NationStates Jolt Archive

What is, in your opinion, the most successful and efficient form of political structure applied throughout history?
In my opinion, it's a dictatorship. Dictatorships, when not corrupt, get thing things done. They don't beat around the bush or wait for the Senate to pass an article. It's a good form of centralized government, but inefficient for larger areas. I just see dictatorships as more capable of getting things done than any other form. The problem is that most people who get power, tend to get greedy.
What about the rest of you?

What is, in your opinion, the most successful and efficient form of political structure applied throughout history?
In my opinion, it's a dictatorship. Dictatorships, when not corrupt, get thing things done. They don't beat around the bush or wait for the Senate to pass an article. It's a good form of centralized government, but inefficient for larger areas. I just see dictatorships as more capable of getting things done than any other form. The problem is that most people who get power, tend to get greedy.
What about the rest of you?

Well, if you look at the history of Egypt, the God/King form of government lasted a lot longer than any other form. Rome began as a Republic, then devolved into an absolute Dictatorship, so it actually had several forms of government over its long history. The Chinese emperors lasted for long periods, but the turnover was a bit high at times.

Modern democratic forms of government are too new in historic terms to even come close to matching any of the above. So, I would have to vote for the God/King approach as the longest lasting.

Monarchism worked better than democracy or dictatorship. This is because they had an interest in long term improvement, unlike democracies, where the govt only worries about the next election, and dictatorships, which are too unstable and brutal. But govts are unnecessary. If people want police protection they should pay for it like any other service on the market.

To be fair, an authoritarian approach to construction and maintenance of national infrastructure is the only way we're going to safeguard our electricity supply. No use if people keep writing letters to the council complaining about the way a substation looks and the council is actually obliged to listen.

Monarchism worked better than democracy or dictatorship.

Yes. Monarchies are especially effective when paired with a state-sponsored religion that can give the monarch divine legitimacy and keep the populace cowed.

Ditto on what Libertovania said. And I would like to note that generally the most successful monarchs were those whose populace was united by common belief systems.

Monarchism worked better than democracy or dictatorship. This is because they had an interest in long term improvement, unlike democracies, where the govt only worries about the next election, and dictatorships, which are too unstable and brutal. But govts are unnecessary. If people want police protection they should pay for it like any other service on the market.

Agreed .. monarchies existed in Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, Babylon, Assyria, Ancient Greece, Ancient Israel, Christian Europe, Asia, Islamic East, Russia, China, Africa, etc.

A Hive Mind. Although true social insects do not quite possess this, their form of it has functioned very efficiently for millions of years.

A Hive Mind. Although true social insects do not quite possess this, their form of it has functioned very efficiently for millions of years.

Interesting. Termites, ants and bees have a society based on one queen which is a sort of monarchy, not by religion but chemical control of the servants as they are all preprogrammed to serve a Queen.

Enlightened benevolent despotism has always brought about the greatest leaps in technical development, social development, and in the arts. .

What is, in your opinion, the most successful and efficient form of political structure applied throughout history?
In my opinion, it's a dictatorship. Dictatorships, when not corrupt, get thing things done. They don't beat around the bush or wait for the Senate to pass an article. It's a good form of centralized government, but inefficient for larger areas. I just see dictatorships as more capable of getting things done than any other form. The problem is that most people who get power, tend to get greedy.
What about the rest of you?

looking back, i'd had to say the monarchy/godhead of ancient egypt. hell that lasted...what? 4000 years???
not bad all in all

The problem with Monarchies is that quite often they -are- dictatorships, ruling under the name of God.
Largely, the worst part about dictatorships and monarchies would be the fact that since rulers are not elected, wars tend to break out for rulership.
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
And actually, Feudalism really survived the longest, wide-spread, than any other form of government. 1000 years it lasted throughout Europe, Asia... and it's different than Monarchies, where quite often the elimination of Feudal Lords was put in place to allow for a centralized government (See Louis XIV).
But I hate Divine Right. :P

looking back, i'd had to say the monarchy/godhead of ancient egypt. hell that lasted...what? 4000 years???
not bad all in all
And I respond with the statement: An efficient governemnt government is a dictatorship.
Any form of goverment that operates with cheques and balances (parlamentarian democracy, presidental democracy, parlamentarian monarchy, e.g.) is inefficent due to the fact that the different branches (legislature, executive, judiciary) may contradict each other.
They are there to controll each other and to take care that none takes too much power. It is the logical consequence that the efficency of such a system is limitted compared to a system where the power lays in one hands and the power of government depends on one will (like in absolutist monarchies or dictatorship). But all historic experience proves that absolue power gets abused. From the absolutists kings of France to Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin or others.
Therefore the democratic form of government altough of its weaknesses is the best one. I agree with Churchill that democracy is actually the worst form of government. But we don´t know any better one.

looking back, i'd had to say the monarchy/godhead of ancient egypt. hell that lasted...what? 4000 years???
not bad all in allWhat do you mean? There was no continuous rule over Egypt by a specific family/dynasty all that time (there were 31 dynasties and even more families), and Egypt had been divided into petty realms pretty often. Egypt has existed as an entity for so long only due to its unique geographical location.

