The vocabulary of democracy's architecture

We need a richer vocabulary to better describe the details of systems that work

We lack a rich vocabulary for describing what the architecture of democracy will look like in the future. I've been inventing words to better describe how I think democracy must adapt to increasing levels of specialization. Words like "decentralization" or "socialism" or "capitalism" are overused.

I've spent more than 20 years writing software, and when I write software I am offered a much richer vocabulary for the architecture of complex systems. Why don't we have such a rich vocabulary for the specifics of the political systems that we might build?

As to how democracy might adapt to increasing levels of specialization, I've been thinking of this system, which takes the trends of the last 100 years and carries them forward into the future. In particular, I assume our current system of committees will become independent legislatures. See what I wrote in “Committee size is the same as efficiency: the central bank versus the legislature.”

I refer to this as demodexio, a system that balances the people and the highly skilled specialists (dexio being Greek for "skilled"). We should want a nomenclature that is somewhat more precise than older phrases such as "checks and balances." And we should avoid those words that are overused.

There is also a need to start over and escape the historical baggage that comes from old words and old debates. Words such as "capitalism" and "socialism" have become completely meaningless. One group uses them as synonyms for "good" and "bad" while the other group uses them as synonyms for "bad" and "good."

demodexio — balancing the demo of the people with the skills of the highly trained; a democracy adapted for a complex society that has a high level of specialization. There are two variants, demodemodexio, in which the public elects the leadership of every branch of government, and demodexiodexio, in which the legislature appoints the leadership of every branch of government

demomastoria — the craftsmanship of democracy, in which the upper house of the legislature has only one power, which is to assign the powers of the other legislatures (this assumes hundreds of specialized legislatures, which replace the committee system that is now used by all Western democracies). The upper house of the legislature is the architect of the system, and by continuously amending the constitution they continuously update the design. See what I wrote in There is one correct way to amend a Constitution.

demoagora — a democratic and highly competitive market, in which corporations are owned by the government, in competition with one another, and generating wealth for society. Each corporation must be allowed to operate with total independence from the political process, which should be granted if we are to respect the ideal of demotemachio

demosofia — a democracy of wisdom, favoring the long-term majority over the short-term majority, for the short-term majority is full of angry bigotries that cause injustice, whereas the long-term majority is often cool enough to think of what is best for the most people. The USA Senate was a good step in this direction, though longer terms, with more staggering of turnover, and term limits to enforce the turnover, might be better. See what I wrote in Neo-Majoritarianism.

demooria — a democracy of limits, for freedom can only be maintained with a robust system of checks and balances; See what I wrote in How to save American democracy: end the Imperial Presidency.

demotemachio — a democracy of fragments, for government can only grow larger and larger if it is split into smaller and smaller highly specialized pieces; needed as a precursor if demooria is to be made meaningful

demoantikentro — a democracy that is decentralized via demotemachio, rather than being decentralized via geographic regions; needed as a precursor if demotemachio is to be made meaningful. Just as the Supreme Court and the Central Bank have their independence respected, every fragment of government must have its independence respected. demooria only works if the demotemachio fragments are truly antikentro

demodikastis — a democracy of magistrates, ensuring true demoantikentro, the judiciary elects its own leadership, and therefore the high court. Electing or appointing cannot be done by other branches of government, for it would undercut the independence of the judiciary. If the legislature is allowed to elect its own leadership, then the judiciary must be allowed to elect its own leadership.

demodiodia — a democracy of tolls, demoantikentro cannot be truly achieved unless each branch of government has its own separate source of revenue. Independent power comes from independent sources of money. Something like demoagora makes it easier to give each branch of government its own source of income.

demodomi — a democratic structure. Every design decision adds up to a particular demodomi, and different combinations of the possible choices will lead to different demodomi. Is there a perfect demodomi? Probably not, but perfecting the architecture of democracy is something a free people will strive towards over the course of the centuries.

demoperiochi — the democracy of regions. Both the USA and Canada have individual states/provinces that have a remarkable degree of freedom from the national government

Likewise, it would be useful to standardize the terms we use when talking about the modern enemies of democracy. In this case, disinformation/misinformation.

demagogue — populist leaders stir up the public, warn of Dolchstoßlegende,

demomágos — invisible magicians manipulate the public from inside the government (like when the CIA leaks rumors to the press)

demofími — rumors arising from the people (like the hysterics we see on social media)

Fred Brooks has said that the most exciting aspect of any design will come from what the designers say “no” to. In my case, I am inclined to say “no” to demoperiochi, the democracy of regions. I’ve no particular criticism of demoperiochi, except there is some wasteful redundancy in repeating the full architecture of government at both levels. If other people wanted it, I would go along with them, if it meant getting any of the reforms that I actually want. But it is not something I would fight for on my own.

But that doesn’t matter. Everyone will have their opinions about design decisions. What does matter is that we build a richer vocabulary so we can better talk about those design decisions.