My idea for governments (similar to Xanthipus')-LONG

[tmarcl]

I know Xanthippus has already touched on this in his own post, but I had a few additional ideas that I felt would take up too much space to be included as just a reply. Like I said, these ideas are along a similar lines to his, but with a few differences:

Like Xanthippus, I disagree with the idea of switching governments. In fact, I feel the whole government concept in Civ is completely inaccurate. For example, the concept of democracy is actually much older than that of a republic-in fact, a republic is more of an extension of a democracy. To explain, a democracy is where everyone in a city/nation votes on every topic (which is very impractical, the larger the nation), while a republic is where people in a local district elect representatives to decide on topics for them (ie: the Roman Senate). Further, there is no such thing as a 'Communist' government. Communism is a philosophy. China, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union are all republics.

The difference between the republic of China and the republic of the United States, however, is that we have guaranteed freedoms for our people, where China does not. Also, their economic system is Socialist, where ours is more Capitalist. All of these should, I believe, be considered in Civ 4.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I am not a political scientist. I have no college whatsoever, and the closest thing that I’ve come to taking a course in Politics was my Participation in Government class my senior year of high school. However, I have been around for more than three decades, and this is what I’ve observed about societies in general.

There seem to be five main traits that make up a society: How it’s ruled, how centralized the government is, how stable the government is, how protected it’s citizens’ rights are and how free it’s economy is. No doubt there are more, but for the purposes of gameplay, these five seem to be the best.

a) How it’s ruled:

Essentially, a nation is either ruled by fiat (a Totalitarian Government), or it’s ruled by consent of it’s people (A Pure Democracy). Monarchies and Military Dictatorships fall under Totalitarian, while the Ancient Greek city-states would be on the opposite extreme (the U.S. falls closer to pure democracy, but we’re not, as will be explained later).

b) How centralized the government is:

Again, this is fairly basic (ironically enough). A government is either totally centralized, with the capital ruling everything, or it’s a federal government (which means it’s got several levels of government-usually a central/federal, a provincial, and a local (city/village) ). Generally, once nations grow big enough, they tend to leave the governing of local provinces/cities to local governors, so I can’t think of any totally centralized governments in today’s world, except for tribal governments. Of course, everything else is considered a Federal system of government.

c) How stable the government is:

At the end of Alexander the Great’s reign, there was chaos, because there was no successor to his throne. Ultimately, his empire crumbled as his generals fought over it. Similar things happened in Rome, as well as in monarchies around the world (when there were no named successors, the rest of the family fought over the government-and some times even when there were named successors). These are unstable governments. There is no procedure for choosing a new leader when the reign of the previous leader is over. Most modern countries have laws designating how a new leader is picked, and, in the event of the early death of a leader, who should take over (in the U.S., the line of succession goes all the way down to the Postmaster General-a lot of people would have to die all at once for us to not have a chief executive).

Connected to stability is how laws are made. In the more unstable forms of government, laws are made a the ruler’s discretion, and he can change his mind at the drop of a hat. What’s true today may not be true tomorrow, but may be again three days from now. In a more stable form of government, there are Constitutions (like the US, Britain, and, believe it or not, China)-a document on which all laws are supposed to be measured against before they become enacted. In addition, it gives procedures for how laws are to be made/changed. In the United States, for example, it would be impossible for George Bush to reinstate slavery. If he tried, such a bill would be compared to the Constitution, found to be unconstitutional, and thrown out on it’s ear. (This is one reason why the United States isn’t a democracy-if it was, he could pass such a thing, provided the majority supported it. Since it’s not, we could all really want it, and the bill would still end up as toilet paper!)

d) How protected it’s citizens’ rights are:

This kind of goes in with the idea of stability. In the U.S., we have written into our constitution certain rights. We can speak our minds, we are protected from the police barging into our house and searching the place whenever they feel like it. These rights cannot be taken from us arbitrarily. Bush today can’t say, ‘People have freedom of religion’, only to change his mind tomorrow and declare we must all bow before him.

e) How free it’s economy is:

Believe it or not, this one is fairly simple. In a Socialist society (China, Cuba, the former Soviet Union), all business are controlled by the State, while in a Capitalist society, (America in the 1800’s) they are totally unfettered. A totalitarian nation can have a fairly capitalist economy (and most do, believe it or not).