A government run by Duct Tape: it holds everything together

The problem with Monarchies is that quite often they -are- dictatorships, ruling under the name of God.Like in the UK and Canada?

What is, in your opinion, the most successful and efficient form of political structure applied throughout history?
In my opinion, it's a dictatorship. Dictatorships, when not corrupt, get thing things done. They don't beat around the bush or wait for the Senate to pass an article. It's a good form of centralized government, but inefficient for larger areas. I just see dictatorships as more capable of getting things done than any other form. The problem is that most people who get power, tend to get greedy.
What about the rest of you?

A theocracy established through a revolution, when a majority belives that some kind of over-priest has the divine right to rule them no one will ever think of opposing the government, and as we are talking of a tyranny everything will probably run smooth, just look at what Hitler did with Germany when he had installed himself as dictator.

Interesting. Termites, ants and bees have a society based on one queen which is a sort of monarchy, not by religion but chemical control of the servants as they are all preprogrammed to serve a Queen.

Not by religion yes, but if you were raised to belive that the ruling monarch was a god deserving your total obidience (yes my spelling sucks), wouldn't you say that would be as natural as the chemical "programming" of the bees?

I think you can compare these two, both are based on the fact that there is nothing logical for individual to do but to obey (wether the reasons are logical or not doesn't matter).

What do you mean? There was no continuous rule over Egypt by a specific family/dynasty all that time (there were 31 dynasties and even more families), and Egypt had been divided into petty realms pretty often. Egypt has existed as an entity for so long only due to its unique geographical location.

maybe so, but it helped unify the people. They all looked up to the same god/king. Quite a clever way of unifying a diverse group really.

Before you can answer the question you have to decide which kind of society you think is the best. Dictatorship may be very succesful in business but it has a huge lack of political freedom which most of us likes a lot (I suppose..)
I think a multi party democracy is the best way to find a balance between political freedom, human rights and business.

Communism, failing that Democracy.

Enlightened dictatorships are great, but they only last a generation, and almost invariably lead to civil war upon the despots' death. For reference, that is a Bad Thing.

Communism, done right, can give people a greater sense of ownership than even capitalistic democracy. Done poorly, of course, the perceived Performance to Outcome ratio drops to near zero, and no-one does anything, except under duress.

Define greatness.

If something is really big

Then the greatest is communist china.

Communism, failing that Democracy.

Enlightened dictatorships are great, but they only last a generation, and almost invariably lead to civil war upon the despots' death. For reference, that is a Bad Thing.

Communism, done right, can give people a greater sense of ownership than even capitalistic democracy. Done poorly, of course, the perceived Performance to Outcome ratio drops to near zero, and no-one does anything, except under duress.

Command economies of any kind are inherently inefficient because they fail to deal with basic human nature. They inherently breed hoarding, corruption and black markets. Since the fall of communism, the Russian agricultural economy collapsed by half, and yet Russia still now exports rather than imports food because of the amount of waste that there used to be in the old system - train loads of grain rotting on railway sidings because it was no-one's job to get it to town quickly.

Totalitarian states may be able to 'get things done', but are they necessarily the right things? The problem with any top-down totalitarian society is the people at the top. If they are some kind of benign philosopher-king like Alexander the Great, then all is fine and dandy. That was why the Greeks and Romans thought that this kind of government - done well - was the best of all. The trouble comes with succession of power. Either it passes to descendants (who inevitably are spoilt, bored and lazy - look at the British Royal Family) or else there is a struggle for power and the general with the most tanks wins. Thus the Roman Empire had great emperors like Augustus, Vespasian and Marcus Aurelius, but it also had complete nutters like Caligula, Commodus and Nero.

I don't buy the argument about despotisms fostering creativity. The greatest period of creativity the world has known has been under democracies, because instead of shutting all of the talented people in the huddled masses out of the power structure, they provide a way of them entering into it and making a difference. Athens' astonishing period of creativity in the 5th century BC was down to democracy, IMHO. Florence during most of the Renaissance was a Republic. Democracies have their inherent problems, to be sure, but widespread democracy is a relatively new phenomenon, and seems to be a force that drives wealth, stability and peace. Look at how many of the world's top economies are democracies. When has a democracy ever declared war on another democracy? Democracies are occasionally overthrown by totalitarian elements but seem to be more resiliant than other power structures. And let us not forget that in the current interconnected world dictatorships cannot control the information flow in the way that they used to have to, making totalitarian states progressively less stable as the people see how successful democracies are and wonder whether they might not to better that way.

