So, I have been doing more work on the Nebuleon front than I should (should be writing about squirrels) and I wondered what types of governments do you see as good setting elements in your sci-fi settings?
For me, it is pretty wide open. In Neb, I have to date:
Theocracy (pretty evil)
Constitutional Monarchy (pretty riddled with bureaucracy)
Imperial Electorate (An elected emperor from a limited pool of candidates)
Representative Republic (Domineering and arrogant but ineffective)
Monarchy (Sometimes good, mostly bordering on dictatorship)
Dictatorship
Collective Co-op
Hive mind (is that a government type?)
Confederation (Human and scientific but intense rivalry)
Plutocracy (Xenophobic trade empire)
Democracy (only on small scale)
I can't say I have a favorite. I like the all for very different reasons and find the Plutocracy to be one of the easiest to come up with an adventure for. I find the Theocracy to be very difficult to base an adventure in but as an excellent protagonist.
So, some questions:
1. Is there a government type you like to see in your sci-fi setting? Why?
2. Do you think there are governmental types that should not be used (don't fit with a modern/future view of governments)?
3. What do you like about your fav government type?
Thanks,
Bill
Technofeudalism.
It only looks like you left out Corporate governance, think East India Company in Space.
Quote from: HinterWeltHive mind (is that a government type?)
It is, but it also falls effectively under the category of Collective Co-Op, only it's not individualistically cooperative. I was going to say that it's not voluntary, but it is -- just not on the level of the individual.
Hunh. This is an interesting case.
!i!
On the Theocracy. Just remember that not all of them have to be evil or wrong. One of my favorite groups out of the last version of Silent Death was the Sigurd Archodise (I'm pretty sure I spelled that wrong) who followed the old Norse gods and beliefs. They were pretty cool in dealing with everyone else, if you didn't like it you didn't have to be there. Well unless you were the reptile race whose name escapes me.
Technocracy - Government by the technological elite
Techno-Theocracy - Government by the High Priests of Technology
Gerontocracy - Government by the old, very useful with anti-aging treatments
Techno-Democracy - Who needs representatives? Everybody votes!
Shareholder Proxy - Citizens are shareholders who can give their proxy as they wish.
Militocracy - Government by veterans... Starship Troopers anyone?
Anarchy - my personal favorite :D
-clash
Quote from: peteramthorOn the Theocracy. Just remember that not all of them have to be evil or wrong. One of my favorite groups out of the last version of Silent Death was the Sigurd Archodise (I'm pretty sure I spelled that wrong) who followed the old Norse gods and beliefs. They were pretty cool in dealing with everyone else, if you didn't like it you didn't have to be there. Well unless you were the reptile race whose name escapes me.
Don't you realize it's in the LAWS of SF RPGs that ALL religions are evil AND wrong, and exist ONLY to fleece the deluded?-clash
Quote from: RockViperIt only looks like you left out Corporate governance, think East India Company in Space.
I should have added that. I was incorrectly including it under Plutocracy. I have a race (the Andromea) who basically run everything in the function of corporations. It makes the military and religion very interesting subjects.
Bill
Quote from: flyingmiceTechnocracy - Government by the technological elite
Techno-Theocracy - Government by the High Priests of Technology
Gerontocracy - Government by the old, very useful with anti-aging treatments
Techno-Democracy - Who needs representatives? Everybody votes!
Shareholder Proxy - Citizens are shareholders who can give their proxy as they wish.
Militocracy - Government by veterans... Starship Troopers anyone?
Anarchy - my personal favorite :D
-clash
See, I often find the techno-anything governments a difficult one to sell myself on. Do not get me wrong, a group that owns a certain technology (say, the secret to the power systems) will have the power to enforce their will but I see it as little different from a dictatorship or totalitarian state.
hmm, to give another go at it. I find technocracies to be very difficult to define and thus create a viable story structure around. So, say we use the example above, a group of scientists and engineers create a new cheap power source. They hook the populace on it and then say "make us kings or we turn off the power". hmm, see,s like the military would come in and "re-educate" you. I mean, we can look at history for examples of hydro-empires but that comparison goes only so far. In the end, I think you would get another form of government dominating such a government. For instance, the easy one would be a dictator. One of those generals is smart enough to see how his rule would be legitimized as "protecting" the scientists and power sources by stationing troops around it. At that point, he would be "dealing with dissidents" by shutting off their power.
I just do not see the technocracy as a true form of government. Yeah, I know, we are talking fiction. I am saying I would have a rough time writing under such a premise. :raise:
Bill
This looks like a good opportunity for me to loudly recommend the BITS (British Isles Traveller Support) "101 Governments" (http://www.bitsuk.net/Products/101Books/101Books.html) supplement. It's theoretically for Traveller but in practice it's almost entirely mechanics-free.
