“Can we improve democracy?” A conversation worth having. Pt 2: Basic role of governments
This is part 2 of a 3-part series which focusses on pushing boundaries of existing systems of government
Part 2: The basic role of the government
Breaking down governing systems
Before we think about how to reduce compromise within existing governance systems, let’s take a minute to think through governance systems themselves (incl democracy, dictatorship, monarchies etc.).
There seem to be two big objectives that give birth to any governing systems.
Objective 1: Reduce chaos & disorder. With a focus on monopolizing violence & punishing bad actors.
You can’t have people going around being violent & chaotic with each other. Too many people doing that will lead to anarchy or complete chaos. So, one of the most important jobs of any governing system is to keep the chaos at bay through use of force (if necessary).
There are a number of governmental “mini-systems” that help with these objectives. Examples include establishing an outward facing military presence, drafting laws that aim to minimize chaos due to bad actors and finally building institutions that can uphold these laws (e.g., a policing mechanism, and judiciary).
The primary goal of these mini-systems is reducing chaos and uncertainty. They also set the stage for objective 2 mini-systems to flourish.
Objective 2: spur activities that lead to overall wellbeing
After controlling the chaos, a functioning government aims to “increase the size of the pie”. I.e., improve the conditions of most people.
At a high-level this manifests itself through major roles the government takes up in drafting bills & laws that it expects citizens to follow. The most important areas which help in expanding the pie are usually healthcare, social safety, commerce & education/science.
The main goal of objective 2 mini-systems is not a reduction in chaos, but rather on improving outcomes for many citizens.
An ideal form of governance scores highly on both. Most people (including leaders of countries) would agree on the twin objectives of reduction in chaos and improvement of outcomes. However, they may have different ideas on how to achieve the said goals.
One useful metric to rank how attractive an idea (to achieve said goals) is would be to look at the number of people compromising & amount of compromise required by that means.
The bit about compromise is important if one believes that each citizen knows what’s better for them than anyone else (and assuming that people generally want different things).
For example, a well-functioning dictatorship (they do exist) could imply that either a lot of people compromise on their desires or that a few compromise a lot. Which is why they are generally looked down upon in liberal societies.
Democracy, in contrast, seems like the system that leads to the least number of people having to compromise (as a percentage of population). And that is why many hold it in high regard.
I propose we can push the envelope on compromise even further — and even in democratic countries.
Reducing the compromise factor
If we want to think through how to reduce the feeling of compromise in a governing system, it becomes impossible to talk about the governing system-as-a-whole.
This is because (as described in the previous section) the system-as-a-whole is a combination of mini-systems that have different objectives.
The concept of giving citizens more freedom will (by design) be dangerous for mini-systems falling under ambit of Objective 1 — more freedom generally leads to increasing disorder and chaos. Something that goes against the underlying goals for mini-systems under Objective 1.
On the other hand, one can argue that more freedom is generally better for mini-systems under Objective 2 umbrella. This goes back to the maxim “each citizen knows better than anyone else what is best for them individually.”
And is especially true if more freedom does not threaten safety and security of citizens — which should be the case with mini-systems dealing with objective 2.
The problem is that we don’t seem to distinguish between the two categories of mini-systems. The idea that everyone within a specific boundary must follow the same rules (no matter what the context) has become so enshrined it appears to be obviously a good thing.
But that need not be the case.
It is certainly true that standardizing rules makes sense for Object 1 mini-systems (otherwise chaos would reign), but it can be argued that people should be given more leeway to pursue alternative ideologies in mini-systems within Objective 2 (thus reducing the need for compromise).
In fact it could be argued that giving them more than one ideological option would lead to higher levels of wellbeing –an example that seems to illustrate this is how much happier citizens seems when given the freedom to choose their religion.
Therefore to solve the problem of further reducing compromise prevalent in existing governing systems, our solution space must (at least initially) focus on improvement within mini-systems that fall under objective 2.
But how can it be practical?
I’ll admit that the idea of giving more than one ideological option to each citizen for mini-systems falling under objective 2 seems impractical.
However, some of that impracticality can surely be attributed to a psychological factor. Specifically, we think its impractical because its not been done before.
For the rest of this series, let’s practically examine a way to reduce compromise by providing more choice in a mini-system type 2.
The economy might be a great place to start. Firstly, because it has such a direct & outsized impact on our lives & more importantly, it seems to fall under objective type mini-system type 2.
Many people have different opinions on how the economy should be run — i.e., which aspects (profit, people, environment etc.) should be prioritized, and which ones don’t matter. But, currently, all citizens end up participating in the same economic system — no matter what their personal beliefs.
The problem starts at the “design” stage itself. Most “design decisions” related to an economy are taken in a top-down manner — by politicians or big business; and in my experience these participants tend to be ideologically similar (they all prioritize power or profits) even if they claim they’re fighting for different things.
The diverse ideological views of the final consumers (the bedrock of an economy) hardly figure into any design decisions for the economy. With the result that the real choice offered to the customers is exceptionally limited.
Instead, there is an undue focus on the illusion of choice — i.e., you can choose between hundreds of pairs of Nikes, Adidas or UnderArmour but all three are just different masks of the same underlying economic system.
The question then becomes: how do we give people choice about the type of economic system to engage in itself?
The next article finally talks about specifics. Read on for a future where blockchains enable parallel ideology-based economic systems
