The Curious Republic of Gondour

Tannhauser

Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Orderite
Now this is a short story by Mark Twain, Samuel Clemens, with a political theme about it. I heard it mentioned years ago while reading a collection of essays on Robert Heinlein's controversial Starship Troopers, and I subsequently read the short story, as it is Twain, bound to be interesting. Recently, I was reminded about Gondour while speaking with Wooz.

I believe that the topic is such that many will find something to discuss, enjoy.

Mark Twain said:
The Curious Republic of Gondour

As soon as I had learned to speak the language a little, I became greatly interested in the people and the system of government.

I found that the nation had at first tried universal suffrage pure and simple, but had thrown that form aside because the result was not satisfactory. It had seemed to deliver all power into the hands of the ignorant and non-tax-paying classes; and of a necessity the responsible offices were filled from these classes also.

A remedy was sought. The people believed they had found it; not in the destruction of universal suffrage, but in the enlargement of it. It was an odd idea, and ingenious. You must understand, the constitution gave every man a vote; therefore that vote was a vested right, and could not be taken away. But the constitution did not say that certain individuals might not be given two votes, or ten! So an amendatory clause was inserted in a quiet way; a clause which authorized the enlargement of the suffrage in certain cases to be specified by statute. To offer to "limit" the suffrage might have made instant trouble; the offer to "enlarge" it had a pleasant aspect. But of course the newspapers soon began to suspect; and then out they came! It was found, however, that for once,--and for the first time in the history of the republic--property, character, and intellect were able to wield a political influence; for once, money, virtue, and intelligence took a vital and a united interest in a political question. For once these powers went to the "primaries" in strong force; for once the best men in the nation were put forward as candidates for that parliament whose business it should be to enlarge the suffrage. The weightiest half of the press quickly joined forces with the new movement, and left the other half to rail about the proposed "destruction of the liberties" of the bottom layer of society, the hitherto governing class of the community.

The victory was complete. The new law was framed and passed. Under it every citizen, however poor or ignorant, possessed one vote, so universal suffrage still reigned; but if a man possessed a good common-school education and no money, he had two votes; a high-school education gave him four; if he had property likewise, to the value of three thousand sacos, he wielded one more vote; for every fifty thousand sacos a man added to his property, he was entitled to another vote; a university education entitled a man to nine votes, even though he owned no property. Therefore, learning being more prevalent and more easily acquired than riches, educated men became a wholesome check upon wealthy men, since they could outvote them. Learning goes usually with uprightness, broad views, and humanity; so the learned voters, possessing the balance of power, became the vigilant and efficient protectors of the great lower rank of society.

And now a curious thing developed itself--a sort of emulation, whose object was voting-power! Whereas formerly a man was honored only according to the money he possessed, his grandeur was measured now by the number of votes he wielded. A man with only one vote was conspicuously respectful to his neighbor who possessed three. And if he was a man above the commonplace, he was as conspicuously energetic in his determination to acquire three for himself. This spirit of emulation invaded all ranks. Votes based upon capital were commonly called "mortal" votes, because they could be lost; those based upon learning were called "immortal," because they were permanent, and because of their customarily imperishable character they were naturally more valued than the other sort. I say "customarily" for the reason that these votes were not absolutely imperishable, since insanity could suspend them.

Under this system, gambling and speculation almost ceased in the republic. A man honored as the possessor of great voting-power could not afford to risk the loss of it upon a doubtful chance.

It was curious to observe the manners and customs which the enlargement plan produced. Walking the street with a friend one day, he delivered a careless bow to a passer-by, and then remarked that that person possessed only one vote and would probably never earn another; he was more respectful to the next acquaintance he met; he explained that this salute was a four-vote bow. I tried to "average" the importance of the people he accosted after that, by the nature of his bows, but my success was only partial, because of the somewhat greater homage paid to the immortals than to the mortals. My friend explained. He said there was no law to regulate this thing, except that most powerful of laws, custom. Custom had created these varying bows, and in time they had become easy and natural. At this moment he delivered himself of a very profound salute, and then said, "Now there's a man who began life as a shoemaker's apprentice, and without education; now he swings twenty-two mortal votes and two immortal ones; he expects to pass a high-school examination this year and climb a couple of votes higher among the immortals; mighty valuable citizen."

