Centralisation vs. Decentralisation

[Lysimachus]

Your thoughts?

Decentralisation is where power in a domain is invested more heavily in local rulers to be able to govern their parts of the land justly. An example of this would have been the Roman Empire (to an extent) or more accurately the defining feature of Feudalism. With feudal society (a good example of this is the Holy Roman Empire), at the very top would be the main figurehead. This would be the king. The king's power was very shaky however. He relied heavily on the support of his nobles and would try to maintain their loyalty by granting them land, money and estates to appease them so that they wouldn't rebel and in times of war would actually heed the king's call to arms. The larger an empire became, the more governors required and the further away they could be from the main government. This then means that without being so closely watched and scrutinised by the king and the royal bureaucracy that provided they were either convinced or were of differing political views to the current ruler that they would be able to muster support and rebel against him.

Centralisation would involve supreme power being invested in the ruler and his bureaucracy where all necessary controls are available to the vicinity of them so they can deal with issues by themselves. While local rulers may still be employed, true power lays within the ruler. As a result of this, the chance of rebellion is decreased because the ruler will have the army at their disposal which would dissuade people from fighting against it. Despite this, if a territory is large then it means that there is much more for the ruler to deal with and they won't be able to deal with each case individually with a good level of scrutiny, logic and concentration that a governor employed to merely that single area would theoretically be able to do. This results in the needs of the people not always being met, bureaucratic hiccups and people may become disgruntled since under a more centralised system they wouldn't have as much autonomy as they could have if it was more decentralised (seeing as all issues would be referred to and dealt with by the sole ruler rather than being able to send complaints to a local governor).

My post is probably flawed, but I hope it gets the basic idea across anyway. Just wanted to know you guys' thoughts on the two concepts.

[Treize]

I have always been very fond of decentalisation.

[Ascarona]

Isn't the current social model a decentralised form then, or at least based on it? Every four years we vote for a ruling party (in your example, the King of the HRE) however without our (the people are in this case nobles, every one of us) support the government will fall. I've heard of these concepts before but I never really gave a good thought of them before.

[The Dude]

Note: this is written from the perspective of an EU citizen.

Decentralisation as of late, really. I used to think that turning the EU into some sort of super state would be a great idea and that globalisation is the way forward. The problem is however that this is not the scale on which people think. They relate to things that happen in their immediate lives and remain pretty apathetic to things that happen far away from them. With the expected exception of some, this is generally regarded to be the case.

So what happens when you start to centralise a democracy, well... you get a situation in which a system that requires the participation of the people to function loses exactly that foundation. People will remain disinterested and unengaged in high-level politics and will more likely start to care about things that they can influence in their own lives. Give them a election for town mayor and you'll see a higher percentage of people turn up than when there's an election for president of the EU (if only there actually were elections for this post rather than that douche Van Rompuy who just got given this spot by whoever).

This isn't necessarily always true, but I think that the following things need to happen for an election to feel worthwhile to people:

1. They need to feel that their vote can make a difference.
2. They need to feel that the people they vote for have enough power vested in them to carry out the wishes of their voters.

If neither condition is met people lose the desire to participate. The first criterium loses power the larger a country grows, and is therefore resolved by decentralised politics. The more people in a country, the less your one vote contributes to the entirety of the electorate. The second criterium often loses power the larger a democracy grows aswell. We are now experiencing a situation in which we vote for parties in national elections because they want to do X and Y, and are afterwards being told that they can't actually do X and Y because the EU has decided that it doesn't conform to their standards.

That is what makes people lose faith. Now you could argue that they should then simply show up during EU elections instead of staying at home, but that's not going to happen because people already feel like nothing they vote for in the EU would even make a difference. Why not, when various top-level EU positions are not subject to general elections, and when this same EU is forcing treaties upon countries where even after referendums the desire to participate has been rejected.

The larger a state grows, the larger the disconnect between its people and its leaders grows. If you want to maintain a democracy, the only possible solution is decentralisation as that is the only way for people to remain actively engaged in the government of their country. If you only want to -pretend- that you're running a democracy but actually want to take care of your interests aswell as the interests of those who in turn serve yours, then centralisation is fine as that allows you to make shady deals with other politicians and corporations without anyone really noticing.

[Azog 150]

I am kind of divided.

I like the idea of decentralisation, as local government is going to be able to better deal with local problems.

