Rules for a government

[Garren Jacobsen]

Let me preface this post by saying I like hearing about the various governments you all come up with and that this post is not meant as a criticism for anyone. This is just my method for creating a "believable" or "realistic" government.

I believe that for a government to be functional it needs to have both a monopoly on violence (or force) and that the governed "consent" to this government. When I say that the government has a monopoly on violence (or force) I mean that the government gets to decide when it is lawful to use force, and generally only that government may properly use force to enforce rights and obligations. Also, when I say that the governed must consent that doesn't mean the consent must be active nor unforced. I only mean to say that the governed obey the laws of the jurisdiction wherein they reside.

The monopoly on violence, I think, is the more critical of the two. Violence and force is the most apparent function of a government. By monopolizing violence the government can enforce its laws since people know that what the government's laws will be enforced. Through this monopoly on violence governments can coerce or incentivize consent. Generally speaking, if there are two powers that have an equal or relatively equal share of violence within a given jurisdiction there is no real law or government and eventually one or the other will take the other's share of the violence on consolidate their power base. Now, this is not to say that because the government monopolizes violence citizens and others may not exercise violence in the government's jurisdiction, however I do mean to say that the government can be the only group to legally justify and allow certain uses of force and that when another goes beyond that express justification the government is obligated to punish the offender.

Important, but the lesser among equals, is consent of the governed. Most of the time we consider this kind of consent to be active and free. I disagree. Consent can be passive and coerced through fear and the threat of violence. This conception of consent allows for dictatorships, totalitarian, and other oppressive styles of government. I say this consent is needed in large part because a lack of consent will chip away and could, eventually, destroy the monopoly on violence.

These two rules I believe adequately capture the essence of a government and still allows for a lot of creative systems. I want to open up the discussion now to how you all conceptualize violence and ask what do you like about these rules and what problems do you have with them or my conception of them.

 

[Devor]

I kind of agree, but I also think there's an element of either/or and complexity to these two rules. For instance, if a King rules a bunch of Lords, and it's the Lords who raise the armies, then which does the king have? He doesn't have a monopoly on force, since that goes to the lords. Nor does he need the consent of the governed - just the consent of the lords.

I have a setting where there's an old empire, but its structures have fallen apart. The provinces - really, closer to city-states - rule themselves independently and are all very different, but they're still part of the empire on paper. Only one province still supports the old capitol and props up the empress as a figure head, but the clan lords in that province are the real rulers. The plot begins with these lords using mercenaries as bandits or fake invaders as an excuse to send out troops and reestablish the empire's control.

"We are here to help you fight off the invaders, as we are supposed to under the laws of the old empire. Wait, what do you mean you're scared of having our army inside your city gates? Don't you see that invading army out there? Woops, did we open the gates for them by accident?"

Admittedly, the MC's province comes across semi-idealistic. Not unbelievably so, but they're run by a council where people are trained to become scholars. There's also a judging tradition that has the resources to move some people above the class they're born to and set them up with training or finances to become scholars or businessmen or whatever else they might be suited for. Then again, the purpose of the ideal is to make readers care when it's torn apart.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's all in what you want to do with it. The political lines can be very blurry.

 

[Russ]

Let me preface this post by saying I like hearing about the various governments you all come up with and that this post is not meant as a criticism for anyone. This is just my method for creating a "believable" or "realistic" government.

I believe that for a government to be functional it needs to have both a monopoly on violence (or force) and that the governed "consent" to this government. When I say that the government has a monopoly on violence (or force) I mean that the government gets to decide when it is lawful to use force, and generally only that government may properly use force to enforce rights and obligations. Also, when I say that the governed must consent that doesn't mean the consent must be active nor unforced. I only mean to say that the governed obey the laws of the jurisdiction wherein they reside.

The monopoly on violence, I think, is the more critical of the two. Violence and force is the most apparent function of a government. By monopolizing violence the government can enforce its laws since people know that what the government's laws will be enforced. Through this monopoly on violence governments can coerce or incentivize consent. Generally speaking, if there are two powers that have an equal or relatively equal share of violence within a given jurisdiction there is no real law or government and eventually one or the other will take the other's share of the violence on consolidate their power base. Now, this is not to say that because the government monopolizes violence citizens and others may not exercise violence in the government's jurisdiction, however I do mean to say that the government can be the only group to legally justify and allow certain uses of force and that when another goes beyond that express justification the government is obligated to punish the offender.

Important, but the lesser among equals, is consent of the governed. Most of the time we consider this kind of consent to be active and free. I disagree. Consent can be passive and coerced through fear and the threat of violence. This conception of consent allows for dictatorships, totalitarian, and other oppressive styles of government. I say this consent is needed in large part because a lack of consent will chip away and could, eventually, destroy the monopoly on violence.

These two rules I believe adequately capture the essence of a government and still allows for a lot of creative systems. I want to open up the discussion now to how you all conceptualize violence and ask what do you like about these rules and what problems do you have with them or my conception of them.