By and by my friend met a venerable personage, and not only made him a most elaborate bow, but also took off his hat. I took off mine, too, with a mysterious awe. I was beginning to be infected.

"What grandee is that?"

"That is our most illustrious astronomer. He hasn't any money, but is fearfully learned. Nine immortals is his political weight! He would swing a hundred and fifty votes if our system was perfect."

"Is there any altitude of mere moneyed grandeur that you take off your hat to?"

"No. Nine immortal votes is the only power we uncover for--that is, in civil life. Very great officials receive that mark of homage, of course."

It was common to hear people admiringly mention men who had begun life on the lower levels and in time achieved great voting-power. It was also common to hear youths planning a future of ever so many votes for themselves. I heard shrewd mammas speak of certain young men as good "catches" because they possessed such-and-such a number of votes. I knew of more than one case where an heiress was married to a youngster who had but one vote; the argument being that he was gifted with such excellent parts that in time he would acquire a good voting strength, and perhaps in the long run be able to outvote his wife, if he had luck.

Competitive examinations were the rule in all official grades. I remarked that the questions asked the candidates were wild, intricate, and often required a sort of knowledge not needed in the office sought.

"Can a fool or an ignoramus answer them?" asked the person I was talking with.

"Certainly not."

"Well, you will not find any fools or ignoramuses among our officials."

I felt rather cornered, but made shift to say,-- "But these questions cover a good deal more ground than is necessary."

"No matter; if candidates can answer these it is tolerably fair evidence that they can answer nearly any other question you choose to ask them."

There were some things in Gondour which one could not shut his eyes to. One was, that ignorance and incompetence had not place in the government. Brains and property managed the state. A candidate for office must have marked ability, education, and high character, or he stood no sort of chance of election. If a hod-carrier possessed these, he could succeed; but the mere fact that he was a hod-carrier could not elect him, as in previous times.

It was now a very great honor to be in the parliament or in office; under the old system such distinction had only brought suspicion on a man and made him a helpless mark for newspaper contempt and scurrility. Officials did not need to steal now, their salaries being vast in comparison with the pittances paid in the days when parliaments were created by hod-carriers, who viewed official salaries from a hod-carrying point of view and compelled that view to be respected by their obsequious servants. Justice was wisely and rigidly administered; for a judge, after once reaching his place through the specified line of promotions, was a permanency during good behavior. He was not obliged to modify his judgments according to the effect they might have upon the temper of a reigning political party.

The country was mainly governed by a ministry which went out with the administration that created it. This was also the case with the chiefs of the great departments. Minor officials ascended to their several positions through well-earned promotions, and not by a jump from gin-mills or the needy families and friends of members of parliament. Good behavior measured their terms of office.

The head of the government, the Grand Caliph, was elected for a term of twenty years. I questioned the wisdom of this. I was answered that he could do no harm, since the ministry and the parliament governed the land, and he was liable to impeachment for misconduct. This great office had twice been ably filled by women, women as aptly fitted for it as some of the sceptred queens of history. Members of the cabinet, under many administrations, had been women.

I found that the pardoning power was lodged in a court of pardons, consisting of several great judges. Under the old regime, this important power was vested in a single official, and he usually took care to have a general jail delivery in time for the next election.

I inquired about public schools. There were plenty of them, and of free colleges too. I inquired about compulsory education. This was received with a smile, and the remark,--

"When a man's child is able to make himself powerful and honored according to the amount of education he acquires, don't you suppose that the parent will apply the compulsion himself? Our free schools and free colleges require no law to fill them."

There was a loving pride of country about this person's way of speaking which annoyed me. I had long been unused to the sound of it in my own. The Gondour national airs were forever dinning in my ears; therefore I was glad to leave that country and come back to my dear native land, where one never hears that sort of music.

Thanks to Project Gutenberg, where I found a copy.
 
