One might assume that a society with good government is more stable and durable. But that is only partly true, as a comparative study among premodern societies has now revealed. Accordingly, the population benefits from a well-governed system. But when this collapses, the consequences are even worse than with autocratic systems.
Whether an empire is ruled by an unscrupulous dictator or by a government that has the welfare of the population in mind makes a significant difference – that was already the case hundreds and thousands of years ago. “Premodern states weren’t that different from modern ones in this regard,” says Gary Feinman of the Field Museum in Chicago.
Comparative look at premodern societies
Even if there were no democracies at the time, many of the basic principles were very similar: “They had no elections, but instead different control mechanisms that restricted the concentration of power and wealth to just a few.” As Feinman and his colleagues explain, this was often necessary the self-interest of the ruling elite: “These systems were heavily dependent on the local population for their resources,” says Feinman. “It is ultimately what finances the government.” By definition, societies with good government are those in which the government meets the needs of the people.
But what effects does good or bad government have on the stability of a society in the long term? Feinman and his team have now investigated this using the example of 30 premodern societies, including the Roman Empire, the Venetian Republic founded around 750, the Ming Dynasty ruling in China from 1368 and the Mughal Empire in India from 1526. These four kingdoms had a comparatively fair distribution of goods and power compared to other contemporary systems, the researchers explain. Therefore they compared whether these forms of society lasted longer than other systems and what their decline looked like.
Collapse is worse with good governments
The comparison revealed that the premodern societies with good government lasted a little longer than autocratic systems in which power and wealth were concentrated in only a few. But when the empires collapsed, the fall of the well governed was usually all the worse. “The states with good government collapsed more thoroughly and more seriously,” says Feinman. The reason for this: The people in these systems rely more on the forms of government organization and infrastructure. But when these collapse, the population is hit even harder.
“With good government, there are infrastructures for communication and administrations that collect taxes, offer services and distribute public goods,” explains the historian. Institutions and socio-economic networks are highly interwoven. When this system collapses, people’s everyday lives are also badly affected. In autocratic systems, the population is more used to having to fight for themselves. “When an autocratic system collapses, the leader or the capital changes, but the consequences do not reach right down to people’s everyday lives.
Vulnerable to immoral leaders
Also interesting: systems with a fundamentally fair system are particularly prone to decline by bad rulers, as the scientists found. “In a well-governed society, the leader is someone who upholds basic ethical values and beliefs,” explains Feinman. “In most societies there is a social contract – whether unwritten or written down.” If a leader breaks these principles, people lose trust and that in turn has a whole chain of consequences: They no longer want to pay taxes, they follow suit no more rules and sooner or later social unrest or even civil wars break out.
“Our results thus provide valuable insights that are also of value in the present,” says Richard Blanton of Purdue University. “Because they show that even societies that are well governed, wealthy and well respected by their citizens are fragile constructs that can fail.” Feinman adds: “It doesn’t have to mean that history repeats itself in the same way. But there are common patterns – and that’s why we can learn from history. “
Source: Field Museum; Technical article: Frontiers in Political Science; doi: 10.3389 / fpos.2020.568704