Although I might differ on your use of the word "consent" these are pretty much the modern elements of how a government should work to be effective. I agree that the monopoly on violence is a pretty high priority.

But like most things it is a scale, or a continuum that you can play off against one another. If you have really high "consent of the governed" than the control of violence is not such a big deal and the converse.

 

[WooHooMan]

What kind of annoys me is when people take a government that worked for humans on Earth and transpose it to a society of non-humans and/or is not on Earth.
Like, sure, humans came-up with democracy and autocracy but maybe elves or goblins would come-up with their own concept of governance.
I feel like your rules only apply to humans and very human-like sentient creatures. Presumably ones existing in a very Earth-like environment.

That's what I don't like about your rules. I'll answer the second part of your query now: how do I conceptualize violence?
I guess one agent has the drive and means to commit a crime and another agent prevents the crime or seeks retribution/justice once the crime is committed. So the questions to ask are; who is the first agent, who is the second agent, what qualifies as a crime and what is justice?

Generally speaking, if there are two powers that have an equal or relatively equal share of violence within a given jurisdiction there is no real law or government and eventually one or the other will take the other's share of the violence on consolidate their power base.

I mentioned in the other thread that I'm intentionally using a multi-government in a single country system. There is law and government(s) and one government doesn't succeed in taking the other's share within the story.
Just because that's not how it works in our world, doesn't mean there can't be a world where it does work.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Wohooman,

Not per se. I've seen a couple of governments that have multiple law givers. However, as a suggestion consider having an ultimate law giver where if the laws of your several sovereigns conflict it can be resolved. That statement is also a real world observation about people in general. Someone somewhere will desire power and try to eliminate competing sovereigns, this is especially true the closer in proximity the sovereigns are.

 

[WooHooMan]

as a suggestion consider having an ultimate law giver where if the laws of your several sovereigns conflict it can be resolved. That statement is also a real world observation about people in general. Someone somewhere will desire power and try to eliminate competing sovereigns, this is especially true the closer in proximity the sovereigns are.

I appreciate the suggestion but it's necessary for the story that multiple governments exist in this country. And the story is the highest priority, over creating a true-to-life government system.
Also, in the story, there are reasons why the multiple sovereigns aren't eliminating each other.

 

[Russ]

I appreciate the suggestion but it's necessary for the story that multiple governments exist in this country. And the story is the highest priority, over creating a true-to-life government system.
Also, in the story, there are reasons why the multiple sovereigns aren't eliminating each other.

Which begs the question that if you have different sovereign governments within the same country, when does it effectively cease being a country?

While I empathize with your annoyance with the apparent imposition of human forms on other creatures on other worlds, it does not annoy me the way it does with you.

Some literature is about using other creatures to make us reflect on the human condition or learn something about ourselves and the use of human forms is really needed for that to happen.

Some literature is about exploring how other cultures or species might develop different mechanisms for all sorts of things including governance.

Personally I enjoy both types.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I appreciate the suggestion but it's necessary for the story that multiple governments exist in this country. And the story is the highest priority, over creating a true-to-life government system.
Also, in the story, there are reasons why the multiple sovereigns aren't eliminating each other.

I get that the story comes first. For me the needs of the story are the threshold for any piece of writing or world building "rules." However, there are somethings that will turn people off from the story. Some can be standalone and some require being part of a group of things that seem...off. This could be a turn off for me, I don't know since I haven't read the story.

However, I think I may have a method of making sure the government is functional with different sovereigns within your city-state. However, I will post it on your thread.

@Devor, the question there is who is governing whom. The King is governing the Lords and the Lords are governing the people, a trickle down theory of government I guess. To me the King needs the consent of those whom he directly governs, the Lords, though they govern themselves. They are lesser sovereigns. And while the King may not have a full monopoly on violence, since he cannot raise an army on his own, he still has a monopoly on the right use of force. If a Lord attacks his neighbor the King would be right to call up armies in support of the offended Lord. This monopoly isn't solid to be sure, but it is still a monopoly.

@Russ, yeah I chose the word consent because I couldn't think of a better word.

 

[WooHooMan]

I get that the story comes first. For me the needs of the story are the threshold for any piece of writing or world building "rules." However, there are somethings that will turn people off from the story. Some can be standalone and some require being part of a group of things that seem...off. This could be a turn off for me, I don't know since I haven't read the story.

However, I think I may have a method of making sure the government is functional with different sovereigns within your city-state. However, I will post it on your thread.

I've thought about this system and it's as sound as it needs to be for the story. Only the most anal retentive of fictional government critics would be turned-off (assuming they could even find a serious flaw with my co-government system).

The "unique government" thread isn't mine and you probably would've been better off posting the whole "bad man" method here but I've read it and, while it's good advice, I've already examined my setting through a similar perspective and it all checks out.

Again, thanks for the suggestions.