Like I say, democracy is imperfect, but as Winston Churchill put it:
"Democracy is the worst possible form of government - apart from all of the others."

There's another factoid for you, too:
No famine has ever occurred in a functioning democracy with a free press.

Famines are rarely due to lack of food. That is, there is obviously less food during a famine, but a state that is the servant of the people always finds a way of making it go round, whereas famines tend to occur in dictatorships or colonies, where the government has less incentive to save people, or in states in civil war, where famine can be used as a weapon against enemies. I know of no exceptions - a famous Indian economist did a study on this in the 1980s. India, for example, has never had a famine since it became a democracy, even though its population has more than tripled since independence, and yet it had perpetual food shortages under British rule.

Isn't the whole point of this game the idea that there are different criterea for success, and that there is no one 'best' way to do something this large? Doesn't it all hang on what you consider successful?

Isn't the whole point of this game the idea that there are different criterea for success, and that there is no one 'best' way to do something this large? Doesn't it all hang on what you consider successful?

The game is a playground for political ideas with a libertarian viewpoint lurking at the back of it somewhere. Agreed there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way of doing things in the game. I thought we were talking about the real world.

The game is a playground for political ideas with a libertarian viewpoint lurking at the back of it somewhere. Agreed there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way of doing things in the game. I thought we were talking about the real world.
Well, yes we where. But the fact that we where discussing this particular subject when one of the aims of the game was to demonstrate what I had said (I remember reading that when I started way back when) it seemed relivant to bring up.

Well, yes we where. But the fact that we where discussing this particular subject when one of the aims of the game was to demonstrate what I had said (I remember reading that when I started way back when) it seemed relivant to bring up.

Fair enough - I see your point now (I was being a bit dense the first time). But I still think peace, wealth and stability are pretty good success criteria, and democracies do them better than other forms of government. I'd personally like to add freedom of thought, expression and association as well, also things not necessarily associated with totalitarian states.

Of course, if being able to stage really big military parades, or having lots of pictures of the president on every wall are part of your success criteria, then go for a dictatorship every time.

.

Totalitarian states may be able to 'get things done', but are they necessarily the right things? The problem with any top-down totalitarian society is the people at the top. If they are some kind of benign philosopher-king like Alexander the Great, then all is fine and dandy. That was why the Greeks and Romans thought that this kind of government - done well - was the best of all. The trouble comes with succession of power. Either it passes to descendants (who inevitably are spoilt, bored and lazy - look at the British Royal Family)


Yes the Britsh Royal family, like Henry VIII then Elizabeth I no, there was no leadership there, never took that little nation anywhere did they?
As for the current royal family being lazy, just look at the itinerary of the major royals, not a job I would like.
And democracy is sooooooo much better, Big Bush, Little Bush the Kennedys etc etc. Hmmm let's choose.......
And remember it was democracy that brought about the rule of one of the worlds worst dictators!

Oh yes, Remove the German Royal family replace it with Hitler.
Remove the Russian Royal family replace them with Stalin
Remove the Italian royal family replace them with Musolini
Spain etc etc
Yep getting rid of royalty has been a whopping success.

*Remove the English royal family and create America*
Well, it worked for the stupid Americans, we have a superpower, duh duhduhduhduh dah!
Maybe you just aren't doing it right?
:headbang: :mp5:

*Remove the English royal family and create America*
Well, it worked for the stupid Americans, we have a superpower, duh duhduhduhduh dah!
Maybe you just aren't doing it right?
:headbang: :mp5:
Been there done that (better and bigger) trying something new now (being nice).

Oh yes, Remove the German Royal family replace it with Hitler.
Remove the Russian Royal family replace them with Stalin
Remove the Italian royal family replace them with Musolini
Spain etc etc
Yep getting rid of royalty has been a whopping success.

Hitler wasn't really the replacement of the german royal family was he? He was democratically elected in a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy.

And "getting rid of royalty" isn't a political system. The political system is what you replace it with.

So far, the most successful political system is liberal democratic capitalism. However, looking to the Pacific Rim and the coming century, we may find that illiberal slightly democratic state capitalism/mixed is going to be very big indeed.

Command economies of any kind are inherently inefficient because they fail to deal with basic human nature. They inherently breed hoarding, corruption and black markets. Since the fall of communism, the Russian agricultural economy collapsed by half, and yet Russia still now exports rather than imports food because of the amount of waste that there used to be in the old system - train loads of grain rotting on railway sidings because it was no-one's job to get it to town quickly.


Russia exports rather than imports food because the market price is higher outside Russia, because most Russians have very little money. Lots of them are subsistence farmers. Commercial farmers grow cash crops for export because that is where the money is.

