Corpocracy: A New Look

Reads: 453  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 0

More Details
Status: Finished  |  Genre: Editorial and Opinion  |  House: Booksie Classic
Big business would produce good government.

Submitted: August 26, 2010

A A A | A A A

Submitted: August 26, 2010



In Milan, from the late ten hundreds until the unification of Italy eight hundred years later, an extremely efficient, competent government existed. The city was run by a council, men who made decisions on the part of the nation state, elected by the people from a very specific body. This body consisted of the Guilds, the companies that controlled trade, farming, and, in fact, every aspect of Milan's economy, and this union would then elect a Duke to oversee the operations. The Italian city, then, is the best example of a corpocracy, the finest, most functional and ultimately most desirable form of government. The three primary reasons for this, the first being that the governing body primarily concerns itself with the economy, which, as such experts as Locke and Smith, both of whom where referenced by America's founding fathers, have said, is key to a nation's success. Secondly, a system following the aforesaid guidelines promotes the continued participation of both economic entities, i.e. the 'corporations', and hence corpocracy, through political competition, not economic, would vie for control through enfranchising the citizens and advancing both nation and its people. Finally, a government by the top economic power-generating forces, through the citizens assures that, and again through economic, political, and social interests grantees both their success, and again through them, the success of the nation, and a very high level of ideal competition, free market, and a control in the 'Invisible Hand' principle.

Milan, although our only historical example, is not ideal. First of all, the economic entities, in this case the Guilds, could only nominate representatives to the councils and to the electoral offices for the Duke, whilst in a more efficient situation, the companies would have direct power, sitting on a sort of board-meeting style government, sessions or groups that revolved around the different needs for government, specifically law making, law enforcement, and judiciary responsibility, chosen by both corporate merit, and citizen approval in the form of votes or perceived merit. Secondly, the Milanese did not have a diverse enough situation in terms of the Guilds roles. There where some for each trade, but only four, the merchants, the farmers, the smiths and the harbor masters, controlled the council. In an ideally functional corporate government, diversity would be legally obliged, to prevent monopoly, put forth the interests of various groups and stop such inhibiting practices as the destruction of competition and excessive taxes on large business. Finally, the Milanese failed to realize that placing power in a single leader with as much economic responsibility as the Duke endangers the essential forces of commerce that would drive the ideal, monetary-based nation to succeed and grow.

What makes a government controlled by commercial entities preferable to others is that their primary focus is on private enterprise and the financial welfare of the nation. With these at the forefront, corpocracies would in fact, not only have to compete business wise, creating the best product and the best results, as well as ideal prices and superb commercial mastery, but also have to give the citizens the right to compete in the market, allow a highly capitalist system to thrive, and have a sort of indirect meritocracy for the state's best interest. Also, with an economic powerhouse, established, social culture is rapidly encouraged to grow and, through freedom of thought and expression in relation to the stressed uncensored nature of the corporate world, would be able to grow to unprecedented levels, allowing for a highly sophisticated, tolerant culture. Finally, a focus on economics allows the common citizen to have a large amount of power, allowing him or her to play a large role in the power of the governing bodies, who are working for mutual success.

Secondly, a government run by corporations is an ideal system for transforming politics into an efficient system. Ordinarily, men or women with short-sighted, selfish interests and solely political goals seize power, either through election or other, less savory means. With major business entities in charge, though, a sort of political community based on the all around success of the state is created. Large companies must, like a complex watch or similar device, be functioning at full capacity on ever level. Successful businesses from around the world continually fight corruption and lack of efficiently in their own ranks, bringing up a new standard of competence. Also, a government comprised of commercial forces would be required to be diversified. So called 'Banana Republics', often controlled by a single, exploitative industry, are no more an ideal corpocracy than a roof is an ideal house. For instance, in Chile in the 1960's, the mineral companies stripped the country of resources, the government wholly controlled by them and geared toward their interests. However, with a diversified governing body, consisting of, say, twenty companies where to be promoted by merit in the eyes of the citizens and their non-economic rivals equivalents would be promoted to the governing body. Here, they would exercise a competitive nature once more, this time political, vying for power and therefore moving in the natural direction for success, applying a key principle of the free market to the direct federal systems, and eliminating the danger of monopolies because of the diverse nature of the involved parties.

Finally, economics reflect the best interest of a society. The poor strive to work and move up, which is entirely possible on a specific model for large business, termed the 'Corporate Ladder'. The middle classes are always viable parts of corporate economies, being the centers of moving commerce and the pivot for the 'bosses' to interact with the 'workers'. Finally, leaders of large businesses are extremely well qualified for the political field. Just look at America's last Presidential primary, and you will notice two of the top candidates are former CEO's or majority stock owners. The capability to run a large, capitalist economy is actually less of a challenge than to run a single entity, especially with the continuing cooperation and mutual growth opportunity through fiscal trials allows these parties to effectively govern themselves and a nation through, for and by the citizen and themselves.

So then, a corpocracy, a government controlled by a mutual, economic arrangement between people and businesses, is the ideal political situation. It grantees the success of the state through a strong economic foundation. Due to diversification of the administrative body, it leads to a variation and a cross-strengthening practice in the political and social means that the nation will operate one. Finally, it allows for the citizen to interact directly with the government, a group of people trying to do business with both him or her and others like them abroad, creating a situation in which these free-to-speak citizens an enfranchising power of supply-and-demand, and the ability to control the merit and efficiency with which their government is able to function, essentially by looking out for their own best interests.

© Copyright 2019 Holly Hawiye. All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments:

More Editorial and Opinion Essays