The myth of Katechon

These brain-damaged morons manage to enact excellent government with one simple trick.

Let's step away from reality for a moment, because sometimes an extreme fictional situation can offer a clarity that the real world lacks. We will talk about the nation of Katechon. This small island nation was supposed to be governed as a direct democracy, but a terrible plague had swept the nation leaving everyone with brain damage, so that no one could remember things for more than a few weeks. As such, political gatherings tended to bring together a mass of people who were overly perturbed by recent events, but unable to remember long-term concerns unless they were somehow reminded of those concerns by recent events. Gathered together these people amounted to an ignorant, angry, hysterical mob. Only one person was spared this terrible plague. Aware that a fully functioning brain was both rare and also useful in government, the people made this person the Chairman of the assembled crowd.

Can a government produce good laws if it is run by an ignorant, angry, hysterical mob that suffers from amnesia? Surprisingly, the answer can be a yes. Katechon had the happy rule that all laws had to be voted on twice, with the two votes separated by ten years. Thankfully the Chairman recalled this rule, and reminded the assembled public of it often.

An example of how this rule lead to good government:

One day a Brazilian person robbed some other citizen. The assembled public agreed this was an outrage. They immediately passed a law declaring that all Brazilians should be put to death.

A week later an Algerian person robbed some other citizen. The assembled public agreed this was an outrage. They immediately passed a law declaring that all Algerians should be put to death.

A week later a Norwegian person robbed some other citizen. The assembled public agreed this was an outrage. They immediately passed a law declaring that all Norwegians should be put to death.

A week later a citizen was driving to the assembly, when their car hit a huge pot hole. This was clearly an outrage. They proposed a law authorizing more spending on infrastructure. Other voters had also hit pot holes, so they all voted for the law.

A week later a citizen took their daughter to school where they noticed that school building was falling apart, with a broken heater and poor insulation and leaks in the roof. This was clearly an outrage. They proposed a law authorizing more spending on the schools. Others had also taken their children to school, and so, knowing the poor condition of the schools, they all voted for the law.

In every case the Chairman reminded them the laws could not take effect for ten years, and only if a second vote approved the law, at that future date.

Dutifully, when ten years had passed, the Chairman reminded them of the bills from ten years before. No one could remember why they'd been angry with Brazilians, Algerians, or Norwegians, so those bills were defeated at the second vote.

However, the situation with the roads had gotten even worse. The pot holes were everywhere and as people had driven to the assembly hall they had nearly destroyed their cars in the now gargantuan craters in the roads. The bill authorizing more infrastructure spending on the roads was approved overwhelmingly. And likewise, the situation with the schools had grown even worse, and everyone was now aware that their children were going to school in buildings that were falling apart. So the bill authorizing more spending for the schools was overwhelmingly approved.

In this way, an ignorant, angry, hysterical mob that suffers from amnesia can still pass good laws, because all of the bills that arise from short-term panics are eventually defeated, but those bills that deal with the public's long-term concerns, such as funding for the roads or the schools, successfully become laws, exactly because the concerns around these issues persist over time, and reassert themselves in everyday life.

I've mentioned before that I spent 20 years writing software, and my career informs my political thinking. In the world of software, developers must work with unreliable hardware that often burns out, plus unreliable software that is full of bugs, plus unreliable networks that often drop messages, and out of this mass of unreliable parts, a reliable system needs to be built. How is this done? With a large dose of redundancy. For instance, when sending messages over a network, software can send the same message several times, to be sure that it is received at least once. There are communication systems where 99% of all messages are lost, yet the messages are still reliably delivered, because at least one message is delivered, after multiple attempts. A similar strategy can work to ensure that good laws come out of terrible governments. Multiple votes is a kind of redundancy, a filter that limits the spam that might otherwise become law.

The people of Katechon wait ten years to finalize a law. With this simple rule in place, the worst government in the world ends up passing laws that are good for all of society. Even though 99% of all the laws proposed are both stupid and harmful, the laws that get passed tend to be beneficial, because they arise from the long-term needs of the people.

(This short bit is stolen from a longer essay about amending the constitution.)