It also seems to me that, wherever government can exist, it will exist, whether or not the peoples that inhabit an area wish it. Whether the leaders are elected and rule with the consent of the governed, or there are more able people who use whatever power they have to force their will upon the people they dominate, government is inevitable. A people who organize themselves are more likely to be prepared for disasters, both from within and without, than others, and thus will continue to prosper despite setbacks. An unorganized people, on the other hand, are fodder for any conquer who happens upon them; organization is then forced upon them.
It is generally agreed that the former is preferable; we call it Democracy. Our leaders are chosen by election, usually direct, meaning that each individual person is asked who should make the high level decisions, the answers are counted, and the results are honored. In a barbarous country, if an administration or representation is found to be unsatisfactory, the only reliable way to remove him is by force. Indeed, royal lineages are a blessing in such countries; the other alternative is continual disturbance as ambitious men continually war against one another for the reigns of government, as happened in the late Roman Empire, and happens to this day in many other countries. In a civilized country, however, a people can simply wait for the end of his term, and then elect new leaders peacefully, while the old leaders step down peacefully. Though, at times (if not most times), campaign rhetoric seems far from peaceful, the fact that final decisions are made peacefully—rather than through the physical violence known historically (and presently throughout much of the world)—is a tremendous advancement.
However, there remains one area of government that is still the province of historical accident (much like an inherited lineage), with violence being the only reliable recourse should this aspect prove unsatisfactory. I refer to the actual arrangement of governments, the borders between them, as well as the internal borders, between provinces or “States”. The political borders between states is, today, set in stone, so to speak. However, the Declaration of Independence opens with the following sentence. “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...” Have we learned nothing since then? The men who wrote those words made the simple assumption that it is, at times, necessary for political bonds between two peoples to be severed; yet, we include nothing in our own plans of government to account for this.
The result of this is that, when it does become necessary for this to happen, it usually happens violently, after several generations of resentment, and that resentment and hatred remains in many for generations to follow. Even when such an event does occur peacefully, it relies upon the generosity of those currently in power—a commodity often in short supply when it becomes necessary for political bonds to be dissolved.
The situation with entire governments is today what it once was with individual rulers. Generally, the only way to remove an unsatisfactory ruler was a violent coup. On occasion, a ruler would allow his people a greater share in rule, and on other occasions, the people who enforced their rule would generally agree to just stop listening to the unsatisfactory ruler, but these are merely exceptions to the old system, not justifications of it. Since it became apparent that democratic models are effective and desirable, the old rulers have been steadily replaced not with new rulers, but with new systems designed to eliminate the necessity of those types of revolutions. Hereditary kings and nobilities were supplemented with or replaced by elected executives and elected legislatures. Under these new systems, violence is not necessary to replace an unsatisfactory ruler, merely a few years of patience.
Currently, the only way to effect a radical change in the structure of government and the borders between them is through violent revolution. If a local majority/national minority is oppressed by the government, whether because of the deliberate desire of the majority of the governed or their apathy combined with the desire of an energetic minority, their only recourse is either to hope that the majority cease their persecutions, or violent revolution, which is usually unsuccessful, and yet causes a great deal of suffering on both sides. This results in deep divisions between the two peoples, and things only get worse. The only way out of this situation is through the better impulses of the peoples involved; however, we do not create governments because it pleases us to do so. We create them to harness those better impulses and restrain their opposite.
Then there are situations where a people who live on the border between two states would rather be governed by the government on the other side of the border. Or perhaps there is a situation where, for one reason or another, the people on one side believe the people on the other side would rather be governed by their own government. Either way, there exist no established procedures by which one can determine the veracity of this claim. Even if it is true, the only way to change the situation is through force or the threat of force. Few governments give up territory willingly, no matter what the opinions of the people living on that territory are.
Finally, there is the situation where a wholly new culture arises on the border of two countries, which feels no particular loyalty to either side of the border. Indeed, it would probably be advantageous for these people to consolidate their government, removing trade barriers, allowing for common laws, and so on. Yet the people who live further away from the border have no interest in a change in the status quo, unwilling to give up territory to the other state, consolidate with the other state, or give up territory to a new state that stands between the two. Once again, the only open way for the people in the middle to even attempt this arrangement is through violent revolution.
These sorts of things can happen even in what we call “civilized” countries. World War 2 began as a consolidation of Germanic peoples by the German state (or so it was justified). The Irish Republican Army has fought for years over a disputed border. The United States has had one civil war, and secession movements always exist in some corner of the country—an example being the State of Jefferson, an attempt by some of the people in the mountains that make up California and Oregon's mutual border to secede from California and Oregon and form a new state. Civilized people, of course, do not resort to violence to achieve this (I don't believe the Jeffersonians did so), yet should we not have some way to allow things like this to happen, without violence having even to enter the process?
