Selectorate Theory/Rules for Rulers/The Dictator's Handbook/

Post Reply New Topic

There is a decent write up of the Selectorate Theory at wikipedia:

Some additional material on selectorate theory:
Case Studies in Selectorate Theory: Successes, Failures, and Alternate Explanations
by Corinne Rockoff, Carnegie Mellon University
http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewconte ... =hsshonors

The Logic of Political Survival
By Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson and James D. Morrow
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/logic-political-survival

"Econotalk" interview with Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (Approx 1 hour 7 minutes)

There is certainly some merit to his theory.

Corruption is a bit more complicated still, but this theory summarises some key points an strategies in holding power. It doesn't cover so much the details of obtaining power (other than gaining support) especially where there fewer agents of influence. That has a lot more complicated human behavioral aspects which are difficult to pin down.

I suspect that some may use this theory as a defense of big government, which would be missing the point. Big government is neither inherently more democratic nor does it the necessary fractured power on its own. Big government is not simply a proportional government. This is a misunderstanding of what is meant by big government. It really refers to excessive control, bureaucracy, interference in daily life, and especially excessive centralisation. This, if anything is about consolidating power not distributing it.

I have always argued that fractured power is good and also that constant political fallout, scandal, etc that we experience are better than the cloak enforced stability. This natural wastage is as much a part of democracy as voting itself. I don't think Black Swan Theory is perfect by any means, but it true that it generally better to have a system that expects an allows for turbulence and failure that one that doesn't until the damn bursts.

On the other hand you can't take fracture power to the point of total direct democracy, that is an impossibility. Direct democracy is mostly used as a political gimmick by politicians that are fully aware of its flaws. Yes you can have the odd referendum, but at great expense and time. There is not substitute for governance.

One thing Selectorate theory doesn't do is discriminate. Parties may use it for party political aims, but in reality it applies across the board.

What is interesting is the historical transition towards the current political system. For instance UKs democracy started out about preventing the Barons from revolting. Even though this period was not democratic, it set some legal principles that are cornerstones of modern democracies. Just the protected subjects have changed to include a more representative group, the electorate.

It's a totally non-partisan perspective.

I don't think it has much to say about big vs. small government, but rather is the base of keys to power large or small. Would be leaders who have to manage large coalitions of keys will have a harder time gaining and retaining power than those who can rule with smaller coalitions and this is true in democracies and autocracies alike.

The idea that maintaining power is the primary occupation of all rulers and that managing coalitions of key backers is their means does have some implications for systems, but not for positions on the political spectrum within those systems.

It is interesting to look at British history through this lens. John's problems with Baron management and the treasury leading to Magna Carta, the Peasant's Revolt, The Wars of the Roses, The Civil War--the struggle to secure and maintain effective coalitions is clear.

This is why my Aunt says do not vote the incumbent no matter what. Forget partisan politics. Always vote for the n00b.

N00bs have to curry favor with key interests if they are ever to build the coalitions that will drive them to power. Being a n00b is no defense against the logic of political power.

These insights may seem depressing, but they work for noble purposes as much as for evil ones. As long as the person with the noble purpose is a realist and not a romantic or idealist, they will be able to use an understanding of these dynamics to advance their noble ends (As long as they are not too noble in a way that means not taking care of their key supporters.)

The book jacket blurb from James Woolsey is interesting from that perspective:

Very interesting.

The missing element is multinational players.

One mistake that parties that have made across the board is look for large quick fixes for deprived areas in the form of large multinationals. As this is a brokered deal, these companies can play countries off one another for the best deal. However a pull out is always possible, which make these area vulnerable as they lack economic diversity for this reason.

I'm not against global trade, in fact I'm a trade liberal. I'm against this sort of relationship between corporation and government, rather then independent trade.

If a democracy becomes highly dysfunctional for an extended period, then other keys to power may step in and alter the system.

If the military and police do not feel that the democratic system is supporting them, and oligarchs offer an alternative with greater financial reward and more power for military and police, they may alter the system through a coup d'etat.