People Power and Progress

How democracy evolved and promoted progress

Risk & Progress explores risk, human progress, and your potential. My mission is to educate, inspire, and invest in concepts that promote a better future for all. Subscriptions are free. Paid subscribers gain access to the full archive and Pathways of Progress.

---

The story of human progress is not only one of energy and knowledge in the physical realm, but it is also a story about how humans found better ways of organizing themselves to solve problems collectively. From the invention of the limited liability corporation to the emergence of the modern university and the rise of international organizations like the UN, humans have explored many different approaches to self-organization. Nation-states have found, through centuries of trial and error, that democracy (broadly defined) is the most advantageous form of government. It is important, therefore, to understand why democracy emerged, replacing monarchies and dynasties, and how it may have contributed to the sustained human progress we have witnessed since the Industrial Revolution.

The State of Nature

As a species, we humans are fundamentally social creatures, driven by an eclectic mix of motivations, including self-interest and cooperation. Self-interest, however, reigns as the dominant motivating force. Therefore, a hypothetical “state of nature,” where there are no rules and no authority of any kind, will be marked by instability and conflict. Thomas Hobbes described this state as a “war of all against all,” where life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In this state, even if not everyone wanted to be aggressive, the fear of others being so creates paranoia and forces preemptive violence. To solve this, early humans banded together out of mutual benefit; they formed tribes and clans, creating informal “governments” where leaders, usually elders, enforced norms and standards of behavior.

These informal arrangements, however, did not scale beyond a tightly knit group of about 100-250 people, also known as the Dunbar limit, named for Robin Dunbar, who suggested that humans can maintain about ~150 stable social relationships simultaneously. Once the population of a particular unit passes this number, social pressure and reputation dynamics are no longer strong enough to enforce rules and norms. As the agricultural revolution took hold and the first permanent human settlements emerged, informal ties could no longer maintain order. We needed a new mechanism to solve collective action problems. Hobbes called this notion the “Social Contract,” where the governed surrender some freedoms in exchange for the creation of a sovereign ruler, the “Leviathan.”

In the agrarian era, the Leviathan usually took the form of a monarchy: power was vested in a single individual or bloodline. Many monarchs began as “warrior kings” who used the new surplus wealth and food created by agriculture to conquer nearby tribes and expand their territory and wealth. This “might makes right” leadership, however, was inherently unstable, for as soon as the monarch died, the system collapsed. To ensure continuity and stability, many monarchs adopted what Plato would call a “Noble Lie,” myths that the monarch was divinely endowed to rule. There were many variations of this “Noble Lie.” The Pharaohs of Egypt claimed to be god-kings, semi-divine themselves. The Kings and Queens of Europe didn’t go quite as far, but claimed a “Divine Right” to rule by God. The Emperors of China, meanwhile, ruled under a similar “Mandate of Heaven,” though unlike the former, the mandate could be lost if they were ineffective leaders.

If maintaining order were the only objective, one might ask, why do this song and dance to justify legitimacy? Why not just randomly pull a citizen off the street to serve as a ruler instead? Hereditary monarchies were probably more effective rulers on average because the ruling family tried to cultivate leadership skills in the bloodline. Would-be Kings and Emperors were privileged; they tended to be better educated and equipped for leadership. They had access to private tutors, experienced and trusted advisors, and could lean on the experience of their parents. Still, a single point of power came with an extreme trade-off; once in a while, you got a bad King…sometimes a “Mad King.” Roman Emperor Caligula, for example, began his reign promisingly but quickly descended into megalomania and sadism. He famously made his horse a senator, partook in random murders for pleasure, and built extravagant white-elephant projects, even as his people starved. Still, monarchies persisted as the dominant form of government for centuries because even a bad ruler is often better than no ruler at all.

Democracy

There were a few notable exceptions to this monarch-led agrarian world. Some societies elected to vest power in the citizenry instead. The word “democracy” is comprised of the Greek root words Demos, meaning people, and Kratos, meaning rule, literally “rule by the people.” Historically, however, democracies have varied widely in two key characteristics: 1) who those “people” are and 2) how their wishes and desires are aggregated into legislation and policy. Like the word itself, democracy as a form of government can trace its roots to the ancient Greeks. Athenians practiced a form of “direct” democracy, where the people (in this case, only free men) gathered, set the agenda, discussed, and voted on matters that affected all of Athenian society. 

