Low-Tech Democracy.

[Cato the Elder]

I have started thinking about how a strong, pre-industrial democracy larger than a city-state might exist, both as a thought experiment and as idle brainstorming for a future game, and I would like to hear others' opinions on the matter.

Lest there be confusion, I should first elaborate on what I mean. By "strong democracy", I mean a centralized government on a more-or-less Western, indirectly and popularly democratic model in which suffrage is widespread, although I am also interested in hearing how other cultural models might create similar results. By "pre-industrial", I mean a state without access to technology postdating the Industrial Revolution (in GURPS terms, TLs 0-4, but focusing primarily on TLs 0-3, as TL 4 saw the emergence of several democracies of one stripe or another). By "larger than a city-state", I mean much larger, up to and including a region as large as a historical empire.

To further stimulate conversation, I have considered some "ingredients" that might be necessary for such a state's existence, although these are obviously not exclusive (or even necessarily correct). Pick and parse at your leisure.

1. Political theory. A democratic state cannot exist if the idea of democracy has not been articulated in political thought.

2. Political will. Democracy relies upon the participation of at least some portion of a state's population. If people cannot, or will not, take part in government, democracy cannot exist.

3. Political stability. Legitimacy must be established to create a democracy, rule of law must be established to allow it to function, and a means of defense must be established to safeguard a democracy from its enemies.

4. Communication and transportation. Information must be disseminated, and officials dispatched, much more swiftly in a democracy than in a less representative state if it wishes to be anything more than a very loose democratic confederation. This is possibly the most limiting factor for low-tech democracies.

With that said, here are my questions. Without resorting to fantastic elements, how might a low-tech, expansive democratic (direct or indirect) state function? How might such a state emerge in the first place? What challenges would such a state be confronted with? Thanks in advance for your replies.

[combatmedic]

So it's a bit like the Latin/Italic parts of the Roman Republic after the Social War?

[Cato the Elder]

I am more interested in a state that holds elections over a widespread expanse. Provincials seemed to agitate for Roman citizenship in order to gain legal rights, not suffrage.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Cato the Elder

I am more interested in a state that holds elections over a widespread expanse. Provincials seemed to agitate for Roman citizenship in order to gain legal rights, not suffrage.

You'd normally have to travel to Rome if you wanted to vote in a Roman election, as I understand it.
But the various allied cities had their own governments, councils, and so on.

What is it you consider 'democracy'?

Were transport speed and communication times in the Thirteen Colonies or the early USA better than in the Roman Republic?

[combatmedic]

1. Political theory

2. Political will

3. Political stability

4. Communication and transportation.

1:
No fancy theory is needed. The tribesmen get together and vote on stuff. Fairly common practice in some societies.

2: True for any government, no?

3: Democracies have often proved unstable. So have other forms of government.


4: Any state would need good transportation and communication to govern a large area. It is arguably more important in a centralized ''democracy.'' Probably not workable over a certain size, in that election and poll results will likely become very cumbersome to collect, count, and disseminate. And gov't may move very slowly indeed if a great many things depend on such counts.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

1:
No fancy theory is needed. The tribesmen get together and vote on stuff. Fairly common practice in some societies.

Voting on stuff is pretty common, yes. Even voting on who should get to sit in a council that then wields power, or voting on who should be come king and wield power alone.

The radical stuff is when it's no longer just normal people who get to vote, but also slaves, chicks, disabled people, poor people, children, atheists, foreigners, those who are cursed, elves, gnomes, orcs, dragons, AIs, uplifted dogs, and other strange kinds of people.

Everybody getting to vote. That's the bit that's hard to swallow. Not the voting thing itself.

[The Colonel]

I suspect that over any significant area you'd need to use the historical method of representative democracy - people in a given area elect someone who then goes to the capital to represent their views in the assembly.

This will not directly match the Roman system (where the Senate were enrolled mostly on a property qualification and the only votes were the elections of public officials and what were essentially referenda), or the Greek model (where the assembly was actually composed of the assembled voters), but is the current form used by most modern democracies.

It's hard to imagine how any form of direct or frequently consulting democracy could function over a large area otherwise.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Voting on stuff is pretty common, yes. Even voting on who should get to sit in a council that then wields power, or voting on who should be come king and wield power alone.

The radical stuff is when it's no longer just normal people who get to vote, but also slaves, chicks, disabled people, poor people, children, atheists, foreigners, those who are cursed, elves, gnomes, orcs, dragons, AIs, uplifted dogs, and other strange kinds of people.

Everybody getting to vote. That's the bit that's hard to swallow. Not the voting thing itself.

I cannot think of any state in history in which everyone, including children and slaves, could vote.

And I'm almost 100% certain the OP does not mean that.

[Flyndaran]

No place allows all adults to vote. I don't think inmates or the institutionalized mentally ill can even now.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

It's hard to imagine how any form of direct or frequently consulting democracy could function over a large area otherwise.

The OP wrote-

I mean a centralized government on a more-or-less Western, indirectly and popularly democratic model in which suffrage is widespread,

What exactly is ''indirectly and popularly"?

Sounds like he means that the citizens elect representatives to some sort of parliament or assembly.

He says it is centralized.

Does he mean something like France under the National Convention and Jacobin domination?
While it lasted, anyway....

Printing presses may come into this.


EDIT

Or does the OP mean something more like the Soviet Union? Democratic centralism...
:(0)

That is definitely Western in ideological roots (Marxism from Western Europe). It's centralized. And it uses polls, representative bodies, holds elections...
Yet something tells me it's not really what he was looking for...
;)