Quote from: HinterWeltSee, I often find the techno-anything governments a difficult one to sell myself on. Do not get me wrong, a group that owns a certain technology (say, the secret to the power systems) will have the power to enforce their will but I see it as little different from a dictatorship or totalitarian state.
hmm, to give another go at it. I find technocracies to be very difficult to define and thus create a viable story structure around. So, say we use the example above, a group of scientists and engineers create a new cheap power source. They hook the populace on it and then say "make us kings or we turn off the power". hmm, see,s like the military would come in and "re-educate" you. I mean, we can look at history for examples of hydro-empires but that comparison goes only so far. In the end, I think you would get another form of government dominating such a government. For instance, the easy one would be a dictator. One of those generals is smart enough to see how his rule would be legitimized as "protecting" the scientists and power sources by stationing troops around it. At that point, he would be "dealing with dissidents" by shutting off their power.
I just do not see the technocracy as a true form of government. Yeah, I know, we are talking fiction. I am saying I would have a rough time writing under such a premise. :raise:
Bill
The thing is, Technocracies would almost always have the form of another type of government, just as the Roman Empire was - in form - a Republic. The Senate was still there, it just was... ignored. The Technocracy might take the form of a true democracy - a Techno-Democracy - but the citizenship would be extremely limited, to just those with the technological means to vote, such as a special cyber implant. It might take the form of a feudal society, where the Technological Houses each had control of a certain technology, with supply chain vassals. The possibilities are legion.
Another one I like is the Bureaucracy, where the government agencies are self-funding - like the RICO act has allowed certain US Agencies to act outside of the budget constraints set by Congress. Eventually the formal state became unimportant, like the Roman Senate.
In governments, form does not always follow function. Russia, for example, is in form a standard Representative Democracy, with independent elected Executive, elected Legislative, and appointed Judicial branches. In actuality the President - currently Putin - is vastly more powerful than the US President is in the US Government. It has become, in effect, an Elected Autocracy.
-clash
Well there's always government by a central computer. Such state exist in blissful peace and never suffer from sedition, comunism, or mutancy. Because unlike a human dictator, the computer is your friend.
Government by poets or rock stars could be interesting. As could government by an information distribution center. If you had a computer that controlled the entire flow of information it would rule the world.
In the setting I'm working on one world was ruled for a time by an university. Imagine a college town the size of a planet. A vast swath of worlds are run by a bureaucracy formed by a now dead empire. There are no more emperors, the senate is powerless and hasn't met in centuries, but the bureaucracy they established continues to run the show.
Quote from: flyingmiceThe thing is, Technocracies would almost always have the form of another type of government, just as the Roman Empire was - in form - a Republic. The Senate was still there, it just was... ignored. The Technocracy might take the form of a true democracy - a Techno-Democracy - but the citizenship would be extremely limited, to just those with the technological means to vote, such as a special cyber implant. It might take the form of a feudal society, where the Technological Houses each had control of a certain technology, with supply chain vassals. The possibilities are legion.
Another one I like is the Bureaucracy, where the government agencies are self-funding - like the RICO act has allowed certain US Agencies to act outside of the budget constraints set by Congress. Eventually the formal state became unimportant, like the Roman Senate.
In governments, form does not always follow function. Russia, for example, is in form a standard Representative Democracy, with independent elected Executive, elected Legislative, and appointed Judicial branches. In actuality the President - currently Putin - is vastly more powerful than the US President is in the US Government. It has become, in effect, an Elected Autocracy.
-clash
Well, that is my point I guess. I do not believe you would have a "Technocracy". I think you are mixing a cultural issue here. So, you have a democracy. It is technologically advanced. It uses that technology (weapons, power, info distribution) to enforce its power. In this sense, any government with advanced technology (including as primiitive as "We live in a cave but we are the first to learn to forge bronze") would be technocracy.
Let me be clear, I agree that this is a popular form in sci-fi stories but I do not think it is well thought out, IMHO. I just cannot see it as a distinctive governmental form (which I think is what you are saying right Clash?).
As for the Bureaucracy that you and jreints mention I am always reminded of Chinese government of yore. The Emperors would change but they would never mess with the bureaucrats since it is what fed the people and made the government run. The Emperor was always important but the bureaucracy had its power and consistency.
Interesting stuff.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltWell, that is my point I guess. I do not believe you would have a "Technocracy". I think you are mixing a cultural issue here. So, you have a democracy. It is technologically advanced. It uses that technology (weapons, power, info distribution) to enforce its power. In this sense, any government with advanced technology (including as primiitive as "We live in a cave but we are the first to learn to forge bronze") would be technocracy.
Let me be clear, I agree that this is a popular form in sci-fi stories but I do not think it is well thought out, IMHO. I just cannot see it as a distinctive governmental form (which I think is what you are saying right Clash?).
Governmental
forms do not always reflect the reality of
power flow is my point. For example, any Democracy which limits it's franchise can be viewed as something else - if it's limited to the wealthy it's also a Plutocracy, if it limits it to the old, it's also a Gerontocracy, etc.