In the book Open Democracy, author Hélène Landemore provides a rough overview of how Athenian democracy worked. Athens had several legislative bodies: The Boule or Council of 500, the Eklesia or People’s Assembly, the Nomothetai, and (by the 4th Century BC) the Courts. Members of these bodies were “elected” via sortition; the people were chosen at random, no elections, parties, or campaigning were required. To ensure fairness, the Greeks invented an ingenious randomization machine called a Klerotorian, which was used to select “representatives.” The Klerotorian featured horizontal rows of slots into which citizen tokens (essentially ID cards) were randomly inserted. Adjacent to these rows was a metal tube with a funnel at the top, into which black and white painted balls were dumped. Using a crank, the balls were allowed to fall down the tube one at a time. If a white ball emerged at the bottom, the first row was selected. If a black ball came out next, the second row was sent home, and so on.

The Council was comprised of 500 randomly selected individuals, chosen via Klerotorian, and empowered to set the agenda for the People’s Assembly. The People’s Assembly was an open forum of up to 8000 eligible men who could gather, deliberate, and vote. Attending the assembly required no election or appointment; so long as you were eligible and had some free time, you could walk to the agora and make your voice heard. Voting was typically done by a simple raising of hands, with the majority vote winning. The Nomothetai were boards of legislators, also appointed via sortition, who could edit and review existing laws if the People’s Assembly deemed it appropriate. The Courts were also assembled by lot and tasked with deciding judicial issues.

When it comes to Athenian democracy, most discussion today revolves around the People’s Assembly. In reality, however, the core of Athenian governance was the Council. The Assembly was often manipulated by skilled and well-connected orators who could persuade the masses to support or stand against measures set by the Council. The Assembly also favored wealthy men who had free time to participate in discussions and voting. Despite its many flaws, Athenian democracy flourished and helped spawn an incredibly innovative civilization, one that, despite its relatively small population, forms the bedrock of Western civilization and laid the foundation of much of today’s science, philosophy, and mathematics.

The End of Classical Democracy

Alas, the efflorescence of this early form of democracy withered; its spark was snuffed out by violence and conquest. Later, the Roman Republic devolved into the Roman Empire, laying the groundwork for “divine right” monarchies to take hold in Europe. The kingdom became seen as merely an extension of the monarch’s property; their authority was unquestionable by Earthly mortals and, for all intents and purposes, above any codified law. What emerged was a Feudal system whereby the monarch would provide land usage rights (fiefs) to nobles in exchange for their loyalty, protection, and tax revenue. The nobles, in turn, would use their power to subjugate their subjects, the serfs. Serfs were little more than slaves, with essentially no rights, bonded to the land, and forced to grow crops for themselves and the nobility.

In the Feudal system, roles and status were hereditary. Serfs remained serfs and nobles remained nobles; merit mattered little. It didn’t matter how smart you were, what ideas you had, or how hard you worked; your lot in life was set. Immutable and stable, but antithetical to progress. Like many early agricultural societies, the Feudal system was profoundly extractive. It extracted wealth from the people and funneled it to the nobility. Had society continued to be organized this way, modern civilization could not have emerged. The system was generally stable, but not conducive to progress, and still subject to the “Mad King" problem. In a pure monarchical system, there were no checks or balances against the misdeeds or poor decision-making of a King or Emperor. A bad policy move by a King, for instance, could cause damage that persisted for generations. As a consequence, some monarchies gradually developed checks on the King’s authority.

In 1215 England, noble landowners or “barons,” aggrieved by high taxes and arbitrary law enforcement, did the unthinkable: they rebelled against King John and forced him to sign the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta subjected the king to limits on his power for the first time, spreading some of this power among the barons. To ensure compliance, the Magna Carta created a council of 25 barons, which the King was required to consult for specific actions. By 1295, this council had evolved and enlarged. It now included not only nobility but also representatives from around the kingdom; Parliament was born. The nobles and representatives eventually coalesced into two “houses,” forming what is a “bicameral” Parliament. This structure persists to this day, with the House of Lords representing the “elites” and the House of Commons forming the “lower” house of representatives.

In Britain, continued power struggles between the monarchy and Parliament culminated in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which dethroned King James II and established the primacy of Parliament; the monarch was no longer in charge of the state. In the following century, the monarchy became increasingly dependent on Parliament. The Privy Council, once the executive branch of government, became overshadowed by the Cabinet, which was comprised of ministers and members of Parliament. Eventually, the “first among equals” minister became known as the “Prime Minister,” forming a new core of executive power.

In the late 18th Century, the United States, newly free from British colonial rule, borrowed some aspects of the British system but made important changes. Like Britain, America’s Constitution called for a bicameral legislature, but with an upper house staffed by representatives chosen by the state legislatures, not nobility. The Americans, fearing a powerful executive, created a Presidential system where the executive would be elected by the people instead of being selected from the ranks of the legislature. The Constitution also drew a sharp division of power between branches, curtailing the President's authority through the courts and Congress. Yet, America’s decision to vest democratic legitimacy in two branches of government, however, has led to its own unique set of challenges and dangers, which we will revisit. The US also borrowed the UK’s simple plurality voting system. That is, within their respective districts, the candidate with the most votes wins in a winner-take-all election.

