Government Types

[Ozymandias]

So what are the real-world correlations to Civ's government types?

(1) What does "Monarchy" really represent above "Despotism" -- was Dark Age Europe with its Roman-derived laws and monarchs really more efficient than early dynastic Egypt? (There were, pre-Hyksos, 14 Egyptian dynasties before their neighbor Hammurabi invented his famous code of laws.) Arguably, "Monarchy" might imply a bureaucratic infrastructure based around the throne, which would, for example, adequately describe the Roman Empire.

(2) "Nationalism" apparently lumps together (I'm guessing) most everything in Europe from Frederick the Great through WWI? It would include both England's constitutional monarchy and Napoleon at his most despotic. So it's really not a "government" type per se but a representation of a certain level of technological and bureaucratic sophistication -- which I think, given the structure of the game, is perfectly reasonable.

(3) What differentiates a "Democracy" from a "Republic"? They're presumably as different from each other as both are from Communism. Clearly, Democracy is more advanced (by virtue of occuring later in the tech tree), but what is the critical difference between the two? -- I would suggest that, in both Plato's and Lincoln's republics, the "equality" of political power was only held by property-owning males of the dominant ethnicity. By this distinction, many of the ancient Greek city-states were indeed republics, and America during World War I was a republic, and is now a democracy. Note that this might suggest that the best game approach to "Democracy" would be to have Suffrage as a minor wonder, every Civ which has discovered the Republic, as well as some later tech (perhaps Radio), might build.

(4) "Communism" -- is this idealized Marxism, or Stalinism / Maoism? Almost certainly the latter. And I note that Civ has always nicely avoided "fascism" as a government type. Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany may both fairly be classified as "Totalitarian", and perhaps Communism should be renamed this. Germany's technological superiority in WW2 would, in game terms, be attributed to possession of more universities and knowledge wonders compensating for the research negatives; for more perspective, we might compare other recent dictatorships (Spain; Italy) to the old USSR and evaluate which was more efficient etc.

(5) "Feudalism" is confusing in game turns -- it is a very particular form of monarchy, where power is extremely decentralized and efficiency of every sort reduced. Feudal Europe was also noteably non-commercial. It should not be a required "advance" for Invention!


So:

(A) Monarchy would require Currency and Literacy/Literature.

(B) Republic would require Currency and Philosophy (Republics are always mercantile in nature) -- and Philosophy would require Literacy. The minor wonder Suffrage would require Philosophy and The Printing Press to build, and would confer significant enough advantage to a Republic to make it "behave" more like Democracy has previously been built in the game.

(C) Nationalism would require Monarchy and Gunpowder.

(D) Communism is renamed "Totalitarianism".

(E) The "advance" Feudalism would be represented by a dead-end spur on the tech tree, not requiring Monarchy, but perhaps Warrior Code and Construction. Note above that "Monarchy" would require "Currency" which was most noteably lacking in Europe from the fall of Rome until the late Middle Ages.

(F) Now for a radical thought: The government type "Democracy" might be renamed "Corporate Republic", and would be a very late 20th Century evolution of the Republic (with or without the Suffrage wonder), wherein the citizen has essentially redefined him/herself as a consumer, globalism is rampant, and national agendas have been largely ceded to large coporations. This would account for the reluctance of "Democracies" in the game to commit military forces, and would nicely illustrate the sense of divide between, oh, say, the WWII generation and the present day. The Corporate Republic would require the Republic and Miniaturization to build.

-Ozymandias

[Swissy]

Re: Government Types

Originally posted by Ozymandias
"Feudalism" is confusing in game turns -- it is a very particular form of monarchy, where power is extremely decentralized and efficiency of every sort reduced. Feudal Europe was also noteably non-commercial. It should not be a required "advance" for Invention!