Quote from: HinterWeltAs for the Bureaucracy that you and jreints mention I am always reminded of Chinese government of yore. The Emperors would change but they would never mess with the bureaucrats since it is what fed the people and made the government run. The Emperor was always important but the bureaucracy had its power and consistency.
Interesting stuff.
Bill
Yep! The Chinese bureaucracy ran itself. It existed in parallel to the Imperial power structure, and was much more stable. It's an excellent example.
-clash
I have a couple of half finished stories set in the distant future. To make this a legitimate post:
One of the major power blocs calls itself an Empire... actually 'The Empire', as culturally they don't recognize foriegn soverenities.
However, in structure it's a corporate fuedal state of sorts, the Emperor is the only Bank by law, the various nobles are in charge of economic areas, ranging from a single 'trade fleet' to being responsible for the economic output of an entire planet.
There is a twist in that the nobilty is not hereditary but raised up through a meritocracy. The huge middle class of 'Free Men', who are not taxed or restricted legally, but have no say in governance, are tapped to fill noble slots based on their ability to put together business plans, or succeed in private industry. Nobles will put their backing behind candidates (which helps a lot with business plans), especially when the job opening is part of a multi-noble conglomerate plan (a House), where it is in the interest of the involved parties to keep the House intact, and an outsider might not be so willing to come into an established group as a junior party.
There are few laws, particularly among the Free Men, what legal system exists is enforced entirely by private contractors. You hire someone to research who commited a crime, you hire someone else to enforce the sentance you purchace from an Imperial Magistrate. Nobles essentially 'buy into' the government system and fall directly under the Emperor.
There is more too it, but I think I covered the basics enough for this.
Quote from: flyingmiceGovernmental forms do not always reflect the reality of power flow is my point. For example, any Democracy which limits it's franchise can be viewed as something else - if it's limited to the wealthy it's also a Plutocracy, if it limits it to the old, it's also a Gerontocracy, etc.
Sorry Clash, I have to disagree. If a government restricts membership to the wealthy, it is a plutocracy. How it determines its governmental body is just mechanics. I would say, if you wish to be clear, you might distinguish between a Putocratic Democracy and a Plutocratic Monarchy but at the heart of it, you have the rule of the wealthy.
Bill
I have a couple of suggestions - military dictatorship; feudalism.
Personally, I don't see why you have to limit yourself to one particular government type. Why don't you have different power blocs with different government types? Or maybe I'm missing the point. Probably. Never mind, then.
You could have societies where most of the power is tied into the economy, and switch around with what that economy is based on. (And depending on the scarcity of that element, you could end up with a Corporate/Feudal/Plutocratic state, or you may have an anarchic/market-ish state, or something else.)
The economy could be based on:
- mining of a base metal
- some rare starfuel
- access to space
- attention / popularity / advertising space
- experiences (if you have some cyberpunky "chip into other folks' personalities" stuff)
- weaponry
If I was going for harder SF, I'd avoid monarchies and maybe even formal "empires" that go by that name. (Even if there's imperialism in practice.) I don't feel like explicit heredity lines are going to be in vogue in the future.
However, if I was doing space pulp, that's different. I don't care about tedious micronational direct-democratic wired adhocracies with a reputation economy. No, I want to PUNCH THE DUKE IN THE FACE and steal his ship. :D
QuoteYep! The Chinese bureaucracy ran itself. It existed in parallel to the Imperial power structure, and was much more stable. It's an excellent example.
It's this quality, as well as the Roman structure, combined with a sort of meritocracy that I'm going with for the antagonists in ASID.
It's all very heirarchical, you have governors, and regional governors, and so forth, in a sort of pyramid scheme, up to the top, which is ruled by a council that is a combination of the top governor for each continental region, and appointed ministers from various fields of society (health, agriculture, military, etc.), who're selected based on their work in the field.
In a way, it's all run more like a corporation than a formal government, in that the prime mechanism for advancement is, at least ideally, based on merit. Various metrics of performance are applied to the various governors, with advancement based on availability of position and meeting goal standards. In a perfect implementation, the head council is simply the best of all the governers and advisors available, and they sit for as long as they remain superior.
Power however, is not micromanaged. Individual regions or cities are effectively autonomous, and capable of issuing decisions regarding their local area of command independently of higher authority. Essentially, the further up the chain you go, the more macro your managing skills must become, as while the higher ups are expected to issue overall goals for the state, the individual governors are by and large expected to handle the finer details themselves.
Incompetence is not tolerated, because generally in any position there's potentially dozens or hundreds of individuals on the next rung down from you, and if annual report says your efficiency is down, you're easily replaced.
Even the lowliest mayors are only selected from the heads of the most successful family houses in the city, and they're always there ready to seize your position if you fail.