I think that the reason it has never been done before in any systematic way is that up until recently, the data involved in such a decision was entirely too complex. To successfully produce popularly determined borders, one needs a map of the areas involved that are accurate down to the properties of the individuals involved. On needs a way to overlay the vote data on to this map and analyze where certain demographic patterns “begin” and “end.” One needs an organization to judge between two newly formed states should they dispute the result of the vote. Very simply put, one needs federal or superstate organizations and computers to do this. We've had superstate organizations for over fifty years, federal forms of government for even longer, and we now have computers. Shall we not attempt this?
The Procedure
There are a number of decisions which must be made when any kind of vote is taken. I shall list the ones I can think of and tell how I think things should be done in the following sections.
How often?
First off, it is important to state that a regular period is necessary for this sort of election. To allow pieces of territory to secede from other pieces of territory at will would result in continual geopolitical turmoil. In addition, one really can't tell how well a government will fare in its first few years of life; it must be given time to prove itself. Such a change should be the result of years of observation of the problem, not a sudden popular surge which might be regretted later.
I think fifty years is a good period of time between elections. This ensures that every person (that survives at least fifty years) has an opportunity to participate once in such an election, while giving a good amount of time between elections. I wouldn't set it much lower than fifty, though it could be set higher, particularly if the average lifespan increases. Fifty is a nice, round number, though.
Who can we vote for?
We can rely upon a very natural process here. Various groups formed for the liberation of their homelands or the pressuring of governments or millions of other purposes are formed all the time. All that would be necessary for such groups to become eligible for elevation to the role of an actual government would be a small number of signatures on a petition, and a written plan of government to be made public (and which they can be held to by the higher level of government if they break their word). When the election rolls around, all the groups that fulfill these requirements would be on the ballots.
Note that I believe that just about any arrangement should be allowed in these plans of government. If over fifty percent of the people in Fresno, CA want to call themselves the Kingdom of Fresno, ruled absolutely by Joe Bob, King of Fresno, for fifty years, it should be permitted. If over fifty percent of the people of a particularly religious area want to make their church (or synagogue, or mosque, or temple, or whatever) hierarchy their government, it should be permitted. They chose it, it'll last only fifty years before the feds come in and ask people if they want a change, and in the meantime, people will have the option of leaving if they don't like how things are going. Who knows? We may even find that a form of government that seems bad upon initial inspection is actually better when put into practice. (Absolute freedom of movement between states is implied in this discussion, and guaranteed by the federal/superstate organization.)
Who is eligible?
A friend of mine once asked me, “What do you do if a bunch of Texans move some place for a year to extend the border of their home state?” The particular state was chosen for humor, but it is a valid concern. Its not difficult to imagine a group of well organized people moving for a short period of time to influence the borders of states for the next fifty years. Men have died for lesser causes.
I think holding a census every ten years is a good idea (we do it here in the US), and the data should be used for this election. To ensure that the borders of states are determined by people who have been in a particular area for a while (and therefore have a real stake in the results), rather than migrants who just happen to be in the right place at the right time (deliberately or otherwise), only those who haven't moved more than, say, fifty miles (open to debate; my own sense of distance is limited) since the most recent census would be eligible to vote in the election of governments. If ten years seems too long, we can always hold this type of election in some year other than that of the census.
How many are required for a change?
I mentioned the number “fifty percent” in the section about how nomination would be achieved. I didn't mention fifty percent of who.
I have thought, in the past, that fifty percent would be too low, but the following makes it better. For an area to come under the governance of a proposed government, it would have to have fifty percent of all possible eligible voters, even those who are now ineligible because they have moved from the area, vote in favor of the transition. The idea here is that fairly stable communities have the opportunity to try something new, not to have the few who actually stuck around gain total control.
Also, the default vote for all eligible individuals would be in favor of the status-quo. For a proposed new government to gain full government status, it would have to motivate not fifty percent of all the people who are motivated enough to show up at the polls, it would have to motivate fifty percent of all eligible voters. The idea here is that new forms of government can be chosen in a genuinely democratic manner, not in what I call an “apathocratic” manner (meaning, rule by the few who bother to pay attention to politics). Apathocracy, while not ideal, is probably unavoidable at the level of electing individuals. However, if people don't care what kind of government is in place, the same one should remain in place until they do something bad enough for a revolution to gain genuine support; and, despite the fact that most revolutions are carried out by motivated minorities, I believe that if a revolution in modes of government could be brought about bloodlessly, more people would be willing to consider a change.