That's a nice reading and not a bad idea at that, unfortunately in the real world money gives one economical power and even political influence regardless of the morality of the individual...
I was wondering: what happens when a judge passes a bad decision, is he held responsible for it?
 
c0ldst33ltrs4u said:
I was wondering: what happens when a judge passes a bad decision, is he held responsible for it?

By this system there would probably be very few if any bad decisions, yet is your definition of bad corrupt, incompetent, politically motivated or something in between? In a sense all of these definitions would be minimized under this system owing to the loss of votes it would entail if you were exposed.

Yet in the end I don't think this would ever work. Man is not perfect enough, learned or not, to allow free education to all. This state would inevitably evolve into one that restricts the access of education to smaller social groups or requires the sponsoring of a certain number of votes before you can enter higher education, for example.

Another concern is the one vote for all men irregardless of education or income, when weighted so lightly against nine for a college diploma and others seems very familiar: three-fifths per slave anyone?

And where would the military land in this great and interesting social experiment? Would there be additional votes granted based on your rank? Would a Medal of Honor grant me additional votes? How about service time?

And its interesting you should mention Heinlein in this context Kotario, I've always wondered how our society would be different if the only people who could vote had served in the armed forces. It would fundamentally alter the composition of the elected government, that's for sure!

In the end, I find great irony in the idea that only some sort of benevolent despot would be able to wield enough power to install such an egalitarian system of government. What 'democratic' republic would ever give up its right to exist, really?
 
The common tie between Gondour and Starship Troopers is the fact that a vote or votes must be earned. In Gondour, each man has a single vote automatically and gains extra votes based on criteria. In Starship Troopers no one has an automatic vote, and it must be earned by Federal Service.

Actually, Murdoch, the "served in the Armed Forces" is a common misconception of the phrase "Federal Service." Actually, it refers to general government service, both military and civil. I remember the figure being that 95% of the positions are civil. The catch is that a volunteer has no choice in what they end up doing, anyone can end up on the front lines. Now, the problem is that Heinlein never clearly explained this in Starship Troopers, and the novel seems to indicate that only the Armed Forces eventually receive the right to vote. Heinlein cleared up this matter later, outside the novel, in the collection of his works Expanded Universe. Of course, the debate still waxes on, as it has for decades; it is quite possible that Heinlein changed his mind about the nature of Federal Service after publishing Starship Troopers. The other explanation is that because Starship Troopers was written in a span of weeks, in a fury by Heinlein after the Soviet Union violated it's agreement to stop nuclear weapons testing (something which Heinlein had predicted and actually organized a resistance to stopping nuclear testing since the Soviets wouldn't hold to the agreement anyway); Heinlein didn't explain things as clearly as he should have. In addition, it is worth pointing out that while serving in the Armed Forces, members cannot vote. It is only after they have completed their term of service and have been discharged do they gain that right.

In the end, I don't believe Starship Troopers or Gondour are serious attempts at creating a government. Rather they are representative of concepts.
 
A government and society based on merit, but with the assumption of the benevolence of men- an interesting idea. But as Murdoch points out, the trick would be in figuring out how to do it. It's also very pluralistic- each persons an individual and doesn't form associations with the like-minded. But we do know that people do form groups, that groups choose leaders, and that groups compete for a greater share of the goodies.
 
Mark Twain is mistaken. Gondor was an absolute monarchy, not a constitutional republic.
 
Graz'zt said:
Mark Twain is mistaken. Gondor was an absolute monarchy, not a constitutional republic.

:violent: -loads up on thermite and runs screaming at Teh Dark Lord-:violent:
 
Demon Prince of the Abyss casts Protection From Fire on himself.

Bring it on, microbiologist.
 
A Demon Prince of the Abyss who is unable spell. It's "Gondour," with a 'u.'

...and if he can't spell, how can he cast anything?
 
Methinks Kotario is stricken with the "thickness"-disease

't was a joke, K, and a funny one at that
 
The Draft

The Draft




Murdoch:
... I've always wondered how our society would be different if the only people who could vote had served in the armed forces. It would fundamentally alter the composition of the elected government, that's for sure!

You can see this, yesterday and today,as long as the generation of the 'Cold War Era' still maintain hearts and lungs, still pump blood and suck and blow air.


