Low-Tech Democracy.

[Cato the Elder]

Excellent points all around, you have my thanks once again. I apologize for not being able to post for some time, but I will try and answer a few of the questions that have been raised.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

True. But I got the impression that the OP wanted a society that was more then merely Fair For It's Day.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

So what I am really asking is does the OP mean, "a state that has mores recognizably similar to modern liberal values that has nothing but obvious physical concerns to give a modern westerner discomfort", or "a giant Swiss Confederation." Because if the answer is the later, then yes, nothing prevents it other then administrative ingenuity. If the former he is out of luck; some things just can't be gotten at that TL.

I am under no illusions to the fact that the past was unpleasant, and I definitely do not want an anachronistic "liberal democracy", or even less a "good guy" state. There is no such thing today, let alone a thousand years ago. It is the pre-industrial democratic mechanism that I am interested in, with all the warts that entails (limited suffrage, the abuse of power by the state, the hijacking of politics by moneyed interests, etc).

Originally Posted by tantric

Not sure how helpful this is, but I thought I'd throw it in. Although probably a bit embellished, the Kikuyu as described by Jomo Kenyatta in Facing Mt. Kenya were reasonably democratic.

I like the idea of a "generational council", although I suspect that the universal council it implies is unworkable for anything much larger than a village. It also brings to mind the idea of terms, and term limits. The Roman republic made due with yearly terms by and large (but being elected once gave a senator tenure of a sort, entitling him to sit in the senate for the rest of his life), and today terms are generally two to six years. I think that this hypothetical democracy would skew towards the latter, if its representatives come from the realm as a whole rather than the capital itself, and might even appoint certain prestigious titles (like judges, or high priests) for life.

One direction I would like to press this thread in is the idea of political parties. Several posters have indicated that parties are unlikely, but I have to disagree; the tendency of people to divide themselves into factions and cliques is universal. I mentioned land reform as an issue previously, and it's logical to assume that existing landholders would have their own party to oppose the reformers. What other parties might there be, and what issues might they crystallize around?

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by tantric

I've heard so many times from well meaning Americans who think Africa's problems are because the colonialists drew the boarders arbitrarily and that everything would be fine if everyone got a homeland....it seems to be an American perspective based on our basic like of tribal background.

Weren't they drawn particularly to allow setting tribes against each other, rather than arbitrarily?

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

Perhaps, but it's far from being the case that they are usually political in nature. They are more often familial, local, occupational, or religious groups: clans, tribes, cults, and castes. It there are policy differences, they are often over which clan gets the graft, which heresy gets persecuted, whether the farmers or the graziers get the land, etc. I seem to recall that even in the Athenian democracy, which we think of as dominated by policy conflict between the oligarchs and the demagogues, had structural features to prevent it from degenerating into a straight-out squabble over rents between the hills, the city, and the plain, or between the traditional tribes.

Oddly enough, I rather like the idea of competing for who gets the biggest piece of the pie in the next Doge's term instead of competing over ideology. If it's all about money, power, and influence there is nothing to hate each other over and if it's regulated so no faction becomes an existential threat, nothing to fear each other over.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Weren't they drawn particularly to allow setting tribes against each other, rather than arbitrarily?

From what I can see they were mostly drawn as a result of moving typical European diplomatic dickering to Africa. Europeans had no motive in stirring up feuds that they would have to waste troops suppressing.

Territorial diplomacy is often a poor fit in other climes because it requires among other things concentrated areas of cultivated land and a political culture that had been formed around trigonometry. Even in Europe it was a long time before the concept of exact borders was fashionable.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

The problem with it is that there is never any reason for anyone to vote for any candidate except the nominee of their own clan, tribe, or sect. You don't get anyone weighing up alternatives and making a choice. You get what they got in Iraq.

Using Iraq as a judgement for that is like using the mid seventeenth century to judge the Parliamentery system.

And with the system we have now people usually vote for the nominee of their own party anyway.

