As far as I'm aware, there are currently two places in the world de facto run in a more or less anarchist way:

How comparable are the political and economic systems between the two areas? Are there any contacts between them, such as representatives from one area in the other?

  • 1
    This might be of interest regarding the latter. Aug 9, 2018 at 17:45
  • I upvoted this but I'm not sure it is phrased in a way that can be objectively AND concisely answered in a QA format.
    – user4012
    Aug 9, 2018 at 21:48

1 Answer 1


The Democratic Federation of Norther Syria is officially a Libertarian Socialist Federated Semi-Direct Democracy. It's modeled off of the Swiss Government (including the sub regions being called Cantons and an Executive Council rather than a single Head of Government). The Swiss in turn were modeled after the United States' seperate but Equal branches of government (replacing the executive office with an Executive Council). Semi-Direct Democracy isn't "we all vote and majority rules the day". Rather, in order to pass a citizen drafted law, there must first be a petetion that attains a certain number of citizen signatures to appear on ballot, and then must pass with double majority (a majority decision of the popular vote and a majority of the states pass it. This number changes based on the nature of the defined majority.). For the DNFS, which has three cantons and one federal region for a total of four regions, across all citizens there must be a 51% majority and three states must each pass it with 51% of their supporting population supporting the proposal. One other uniqueness is that at all levels of government, there are council co-presidents: One man and one woman.

I'm not up to speed on Zapatista but they are a consensus democracy has higher threshholds for passing a proposal, but theirs does fall back to majority voting on impass. They also do not have many American/Swiss analog systems of government. Near as I can see, they best reflect town hall government where people will all be allowed to vote, but there doesn't seem to be a referendum based voting system. It would be fairer to describe them as sort of like Common Law Juries but with WAY more people having to come up with an agreement.

One of the big comparisons is the former is a Federation (favoring some centralized power) while the later is a Confederation (favoring weak centralized power). Historically, the later do not last long as Confederations usually recognize the right to leave the union where as Federations do not.

Either way, I think it would be unfair to describe either as anarchy systems. Certainly not the DNFS which has a hierarchical leadership system.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .