A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
March 08, 2006Why So Long Between Democracies?I've been playing Civ way too much. It inspired to wonder why the historic gap between active democracies was so big. The Athenians invented democracy something like 2300-2400 years ago. But in the modern era, despite various economic, military, and scientific advantages, it's existed for less than 250 years. Why? The end of ancient democracy was when Marius of Rome figured out that he could take over Rome by creating his own private army. And that was it until 1776, followed shortly by Parliament taking over permanently following George III's prominent loss of most of Britain's American territories. Why? One interesting related fact is that in both cases, the idea of a civil society, in which all classes had similar legal status, predated development of democracy. Solon the Athenian arguably invented it. He wrote a constitution to solve Athens' debt-slavery troubles on the condition that it be followed for at least ten years, and sailed away the day after he presented it. Among other things, it awarded equality under law in a few areas to Athens' lowest classes. Another is that in both cases, at least some of the development took place in fairly prosperous island states (US democracy was probably only feasible because it was settled by people who believed in civil societies). Civization the computer game has been troubled in its governmental design with how to deal with the long gap. Earlier versions had a form of democracy called "Republic" developed relatively early, which fairly represents the Imperial-City model that the Athenian Empire and the Roman Republic mostly was (Rome briefly had representative democracy, moving to wider and wider segments of the Republic, then it was hacked). It also represents the British Empire well. But, in Civ, once you have a goverment, you can keep it, so you could easily have a Republic from 200 BC to 1750 or so when you got Democracy (in fact, you'd tend to get it earlier, because you'd have unreally good researh rates, which is pretty different from reality. The current version disables early democracy, which is probably OK, since it mostly deals in sizeable states, and neither the Athenian Empire or the Roman Republic were stable. Posted by Jon Kay at March 8, 2006 10:54 PMComments
Why so long between democracies? My opinion on this matter is a combo of scientific, religious, social and economic reasons which all affect eachother. In general I believe that the fall of the Roman Empire marks the approximate end of civilization as it was known at the time. Why? the reasons are not totally known. The possibility that some scientists put forward about a natural disaster (celestial body) disrupting Earth's climate is believable. Some records state events of long periods of darkness, falling debris from the skies and such. This would have hurt agriculture and caused civil unrest and uncertainty because of disrupted food supplies and broader problems that such things create like disease. I've always put great weight on the effects of the burning of the library of Alexandria...not only by the Romans under Julius Caesar (accident) but also the total destruction and vandalism that followed in the 300s by religious zealots. The knowledge and wisdom lost from that library are incalculable. The chaotic times (Dark Ages) that followed were overlapped (by accident??) by the rising power of the church as a central force. Monarchies rise and on we go. Very little innovation, philosophy, culture, ideas, music or progress. How often have we heard historians discuss wondrous things about classic civilizations and then remark "and we didn't see this again until AFTER the Middle Ages!" or something to that effect. Aristocracies created a world to their liking in this time of unrest and ignorance that lasted for centuries and then it took centuries more before conditions produced some sense of social stability, population growth and optimism. Then pre and during the Enlightentment, new thinkers began to slowly question and challenge the status quo. Our revolution here with its "groundbreaking" liberal ideals of democracy was the product of many Enlightenment thinkers. ...by the rising power of the church as a central force. Monarchies rise and on we go. Very little innovation, philosophy, culture, ideas, music or progress... Sounds kind of like what the fringe would like to see in the US right about now. Posted by: Scott at March 9, 2006 12:31 AMyeah. it's part of it. And it's something that we need to be a wary of. But I don't aprove of the secular crusaders who get just as maniacal. they hurt the cause. Posted by: John at March 9, 2006 12:54 AMIt's too early for me to think deeply on this one yet, but I would quibble that England was much more of a democracy than you allow prior to 1776. Democracy's development in that country was long and convoluted; I would hesitate to pick a precise point where I would suddenly say: "HERE is a democracy". Posted by: PatHMV at March 9, 2006 07:39 AMFWIW, when I played civilization I only ever upgraded my government from despotism to something more representative when the riots became too disruptive. I spent a lot of money on courhouses, militias, churches, and coliseums, in order to retain autonomy. IMO, that's a clue. Power is seldom given away. Far more often it's taken. Posted by: bk at March 9, 2006 09:01 AMMaybe part of it could be that democracy is rather inefficient. Absolutism or a dictatorship can be a lot more efficient. Plus, for a democracy to work, you do need the populus to be somewhat educated for it to be effective. My feeling is that you can easily manufacture a non-representative form of government with force. I am not convinced that you can do the same with