What can the Network States learn form Gandhi’s ideas for democracy?
The importance of localism in governance or how do we keep the network state from repeating the same mistakes of the current Nation States
“Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose center will be the individual always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to perish for the circle of villages, till at last, the whole becomes one life composed of individuals … The outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its strength from it.”
Mahatma Gandhi, from The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi
The Aundh Experiment
Aundh state was a small region in Maharashtra, India 1298 square kilometers in size with a population of about 80,000 with an interesting past. It was an independent Kingdom with an independent king, but in November of 1938, the ruler of the small province of Aundh, Raja Bhavanrao Srinivasrao, decided to abdicate his throne. He announced that all state matters will, from now on, be overseen by the citizens of Aundh themselves. These were the pivotal years of the Indian nationalist movement, the desire for change was in the air. The king decided to send an envoy to Mahatma Gandhi looking for advice on drafting a new constitution. A 'Swaraj Constitution of Aundh' was drafted with the assistance of Mahatma Gandhi and Maurice Frydman, a Polish engineer, and Gandhian. The Aundh experiment was one of the earliest adoptions of the idea of ‘'Swaraj' (Self Rule) and ‘Sarvodya’ (Upliftment), as imagined by Gandhi. It was also the first case of local self-government in any of the princely states of India. But most importantly, it was the closest version of Gandhi’s political vision put into practice. The current Indian constitution is a compromise between many stakeholders, but the aundh constitution was solely based on Gandhian ideals - Self Rule and Non Violence.
The structure of the Aundh Constitution
The structure of the constitution was quite simple. The primary unit of administration was a village panchayat. This village panchayat, comprising five elected representatives, would be elected by the whole village, including women (universal franchise was not adopted in India till after independence), and would be responsible for all daily and long-term affairs of the village. In Gandhi’s words, “education, protection, development, law, and order should be the responsibility of the village panchayat”. The five elected representatives would elect a president, a figurehead for the village. Presidents from about twenty to thirty of the villages would come together to form a taluka at the regional level; they would, in turn, elect a president of the taluka. Three members from each taluka, including the president, and five experts appointed by the King would come together to form the central assembly under the guidance of the King.
Even though at first glance, the administration takes the form of a pyramid structure, strict limitations have been put on the powers of the central assembly and taluka over the decisions of the individual village panchayats. The central idea was - power reduces towards the center. Local issues would not be governed by the center, the king was a figurehead, the central assembly was an advisory body and the talukas had strict restrictions. The constitution even demands that all legal disputes within the village must be settled in the village. The structure of the government, by its very nature, is highly decentralized.
The central Idea presented in the constitution
The constitution of Aundh, much of which had been dictated by Mahatma Gandhi himself, was an experiment in designing a state-based primarily in ahimsa, non-violence. Ahimsa or non-violence remained one of Gandhi's central concerns in his political and philosophical work. It comes as no surprise that Gandhi's theory of state stems from his understanding of ahimsa.
According to Gandhi, the Western conception of a state, by its very nature, was inconsistent with the values of non-violence. Gandhi considered the state as a representation of violence in a concentrated and organized form. He dreaded the power of the State, even if it attempts to limit abuse and give welfare since it destroys individuality, which lies, according to him, at the root of all progress. Gandhi, in his book Hind Swaraj, provides a scathing critique of the British form of parliamentary democracy. Gandhi calls attention to the fact that members of Parliament are often deceptive and selfish. Every member thinks about his own self-interest. He hates that individuals from Parliament take no genuine enthusiasm for the matter of the Parliament. He contends how 'when greatest questions are debated, its members have been seen to stretch themselves and doze’. He adds that the Prime Minister is more worried about his own power rather than the welfare of the state.
Given this non-alignment of interests between the government and its people, Gandhi saw the state as one of the greatest coercive forces. His issues aren't with a particular political party or individual, his outlook only highlights the clashing incentives of the governed and the governing. Gandhi's characterization and suspicion of the statestems from four issues;
The centralized nature of the state puts too much power in the hands of a few and makes them susceptible to corruption.
Centralized government puts too much distance between the ruler and the ruled, the relationship between them turns impersonal
The centralization and coercive power of the state seem to be consistently increasing with time.
The state by its very nature can't be peaceful. A "nonviolent state" is, for him, a logical inconsistency in wording as it is historically the leading perpetrator of violence.
Because of these issues, Gandhi advocated for ‘Swaraj’ or self rule, and decentralization of the state as a means to achieve it. Despite the suspicion of a powerful state, Gandhi still acknowledged the necessity of a state. The state has a monopoly on violence, but this monopoly ultimately reduces overall violence. He recognizes the same thing that many do, the state is still required. The need is to restructure the state into a different structure rather than abolish the state altogether. Gandhi believed that decentralization could curb the coercive nature of the state, the Aundh constitution was an experiment in achieving it.
Soon after the formation of the Indian government, a "minor officer" arrived in late 1947 with the document of merger which posited that the kingdom of Aundh was to be annexed to the Republic of India. Appa Pant (son of the King) recalls that "Father signed the document of the merger in front of the Deity, the household image. Three times he loudly repeated Jai Jagadamba!' and then fell silent.”
Why does the state feel coercive?
