This post attempts to add a constructive perspective building on Balaji Srinivasan's essay "The Network Union", which is a part of a bigger series called the "The Network State". Specifically, it attempts to expand on ideas around meritocracy and how meritocracy could be "coded" into a network union.
Frankly, I'm fascinated by the “The Network State” series (https://1729.com/tag/the-network-state/), as many of the values and visions highlighted deeply resonate with my own and the concepts open a light to save many global citizens from potentially existential dead-ends. I look forward to continuing to learn from the 1729 community and I'd hope that as "The Network State" series continues, there would be a developing network of like-minded people around the world who are open to dialogue, sharing ideas, co-learning, and testing out concepts (legally, of course). I've also forwarded the series to a couple of blockchain, FinTech, and legal professionals in my network who are actively building tech in a part of the Global South.
Again, this follow up piece is a not a direct regurgitation of Balaji’s insightful points, as you may directly find them succinctly outlined here: https://1729.com/network-union/
With regard to leadership and leadership formation, Balaji had pointed to a difference between founding and inheriting, with elections being an example of the latter, through which politicians "inherit" an existing institution by being good at winning a popularity contest. I'd like to expand on this point.
Imagine if you are on an airplane, and the people on that plane will choose the pilot based on a vote. The loudest mouth or the person who least offends the majority wins the pilot seat. Now, the winner of this contest may or may not have actual experience flying a plane, and may also decide that twitting offensive remarks each day constitute a part of the job.
This sounds quite insane! And yet, in this way, we elect national leaders whose decisions could steer the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and whose fingers could wrap around nuclear codes, evoking a Dr. Strangelove imagery.
But…one could play devil's advocate, and point out that elected generalists could always appoint "specialists" for technical functions akin to "steering a plane."
Now, imagine if General Electric were to give each employee one vote to select the next CEO, who could arguably be a high level generalist that would in term appoint VPs in functional roles. But instead of country managers with proven track records of year-to-year growth or executives with proven track records of company turnarounds, the next CEO with the highest number of votes could, in theory, be the person promising all employees free lunches and higher Christmas bonuses.
That would also sound insane. But…one could still play devil's advocate, and point out that, actually, shareholders (and including employees who hold shares) vote for the board of directors, which in turn selects the CEO (similar to how votes in a parliamentary system would elect the winning party, which in turn determines the next prime minister).
Nonetheless, shareholders' votes for board members would be proportionally weighed based on their shares or interests or stake. And it would seem to be unfair for all token holders in a proof-of-stake concensus protocol to hold equal voting power, no matter the stake.
After watching the 2020 U.S. elections unfold and watching subsequent violent divisions as well as unscientific claims of an election being stolen, I don't blame anyone who starts to question electoral "democracy", which feels at times like a buzz word repeated multiple times to supposedly represent "good" — yet most of us on a 9-to-5 probably don't have too much time to reflect on what the term really means. I also feel that, to an extent, some of the present rhetoric around "democracy versus autocracy" rings hollow.
Judging from responses to the global pandemic — which arguably was a true field test of how effectively nation states, regions, and cities really could organize for the benefit of their people — some of the biggest democracies around the world had failed, and so did some countries led by leaders with autocratic leanings. And yet, at the same time, other countries widely accepted as democracies succeeded effectively, and so did select countries that are labeled by the media as autocracies.
So, perhaps, the most crucial ingredient isn't democracy or autocracy, but something else. Maybe…meritocracy? A "democracy" without fundamentally meritocratic ways of selection and without an educated electorate could trend toward becoming (if it is not already one) a plutocracy. Meanwhile, an "autocracy" that stresses education for its people and instills fair, responsible, and meritocratic selection mechanisms to the top could still defy expectations and succeed. Ok…at this point, I won't be too explicit in pointing out which countries specifically (that may spark a debate), but arguably there are a number of countries that could fit the above designations.
I had a discussion with D, a friend who used to work at the United Nations, and we tried to brainstorm ways in which democracy and meritocracy could be combined with discipline. We were probably too naive. We asked: Why can't there be more qualifications to the presidency just like in any other job description? Prior governing experience — being mayor or governor with reasonable track record — seemed like a potentially basic and good requirement. (This would require an amendment and likely get stuck on the Congress floor.) We also asked: Can there be some type of certification exam that voters need to take and pass before being qualified to make educated choices based on policy rather than whim or dogma? (This exam would likely get corrupted in some way or inadvertently bias against certain groups, like how earlier IQ tests biased against non-English native language speakers.)
What I took note from this earlier discussion with D was that meritocracy may not only apply to the leader/candidate, but also to the voter/constituent. Tim Urban's Wait But Why series The Story of US (https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/08/story-of-us.html) explored four levels of the thinking ladder: 1) The Scientist (open minded seeking truth and merit); 2) The Sports Fan (cheerleading but still respectful of merit and truth); 3) The Lawyer (taking a side and trying to find "legal" ways to get there); 4) The Fanatic (Uncompromisingly crusading by all means possible). At worst, "democratically elected" leaders from any political party can act like Lawyers and their voters can behave like Fanatics. It would be good to design systems that to a large extent ensure that both leaders/candidates as well as voters/constituents act more like Scientists.
Back to the network union. Perhaps, there could be pilots in network unions that could encode more meritocratic mechanisms for both the leader as well as the constituent. Balaji had introduced the concept of backlinks — both in quality as well as quality — as a way to measure a leader's weight. The more supporters (or expressions of support) that are of high quality, the more weight for the leader. Backlinks could potentially also apply to the voters/supporters themselves. Voters would also be weighted based on their own number and quality of backlinks. And this could ultimately be a fractal pattern of backlinks.
One next question would be: how do we fairly and quantifiably measure the quality of a backlink to ensure the system is meritocratic? One potential way is for the network union to encode via smart contracts rules and perhaps even a point system. For example, in a network union focused on environmental protection, those who are ecologists and environmental scientists may be assigned more points in the beginning. Those who contribute to active environmental research may be assigned additional points based on the number of published and reviewed papers. Hence, someone who has the support of a large number of environmental leaders who themselves have the backing of numerous specialists who score high points based on their research contribution work is more likely to represent merit.
Additionally, the smart contract(s) could tie each voter's score weight/score to the performance (based on consensus metrics) of the leader who he/she supported. If the elected leader performs poorly, points are deducted; conversely, if the elected leader performs well, points are added. Hence, the voter would have an incentive to support or vote based on merit instead of bias, to educate in depth on key issues (and thus be less vulnerable to corruption, misinformation, or influence), and to behave more like a Scientist instead of a Sports Fan, Lawyer, or Fanatic.
Ok, that's all for now. I'd love to continue the dialogue with the 1729 community to continue learning, brainstorming network unions, and exploring associated ideas. My email: obrigado369@yahoo.com.
