A serious source of tyranny in even modern day governments is that they’re broadly hierarchical, and have a lot of scope for overreach through conflict of interest. This is despite implementing voting systems and other democratic systems. For example, consider that the same lawmakers who are responsible for writing criminal law are the ones who the police end up being accountable to. This is how all modern governments tend to end up working, sometimes with this same pattern being replicated at the municipal level. But does it have to be this way?

I am proposing a new type of government of vertical slices. That is to say, a government model where there are in fact multiple governments operating at the national level, which all have broadly different responsibilities, which are configured so as to promote a true balance of powers.

An example of a vertical slice may be a government which has some strictly limited responsibilities: i.e. it has its own independent elections and explicitly bounded powers. Maybe there would be a utilities government which is responsible for ensuring the delivery of power and water. Another government which is responsible for the drafting of criminal law and domestic security. Another government which is responsible for e.g. foreign affairs, diplomacy and border control. I don’t intend to draft the entire thing in concrete terms in this post (maybe another time!) as I just want to describe the concept. Possibly particular aspects of each of these could be further distributed.

Each of these vertical slices would control a portion of the violent apparatus of the state. One may control the police, another the conventional military, another the navy, another the airforce, for example. It would be constitutional that the different arms of government do not commit violence against the others except in the case of clearly established tyranny.

Each of the vertical slices would be headed by its own first minister. There would be a basic constitution which upholds the role of democracy, rule of law and such but the individual branches would be broadly responsible for administering their own constitutions otherwise.

A conventional unified, hierarchical judiciary would be responsible for determining the scope of powers of each of the governments. The Supreme Court judges would be appointed by representatives of each of the slices, and rules would be put into place that judges appointed by any of the particular slices cannot rule on matters relating to the slice which appointed them. This would prevent a major potential source of politicisation/corruption of the judiciary by ensuring that politicians cannot appoint their own judges.

Executive authority would be controlled by an executive council. There would be an odd number of people on the executive council including the head of state (also elected by popular vote). Any member of the executive council could propose an order to be voted on, and all would be expected to be available immediately to vote on a motion if any of them declare an emergency. This would enable a balance of swift, decisive response to a crisis while ensuring that there is a balance on how executive power is enacted.

With a system like this, we could potentially eliminate many sources of corruption and tyranny in modern government systems, and allow politicians to become more specialised and competent in their own areas while denying any individual the potential for power over all matters.

Would you support a governmental system like this?