The state structured around a village, seems too idealistic for today’s globalized and highly interconnected world. In my opinion, it seems too idealized, even if we lived in the 20th century when it was written. Yet, there are a lot of lessons to be learned from the Aundh experiment, the most important of which is the idea of localism in governance. For an audience interested in The Network State, as described by Balaji Srinivasan, localism might seem absolutely antithetical to an idea of a geographically globalized Network State. But in my opinion, as we attempt to unbundle and re-bundle the very idea of a nation state, localism should be of primary importance. Localism, not in geography, but between the governed and the governing. Reducing the distance between the decision makers and the people facing consequences.
Ethan Buchman, co founder of the Cosmos ecosystem, has talked a lot about the relationship between stakeholders and state machines. A complete explanation of the topics can be found in his talk here
TLDR: Every system is made of two components, stakeholders and state machines. Stakeholders care about something that is affected by the system, that are coordinating with each other. The state machine is something that has some state and it has rules for how the state transitions over time for how it processes inputs and turns them into outputs. In most cases the point of that state machine is to represent the interests of the stakeholders and to achieve something for the benefit of the stakeholders.
In the case of a nation state. Stakeholders can include individuals, local communities, civil society organizations, businesses, and other groups. Each stakeholder brings different perspectives, needs, and interests to the table, and their engagement and collaboration can help to build a more inclusive and responsive nation-state.
State machines, on the other hand, are formal or informal structures that govern the functioning of the state. These structures can include laws, regulations, bureaucratic institutions, and even cultural codes - all mechanisms that help to organize and coordinate the activities of the state. In an emergent nation-state, state machines must be designed to be flexible, adaptive, and responsive to the needs and aspirations of the citizens.
In my interpretation of Gandhi’s ideas, most of the problems with a system occur when the state machine loses alignment with the stakeholders. A typical example, as emphasized by Balaji, would be that the interests of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of america, no longer align with that of participants in the medical system.
But why is an organization like the FDA a stakeholder in the medical system in the first place?
Well, not all stakeholders of a system have the same interest. Here we run into the general problem - how do we decide the rules, when nobody agrees. Typically, in democracies, the answer has been two fold - either we let elected leaders decide the rules, or we bring in a ‘neutral’ third party, in most cases the other two branches of the government. Someone who can weigh all the pros and cons, and make a decision without self interest.
Both cases have their issues. In the first case, elected leaders tend to not be subject matter experts in the field they are making a decision about. In the second case, what is supposed to a neutral third party - either a judge or an official from a federal agency - is never neutral. The decision making is centralised to a few decision makers. The second case is far more dangerous, as over time these decision makers, can get out of sync form the people effected by their decisions as there is not mechanism for correction. Elections are one way to establish reflexivity in the system - realign the governing with the governed. Yet many parts of the state with the right to exercise coercive power do not have any form of reflexivity, i.e. their decisions and actions can be in complete misalignment with the people facing it’s consequences.
In the case of the FDA, the problem is that the stakeholders, the people using the medical system, and the people running the medical system have become misaligned with the decision maker the FDA. The third party has taken over the system almost completely. They are appointed in a manner that is far removed from both the people using the medical system, and the medical institutions themselves but. Ultimately, they have significantly reduced all individual agency from the system.
Localism in Governance
If we create a network state that is decentralized in geography, but has the same top down governance structures for regulation. We will end up with the same issues as before. The regulation and governance should be emergent. They should come from network approval rather than central or third party approval. This is the idea that a thousand people rating an Uber driver is a better mechanism than the state of New York issuing a taxi medallion.
Fundamentally, this system is less coercive than the centralized authority system, because the power and gatekeeping exists in the aggregate, rather than an individual organization. This reduces the opportunity for corruption, quid pro quos, and bureaucratic inertia. The system gets better at doing what it is supposed to, in the case of Uber rating, to tell if the taxi driver is good enough and reliable enough to offer you the taxi service.
The greatest issue with centralization, is that we abstract away information as we generalize. As Gandhi points out, when there is too much distance between the ruler and the ruled, the relationship between them turns impersonal. There is major loss of context; many times a generalized rule might not work in a specific situation.
The main idea from Balaji's book is to unbundle and unbundle the nation state. On the other hand, Gandhi asks to keep power within the village. There is a common argument in both. The current methods of state centralization, pulls away the decision makers from the people who are affected by the decisions. Their motivations and incentives are not at all aligned. This needs to change.
Localism does not need to be geographic localism. While Gandhi is writing about centring the structure around the village, the village does not have to mean a specific location, it’s a network of people.
In summary, I argue that as people look to build the network states, they should keep this problem in mind. Localism will entail aligning the stakeholders and state machines in one specific area, in an attempt to maintain it’s autonomy. The decision of the head of the FDA, should not be based on which political candidate was preferred by farmers in Iowa. We get localism back by making small autonomous systems that interact with but are not completely dependent on other systems. Localism means that people with the local information are the ones making the local decisions, that in my opinion is alignment. My hope is that as network states come to life, they act a medium for innovation in the technology of human coordination.
We build leaderless societies that start with local circles, and then merge with other local circles to control the federal level from the bottom up the way it as supposed to be. We also make the governance systems of Network states 100% transparent. And we have measures of trust between citizens.
We also advocate for using collective intelligence systems (SWARM INTELLIGENCE) systems like this along with Network States and Bitcoin to fix all of the corrupt governments and systems:
https://joshketry.substack.com/p/how-to-fix-corrupt-government-in