Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Is there some political theory to run a state without full-time politicians where policies are made based on sets of specialized communities?
I was wondering with the advance of information technology in theory it is possible to run a state somehow like the way Stackoverflow or other web 2.0 communities are managed but need some resource to study if such one already exist.
I was wondering with the advance of information technology in theory it is possible to run a state somehow like the way Stackoverflow or other web 2.0 communities are managed but need some resource to study if such one already exist.
I don't think that you realize how StackOverflow is actually run. It is a benevolent oligarchy, not some kind of magical political system without politicians. They choose to delegate much of the power to the moderators, who are democratically elected. But they are in no way required to delegate that power.
It's also not true that StackOverflow does not have politicians. It does. We call them moderators. The reason why they don't seem much like politicians is that they have such limited power (they can't even levy taxes and then spend that money). If their power mattered more, the professionals would soon find ways to displace them. Then StackOverflow's politics would become more like those of more traditional governments. In other words, it's not the StackOverflow system that makes for great moderation. It's that we lack the corrupting power that encourages bad moderation.
Also, if there is a "bad" moderator, StackOverflow has the power to unseat that moderator, overturning the election results. This gives them a lot of power over moderation and the definition of bad moderation.
Overall, this is probably good. Think about it. To whom would you give a lifetime moderation power in your nation? How would you choose that person? How would that person become well enough known for you to choose? Politics.
In a comment, you said
still radical moves have expensive consequences for them coz of system's transparency.
Presumably you mean that people would leave if such a thing happened. This is called voting with your feet or jurisdiction shopping. It doesn't work as well at the international level. There is no federated system where the only guarantee is free movement among the states. The two closest are the United States and the European Union, but both of those have central governments that are too strong for this.
For example, Japan's laws are inconsistent with being a US state. In the US, Japanese gun laws and treatment of searches would be unconstitutional. So a state can't copy the Japanese system.
Similarly, you couldn't copy the Saudi Arabian system to a European state. It wouldn't meet the civil rights constraints of the EU.
But if you can't copy those states, how would you ever satisfy those people who want to live in states like that? Note that both Japan and the US are democratic societies.
Another consequence is Brexit. If one country finds itself accumulating people that it doesn't want, it can of course leave the federated system.
The Stack system works here because the people make it work. And because its occasional failures are rather minor. Don't like the way things operate here? Stop coming. Or just read the posts and never post yourself. That works because this really isn't that important. But what if we were choosing things that actually affected your life? Tax rates. Spending. Laws. Regulations. You probably wouldn't be nearly as happy with the system then.
Anyway, there is some study on benevolent dictatorships and jurisdiction arbitrage.
Yes, there is such a theory, and people attempted to implement it in Spain in the 1930's. The implementation of this political system, and the very confusing ensuing civil war that followed, says a lot about how controversial it was. It could be said Fascism, Soviet Communism, and British Colonialism all provided military support to those who violently opposed the development of a political system with no centralized power structure.
It is called Anarchism - The most fun way to learn about this is to watch this pseudo documentary called "Living Utopia". It can be viewed on youtube and was, for me, an enjoyable experience.
I have a friend who thought that a more fictionalized film about this topic called Land and Freedom was pretty good. For me it was ok, but not as good as Living Utopia.
Of course, you can read about it in this Wikipedia article about the experience of Anarchy in Spain.
Not surprisingly, TPTB have made the word Anarchy to be a dirty word that is synonymous with chaos and violence. The individuals who spoke from experience in Living Utopia made it clear that collective solidarity had very little chaos and violence; it just had no management. Whether it would work or not on a large scale is unknown; TPTB have done an efficient job of quashing the growth of this ideology.
That's essentially what communism is about, however vague or unrealistic that notion might be. Technically, it's not a theory of running a “state” however, as abolishing the state itself is part of its stated goals. I am not sure I see how IT technology can help make it a reality.
On the other hand, I don't see what's fundamentally different about Web 2.0 governance. It's something between a democracy (vote and a degree self-organisation) and a technocracy. There are certainly different kind of politicians and people explicitly tasked with managing the rest in Web 2.0 communities (moderators, administrators, etc.)
