A 2017 protest in Cape Town against South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma and the Guptas. Under Zuma, the brothers had corrupt relationships at the highest levels of state.

Photograph: Getty Explainer What is state capture and why does it matter? Two crypto-billionaires pour millions into a political party and its wannabe prime minister. A drug trafficker’s bribe to a senior official buys a cocaine shipment safe passage across a border. Human traffickers take control of the institutions mandated to stop them. A foreign power uses evidence of a president’s sexual abuse of children to dictate government policy. An influential lobby group donates to both a ruling party and opposition members. All are routes to state capture.

Dictionary of Corruption defines state capture as systematic corruption whereby narrow interest groups take control of the institutions and processes through which public policy is made, directing it away from the common good and towards their own interests.

It can create systems that allow access to power where corruption can be repeated and protected Laws are structured to favour particular businesses. Contracts are designed so only a preferred supplier qualifies. Loyalists are appointed to public companies, regulatory agencies or the judiciary. Public resources can keep a party in power, reward supporters and undermine opponents. That political advantage then protects the network’s ability to keep benefiting from the state. Different forms of capture are distinguished by who exercises control and which institutions they target.

Elite capture Where the most powerful groups dominate decisions or appropriate benefits intended for others, especially within development projects.

Corporate or oligarchic capture Involves business interests controlling public institutions. One example is South Africa’s Gupta scandal which illustrates how corruption can function between private and political elites. During Jacob Zuma’s presidency, the Gupta brothers developed relationships at the highest levels of government to win lucrative state contracts and influence political appointments.

Kleptocratic capture Centres on personal enrichment. Kleptocracy describes a government in which individuals rule on the basis of extensive self-enrichment rather than the public interest, expropriating the wealth and resources of the state and of private citizens.

Peru under Alberto Fujimori offers a clear example of accountability being bought off. Researchers examined how the regime undermined checks on its power as the intelligence service chief Vladimiro Montesinos bribed politicians, judges and the news media during the 1990s.

Narco and criminal capture Narco capture is where drug traffickers gain influence over public authority to protect their operations. Criminal capture is broader, covering other illicit enterprises, but both include financing politicians, corrupting senior security officials and using threats against those who resist.

The former British Virgin Islands premier Andrew Fahie was sentenced in 2024 for cocaine-trafficking and money-laundering after a US undercover operation. He facilitated shipments through the territory’s ports and protected them through his official influence, placing public powers at drug traffickers’ service.

Regulatory capture Narrower, and occurs when a watchdog becomes excessively aligned with the businesses or industries it oversees, for example in food, pharmaceuticals, oil or crypto: favouring their interests or overlooking violations. This can contribute to wider state capture.

A compromised regulator does not by itself establish that an entire state has been captured; neither does every successful lobbying campaign amount to capture. Businesses, trade unions and campaign groups can legitimately seek to influence policy; the concern is when it becomes sustained.

Improper advantage that redirects favour towards a narrow group undermines accountability. The OECD has identified how capture is achieved through legal channels, including lobbying and political finance.

Breaking corrupt relationships requires more than change at the top. Public appointments need safeguards against patronage; contracts and their beneficiaries need scrutiny. Investigators need the independence to follow evidence into powerful circles, while political finance and lobbying require transparency. Whistleblowers must be able to act without retaliation. Courts, auditors, journalists and civic organisations need freedom to challenge decisions.

The questions for any government accused of capture is simple: who controls its decisions, who repeatedly benefits, and who can investigate them effectively?