluding with foreign powers (see Links between Trump associates and Russian officials) to
increase the political and financial gain of individuals in the administration.
Donald Trump has differed from historic presidential precedent by not placing his assets into
a blind trust,[47] thus resulting in a conflict of private and public interests.