Yes the Britsh Royal family, like Henry VIII then Elizabeth I no, there was no leadership there, never took that little nation anywhere did they?

You'd prefer to live in Elizabeth's police state?
Your choice, I guess.
Leadership is not the issue. The issue is about what type of government makes a state successful. If Elizabethan England had been a democracy, do you think it would have been less successful, or more?

As for the current royal family being lazy, just look at the itinerary of the major royals, not a job I would like.

Yeah, polo, skiing, shooting, snorting cocaine... it's a chore, isn't it? How much actual work do you think Prince Edward or Andrew really do?
I admit to a certain facetiousness about the Royals. I'm a republican after all (as in I believe Britain should be a Republic, please no-one think I want Bush for President). But the argument remains - in a hereditary system you have no choice about who gets the top job. In fact, look at the Queen's uncle. Before the government used the excuse of 'marrying a divorcee' to push him out, we had a fascist sympathiser on the throne. Yeah, that monarchy stufff really works wonders...

And democracy is sooooooo much better, Big Bush, Little Bush the Kennedys etc etc. Hmmm let's choose.......

You would actually rather have lived in, say, the Soviet Union, than Kennedy's America? Or even George W. Bush's America?
Your choice, I guess. Except... a lot of people didn't get that choice. There was a big wall and they got shot if they tried to go over it. And people still tried. That's how much fun they were having over there!

And remember it was democracy that brought about the rule of one of the worlds worst dictators!

I admit he was elected under a democratic system. Sort of (I mean he got 30% of the vote, then manipulated the vote to get him emergency powers). But then it stopped being a democracy, didn't it? If Hitler had run Germany democratically as elected Chancellor, he wouldn't have been able to do the things he did. He wouldn't have been Hitler, either.

Russia exports rather than imports food because the market price is higher outside Russia, because most Russians have very little money. Lots of them are subsistence farmers. Commercial farmers grow cash crops for export because that is where the money is.

Yes, but the point is that no-one in Russia has starved to death, even though the output has fallen by 50%, whereas the old system was so inefficient at coordinating and distributing production that even with twice today's output it still wasn't generating enough to feed everyone.

You'd prefer to live in Elizabeth's police state?
Your choice, I guess.
Leadership is not the issue. The issue is about what type of government makes a state successful. If Elizabethan England had been a democracy, do you think it would have been less successful, or more?



Yeah, polo, skiing, shooting, snorting cocaine... it's a chore, isn't it? How much actual work do you think Prince Edward or Andrew really do?
I admit to a certain facetiousness about the Royals. I'm a republican after all (as in I believe Britain should be a Republic, please no-one think I want Bush for President). But the argument remains - in a hereditary system you have no choice about who gets the top job. In fact, look at the Queen's uncle. Before the government used the excuse of 'marrying a divorcee' to push him out, we had a fascist sympathiser on the throne. Yeah, that monarchy stufff really works wonders...



You would actually rather have lived in, say, the Soviet Union, than Kennedy's America? Or even George W. Bush's America?
Your choice, I guess. Except... a lot of people didn't get that choice. There was a big wall and they got shot if they tried to go over it. And people still tried. That's how much fun they were having over there!



I admit he was elected under a democratic system. Sort of (I mean he got 30% of the vote, then manipulated the vote to get him emergency powers). But then it stopped being a democracy, didn't it? If Hitler had run Germany democratically as elected Chancellor, he wouldn't have been able to do the things he did. He wouldn't have been Hitler, either.
No I'd rather be under the despot Sultan of Brunei as a citizen.
And hitler did come in under a democratic system like it or not.
And no under democracy the British Empire would not have been, as when it was created the crown still had power.
Yes I would prefer a decent King and a modern Fuedal system than having the dictator Two faced Tony in power.
Democracy is not the great panacea many people think it is.
Any system with the correct people running it can work. Democracy is a demonstration of mediocrity. (scuse spelling)
oh and two faced tony didn't get much more than 30% of the vote!

oh and two faced tony didn't get much more than 30% of the vote!

What do you care? You're for dictatorship, remember?

Interesting. Termites, ants and bees have a society based on one queen which is a sort of monarchy, not by religion but chemical control of the servants as they are all preprogrammed to serve a Queen.

ahh god bless bumble bees

Like in the UK and Canada?
Erm, the Queen of England is nothing more than a ceremonial position now. We kind of got rid of that decades ago with a signing, separating Canada from England completely.
And I spoke of success. Success economically and efficiency, success in keeping the people together and under control.
And I really wouldn't consider the emitting of chemical pheromones a form of political structure. But damn, sometimes with the extent nationalism reaches, I wouldn't be surprised of a couple of these leaders can.