How does all this affect Civ?

For the most part, I think this can be tied into Civilization fairly easily with the use of sliders:


I Rule: Totalitarian-----------Democratic
II Centralization: Centralized-----------Federal
III Stability: Unstable--------------Stable
IV People’s Rights Unprotected----------Protected
V Economy Socialist---------------Capitalist

This would enable players to create a more customized government. The sliders would ultimately effect things like corruption, happiness, science, wealth, waste and world standing.

The way I see it is something like this:

Rule: Affects Happiness and Waste. The more Totalitarian the regime, the less happy people are, and the less likely they are to work toward their full potential.

Centralization: Affects Waste and Corruption. This would correspond to the size of your nation. If you’ve got a large nation with a very central government, you’d have tons of corruption and waste. The same would hold true, by the way, for a small nation with a needless federal government.

Stability: Affects Happiness, Corruption and World Standing, The more unstable the government, the more unhappiness, and the more other nations will distrust you, After all, if you change your mind on a whim with how you treat your own people, than how do they know you won’t do the same to them?

People’s Rights: Affects Happiness, Waste, and Science. The less your people feel their rights are protected, the less happy they’ll be, the less they’ll work to their full potential, and the less likely they’ll be to present unpopular scientific notions (think Medieval Europe).

Economy: Affects Wealth, Science, and Waste. I was tempted to include Corruption in this, but I figured that both a Socialist economy and a Capitalist economy have an equal chance of corruption. However, the less free your economy is, the less it grows. The freer the economy, the more wealth, the more science advances (do you really think Edison invented for the benefit of mankind? Heck no. He was in it for the money), and the more people will want to work to their full potential

In addition, where you move each slider will determine how far you can move other sliders. An unstable government, for example, will not allow for much personal freedom, or for a truly federal government.


Please discuss.

 

[Spatula]

I had some long reply but then the stupid thing suddenly decided I wasn't logged in. So I have to write this again.

The problem with your Totalitarian model is that sometimes totalitarians can get things done better and more quickly (contrast Hitler to Weimar Republic). Also your Rights and Stability need some kind of incentive to have an unstable and/or restrictive government otherwise there's no point to them.

I would modify them as such:

Rule: Totalitarian, (Constitutional/Parliamentary) Monarch, Republic, Democracy
Economy: State, Regulated, Liberal, Free Market
Centralization: Capital, Devolved (like Scots Parliament), Federal, Confederate

I'll try and think of some benefits for unstable strict governments.

 

[Xanthippus]

Like Saptula said, with your system there's no reason not to have everything as far right as possible. That's extremely biased, and it's saying that left-wing nations are great and right-wing nations are worthless.

Also, you're glazing over a lot of areas. Government is complex, so why should making a custom government be simple? For example, you can't just bundle science in with economy, there's a lot more to it. Similarly, totalitarianism vs. democract isn't a straight line at all, so you can't have them on the same slider. A constitutional monarchy is both authoritarian and democratic, but that doesn't make it half way between the two; instead, it is a moderate form of both. Thus, I don't think your system works well.

 

[Xanthippus]

Like Saptula said, with your system there's no reason not to have everything as far right as possible. That's extremely biased, and it's saying that left-wing nations are great and right-wing nations are worthless.

Also, you're glazing over a lot of areas. Government is complex, so why should making a custom government be simple? For example, you can't just bundle science in with economy, there's a lot more to it. Similarly, totalitarianism vs. democract isn't a straight line at all, so you can't have them on the same slider. A constitutional monarchy is both authoritarian and democratic, but that doesn't make it half way between the two; instead, it is a moderate form of both. Thus, I don't think your system works well.

 

[tmarcl]

Like Saptula said, with your system there's no reason not to have everything as far right as possible. That's extremely biased, and it's saying that left-wing nations are great and right-wing nations are worthless.

