An Examination of Extra-Universal Systems of Government
- Thread starter Ephraim Ben Raphael
- Start date
- Status
I imagine that ones genetic ancestors would be very important in such a society. Perhaps more of a push on genetic research
Basically, but the elements that make things dystopian aren't necessary. I made the system completely unaccountable (the Party has control over everything important anyway) and made basic human rights a paid privilege rather than something universal. Make rights universal, with incentive to pay being material benefits and make the government accountable to its citizens and it won't be as bad. The basic system is a hotbed for corruption, so it would be a challenge to make it relatively nice.
That sounds very interesting. I remember an ASB B_Munro scenario involving Sliders that had something similar and I was planning to write about a system like that myself.
I'm not too sure about this, but I remember some real world governments being described in one of my political science classes as functioning like that. I can't remember exactly which, but I think it was a Third World military dictatorship.
Really, because Wikipedia is telling me that ochlocracy is mob rule and demarchy is rule by lottery.
wolf_brother
Banned
So essentially Starship Troopers?
So a version of Corporatism? If so, it seems it would quickly turn to a simple corporate state.
'Competitive federalism,' 'military republicanism,' and 'nobilism' all sound like they would, fairly quickly, degenerate into some form of run-of-the-mill oligarchy or dictatorship.
Elected monarchies are, of course, a dime a dozen as well, though they rather quickly tend to turn into hereditary ones.
Also note, Ochlocracy =/= Demarchy. Ochlocracy is rule by the mob; Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the rule of passion over reason, just like oligocracy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption. Note that Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "Mobocracy," which emerged from a much more recent colloquial etymology. Thus Ochlocracy is merely one step up from anarchy, and quickly falls into a formal governmental structure. Demarchy though, also known as 'lottocracy,' is rule by randomly selected representatives. Its no different from the current democratic system you see across the globe IOTL, except in the method of choosing government officials.
Also, since no one else has mentioned it yet, I'll throw out a suggestion of my own; Technocracy - a meritocratic oligarchy where the most skilled rule - i.e., engineers, scientists, doctors, inventors, etc.
Well, that would be the challenge, wouldn't it? Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see "failed" versions of those systems.
I beat you to it, buddy.
So OTL?
Voting requires a certain amount of wealth, running for/holding a political office requires a certain amount of wealth, filing a tax return is required to maintain citizenship. Each year, the wealthiest citizen becomes ruler. Regressive taxes.
Last edited:
My memory could be off, but what I recall is that 'ochloi' was originally the greek term for pot shards used to cast lots. Radical Greek democracies were known for filling offices by cating the ochloi, so by association 'ochloi' came to mean 'the people' in a pejorative sense, i.e., 'the mob'. So Ochlocracy could mean either mob rule or filling offices by casting lots.
But my memory is no more reliable than Wikipedia as a general rule.
One other thought: demarchy or ochlocracy or whatever you want to call it would be a great governance element for a radical democracy that's also radically religious. In its most ancient origin, casting lots was a method of divination. So filling certain offices (or selecting electors for office) randomly is not only highly egalitarian, it also could be used as a way of letting God 'pick' the officers (or electors).
Update: I did some research. Ochloi never meant pot shards. The word I was looking for was ostrakon, ostraca. So, yeah, everybody who called it demarchy was right and I was dead wrong.
Last edited:
Well, yes, in the sense that practically any form of government is in danger of becoming a run of the mill oligarchy or dictatorship. But beyond that, I don't agree.
Competitive federalism, especially, I don't see the danger there. The idea is that the people of a federation, instead of electing officers for a term of years, elect one of the member states for a term of years. The member states could themselves be elected by democratic means.
Military republicanism I can see the danger, though with a broad middle class its less so. The real danger here is who gets to decide the terms for citizenship. But if the terms have been fairly fixed for awhile, they will be pretty difficult to change to further restrict the franchise.
Nobilism isn't a complete political ideology itself, per se, but rather a unique path to managing the early modern transition that could ultimately end up in almost any number of places. You could have nobilist fascism, socialism, or liberal representative democracy.