But I am not a fan of devolution in its current UK form. Rather then handing powers to national parliaments (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England) I would support the scrapping of all the devolved Parliaments and handing those powers back to Westminster (And I would change House of Commons elections to STV voting system). However, I would support county and city governments having much more power then they are currently given, as it would be able to deal with local problems far better, and give us a bigger say in how things are run in our area.

What might be an affective policy in one area (Lets say, Newcastle or Glasgow), may not be an effective policy in another area (Lets say Liverpool or Aberdeen).

I can understand that this may pose problems of excessive bureaucracy, and could make things a bit complicated with so many different areas subjected to different 'assemblies' and policies. I am not really sure how we would work around that. But I am still sure that decentralisation is the way to go, and that it may go some way to restoring peoples faith and interest in politics.

Northern Ireland is a possible exception for obvious reasons. Perhaps they could keep a Regional Assembly, but I still think more localised government would be a good thing there

[Dr. Croccer]

Like azog I'm divided. I dislike the direction universal democracy is going and would prefer a more smaller, and compact form of government, and I like the way the enlightened monarchs operated in the past. At the same time I abhor the kind of neglecting bureaucracy of the EU for example. I think a combination of the two would be best. Regional autonomy along with a more undemocratic central government which decides the important issues.

[Amorphos]

Best to have a balance of both Imho that would be perfect.


Decentralisation is fine but it doesn’t have the punch of centralisation, although if a decentralised fully privatised society worked as sets of cooperative entities e.g. for work sharing and financial redistribution, I think that would be better than the man having all the power [massive corporations etc].

Within that, politics could work as a functional part e.g. instead of councils [which I hate] you would have local bosses [democratically voted for] working together to provide what are presently state services. Perhaps national politics would have less impact if people could run their own lives in a decentralised manner.

I expect that eventually the state and united states like the EU will become outmoded and world society more dynamic.

..as for nationalism, I hope it will be bred into oblivion ~ I cannot see how it wont be, there is already to much mixing to halt the process. …and I hope nations will dissolve and their power decrease into oblivion. I wouldn’t like to see decentralisation based on race, that’s just ridiculous.

[The Dude]

Like azog I'm divided. I dislike the direction universal democracy is going and would prefer a more smaller, and compact form of government, and I like the way the enlightened monarchs operated in the past. At the same time I abhor the kind of neglecting bureaucracy of the EU for example. I think a combination of the two would be best. Regional autonomy along with a more undemocratic central government which decides the important issues.

That sort of looks like Iran, though.

[Dr. Croccer]

That sort of looks like Iran, though.

Iran is democratic, they just don't count the ''wrong'' votes.

With ''undemocratic'' I mean a more privileged form of democracy, as opposed to universal suffrage.

[The Dude]

Iran is democratic, they just don't count the ''wrong'' votes.

With ''undemocratic'' I mean a more privileged form of democracy, as opposed to universal suffrage.

Hmm. I've pondered the necessity of that but I think it greatly depends on the size of the country, or rather, the amount of layers to a political system.

If you consider the Netherlands the election turnouts for national elections are respectable even if not staggering. Municipal elections also have fairly high turnouts but there's a lot of people who get discouraged because they don't really think that what happens on a municipal level matters. Maybe I'm wrong in my assessment here, but that's what I think I've been seeing throughout my life.

But if you consider the turnout for the EU, people just can't be bothered. There's no real level of commitment here because nobody gets the feeling that they have the power to change anything. Combine that with the things highlighted in Timoty Leary's thread which is active right now aswell and you can see that a lot of people have long given up hope.

To be honest in my ideal system there'd be a tiered democracy: general voting rights for the entire population for municipal elections with increased autonomy for the mayor to handle his municipality as he pleases. Added to that, a second tier of voting rights that must be earned and allow one to participate in national elections. These would produce a lightweight national government that would function similarly to the federal government in the US, that provides the country with a constitution, law enforcement and whatnot.

If people feel like they can make a difference on a local level their commitment to democracy will greatly increase. If people want to make a difference on a national level, they must demonstrate the required knowledge and insight in politics. This to avoid the country of falling into the trap of populism.

This way, you get an involved and personally affected electorate on a municipal level combined with a motivated (since they applied for the right to vote nationally out of some ambition) and informed electorate on a national level.

If there's room for abuse in this system then, anyone, please point it out. This is just a suggestion and I'm open to criticism since what I'd like most is to work out a political system that would in any situation be an improvement to most current forms of democracy.

