A country has 2 or 3 political parties, about equal in control. In a divarchy, they are all given governmental powers, including separate militaries, police, fire depts, banks, economies etc within said country. An inter-party council manages inter-party issues (i.e: infrastructure, invading nations). A citizen may choose which party they’d like to be under, thus making the parties compete in efficiency for the most members.
What are the Pro’s and Con’s for such a organization of rule?
But all parties under that present system are governed under one court and one legislation. In a “divarchy,” the parties would have their own way of making and maintaining their laws.
Sovereign nations currently have that too, though. How are the relations between sovereign nations any different in function than the relations between the actors of your proposed divarchy?
Because in, say, the United States, people of any party can hold a position in government. But in branches of a divarchy, multiple governments are separated by party, so you can only join the government of the party you’re under.
For example, you’re a democrat in a multi-party state. Under a divarchy, you may only join the Democrat government, which have an all-dem congress and a dem president etc. You would call the Democratic Police to report a burglary, you’d call the Democratic Fire Department to put out a fire, you’d join the Democratic army etc. You wouldn’t recieve service from the Republican Police or anything.
This differs from most democracies, where all parties are united under one rule.
Of course you can secede, that’s the point of a divarchy. The people can join and leave a party and its government as they please. This will keep said parties on their toes, competing with each other for the most followers.
What if I don’t want to be a part of any party? What if I agree with the way party A deals with justice, and I agree with party B with how they deal with healthcare insurance? What then? Am I only limited to joining a single party or do I have the economic freedom to choose services from differing entities?
Say you’re enrolled in the Democratic Healthcare system and there are no Democrat hospitals around. You present your forms to a Republican hospital, they take care of you as the Democrats would, and the dems pay the repubs back for their services. This goes for all government branches of service; they are exchangable so you are secure in any part of the country.
It seems like it would be similar to the system I propose. Voluntary Governments, or competing governments. I even have a website, which I haven’t updated in a while, if you’d like to check it out. VoluntaryGov.com
A panarchy lets a person choose any government. A divarchy limits the person to the governments within the country. This way, the parties wouldn’t have to support somebody halfway across the world.
You can pay for it directly, depending on what party you’re under (or if you’re not under a party at all). One party may provide universal healthcare, another might not. However, if you’re not under a party, your only choice would be private healthcare, which could be better in some cases.