In the industrial era after 1800, monarchies fell into terminal decline. The characteristics that made them effective in the agrarian era, static hierarchies and general conservatism, became liabilities in a rapidly changing world. Once these basic democratic structures were established, it didn’t take long for participation rights to expand. The Industrial Revolution created a new wealth-generating class of people, including shopkeepers, merchants, and industrialists, all vying for representation. In the United States, voting rights were initially limited to white, property-owning, adult males. By the 1820s, however, voting rights expanded to include non-property-owning males, then to non-white males (at least in theory) in the 1860s, and eventually to women in the 1920s. Britain and other democracies followed a similar path, gradually expanding the right to suffrage until it was universal, or at least very close to it.

As democracy spread to more nations, some improved upon the American and British plurality voting systems, instead preferring proportional representation in their Parliaments. This began with Belgium in 1899 but is a key feature of many democracies today. In a proportional system, parliamentary seats are allocated in proportion to the number of votes that a party receives in an election. With proportional representation, a wider variety of parties gain representation, forcing the formation of governing coalitions. This contrasts with plurality voting, where, according to Duverger's Law, two parties will almost inevitably dominate in a zero-sum contest for power. Concurrent with this development, some democracies have also eschewed upper houses entirely; the Danish Parliament is unicameral, as are many Nordic countries, though it is debatable whether or not this is ideal.

Why Democracy?

Humans need some means of organizing themselves; government is necessary. As Steven Pinker notes, “Chaos is still deadlier than tyranny.” This is why authoritarian regimes still exist; they are preferable to a state of nature. Very often, more destruction and despair result from the breakdown of authority than from the exercise of it. For most of human history, therefore, it was beneficial to have an authority figure, even if that figure was unjust, unfair, or even tyrannical. According to Pinker, however, democratic regimes proved superior over time because they “thread the needle” between anarchic chaos and suffocating totalitarianism. Democratic government can use just enough coercive force to prevent people from “preying on each other” while not being quite strong enough to “prey” on the people themselves.

Democracy also had the advantage of giving a voice to a more diverse crowd of interests. In Political Order and Political Decay, author Francis Fukuyama speculated that as economic and technological development progressed, it created an ever-expanding division of labor. From the old order spawned new “out-groups” like merchants, craftsmen, shopkeepers, etc., that sought political representation. In turn, though not without resistance, the political system opened up to these new groups, giving them a voice in policymaking and further dispersing decision-making power. What emerged was a self-reinforcing cycle. As the breadth of represented voices expanded, policymaking became increasingly inclusive, fostering better policies that enhanced growth and development, which in turn created more “out-groups.” This theory aligns well with the computational view of human society that we will examine next. The more knowledge a society contains, the more occupational specializations that emerge, each running its own “algorithm,” of sorts, raising the total available social “compute” and bringing additional material wealth. The advantage of democracy is its ability to bring these outgroups into the fold and ensure that their knowledge and wisdom become part of the collective decision-making process.

Modern State Building

Parallel to, but not directly resulting from, the transition to representative democracy was an effort toward professional state-building. Early governments, as we have seen, were patrimonial; wealth went in one direction, privilege and power went the other. Merit did not matter; only bloodline and loyalty. Asian states, such as China and Japan, however, built strong and relatively meritocratic administrations long before the invention of representative democracy. Their rule was authoritarian, “rule by law” rather than “rule of law,” but in many respects more effective than their Western counterparts. They employed civil service exams, for example, for the hiring of personnel, alongside impersonal and meritocratic systems of administration. The Asian tradition of strong technocratic administration continues to this day.

The West only began to catch up in the 19th Century as the system of patrimony began to crumble. This didn’t happen without great resistance. Over a century after signing the Constitution, for example, the American government was rife with nepotism, quid-pro-quos, and clientelism. Elected officials promised government jobs for friends, family, and supporters; not an effective way to run a state. Again, as the economy grew, new groups emerged who demanded greater professionalism and merit from staffers. In the US, for example, reports of undelivered mail piling up at post offices and inefficient customs houses forced the government to act. The pressure eventually resulted in civil service exams and a relatively meritocratic state by the time of the Great Depression.

The concept of a strong, technocratic, administrative bureaucracy, however, is often at odds with a democratic system that straddles the fine line between anarchic chaos and rigid authoritarianism. How can technocratic staffers operate effectively, given constantly shifting and contradictory mandates from elected representatives? How can they remain properly staffed with the best people when taxpayers are reluctant to pay civil servants’ salaries? This tension, I believe, will be one of the defining challenges facing democracy in the 21st Century.

---

Next in this series:

The Social Supercomputer

Previous:

Time Travelers