Vladimir Okhotnikov is a publicist, thinker, skilled in IT and blockchain. Vladimir is a widely known critic of state regulation coverage and an advocate of enterprise freedom.
Vladimir Okhotnikov about centralized management system
Conventional public administration relies on a centralized hierarchical system. Centralization implies a superior-subordinate relationship when the superior decides and the subordinate executes it. At first sight such a system appears probably the most pure, and governance programs of States and companies are based mostly on it.
By and enormous, the distinction, for instance, between a monarchy and a republic lies within the know-how of a pacesetter election.
Even the direct democracies of antiquity, when choices had been taken by voting within the sq., eventually led to the selection of a pacesetter.
The search and choice of the chief, the chief, is a sample of habits that comes from the animal world, and due to this fact appears probably the most pure. The human being is the essence of society, and the survival of a group requires a system of fast and efficient choices. Nothing like a centralized hierarchy to start with.
«People by nature dwell inside paradigms from which it is vitally tough to get out. A centralized system of presidency appeared to be the one potential one till a second. The discussions targeted on the personalities of the leaders. The best of social group was the state led by a clever ruler. It was inconceivable to think about a state and not using a chief, the identical seemingly smaller constructions. Right here the inertia of thought was intensified by the energetic rejection of alternate options by the ruling courses. The idea of clever ruler is discovered amongst thinkers of all occasions and peoples – from Confucius to trendy philosophers…»
Vladimir Okhotnikov
The chief could also be one particular person, or it could be a collective physique, it doesn’t play a elementary function by way of the general design of the administration system. A subordinate doesn’t care whose orders to comply with – one monarch or a big parliament.
The evolution of the social order has tended to create and complicate procedures for figuring out the decision-maker. Theoretically, the procedures are geared toward maximizing the opinions of all members of society and selecting probably the most succesful people as the top.
Is democracy actual?
At present, democracy, and even liberal democracy, is offered as the best mannequin for constructing society. It was her American thinker and political scientist Francis Fukuyama who proclaimed a super, a degree of perfection, after which any social improvement turns into meaningless. It’s the top of the story.
Nonetheless, it turned out that expectations didn’t coincide with actuality in any respect. In direction of the top of the story, we have now an extended and surprising solution to go.
The issue shouldn’t be the incorrect beliefs of democracy, they’re stunning. The difficulty is their feasibility. Can a really democratic society be constructed and endure for lengthy? Fukuyama’s claims have been refuted by the observe. Why? Why didn’t the attractive beliefs of democracy conquer the world and set up paradise on Earth? What is usually known as democracy is in actual fact a standard centralized system of presidency. The essential characteristic of democracy is elections designed to find out the decision-maker. Elections are based mostly on quite a lot of guidelines and procedures that ought to guarantee representativeness and credibility of outcomes. Evidently actually the most effective folks must be chosen, capable of make the simplest choices, reflecting the need of the bulk and, in fact, taking into consideration the opinion of the minority.
Nonetheless, if we have a look at actuality and assess the personalities of determination makers and the outcomes of their actions, then we have now critical doubts concerning the correctness of the selection. Do we actually have presidents and premiers in nations that decision themselves democracies – fashions of effectiveness and give attention to the most effective?
The primary downside with elections is that they work completely in small communities the place there may be direct communication between all group members and the candidate. Everybody is aware of one another and is guided by goal data and expertise. Ideally, the most effective group chief could be chosen. Actuality is completely different from ideally suited since manipulation and stress on voters are at all times potential.
The scenario adjustments basically if there’s a candidate not identified in the neighborhood, or the group is just too giant, and its members can not know everybody.
On this case, voters don’t vote for the candidate, however for his picture, which has been dropped at their consciousness.
Due to this fact, the electoral battle is lowered to creating probably the most engaging for voters picture of candidates. Because of this, there’s a competitors between groups of technologists.
This know-how results in the truth that the staff that promoted the candidate and made him chief involves energy. There may be an alternative choice: there’s a one group supporting all candidates. It is a win-win lottery. Political preferences result in “elitists”, that’s, teams that actively affect on decision-making. Political energy is transformed into financial preferences. Thus, a democratic system results in financial inequality.
«Democracy is gorgeous. Outwardly, every little thing must be wonderful: slogans, folks, occasions. Right now, the content material is secondary and the shape is main. We vote not for the particular person, however for his picture. All procedures are a simulation, and democracy itself is a simulation… The outward magnificence hides the ugly actuality…»
Vladimir Okhotnikov
What known as democracy is completely mastered by the artwork of imitation.
That is, in fact, a schematic description of the complicated processes by which the state has been and stays a instrument for advancing the pursuits of elitist teams. Therefore there are numerous guidelines, legal guidelines, laws created to manage enterprise and residents.
Democracy is related to capitalism. Nonetheless, trendy capitalism is infinitely far-off from the mannequin offered within the early nineteenth century by Adam Smith.
The “invisible hand of the market” has been changed by direct regulation by the state. Is regulation at all times dangerous? After all, the market wants guidelines, the problem is who units them. In a centralized system, the state does it. Are there alternate options?
Decentralization as the muse of the enterprise of the longer term
Decentralization is without doubt one of the hottest phrases within the trendy IT trade. Decentralized programs are steadily coming into the market within the type of quite a lot of companies and purposes. Nonetheless, their potential is way wider – as much as public administration.
By democracy generally is supposed changing one “giant” management middle with many smaller ones. The rule of the king passes to the barons who govern not the nation, however their area. Actually, it’s merely a change within the scale of the centralized system, not its essence.
Decentralization implies the equality of all contributors within the system. Their relationships are ruled by pre-determined guidelines and contracts. The system itself is designed to keep up sustainability and to watch contract efficiency.
With exterior simplicity, the technical implementation of decentralized programs is kind of a tough activity. The issue shouldn’t be solely to begin it, but in addition to forestall it from turning into centralized.
For the primary time, Satoshi Nakamoto supplied a really full decentralized system. It was blockchain and bitcoin know-how.
It’s incorrect to consider blockchain as an appendage to cryptocurrencies. It’s, above all, the idea.
It’s a management system supposed to administrate quite a lot of decentralized companies, together with full-fledged metauniverses.
A typical blockchain-decentralized system is managed by good contracts, which set out the phrases of interplay of contributors and monitor their efficiency. Blockchain ensures the safety of the system from hacking and any actions of third events, and good contracts make sure the accuracy and unconditionality of the system guidelines and agreements of contributors.
Completely all contributors are equal, nobody has privileges. Actually, a decentralized system works like a robotic, obeying given algorithms. On this sense, it’s not a “large boss” however a technical specialist and middleman.
Decentralization ensures what’s, in actual fact, a real democracy in its unique sense. The system ensures equal rights of contributors, completely correct compliance with contracts, freedom of alternative, scalability, and absence of “human issue”. On the identical time the system is secure and doesn’t generally tend to degenerate into centralization. In crypto enterprise, decentralization helps the safety, anonymity and privateness of customers.
Is it potential to scale up decentralization to governance programs for public establishments?
Sure, in fact.
After all, in world politics any power majeure circumstances are potential, and it’s a thankless factor to make predictions. Nonetheless, the effectivity of decentralized programs means that they need to be built-in into public administration. This won’t occur right here and now, the method will probably be gradual. Revolution is to not be anticipated, and evolution shouldn’t be fast, so it should wait.
