Natural Selection of Government Systems

cleonid

Historically, the evolution of government systems was mainly driven by violence, with invasions and revolutions being the principal agents of selection process. The rules of the game were predetermined by our environment - land was a limited resource, for which our ancestors had to compete, if only to ensure the survival of their descendants.

The 20^th century introduced a game changer. As agricultural productivity in developed countries rose by orders of magnitude and natural population growth practically came to a halt, possessing a large territory stopped being a necessity. Countries with little arable land, ultra-high population density and no natural resources can now not only feed their population, but also achieve top living standards. These changes may open a fundamentally different route for societal evolution – one that would not be based on violence or compulsion.

A small thought experiment - imagine what would happen if central governments cede most powers to smaller territorial units:

The initial result will be political divergence - with less interference from central authorities, policies of local communities will inevitably move away from the political center. The divergence will further increase as people gradually relocate to communities whose laws closely reflect their own preferences.
Eventually, successes and failures of each community will clearly demonstrate the consequences of their policies, and the process of political divergence will be reversed. Local governments that fail to emulate the best examples will simply lose their population, who will vote against them with their feet. Just like natural selection promotes survival of the fittest, competition between different communities will promote policies that maximize human wellbeing.
In the end, it is likely that a significant difference between communities will persist (after all, even siblings have different tastes). However, peculiar policies of each community will be a voluntary choice of its residents, and people with different ideologies will no longer have to impose their views on each other.

Unfortunately, there are serious obstacles to the successful implementation of this idea:

It is not clear how central governments can be made to cede any of their powers. Even politicians elected on the platform of curtailing government power would be strongly tempted to renege on their promises.
Several countries in the past were organized along somewhat similar principles – the city-states of the Ancient Greece, Northern Italy during the Renaissance period and the Dutch Republic during its Golden Age. Each achieved spectacular economic, technological and cultural development, but in all cases either the country itself or its political system eventually fell as a result of external aggression. This threat is still relevant, as many nations have not yet reached the economic or mental stage when they are no longer interested in territorial conquests.
Most importantly, it is not clear how people from fundamentally different political camps (e.g., socialists and libertarians) can be convinced to work together for a common purpose.

Do you think these problems are solvable?

A small thought experiment - imagine what would happen if central governments cede most powers to smaller territorial units:

The initial result will be political divergence - with less interference from central authorities, policies of local communities will inevitably move away from the political center. The divergence will further increase as people gradually relocate to communities whose laws closely reflect their own preferences.
Eventually, successes and failures of each community will clearly demonstrate the consequences of their policies, and the process of political divergence will be reversed. Local governments that fail to emulate the best examples will simply lose their population, who will vote against them with their feet. Just like natural selection promotes survival of the fittest, competition between different communities will promote policies that maximize human wellbeing.
In the end, it is likely that a significant difference between communities will persist (after all, even siblings have different tastes). However, peculiar policies of each community will be a voluntary choice of its residents, and people with different ideologies will no longer have to impose their views on each other.

Unfortunately, there are serious obstacles to the successful implementation of this idea:

It is not clear how central governments can be made to cede any of their powers. Even politicians elected on the platform of curtailing government power would be strongly tempted to renege on their promises.
Several countries in the past were organized along somewhat similar principles – the city-states of the Ancient Greece, Northern Italy during the Renaissance period and the Dutch Republic during its Golden Age. Each achieved spectacular economic, technological and cultural development, but in all cases either the country itself or its political system eventually fell as a result of external aggression. This threat is still relevant, as many nations have not yet reached the economic or mental stage when they are no longer interested in territorial conquests.
Most importantly, it is not clear how people from fundamentally different political camps (e.g., socialists and libertarians) can be convinced to work together for a common purpose.

Do you think these problems are solvable?

English opinion is very very strongly in favor of Scotland staying ... The question is, what is that reason. My conjecture is the reason is to be found in a certain wistfulness for the glorious past found in England.

It's not wistfulness for a glorious past, it's a present sense of national unity. There is no sense in England that Scotland is a separate country in a relevant sense. The country is Britain, and Scotland is a region of it with a slightly different history. In particular, there is no sense that England is a component entity within the UK or that there is "a Union"; the UK, Britain and England are all basically the same thing and the terms are used interchangeably.

This is emphatically not the case in Scotland (although it used to be, kinda). Scottish people now see Scotland as being a distinctive component entity within a "Union" with the other home countries, which has the right to decide its own fate. They deeply resent the English attitude as described in the paragraph above. They see Scotland being in the UK as a contingent decision. The worst among them also blame England for all their problems - Scottish nationalism is a very ugly thing.

Of course the UK government is broke, so they may well push the Scots to adapt a more austere position. But in these negotiations the ordinary English attitudes are a bargaining chip the Scots will use, not the English.

The issue isn't the government being broke (although that never helps). The issue is that English people have noticed the (changed) Scottish attitude in paragraph 2, and they do not like it. Surprise is now giving way to resentment, and in reaction, the English attitude in paragraph 1 has changed and is changing. Consider, for example, the most day-to-day way that people express their national attitude and identity - sport. 50 years ago (footage of the 1966 World Cup final is a good example), an English crowd cheering on an English team would be waving Union Jacks (i.e. the British flag) - because that's their national flag. That was typical at the time. Today, the crowd waves the George Cross (i.e. the specifically English flag). You're right that most English people want to keep Scotland in the union, but the fact that ~20% of English people want to get rid of Scotland is the truly remarkable thing. 50 years ago it would have been 2% at best.

Ordinary English attitudes are not a bargaining chip that the Scottish can use, because attempting to use them can only further undermine those very attitudes. It's like saying that a spouse feeling ambivalent about the marriage can get a better deal by using the feelings of the other spouse as a bargaining chip. No! Once you threaten to leave unless you get your way, and exposed your view of the marriage as a contingent one, you have poisoned their feelings towards you permanently. If you threaten to leave unless you get a new car, you are more likely to get your credit card cut off. Something broadly similar is happening in the UK. The more the Scottish ask what they can get out of the Union, the more English people demand that Scotland's privileges get revoked. Voters now back abolishing the Barnett formula and preventing Scottish MPs voting on English matters (see for example here ), and I suspect there is more to come, because the process now seems to be self-reinforcing.

Scotland leaving the UK would be a disaster for everyone.

I actually rather suspect it would be a mild boon for the rest of the UK, and (eventually) a great success for Scotland.

the UK, Britain and England are all basically the same thing and the terms are used interchangeably.

By the English :-/

I bet a few Welsh, some Scots and a lot of (Northern) Irish feel differently :-D

8

Natural Selection of Government Systems

8

8

8

Natural Selection of Government Systems

8

8