[Dr. Croccer]

To be honest in my ideal system there'd be a tiered democracy: general voting rights for the entire population for municipal elections with increased autonomy for the mayor to handle his municipality as he pleases. Added to that, a second tier of voting rights that must be earned and allow one to participate in national elections. These would produce a lightweight national government that would function similarly to the federal government in the US, that provides the country with a constitution, law enforcement and whatnot.

If people feel like they can make a difference on a local level their commitment to democracy will greatly increase. If people want to make a difference on a national level, they must demonstrate the required knowledge and insight in politics. This to avoid the country of falling into the trap of populism.

That's my view almost entirely as well. Some kind of test for proof of political interest and merit before getting extended voting rights.

[Treize]

Iran is democratic, they just don't count the ''wrong'' votes.

With ''undemocratic'' I mean a more privileged form of democracy, as opposed to universal suffrage.

A Switzerland-like decentalisation (prehaps a tad to extreme though). Without the direct democracy, with a district system for the national government election and the possibility for independents to run.

If you want to change the suffrage I would suggest an exam containing basic political theory and a basic history of the state.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Somethings should always be centralized on my opinion.

Public Education funding for example, and national roads programs, trains.

Other things should be mixed, like public health, hospitals etc.

And others should be always controlled from the very place where they exist. Municipality funding, local taxes etc.

[Poach]

+5 Centralisation every time.

In seriousness, I prefer a reasonable mix. Centralisating everything just causes problems where issues or characteristics unique to a region would be overlooked by some faceless suit in a London office block following some procedure. Decentralisation of everything destroys the ability to operate at a national level, and a situation that local resources cannot cope with would require a huge coordination effort to bring in outside help.

I believe everything should be linked at the national level, but that individual regions and cities should be given some degree of autonomy to deal with their own problems. Each region should have a level of autonomy to allow it to manage itself on a daily basis without having to go London for everything, but the framework should exist to coordinate them all should the requirement arise.

[Yoda Twin]

+5 Centralisation every time.

It helps to bring down inflation and allows you to westernise!

[Amorphos]

Ideally you want to decentralise to the point of the individual ~ make everyone self employed and self reliant, then centralise in a manner which supports this.

[Hakkapeliitta]

I think the trend has always throughout human history been towards centralisation, and that it will inevitably continue on that path. Whether it will be democratic, autocratic or fascistic remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by The Dude View Post
To be honest in my ideal system there'd be a tiered democracy: general voting rights for the entire population for municipal elections with increased autonomy for the mayor to handle his municipality as he pleases. Added to that, a second tier of voting rights that must be earned and allow one to participate in national elections. These would produce a lightweight national government that would function similarly to the federal government in the US, that provides the country with a constitution, law enforcement and whatnot.

If people feel like they can make a difference on a local level their commitment to democracy will greatly increase. If people want to make a difference on a national level, they must demonstrate the required knowledge and insight in politics. This to avoid the country of falling into the trap of populism.

I can't see how this could be implemented without it resulting in a system where only a few certain parties would be permitted. Who would determine whether or not someone is politically savvy or intelligent enough. There is simply no way to avoid populism in a democracy, and if you want to forbid populism you might as well embrace autocracy. A better way would be to simply provide as best education to as large amount of population as possible which is something that all the first world societies can afford.

[last_name_left]

Obviously decentralisation has a great appeal. In Europe there was supposed to be a doctrine of subsidiarity where decisions were devolved to the lowest/most local authority capable of making the decision. From a Welsh perspective that could easily be seen as offering more hope than British parliamentary efforts which have been frankly pathetic (and not especially super-popular). Certainly following Tory/Conservative government of 1980s where Welsh Minister was appointed by UK PrimeMinister and parachuted in to an Exec office in Cardiff's Welsh Office, European devolution looked to be a good thing by comparison. And limited devolution enacted by New Labour of Tony Blair went way beyond anything previous - I think it's looked upon quite positively now (here in Wales at least, and probably Scotland).

I'm a socialist yet I see no contradiction between decentralisation and state-socialism. There are antagonisms, obviously, but no contradiction. The same issues arise over nationalism versus internationalism - sometimes nationalism (decentralisation) is a good thing, though the overarching effort always remains a single international community (centralisation). They are apparently contradictory impulses, but they're not - they're merely antagonistic, not contradictory.

[Mr. Scott]

Modern Democracy seems to be based off a very domestically decentralized approach and centralized foreign policy.

Decentralization is best domestically as it fits the needs of the people in their respective regions. On nations as large as the United States or India, centralization only causes most of the people to be upset.
However, centralization is needed on foreign policy and you can probably understand why.