You seem confused as to what feudalism is. Feudalism is a highly centralized form of governance. The basis of feudalism is the ruler derives his power from a supreme diety, or is the diety in the case of the Japanese. This gives the ruler a divine right to rule, part of this right is to assign duties to others. To provide a means to preform these duties the overloadship of lands were given. So all land was "owned" by the ruler, the nobles received the right of use from the ruler. So the ruler under feudalism is the center of the country.

As far as feudalism being needed for invention, the centralization of power to the ruler also centralized the wealth of the civ. As rulers became more wealthy, they began to patronize artist and scholars. Out of this patronage you get invention.

[Inverse Icarus]

Feudalism is a highly centralized form of governance

not its not! it's completely the opposite!

feudalism is where kings give local lords rule over an area of land.

those local lords often fought eachother and etc.

it was highly DISORGANIZED.

and anyway, Feudalism isnt a civ 3 gov.

take the civ 2 govts, take out fund. add nationalism/

[red_jon]

In Civ3 isn't 'nationalism' actually fascism? The designers just didn't want to use the dreaded 'f' word.

Also, Ozymandias - the corporate republic is a good idea (I liked it in CTP and CTP2), but if 'Republic' replaces democracy, where would that leave constitutional monarchies (like Britain)?

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by red_jon
In Civ3 isn't 'nationalism' actually fascism? The designers just didn't want to use the dreaded 'f' word.

Also, Ozymandias - the corporate republic is a good idea (I liked it in CTP and CTP2), but if 'Republic' replaces democracy, where would that leave constitutional monarchies (like Britain)?

I believe that, given the level of abstraction necessary for a game of Civilization's scope, that any two things which are, in game terms, structurally the same might as well be handled in the same fashion.

In the case of Britain, pre-Magna Carta would be a Despotism, Magna Carta through the Civil War would be a Monarchy, post-Cromwell would be Nationalist (which, again, I think represents the ability to organize resources with the same degree of efficiency as other Nations, irrespective of their precise governmental construction -- I presume the Union during the American Civil War would, in game terms, likewise be a Nation, as would Bismarck's Germany) and, contemporarily, British constitutional monarchy functions, in game terms, exactly as I am describing/defining a Republic with a Suffrage wonder. Only contemporary America is falling, er, advancing, into Corporate Republicanism, which nearly every other nation on earth seems to be resisting.

All the Best,

Ozymandius

[red_jon]

Oz, Cromwell's rule was closest to Civ2's 'fundamentalism' (the English title for the gov in civ2 was 'Lord Protector' which is what he was called).

Unfortunately, Western Europe (esp. the UK) seems to be descending into the Corporate Republic.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by red_jon
Oz, Cromwell's rule was closest to Civ2's 'fundamentalism' (the English title for the gov in civ2 was 'Lord Protector' which is what he was called).

Unfortunately, Western Europe (esp. the UK) seems to be descending into the Corporate Republic.

Re: Cromwell -- granted, but, given some of the near-hysterical nationalism on some of the threads, I didn't want to risk offense.

Re: Western Europe, I have my fears and hopes on that front ... Irrespective, it would seem that we are agreeing on the "Corporate Republic" being a contemporary and ongoing phenomenon, and not a "future" or "sepculative" or "science fiction" gov. This is important as many posts seem specifically to deride any such speculation.

Time-travelling along with everyone else into the future at the awesome rate of 1 second per second,

Oz

[Andreiguy]

(3) What differentiates a "Democracy" from a "Republic"? They're presumably as different from each other as both are from Communism. Clearly, Democracy is more advanced (by virtue of occuring later in the tech tree), but what is the critical difference between the two? -- I would suggest that, in both Plato's and Lincoln's republics, the "equality" of political power was only held by property-owning males of the dominant ethnicity. By this distinction, many of the ancient Greek city-states were indeed republics, and America during World War I was a republic, and is now a democracy. Note that this might suggest that the best game approach to "Democracy" would be to have Suffrage as a minor wonder, every Civ which has discovered the Republic, as well as some later tech (perhaps Radio), might build.