Last edited:
wolf_brother
Banned
Competative federalism; One 'faction,' because that's what you're essentially describing, gets elected into office and then uses their new position to effectively limit the opposing factions ability to be elected. Viola, wash and repeat less than half a dozen election cycles and you have a run-of-the-mill oligarchy. The idea that in a system that is designed to ensure 'competition' within the government won't turn into a monopoly, as happens regularly in the business world, is laughable.
Military republicanism; I'm not sure how a broad middle class prevents the rise of an oligarchical ruling class when you explicitly defined this government as "composed of *Medal of Honor winners and their descendants."
Nobilism; Simply sounds like the bastard child of European feudalism attempting to cling on past the Napoleonic period and early industrialization with Stalinist Communism. Everyone is a noble now Comrade!
wolf_brother
Banned
Unfortunately the world would seem to disagree with your definition;
Wikipedia said:
A corporation, in essence, involves people buying and selling stock on an open market. mrmandias' described "Cash democracy" is essentially that, except replace the word 'stock' with 'vote.' So, once again, it would quickly turn into a corporate state as the person/faction with the most stock simply had an overwhelming majority. Even if not, you would quickly find a situation with an oligarchical system in which several factions have bought up enough 'stock' to overwhelm individual stock-owners, but no one group is powerful enough to overwhelm the others; for the moment.
wolf_brother
Banned
I'm making a lot of comments about these proposed government types falling into either oligarchy or dictatorships, so I want to add this qualifier (and unfortunately self-triple bump); I say these things because historically this is what happened to 99% of all governments. It's simple human nature, and you can't change that. I applaud the OP for opening this thread and I have enjoyed his posts so far, and I encourage him to continue to do so. However I think one needs to keep in mind that so far these have essentially been types of governments derived from what we have already seen IOTL. Any attempt at creating a new, radically different, government will more than likely not fail and degrade into an oligarchical or autocratic state.
How do you jump from that Wikipedia to this? Corporatism seems to be merging every aspect of society into a single body.
And yet when the Republican 'faction' gets elected, they have yet to manage to exclude the Democratic 'faction' from office forever. And vice versa.
You need to *way* calm down here. This is a fun ATL exercise, not beating up your Grandma.
Your definition of 'corporatism' is just wrong. I"m not sure why you keep repeating it. The definition of 'corporation' that corporatists use would include churches, labor unions, any sort of collective organized body. The idea was not to model the state on the capitalist for-profit stock corporation at all. Corporatist states were organized nothing at all like Costco.
I've heard this definition as well, but I think we can concede that corporatism has as many definitions as democracy and fascism.
wolf_brother
Banned
The only person I see here being melodramatic is you, and that started with your quoted post
If you can't handle reasonable discourse about opinions you've thrown into the market place of ideas, I suggest you stay out of the kitchen, if you'll allow me to mix my metaphors.In regards to Democrats/Republicans the difference is of course obvious; the political parties are intergovernmental. There's a Democratic party in every state, a Republican party in every state, along with plenty of third parties and independents, none of which are explicitly tied to the governmental strucutre. However, in a system where you have the legislature of NY, for example as you've decided on the American analogy, becoming the national legislature, there is no longer any reason to hold back; what accountability does the NY legislature have to the people of Oklahoma? Fur that matter, why should the NY legislature care about the people of Oklahoma? This won't be a dramatic coup be but a slow and yet steady degeneration. After the first election the NY-congress will pass national laws making it harder for non-NY legislatures to become elected, restricting the vote in various ways. Even if elected out of office in the next cycle, whichever faction does get into office at that point will merely do the same thing, amending the previous laws to suit their side instead of repealing them. The entire structure is a house of cards, and as soon as someone jiggles the table a little bit it all comes tumbling down.
See;
Thank you rvbomally. I'd also like to point out that there's quite a world of difference between the type of government monarchists describe and what actually ends up happening under a monarch, and yet we call it all the same thing.
Also, if my definition is so explicitly wrong, why is the agreed-upon definition used by the rest of the internet; Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and even by Merriam-Webster?
Finally, once again OP, I've liked the posts I've seen so far and I'm looking forward to more. Perhaps all this reasonable discourse will help you sharpen your ideas for future posts
No they don't. For example, Merriam-Webster uses this definition: "the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction". I don't see how that conforms to your definition of corporatism.
- Status