Join the new world

In the last article concerning governmental structure, I outlined the five characteristics of successful government. This article is concerned with the forms of governmental structure that are most able to develop those characteristics.

Of the myriad forms and structures of government I have seen in the New World, there are only two models which have proven themselves successful in developing most, if not all, of the afore-mentioned characteristics. For the sake of convenience, the idealized forms of these shall be labeled as the "Decentralized Model" and the "Corporate Model." In contrast to these, there are many different forms of government that have failed to develop any of the characteristics of a successful administration. Of these, there have been three forms repeated time and time again, called here the "Bureaucratic Model," the "Kleptocratic Model," and the "Anarchic Model."

The Decentralized Model, as its name suggests, is a model of government in which power is removed from the core central government, and instead invested in either the peripheral governmental bodies or in the private sector. The Decentralized government derives much of its success from the usage of a dedicated group of career ministers, people trustworthy and experienced. Each experienced minister, when placed as the head of a ministry, runs it as though it is semi-autonomous from the central government, while still obeying the orders of the CP as needed. When ministries overlap, the experience of the ministers overcomes any negative side effects. This removes much of the national bureaucracy, while, assuming that the central government retains some form of control over its branches, peak efficiency can be reached. A line of succession derives not from central authority, but rather from the experience of each Minister, as the most-experienced move up in the ranks in the event of a resignation or disappearance. If good ministers can be found, this model of government is incredibly potent.

The Corporate Model is so called because it resembles the structure of a corporation. Unlike the Decentralized Model and its reliance upon semi-autonomous ministers, the Corporate Model is more centralized in its organization. The large numbers of ministries are consolidated into a much smaller number of central Directorates, whose leaders are appointed by the CP. Each Directorate contains numerous ministries. Deputy Directors, appointed by the Directors but removable by the CP, run individual ministries, reporting to the Director of their division, who in turn reports to the CP. Meetings between the CP and the Directors are held twice or three times per week, in which the CP outlines the goals he wishes to see happen. Directors are responsible for enacting the will of the CP, who in turn refrains from actively meddling in the affairs of each Directorate. Directors may pursue side projects freely, as long as the CP is informed and does not withhold consent. A clear line of succession is established by the CP at the beginning of his term. In order to prevent thefts, only a limited number of people are allowed access to governmental Orgs. This model of government is best used in a larger country, where there is a larger pool of able people. If set up properly, this form of government is both the most stable and the most efficient, as it keeps the initiative of the Decentralized Model intact while also streamlining the rough areas of that model.

The above two models are the ideal forms of governmental structure available to eCitizens. All forms of degenerated government can be shown as deviations from these two structures:

The Bureaucratic Model is a Corporate Model gone wrong. In this, ministers are usually unwilling to take private initiative, while the CP demands more and more oversight of his bureaus. This results in a gigantic backlog of bureaucracy, as all decisions must be routed through the CP or a top Minister. Eventually, this leads to governmental stagnation, as the departments of government fall apart due to mismanagemebt.

The Kleptocratic Model can arise from either the Corporate or Decentralized Models. In this, there is not enough oversight of monetary resources, either due to extreme decentralization or to lax control on the part of the central authorities. When coupled with unscrupulous Ministers, this results in the quiet theft of much money. In turn, this weakens the military of the country, and reduces the government's credibility and effectiveness to the point of caricature.

The Anarchic Model arises from the Decentralized Model, when the government is so decentralized that the CP has little or no real power. In the absence of guidance, ministries begin undermining each other, preventing anything from getting done. Since there are no clear boundaries between ministries, problems keep building up as countermanding orders are given. It blossoms into full-blown anarchy if the CP goes missing, as no Minister possesses the clout to seize the top position. This is probably the worst of the degenerate models.

In later issues, a detailed exploration of the Corporate and Decentralized Models will be forthcoming. Please vote and subscribe if you liked this article.

Albert Neurath