How are the borders drawn?
To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure. I can see in my head maps which show the distributions of various demographics, mineral concentrations, species, and whatever else has made its way into maps in the recent past. Unfortunately, I am neither enough of a mathematician nor a cartographer to actually know how this is done, or even how valid, or straightforward, the methods are. However, the basic way I see it being done is as follows.
Each vote would be attached to a property. Multiple votes could be attached to a single property (such as the inhabitants of an apartment complex; no, the owner would not have the sole right to vote in this), and multiple properties could be attached to a single vote (such as the land owned by a business owner). Alternatively, only an actual place of residence or business could have a valid vote; vast tracts of undeveloped land purchased to strangle a community's votes wouldn't count. In the case of multiple votes to a property, the whole property's votes would be totaled up and the majority would rule for the individual property's alignment. Perhaps the owner of a property could be given a larger share of the vote (less than fifty percent, but significantly more than that of an individual resident), and the inhabitants and/or employees the other part. In the case of multiple votes to a property, though all properties would be aligned according to the owner's vote, each individual property would be counted separately for their areas. At any rate, each property would have an alignment assigned to it by the way the interested parties' votes.
Once the alignments are determined, that's when the geographic analysis begins. As I said earlier, I'm not entirely sure how this would be done, but here's a rough possibility. All votes would be plotted to a map, and concentrations of pro votes for each proposed government would be searched for. The largest contiguous section would be marked as a “nucleus” for the possible state. (The issue of minimum sizes and/or minimum populations could be handled by statute by the superstate.) Other comparable concentrations would be marked, as well. This would be done for every single nominee, and the nuclei would be plotted. Nominees that fail to generate a nucleus larger than a single property would be eliminated from consideration at this point, and their votes neutralized.
Next, the gaps would be filled in to make the nuclei as geographically whole as possible. The area would then be analyzed by vote, and if the overall area doesn't have a majority in favor of the transition, that nominee would be eliminated from consideration. This would be done for all remaining nominees.
Next, overlaps between nuclei would be searched for. Where overlaps exist, the overlap would be analyzed to see if there's a line where the two have roughly the same distributions, and each has more or less on either side of the line. If so, a border would be drawn here. I don't know how this would be done, but I am certain it can be done. Perhaps the overlap zone could be searched for micro-nuclei, and each of those filled in, the votes counted, and so on down to the individual property level. It'll take some thought and experimentation to find a good procedure.
Finally, borders would be expanded, and votes counted to see if the state is still viable with the expanded borders. The first priority would be to join together isolated nuclei without overlapping existing nuclei of other nominees. If the area still has a majority in favor of the nominee once this has been done, the joining is valid. If not, the two areas would be commonly governed, but geographically isolated. (Historical precedents exist, such as leagues of cities.). The next thing that would be done is that the nearest sympathetic property would be searched for, joined to the area, the space in between filled in by joining the other properties, and votes counted. If there is still a majority, the joining is valid, and the process is repeated. If not, the procedure ends, and the area stands as defined.
Finally, overlaps between different areas would be analyzed for distribution transitions, borders would be drawn, and a new state is born. Maps would be published, property owners informed of the new jurisdiction under which they fall, and the new governments would be set up according to the procedures they published in their initial bid for nomination. All property owned by the previous state would fall under the ownership of the new state. All property owned by the superstate or federal government would, of course, remain under the higher government.
Why are we doing this again?
I said earlier that there are times when two peoples diverge sufficiently to require mutually separate sovereignties, and that this should be accounted for in plans of government. If there should ever be a world government, I, personally, would not think of it as legitimate without a malleable federal structure like the one presented here. But the other reason is that there are times when people get ideas, whether it be a resurrection of old ideas or genuinely new ideas, on how a state might be governed. In other areas of human thought, experimentation is usually possible. Ideas are tried and tested by numerous individuals and groups until a consensus is built as to the validity of that idea. But in government, the only times when anybody is able to test a new form of government (or re-test an old one) is at those rare moments in history when society forces a power vacuum which can then be filled. Nearly all of these times have been preceded by bloodshed, and often followed by more bloodshed.
The advancement of technological societies is fueled by experimentation, in science, in engineering, in business models, and so on. Would not government benefit from the same unleashing of human creativity? I think it is time we move forward, from accidental government to experimental government.
No comments:
Post a Comment