There was a military draft up to, what ... 1971, and 2 or more years of a draft lottery.

After that it became voluntary, so all the 'fresher' generations, wearing whatever coy alphabetical label, are not 'stressed' by the horns of a mandatory participation.


The slickly talented could 'dodge' and still achieve a privileged status.
Such elected politicals as Clinton and Chaney managed to exploit the deferments.


W. Bush showed up, and Gore and Kerry actually 'saw the elephant'. Compare their resumes and their 'electability', maybe only getting one's ticket punched with an "honorable' discharge is all that is required.

There is a back handed negative "constant' built into the political system.
We have an election system that loses 1, 2, 3 or more percent of the votes.
The variable seems to be poorly designed (butterfly) ballots and how many voting machines are NOT in the polling places, 3,4,5 ... 10 hour lines.



Conflicts of interest among voting officials is a sleeper issue.
States like FLORIDA AND OHIO have had Republican Secretaries Of State that were also in charge of Bush's campaign in these states in 2000 and 2004.

The Florida Secretary of State in 2000 -- laughed --- about the decade KNOW mess of elections in urban Florida. blew it off by saying ""they"" 'do it', [screw up], EVERY election. Votes not counting was a de facto reality in Florida. She is now in Congress. A reward or kicked upstairs?

The Ohio Secretary of State has gubernatorial ambitions and may be the nominee in 2006. Unless some other, non 2004, scandal sticks. The Republicans have been in control of Ohio long enough that the 'human' factor is coming into account: cronyism, and poor handling of public funds, the typical ''pay to play'' lobbyism.



Some votes ALREADY count more.

Some votes count less.

Some votes aren't counted at all.


AND, nearly most American ""citizens"", of those eligible, don't bother to register, and, or don't show up to vote, at all.

DODGING JURY DUTY, is often their fig leaf.



This utopia of Gondour? With the RIGHT world view. with the right sacred cow of a special interest, or special rights, why you can live it LARGE , right now.




4too
 
From "Old-time political satire" to "Blowing the Horn of Gondo(u)r". Just lovely...

Nice Kotario. I was actually the first to read that article of yours last night, but I didnt comment, because I didnt know what to say or how to critique it.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
By this system there would probably be very few if any bad decisions, yet is your definition of bad corrupt, incompetent, politically motivated or something in between? In a sense all of these definitions would be minimized under this system owing to the loss of votes it would entail if you were exposed.
I was thinking of something closer to home, Romania to be precise. In our marvelous democratic lands something fowl is afoot, well a lot of shit goes down but this is the jewel I was thinking of: judges can not be held responsible for the decisions they make, the verdicts they pass. Now picture this: during 50 years of communism many properties were taken from their rightful owners, hey that was the trend back then. After the revolution there was the small problem of giving those properties back. Now the rightful owner comes and claims his right, he has the papers to prove it but he is ignored; then he goes to court and surprise: although it should be an open and shut case the judge rules against him, although he has every right to get that house, terrain or whatever. He goes on and appeals to every Romanian court in the hierarchy, no change. Then he can go to an international court wich he does and he wins, easily. Now the Romanian state has to pay him damages, usually a nice round sum. Of course the Romanian judges got their hands greased to pass those bad sentences but now they can't be held responsible and part of the bribe just works it's way up to the higher officials in the ministry of justice, protection money. Bottom line: the owner of the property gets money from the state (tax payers), the judges get some green and the person/ firm who illegally took over the property gets to keep it, no sweat. what do you say about that?
 
Well, in the sense that a Gondour-like state would function based on competence and not greed or graft, then the Comunist state would have never come to power, expropriated the land, refused to return it or greased the hands of the justice ministry when reparations were ordered. Gondour is based on personal honor and respect, precepts which are antithetical to a patronage based system.

On another side though, you are trying to shoehorn a justice system whose origins are in a dictatorial state that felt the judiciary was an extension of its own power, not an independent body acting as a check to thatp power. Until courts in Eastern Europe are able to successfully separate those two branches the law will never prevail over the political establishment.
 
Back
Top