democracy, hence some of my cynicism for prospects of democracy in Iraq. The people have to want democracy. If they don't, the power can be siezed easily by the people who want it, either by force or subverting the system. This includes subverting it through religious doctrine. Posted by: Jim M at March 9, 2006 09:56 AMThe quick take? Democracy is a luxury. It can only exist when resources are abundant enough to reduce the "take or starve" pressure of scarcity. For most of history, those conditions did not exist. Democracies also only continue to exist as long as they are willing to actively defend themselves. Democracies tend to form in relatively affluent societies, which are targets for the hungry and predatory. Posted by: Tully at March 9, 2006 10:12 AMNo doubt that autocracies (BENEVOLENT autocracies), whether absolute monarchies or other kinds fo dictatorships, are faster to react and more "efficient" than democracy. Unfortunately, there is no way to guarantee that any particular autocrat will be benevolent -- not to mention his successors. As has been remarked before, it is noteworthy than both heaven and hell are, by tradition, absolute dictatorships. Posted by: wj at March 9, 2006 11:54 AMIn Civ4, the old government system is replaced by a much more sophisticated "civics" system, which breaks government types down into five categories of six options each. Different options confer different benefits, and each one has different drawbacks. You can set your government type to Representation (low upkeep, better productivity, requires discovery of relatively advanced technology), your economic type to Slavery (can spend population to rush construction, low upkeep, requires only primitive technology), and your religious type to Organized Religion (high upkeep, better happiness, can build missionaries without a monastery). And that's just a partial example of one of the many possible civic combinations. You can get a pretty representative system set up early, but the full-on liberal democracy effect requires lots of advanced technology. Posted by: stutefish at March 9, 2006 02:55 PMThis has nothing to do with the thrust of the debate, but I feel compelled to note that I've been an avid civ gamer since the very first one came out, and wondered which version Jon plays? Posted by: Simon at March 9, 2006 03:34 PMI even played an old DOS-based game called Hammurabi (I think) which was the first civ-type game I had ever seen. Since then, I've played every version up through the current, IV. Even played Alpha Centauri for a little while. Posted by: PatHMV at March 9, 2006 05:43 PMJust one more turn, THEN I'll go to bed. Really. I mean it. Posted by: PatHMV at March 9, 2006 05:44 PMThere are some good answers here. In particular, Athens was pretty good for two of the factors mentioned. They had a silver mine, so maybe they could afford a bit of good government. Athens also had a helpful religion - its official cult was the Goddess of thought. We probably don't know where Homer or the tales of the Iliad and Odyssey came from, but it does seem like an Athena-worshipper had a hand in it at some point. The central character and Athena's favorite are a clever man, Odysseus. Now, compare and contrast with Bible tales. Those favor the obedient and religious; prophets and priests are the central characters. Odysseus is properly respectful to the gods, but to him, it's just another part of life, and Athena likes him better than fawning characters. I don't think we need to look far to see why ancient Greece did better than ancient Israel. Pat, you're right, of course, about the UK. BTW, democracy is efficient not only because the guy running it isn't stupid, but even more so because everybody else can contribute more. Even with a benevolent autocracy, the entrepreneurial in society will devote their efforts to pleasing the autocrat rather than advancing things. And even benevolent autocrats have to stay in power, and will cut down anybody who succeeds well enough to be a threat (see Singapore). The Republic was a major early-game goal for me. The resulting advantages let me take over neighboring medieval monarchies with a few gunpowder units. That let me build other interesting things - I always had the lowest military-civilian ratio even though I usually won militarily. I'm currently wasting most of my time on Civ4. Missed out on CivI, the computer game, but otherwise I've been a consistent source of money for Meier ever since Civilization the 1st board game; that was actually quite different. I don't have civ4 with me, but I got the quick impression that you don't get the gov-choice civic not completely unlike Republic until well after ancient times, plus it doesn't give you as much. I really liked civ2 because it was so easily extensible. We'll see if this one lives up to the billing.... Just one more turn, THEN I'll go to bed. Really. I mean it.One time when I was in College, I kept saying that from about 9pm through to about 6am... Posted by: Simon at March 10, 2006 10:00 AM Simon, did you see the preview on-line ad they made for Civ IV? I linked to it some time back. I'll see if I can find it again. It was hilarious and way too true. It showed a meeting of "Civ Anonymous"... Posted by: PatHMV at March 10, 2006 01:04 PMIf I'd had CivI in school, I probably wouldn't've gaduated. You speak as though Civ Anonymous didn't exist: |
Archives
July 2008
June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
July 4: Gasbag Edition
Independent Open Thread: Whatcha Doing This Weekend? Long Tail Controversy and Explanations Canadian Human Rights Commission No, Slavery Wasn't Competive With Free Labor Back online Irish Blogger Charged For Blogging Friday open thread Headline: Obama and Clinton Together in Unity There Is No EPA Document, There Is No EPA Document
|
