From VitaminDWB:
Why are we so often satisfied with two dimensional information visualizations when we perceive reality in three dimensions and experience it through time, the 4th?
Our society spends a lot of time talking about democracy but rarely defines it. While the term comes from the Greek words ‘demos’ (people) and ‘kratos’ (power), many political scientists have abandoned it due to widespread misuse and instead use the term polyarchy, which means ‘many rule.’ It was convincingly inserted into the academic lexicon by the the political scientist Robert Dahl in his book ‘Polyarchy.’
Dahl proposes that all political systems can be places on a graph with two axis: competitiveness and inclusiveness. Competitiveness asks who can compete for political office. Inclusiveness asks who can vote. These concepts become clear when comparing the political systems of America and Israel. America is less competitive than Israel because America has two popular political parties that regulate competition while Israel has dozens of popular parties that enable more people to compete. However, America is more inclusive than Israel because more Americans have been enfranchised with the ability to vote.
Dahl’s definition of polyarchy is good, but it’s not complete. His graph doesn’t account for the most powerful force in politics: information distribution. Those who control access to information have tremendous political power because they can amplify certain elements within society and silence others.
Transparency addresses the issue of information distribution. In a state with positive transparency, information flows between government and society efficiently. In a state with negative transparency, misinformation flows between government and society, enabling a secretive ruling class to exploit the general public.
By adding transparency to Dalh’s polyarchy graph as the third dimension, the possibility a relationship between competitiveness and inclusiveness arises within a 3D space. This possibility becomes reality in the graph z=x^3 + y^3. In this graph, a positively transparent society would appear in the top left area of field while a negatively transparent society would appear in the bottom right area one.
The graph makes a good deal of sense. A society that is inclusive but not competitive has a negative transparency because a lot of people are supporting a poor selection of leaders, making the construction of false realities essential to convince people the situation is acceptable. A society that is competitive but not inclusive is highly transparent because each included individual receives an unusually high return on his or her ability to select high quality leaders. In the real world, a highly inclusive but minimally competitive government like the Soviet Union had a vast propaganda machine while the highly competitive but relatively non-inclusive post-revolution America had a thriving, decentralized information distribution businesses. Adding the fourth dimension of time would allow us to animation different society’s path along this field over time.
A common understanding of political imperative is transformational. Imagine if America adopted a foreign policy rooted in transparency advocacy. Our policies could be simple: free trade with transparent societies and regulated trade with opaque ones.
Source: Political Structure In 3D