Agreed. There'd have to be some sort of balancing out in order to do it properly. For example, with rulership, having the slider all the way over to the right (total democracy) would in the end be a bad thing (always following the whim of the people)-if anything, it would be an unstable form of government.

Economy-wise, while having a totally capitalist society benefits the business owner, it also causes unhappiness (less job stability, etc).

Also, you're glazing over a lot of areas. Government is complex, so why should making a custom government be simple? For example, you can't just bundle science in with economy, there's a lot more to it. Similarly, totalitarianism vs. democract isn't a straight line at all, so you can't have them on the same slider. A constitutional monarchy is both authoritarian and democratic, but that doesn't make it half way between the two; instead, it is a moderate form of both. Thus, I don't think your system works well.

Why should custom government be simple? Because it's a game. Making it too complex would take away a lot of enjoyment from all but the most hard-core fanatic.

I'd be interested to learn why you think totalitarianism isn't the opposite of democracy? Either someone rules by fiat (totalitarian), or is elected (democratic). A constitutional monarchy isn't, as you say, a moderate form of both-it has elected leaders (parliament), and, as I understand it, the monarch has no real power. With a constitution, it falls under a stable form of government (which is a different slider).

Spatula, I like your divisions. They make it easier to see what a person is selecting as s/he is moving the slider.

 

[Spatula]

A constitutional monarchy isn't, as you say, a moderate form of both-it has elected leaders (parliament), and, as I understand it, the monarch has no real power. With a constitution, it falls under a stable form of government (which is a different slider).

A constitutional monarch does have power. They still make the laws, albeit under advice. The office of Prime Minister was intended for occasions when the monarch couldn't attend Cabinet meetings, and then it later became a more powerful and independent post. A parliamentary monarchy is when the monarch technically has no power, it has been devolved to Parliament, although technically the monarch could still rule without Parliament (which would probably be unpopular so they don't). This is the system the UK currently has.

Spatula, I like your divisions. They make it easier to see what a person is selecting as s/he is moving the slider.

Thanks

 

[Spatula]

PS: There is also a difference between 'despot' and 'absolute monarch' but since that's not in the slider I'll skip that.

 

[frekk]

I'd be interested to learn why you think totalitarianism isn't the opposite of democracy?

Disciplination process. 20th century totalitarian and democratic governments were similar in the level of control they had over "hearts and minds" and in that they both united the population behind secular ideologies. Both have more in common with each other than they have with, say, a feudal state of the middle ages, not just in terms of centralization, but in terms of the method of disciplination.

Communism, fascism, and democracy all rest on a fundamental principle of common consent, spurred by belief in the philosophy behind the government. Democracy is just as "fiat" as totalitarianism. When that consent is lost, the government crumbles. Contrary to popular perception, both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were widely popular during their heyday, and its only towards the fall that common consent is revoked. Feudal rulers derived consent instead from ownership of the land and an economic model that trapped the population under their heel. The population didn't 'believe' in feudalism in quite the same way that people believed in democracy, communism, or fascism. All these are ideological philosophies which obtain legitimacy from belief in that philosophy, but a feudal system relies exclusively on economic and physical realities to derive consent - force of arms, or ownership of the land.

 

[dh_epic]

I've heard a lot of different sliders, although yours seem quite well-thought out. I'd easily take your model, or your model with tweaks, or even something completely different. I'm just not a fan of the dropdown list of pre-packaged, neatly defined governments (where all democracies are the same).

 

[Xanthippus]

I'd be interested to learn why you think totalitarianism isn't the opposite of democracy?

Because the two can work simultaneously, so they have to be distinct.

A constitutional monarchy isn't, as you say, a moderate form of both-it has elected leaders (parliament), and, as I understand it, the monarch has no real power.

The constitutional monarch can, at any time, sieze absolute authority and rule above and without the parliament. This was only meant to be used in times of crisis, and the English parliament was so powerful I don't believe this even happened once, but they still had the power, just didn't use it. Even in the modern English parliamentary monarchy, they still have this power, it's in the constitution, but, again, don't use it.

