h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Is there anywhere which is an independant state or nation which employs one of the alternative governing strategies.
What I mean is, that if you look round the world then everywhere seems to have a government that is based on a single head figure who decides what is to be done in that country. Now things do get a little more complicated I agree. But there is always one person in charge it seems, even if they are just the most senior / respected person in the committee of government. There doesn;t seem to be any real alternatives out there.

So are there any genuine independant meritocracies or independant rule by committee or even just independant communes? And if there are, are they genuine or are they just dictatorship under a veil?

The 'head of state' has a lot less power in some countries than in others. I believe the Irish Taoiseach has less control than the British Prime Minister.

Have a look at New Zealand and Denmark. In a poll of fair and democratic countries, they came joint top in the world. Ireland was about 7th and the UK was number 12, I think. THe last three were Afghanistan (under Taliban), Saudi Arabia and Myanmar. Interesting that Saudi Arabia who are the friends of the USA scored lower than the Taliban that were so bad that the USA had to invade and depose.

Hmmm, yes, but there is still a 'head' with more power than the rest so the style is still a form of dictatorship, albeit somewhat modified.

Ooooh, simulposting with Gnomon, somesort of sin I am sure

To be honest, I'm not that convinced about democracy. The cynic in me says it's about as 'real' in any specific country as communism was in USSR and is in the other alledged communist states. Its just yet another way of fooling most of the people most of the time.

There is a town in Maine (US) Or Vermont I believe(?)
They voted to do away with their city-local government.
It was working last I heard.
Neccesary services were privatized.
No gov employees at the town level.

There are a couple mountain towns in Co. reported to have a cat or dog as mayor figureheads only. The town council runs everything by democratic vote- majority rules.
They are both small scale.

I agree with Ictoan since we here in Britain (and in the states too ) do NOT live in a true democracy ie the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives. Any change to our way of governing ourselves to fall in line with this would be fought tooth and nail by our *so called* politicians because it would do them out of a job. Imo.

* That's enough ranting so I'll go now *

Flanker, good to see another cynic

Abi, that's kinda interesting, although I guess they can get away with this as a lot of stuff is done centrally in their state?

Still no independant states or countries then. Is this cos no one is brave enough to try it? Has anyone ever tried it? Or is it because of some fundamental flaw in such governance, like human Nature and the effects thereof?

Its just I can't see them voting themselves out of good paying jobs in this day and age.

I would think the odds of a human messing it up goes up with the population, making it impossible in a large city or state.

Native tribes might be considered an exception, although they had tribal systems. Analiese would be the one to ask about that.

True, although I don't think I am brave enough to ask Analiese anything, I'd probably just end up appologising for anything and everything and backing out hurridly

Having said that, the tribal system still had chiefs, whatever their actual power, you still had a figurehead at the top.

Wasn't ancient Rome ruled by a triumvirate for at least a while? I don't know how successfully - presumably not very as they moved to emperors.

Winston Churchill - "democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others". Not that I believe that the UK is demonstrating democracy in any real sense.

winston churchill also uttered words to the effect that the best argument against democracy is the actual electorate...if we truly were democratic, i imagine that the country would be very poorly run indeed.

winston churchill also uttered words to the effect that the best argument against democracy is the actual electorate...if we truly were democratic, i imagine that the country would be very poorly run indeed.

Hmmm, good point well made.

There MUST be a way to get a proper working democratic system, instead of the pseudo-democracies that dictate most governments in the westerm world.

Whilst the US version isn't perfect by any means, I believe the "ground-up" model works better than most. Local democracy (at town/area level) seems to be in a much healthier statein the US than in the UK. The problems in the US seem to be at state level and higher; in the UK the problems are systemic.

Uncle heavy why do you think things would be poorly run in a Democracy? *curious*

Because half the population are of less than average intelligence!

thats far more charitably put than i would have done.

its easy to say 'i would put more money into hospitals and more money into schools and to cut red tape and give every puppy a lolly if i were tony blair', but the job is a difficult one to balance...too many people wouldnt reach any kind of consensus. especially those too ignorant to vote properly...

Churchill also said that it was perfectly OK for "civilised" nations to gas "primitive" ones, so let's not get carried away quoting the old guy.

I'm not aware of any large nations that don't have a top dog of some sort, but I think such a thing would be desirable and possible but maybe not yet practical. Perhaps it could only work in a country with a highly decentralised polity (which is also desirable and possible but not yet practical).

Incidentally, there's no such thing as a true democracy. Democracy is nothing more than a suggestive ideal concept, it doesn't have a strict meaning.