The rise of cronyism is a direct consequence of the prominence of statism, where the powers of government are expanded beyond their proper scope. In such a case, governments have greater discretion to use their coercive powers. I mean that not only does a government have to the power (properly, I believe) to enforce the rights of individuals, but then governments acting outside their proper role have the power (improperly, I believe) to violate those very rights governments ought to be established to defend.
Since people respond to incentives, business people are going to be willing to enlist that discretionary power for their benefit or to damage their competitors. The solution seems obvious enough to me: limit or, better yet, entirely eliminate altogether a government’s discretionary powers and place it under objective controls to secure our rights. The premise is that if a government doesn’t have to power to dispense privileges in the first place, business people are going to be less likely to lobby for privileges. Since the composition of the wealthy is constantly in flux to the extent that a market can operate according to consumer preferences, the wealthy would have the least political power in a market economy secured by a government of strictly limited constitutional powers.