If you want a slider representation, here would be a constitutional monarchy:

No voting -----------X----- Total Democracy
Free ------X---------- Totalitarian

Another example is South America's presidential dictatorships. These presidents, as their names suggest, were constitutionally in these positions. They weren't always established constitutionally, but once in power everything was taken through the democratic proceedings, and they were kept in power only when the people continued to vote for them. However, to ensure that they got what they wanted, people who opposed them and/or didn't vote the way they wanted tended to dissapear over night to never return. Nevertheless, it was still a very democratic society. Again, a slider representation:


No voting ---------------X- Total Democracy
Free ----------------X Totalitarian

So, in summary, Democracy ONLY refers to the people's rights to vote, nothing about their rights to freedom. The latter is entailed in how totalitarian a government is.

Also, I thought of another point. I really don't like your concept of stability. Yes, it is always an important aspect of government, but you've classed it wrong. Stability is not always defined by the ruling method, and the ruler hardly ever chooses how stable things are. They would want things to be as stable as possible, but there are outside factors that can't be helped. Some examples:

Prussia during the 17th Century had a frighteningly powerful monarchy, one of the world's finest armies, and a society of strict conservatives that valued law and order. They were one of the strongest and most stable governments in Europe, when all of a sudden comes a rush of liberal ideologies and they're struck with blow after blow of riots and revolutions, casting their pristine society into an unstable mass rought with civil war. This had nothing to do with the government.

The Uzbek Khagnate had just completed its conquest of Transoxiana mid way through the 16th Century and had formed the most powerful and stable mid-eastern kingdom. Suddenly, Russia invades from the North West and Khazak raiders decimate the North Eastern border. Uzbeks flee southwards, and the destruction by the Khazak raiders creates a power vaccum. The Khazaks stop migrating, establish a kingdom, and wage war against the Uzbeks. The Turkmens take advantage of this and wrest away from Uzbek control. The Uzbek Khagnate is incapable of defending against Russia and loses its northern territories, while it is engulfed in a bloody civil war against the Khazaks and Turkmens. Over the next years it devolves into a chaotic, unstable mass that is eventually overthrown by another dynasty. Once again, nothing to do with the government, the instability was caused by external factors.

 

[Maniac]

Here's how I'd prefer to see Civ4 government/civics/social engineering. It has a few things in common with the system of the thread poster (such as economy, centralization), but I hope the system below sufficiently adresses the critique that there should be good reasons to choose all possible SE options:


Liberal/Open/Innovative <-> Conservative/Closed/Narrowminded Society Values

Liberal/Open/Innovative:
Faster research.
Military units used for police duty are less effective or ineffective.
Espionage missions by other civs against you have a higher chance of success, and they cost less.
Population of another culture/religion/whatever-concept-will-be-used than your state culture/religion are happier than standard.
Population of another culture/religion are converted to your state culture/religion slower or not at all.
<->
Conservative/Closed/Narrowminded:
Slower research.
Military units used for police duty are more effective.
Espionage missions by other civs against you have a lower chance of success, and they cost more.
Population of another culture/religion/whatever-concept-will-be-used than your state culture/religion are less happy than standard.
Population of another culture/religion are converted faster to your state culture/religion.


Decentralized/(Con)federal <-> Centralized/Unitary State Structure

Decentralized/(Con)federal:
Equal and less corruption/inefficiency/whatever-concept-is-used everywhere.
Less control over tax/science/luxuries allocations.
Espionage missions by other civs against you have a higher chance of success, and they cost less.
Population of another culture/religion/whatever-concept-will-be-used than your state culture/religion are happier than standard.
Population of another culture/religion are converted to your state culture/religion slower or not at all.
<->
Centralized/Unitary:
Less corruption/inefficiency near your civilization's core and/or in cities with a large majority of state religion/culture population.
More corruption/inefficiency the further away from your civilization's core and/or in cities with a large majority of another religion/culture population.
More control over tax/science/luxuries allocations.
Espionage missions by other civs against you have a lower chance of success, and they cost more.
Population of another culture/religion/whatever-concept-will-be-used than your state culture/religion are less happy than standard.
Population of another culture/religion are converted faster to your state culture/religion.