A democracy is a government in which any person could walk into Congress and give an idea for a new bill. Ancient Athens was a democracy; anyone was allowed to participate in government sessions of the Senate, however, they had to be free land-owning males. The United States always was and is a republic. Just any person can't help govern. Intead, we are represented by our Representatives in the House, and the Senate. So, our country is democratic , but it is not a democracy. Democracy should become obsolete as soon as your civilization reaches a population of x, in my opinion, because after a certain point it would become hopelessly ineffecient and anarchatic. Therefore, a republic is actually MORE "advanced" than a democracy.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Andreiguy


Ancient Athens was a democracy; anyone was allowed to participate in government sessions of the Senate, however, they had to be free land-owning males.

Interesting. So you're defining a "democracy" as direct voting on policy etc. and a "republic" as a "representative" process (as an aside, if I recall correctly, U.S. Senators were appointed until well into the 19th century).

Rather than use "republic" and "democracy", let's use "earlier" and "later".

We both acknowledge that "earlier" has less than universal participation. If I read you correctly, "later" (e.g., ante-bellum America) can ALSO have limited participation in governance, and the difference between the two is a technology issue, a threshhold of population size too large to have each person vote on every issue -- especially as the number of issues presumably grow along with population size (although I'm personally skeptical, the internet may yet bring back your definition of democracy).

This, however, is true of any form of governance at different technology levels. For example, if the Incas are limited to communication by foot in the mountains, the ability of the central government to respond to crises beyond a certain distance becomes impossible, and there are similar limitations with every other mode of communication over distance until the invention of the radio (recall the Battle of New Orleans being fought after a peace treaty was signed). Although I find your approach intellectually appealling, I think it would be impossible to reflect in the game's mechanics (actually, a simple rule could address it: how far a unit can move from a city would be determined by technology level, but I somehow doubt the scenario engine will support this).

Using my suggestion, with "earlier" comprising (as we agree) limited participation and "later" (as I suggest) being universal enfranchisement, we have a real explanation for the far greater productive output of the later form of governance: more people with more ideas competing with one another. Also note that rigidly stratified societies are uniformly conservative, as (and the pre-WW1 Austro-Hungarian empire comes to mind) any change (any inventiveness) can only be detrimental to the existing social power structure.

Best,

Oz

[kolpo]

There is an escential difference between democratic republics(like modern France and USA ) and parlemential dempcracies(like Sweden, England. This is the most used version of democracy)

The difference is:

In a democractic republic has the president a veto power, can't the congress vote the president away and has the presidebnt the last word in militairy descisions.

In parlemential democracies has the prime miniter or king no real veto power(sometimes has the king offically veto power but every one knows that the parlement will remove the king if he does that and by this also remove his veto),can the parlement vote the prime miminster(or even all ministers at once) or the king away and has the minister of defence(and often needs he also the support of the parlement and/or all ministers) the last word in military decision).

So i'm against renaming democracy with anything that contains republic by calling it democracy are both democractic republics and parlemential democracies included.

Als the coperate republic idea is not completely true:

-globlization doesn't mean that corporations get more power. In E.U. one of the symbols of globlization have they voted many laws who restric companies and reduce there power and because they do it on a global level have they on this way more power over those companies. Examples are: ban on cigarret advertisement, Kyoto protool(they where even able to convert other nations to do the same this is a sign of the raising power of the EU), nitrate polution regulations, ban on genetic manupilated food, ban on hormones in cattle, an anti trust minister in the EU commision, ...

-Since 1968 has the power of green and other progressive movements in Europe heavily increased. Quite all those movements wants to reduce the power of corporations and unethical government.

-Consumers have become more sensible about wathever the way thinsg are produced are ethical: Nike raised income of asian workers because of that, Shell improved work conditions and income of nicuragian workers(after a consumers boycot in Europe).

