I'm a bit ponderous, though not the least provincial, so let me see if I got this straight in my head....
'hypothesis' (pl. hypotheses). are guesses that aren't necessarily considered true by the general population. If they were considered true, though not necessarily proven true, then they would be 'theory' (pl. theories) unless the population consisted of a single individual, who, not theoretically, but rather hypothetically, would find it impossible to disagree with himself (f. herself), and in such a case of singular population, a 'hypothesis' (pl. hypotheses) and a 'theory' (pl. theories) would be essentially the same thing (i.e. identical).
Is that the gist of it?
Yes, but what I don't get is how is it different than ANY political activity? At least, if I understand you well, you are just taking an inherent motivation of any political activity, then take it as the only or main motivation (which is clearly over-cynical).
"You don't believe such people would not try exerting any sort of force over the proceedings for their own benefit, of course they will? "
What kind of benefit are you referring to exactly? Remember that this is not Malaysia here.
"Mr Dumont and the likes position themselves politically to appeal to their respective camps in doing so they draw backing from such influential people, helping to fuel their campaigns."
Ok. But this is correct for ANY politician with ANY political idea especially in a democracy. Where is your point with Dumont specifically, and where is your point with the subject at hand?
* By the way, try to use paragraphs, please, especially between citations and citations and answers, as I had a hard time reading this.