Free Market/Private Ownership <-> Collectivist Economy

Free Market/Private Ownership:
Economy bonus.
Industry/Production penalty.
Less or no units are supported for free.
Less control over tax/science/luxuries allocations.
<->
Collectivist:
Economy penalty.
Industry/Production bonus.
More units are supported for free.
More control over tax/science/luxuries allocations.


Free Trade <-> Protectionist Foreign Trade Policy

Free Trade:
Science bonus.
Trade/Economy bonus.
Less tolls and tarriffs from trade routes passing through your territory (if the concept of trade routes actually running over the map is included).
Unhappier people.
Industry/Production penalty.
<->
Protectionist:
Science penalty.
Trade/Economy penalty.
More tolls and tariffs from trade routes passing through your territory (if the concept of trade routes actually running over the map is included).
Happier people.
Industry/Production bonus.


Nomad/Expansionist/Colonist <-> Sedentary/Urban Lifestyle

Nomad/Expansionist/Colonist:
Morale/Experience/Whatever-concept-is-used bonus.
More units are supported for free.
Combat bonus against barbarians, pirates etcetera.
Military units and settlers cost less to produce.
Economy and/or production penalty.
<->
Sedentary/Urban:
Morale/Experience/Whatever-concept-is-used penalty.
Less or no units are supported for free.
Combat penalty against barbarians, pirates etcetera.
Military units and settlers cost more to produce.
Economy and/or production bonus.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I have discussed the slider option (Social Engineering) at great length in previous posts, and I do think that there must be checks and balances in EVERY decision that you make. A good example is Rule. Sure, being very democratic might increase happiness and reduce waste, but it should also make it more difficult to pursue your agenda unfettered. So, say you want to build that polluting coal station in City A-well, in a very democratic society they might just stop you from doing so (behaving much like the governors of Civ3, to some extent). You can keep trying to push your agenda in this case, but this will simply make your people VERY unhappy-even more so than they might be in under autocratic rule.
Rights is another one, sure increasing them should improve happiness and science, but they should also increase corruption and possibly war weariness, as people feel more like doing what they WANT-rather than what they have to-and will be more likely to speak out against your government in times of conflict and upheaval! These points, of course, could have an impact on your international standing, as they see your state which lets the people run riot!

Other balancing acts might be militarism (less war weariness, but possibility of 'peace weariness' breaking out); Secularism (improved science, reduced chance of schism, but reduced religious building effects and increased chance of religious conversion by foreign religion types); Legalism (reduces crime and corruption, but reduces happiness and increases the cost of courthouses and police stations). Stability is a difficult one though, as instability is all negative, wheras stability is all good-perhaps this could just be a function of general government types-with fascists, juntas and republics being, on average more stable than monarchies, theocracies and democracies? This base rating would, of course, be based on other factors too!! (just a thought)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[bob rulz]

I'm not sure if anyone has said this yet (I don't have the time to look through all the posts), but commuism is not the same as socialism. Communism is where everything is completely controlled by the government, not socialism. Socialism is where portions of the economy are controlled by the government (like health care, spending, and especially welfare) and some parts are controlled by the people (mostly how the economy itself runs). In fact, Sweden is (or at least use to be) a socialist country. Socialism doesn't last long though, because the government uses too much money most of the time, especially on welfare, but it's good in the short term (like communism) but is more stable and works longer than communism. The reason the Soviet Union collapsed and why North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba are bankrupt, and why China is slowly transisting out of Communism is because the plans that are institiuted in communism work in the short term, but kill your economy in the long term, while democracy is exactly the opposite and the economy definitely fluctuates more, which is why Russia and most of the former Soviet countries are struggling to survive.

 

[dh_epic]

What country do you consider socialist, and how long did they last?