I don't know enough about USA to judge wathever they are going to a coperate republic but if they do can we conclude that EU and USA are going on completely different ways and maybe is that the real raison why the relations are not that good anymore between them, or maybe is it just the current president and will they improve again if a democrat(I mean a member of the democratic party with this) wins the next elections.

[kolpo]

Ancient Athens was a democracy

Many people wheren't allowed to vote in Greece: Slaves, poor people, womans,...

So it is a myth that Greece was a democracy just as it is a myth that Rome was a democratic republic they where maybe something that looked from far away a little bit like democracy but they where certainly not completely democratic. When where the brit's or the galians ever allowed to vote for the Roman president?

[Mannamagnus]

At least we all agree that the US are not a democracy!

[Inverse Icarus]

don't even get me started on the rights here in the states.

my first amendment is disappearing faster than i can speak.

[Mannamagnus]

Try this UberKrux: Grab a spade, run outside and dig a nice and deep hole. If you strike oil your rights are ensured plus as a bonus you get to pay less tax and the government will invest a s**tload of money in you.

[M. le Comte]

Very long reply

I know it's a bit "strong", but here are the definitions of all that terms which are, to mind mind, used in a wrong way in Civilization.

Anrachy is a none-government system, where in theory nobody own the power. (An -> No ; Archia -> Government system). However nowadays, anarchist partys say they would like a Government based on a pyrammidal federative system. People belong to local gatherings who vote for someone. This representant does not represent them, but belong to a regional gathering and try to defend what has been voted in the local gathering in front of the other "not-representant". This regional gathering vote for someone which goes in a higher gathering and so on.
So anarchy in Civilization looks like more to a general strike or a Revolution than to Anarchy.

There are three kinds of despotism. The first kind takes place in the ancient ages. It was just a victorious general which only power was to make war and justice, because there was no administration (early kings in Europe, roman Emperors). It's also called "Thymocratia" by Platon (the government of the glorious one). The second sort is the modern one, which took place in the late XVIIIth century in Europe, and was called "enlighted despotism". It was a form of Absolutism, with a centralized administration and an "educated" all-mighty king (Catherine II of Russia, Frederic II of Prusse). It was shown as an alternative system to the development of the idea of Nation (and so modern Republic). The last kind is depicted by modern dictators (Franco in Spain, Salazar for Portuguese). It's a general (or a colonel...) which has taken power (made a putsh).

Monarchy is just a system where one personne leads a state alone, because of its birthrights, and for its whole life (Mono -> one's - Archia -> Government system). So it goes from hereditary Despotism to enlighted Despotism and constitutional monarchy (even if then the king has no power). One of the most famous form of Monarchy was Absolutism, in which the king benefited of a centralized administration, saying God had given him his power, but ruling his country without Reason (Louis XIV of France).

Republic is a system where the leader has no birthright, and doesn't rule during his whole life. It can be a democraty or a dictatorial system, fundamentalistic in the cas of the english "Lord Protector)". It's not a real government system, because it's, has monarchia, a non-sense.

Feudalism is the decomposition of ancient Despotism and republic. Middle age in western Europe

Fundamentalism is the government of the religious institution.

Both faschism and communism are totalitarian systems. But they are not based on the same production system (collective vs capitalist).

I know I'm abit too long. But what I would propose if I you're still reading me would be :

General strike/revolution -> riot in most of your cities.

Thymocraty -> despotism in Civ I&II

Republic -> greek republic, with uncompleted freedom and equality

Feudalism -> less centralized power, but possibility to build huge Empires (as the first german one)

Absolutism -> monarchy in Civ I&II

Enlighted despotism -> advanced monarchy

Constitutionalism/democracy -> modern democracies including monarchies such as the english one

Faschism -> Mussolini's system + conservative dictatures (Franco...)

Communism -> Stalin or Mao's system

Anarchy -> Proudhon's system, invented in the middle of the XIXth

Fundamentalism -> Taliban's system

Corporative republic -> ultra liberal democraty where corporations govern (perhaps US soon ?)

That's all folks !!!