Table of Contents for Governance Systems Design

this isnt a real chapter, just a todo list for me


what chapter does this sort of stuff go into? theory?


Influence terms

One of his many contributions is his explication of the varieties of power, which he defines as A getting B to do what A wants. Dahl prefers the more neutral "influence terms" (Michael G. Roskin), which he arrayed on a scale from best to worst:

    Rational Persuasion, the nicest form of influence, means telling the truth and explaining why someone should do something, like a doctor convincing a patient to stop smoking.
    Manipulative persuasion, a notch lower, means lying or misleading to get someone to do something.
    Inducement, still lower, means offering rewards or punishments to get someone to do something, like bribery.
    Power threatens severe punishment, such as jail or loss of a job.
    Coercion is power with no way out.
    Physical force is backing up coercion with use or threat of bodily harm.

Thus, the governments that use influence at the higher end of the scale are best. The worst use the unpleasant forms of influence at the lower end.[citation needed]

Democracy and polyarchies Main article: polyarchy

In his book, Democracy and Its Critics (1989), Dahl clarifies his view about democracy. No modern country meets the ideal of democracy, which is as a theoretical utopia. To reach the ideal requires meeting five criteria:[10]

    Effective participation
    Citizens must have adequate and equal opportunities to form their preference and place questions on the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the other.
    Voting equality at the decisive stage
    Each citizen must be assured his or her judgments will be counted as equal in weights to the judgments of others.
    Enlightened understanding
    Citizens must enjoy ample and equal opportunities for discovering and affirming what choice would best serve their interests.
    Control of the agenda
    Demos or people must have the opportunity to decide what political matters actually are and what should be brought up for deliberation.
    Equality must extend to all citizens within the state. Everyone has legitimate stake within the political process.

Instead, he calls politically advanced countries "polyarchies". Polyarchies have elected officials, free and fair elections, inclusive suffrage, rights to run for office, freedom of expression, alternative information and associational autonomy. Those institutions are a major advance in that they create multiple centers of political power.[11] " [1]



incorporate [2] [3] [4], [5], [6], [7] esp [8] ,

mb read some books like and incorporate?


link to the metagovernment project and similar projects


some notes on the European feudal system and nobility:

the feudal system appeared to arise from situations in which (a) there was a lack of security, (b) the most important form of wealth was land. Local military rulers sprang up. Military rulers ('lords') who owned land (the original owners were called alloidal owners) delegated land ('fiefs') to others ('vassals') in exchange for some amount of loyalty as well some other form of 'rent' (the opposite of vassal, the word for the lord granting the land, is suzerain; " any relationship in which one region or polity controls the foreign policy and relations of a tributary state, while allowing the tributary state to have internal autonomy." [9]). A person could be a vassal to multiple lords simultaneously.

Vassals tended to be the loyal companions of the rulers, other soldiers, and competing but weaker rulers. The 'rent' tended to be military service. These relationship, either immediately or over time, became hereditary, and the various lords and vassals became nobles. Nobles, at least high nobles, were sometimes thought of as people who had some form of power/rights indepenently of the king (e.g. "Ealdorman...was a term in Anglo-Saxon England which originally applied to a man of high status, including some of royal birth, whose authority was independent of the king." [10]). Some nobles had land and some didn't, some had titles and some didn't, some had the right to sit in a national council, and some didn't. There were other forms of lease besides a lord-vassal relationship; commoners could sometimes rent land from nobles without themselves becoming either vassals or nobles.

Some nobles (eventually only monarchs) could ennoble commoners into nobles. One way a commoner could become a noble was to serve as a soldier and earn distinction in battle, which could cause them to be knighted.

Knights were (originally) soldiers who were nobles. Originally knights could knight other knights, but eventualy the monarch reserved the sole right to create new knights ('fount of honor') [11].

The king often required the permission of the nobles to levy taxes, and so when they needed money, they often had to summon the nobles to sit in a national council, at which point the nobles would often negotiate concessions from the king in exchange for the tax raise he wanted.

Often the less powerful nobles had limits on how much they were allowed to punish people in the context of the judicial system; local authorities were often only permitted to give light corporal punishment, and only higher authorities were permitted to apply of death and torture. See [12].

Over time the typical military service 'rent' became replaced by obligations to deliver goods and eventually money; the lords transmuted from military rulers to 'noble gentlemen' who believed themselves a superior class of person for reasons other than military might; and in some countries power was slowly taken away from various nobles and centralized around monarchs. Eventually the national councils became legislative bodies, and power was slowly (or rapidly) taken away from these monarchs and given to modern democratic forms of government. Eventually the role of knights was replaced by commissioned officers in the military. In some cases educational degrees have taken part of the role of the status of nobility; e.g. in England, regarding applications for coats of arms, "Applications are open to anyone with a 'reputable status' (normally including a university degree, but officially down to the discretion of the College)." [13]; e.g. in the US military, an educational degree is a prerequisite for an officer commission.

The classes of people tended to go:

Below nobles were commoners, with names like peasant.

Intermingled with and somewhat parallel to this power structure was the church power structure.

A rough concordance of European noble titles, in descending order of rank, is:

duke/herzog marquess/marquis/margrave earl/count/comes/jarl (note the etymological relationship between 'count' and 'county') (note that in some times and places, 'jarl' was just below the king, more like a duke) viscount baron

Note that the word nobles later etymologically evolved to denote goodness, and some names for commoners later etymologically evolved to denote badness (e.g. churl, villein).

Note that the etymologies of various ranks often denotes either:

See ,,,_royal_and_noble_ranks , , , , , , , ,


preventing organized crime:

"The results indicated that independence and integrity of the judiciary wasthe most important predictor of the extent of organized crime. Inde-pendently of this, the extent of organized crime was higher in countrieswhere the police were less effective. Finally, organized crime was moreprevalent in less affluent countries, independently of the two other factors.On the basis of these three key factors, levels of organized crime per countrycould be predicted fairly accurately." -- CONTROLLING ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTIONIN THE PUBLIC SECTOR by Edgardo Buscaglia and Jan van Dijk* ,

"Among the factors making it possible for organized crime to capture thecourt system, the most significant are procedural complexity and abuses ofsubstantive judicial discretion. The present analysis verified those links (e.g. that higher degrees of procedural complexity were linked to judicialcorruption and to higher levels of organized crime) (appendix A, tables 15-17). The link between the abuse of substantive judicial discretionon the one hand and judicial corruption and increases in organized crimeon the other was confirmed through another analysis. Moreover, lack ofpredictability of judicial rulings was linkedxto higher levels of both courtcorruption and organized criminal activities (appendix A, table 16)" -- CONTROLLING ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTIONIN THE PUBLIC SECTOR by Edgardo Buscaglia and Jan van Dijk* ,