In any case I don't see Democracy as having a purpose much more elevated then keeping the oligarchs from beating on the proles to much. Nor do I see that voters have much choice if they are one hundred millionth of a king. If there are enough clans, tribes, and sects, the tribe that is getting most powerful will just provoke an alliance which will make for a constantly changing politics. Furthermore, the ways of calculating "wealth, power and influence" will be so complex that in any given tribe it is not unreasonable to presume differing citizens calculating their particular tribe's interest differently. It would in effect be like a city voting on whether or not to fund this road or that road.

In any case there is enough precedent for such a thing. Rome got along all right.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

From what I can see they were mostly drawn as a result of moving typical European diplomatic dickering to Africa. Europeans had no motive in stirring up feuds that they would have to waste troops suppressing.

Mostly they didn't know where the tribal boundaries *were*. Note that when the partition of India came around, the Commission needed to dispatch a lot of survey teams - after a century or more in the heavily populated part of richest, best administered colony, the government still didn't know which villages practiced which religion. When they were drawing straight lines across barely explored parts of interior Africa nobody had any idea who lived where.

[Sword-dancer]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Democracy is based on the environment as much as anything. If a country is in a cultivated area requiring protection, at a time when protection is based on a hard-to-master weapons system it will end up as an aristocracy. Whatever it's name.

Maybe you ´d a knighthhood, not necessaily an aristocracy.

In Europe Free Men were part of the Military, like fyrd of the saxons or the swiss

[jason taylor]

"Maybe you´d a knighthhood, not necessaily an aristocracy."

Knighthoods have an unfortunate tendency to become aristocracies when there is nothing to balance them.

"In Europe Free Men were part of the Military, like fyrd of the saxons or the swiss"

Which is one reason European culture was able to bridle it's aristocracy. Not everybody can find a cheap military system or a robust middle class.

Furthermore both those examples are exagerrated. The fyrd was composed largely of thanes and the core of the Saxon military was carls. The Saxon aristocracy was, in it's Northern way less overweening then Central or Eastern European counterparts tended to be, not least because they were dragoons rather then heavy horse and had to fight on foot like peasants did when they turned out. But they were still aristocrats.

The Swiss had terrain as a force multiplier even if they hadn't rediscovered(or readapted) the phalanx.

The point is that you need a natural and economic environment friendly to democracy. Lush bottomland is usually not such.

[Sword-dancer]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

"Maybe you´d a knighthhood, not necessaily an aristocracy."

Knighthoods have an unfortunate tendency to become aristocracies when there is nothing to balance them.
.

tendencies yes, an automatic no,

In the Middle Ages, every free Household was needed to send one equipped man to the host of their Liege... the burghers of the flamish cities met French Knights on the battlefield.

Many man at arms were afaik free farmers in feudal Service, the Backbone of the englisch armies in the HYW were the longbowmen - Yeoman.

The swiss developed the Gewalthaufen, and they met foreign armies in open combat.

Their mountains were helpful, but i doubt without theirhigh morale, ruthless discipline and merciless dedication they would be as feared as they were on the battlefield nor so successful.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Sword-dancer

tendencies yes, an automatic no,

In the Middle Ages, every free Household was needed to send one equipped man to the host of their Liege... the burghers of the flamish cities met French Knights on the battlefield.

Many man at arms were afaik free farmers in feudal Service, the Backbone of the englisch armies in the HYW were the longbowmen - Yeoman.

The swiss developed the Gewalthaufen, and they met foreign armies in open combat.

Their mountains were helpful, but i doubt without theirhigh morale, ruthless discipline and merciless dedication they would be as feared as they were on the battlefield nor so successful.

Free farmers didn't usually do much service for the obvious reason that they were farmers. English longbowmen were hirelings; the militia stayed at home. Come to think of it the Swiss that went into valley country were also hirelings with those that just wanted to farm staying home. Farmers were also extended and vulnerable to chauvauchees. Burghers have the obvious advantages of walls and money. However I specifically included the economic environment because burghers did in fact stand up to nobles in many places including Germany.

The point is that there is required either a rich middle class or a warlike one or both which means there should be an area favorable to the development of such. Political aristocracy and the form it takes is a reflection of other aspects of culture. Moreover you are neglecting the point where I said "if it is dependent on an expensive weapons system requiring intense training." Much of Europe was able to find a system that did not require such as you just demonstrated. That cannot be counted on.