0

I came across the word 'macrocracy' for the first time today, quoted by a virtually unknown writer in his first attempt at a novel.

I can find the word in no dictionary and Google returns only the single reference in the novel when I search for it.

... a quantum leap in genetic research, destined to be the first uncorrupted citizen of the Macrocracy ...

A more full quote (with more context) is at the foot of this question.

I realise the word is not in the dictionary (yet) and I realise that it is not the most beautiful of words but is it nevertheless the case that what the writer has tried to do is to more correctly express the reality of the system of government which relies on the votes of the populace.

'Democracy' is not - really - the government of the people by the people. For we see what happens when there is a near 50/50 split of votes. The system, as far as I can see, begins to break down into political chaos and, ultimately, into the forming of coalitions without reference to the will of the people regarding the actual constitution of said coalition.

This has happened in the District Council for which I am presently working. An inter-party 'alliance' was set up - without any reference to the public - and the 'alliance' now holds a larger (conglomerate) vote than the party which was actually given the largest vote among the original parties.

Thus all the voters who ticked parties A through E are now lumped together (without their consent and without most of their knowledge) in an 'alliance' of which they had never heard when they placed their vote. Which alliance now holds more power than the 'majority' party, F.

Government is not - really - a matter of the 'people' in a 'democracy' it is a matter of the will of the majority.

Which, rightly termed, would be a 'macrocracy'.

Would it not ?

Macro (compound) - Forming terms (esp. in Biology and Crystallography) in which macro- denotes relatively large size

OED

=================================================================

Quotation from 'Fish Stories' by Ron Watt

enter image description here

closed as primarily opinion-based by bookmanu, Scott, Davo, jimm101, J. Taylor Sep 25 '18 at 17:46

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 4
    Actually, what we have now is CEOcracy. – Hot Licks Sep 20 '18 at 20:25
  • Do you mean globally, or in a specific location ? – Nigel J Sep 20 '18 at 20:29
  • 3
    Interesting question but largly a matter of opinion. Probably a good question for the Politics site. politics.stackexchange.com – user067531 Sep 20 '18 at 20:41
  • Nearly every system of government tries to brand itself "democracy" at some point or another, because the etymology of the word and its connotations lend themselves well to garnering support. How democratic a system actually is will always depend on the actual implementation and on who you ask. Given we live in an imperfect world where a significant swathe of the population simply won't get their way on most issues- regardless of which system is implemented- a person might fairly contend that no system is truly democratic. – Parthian Shot Sep 21 '18 at 0:12
  • 1
    No, what we call “democracy” might really be termed “laknekidgjoxfgcracy”. (My cat helped me type that.) Why do you believe that a made-up word that doesn’t even have a definition might be a better word for something for which we already have a word? – Scott Sep 24 '18 at 4:15
1

Tentative answer here, or at least logically sourced conjecture.

From dictionary.com we see:

"cracy" meaning rule or government

And demos (of which demo is the combining form):

the common people

And macro

large, long, great, excessive

So, we might interpret macrocracy as "big government", where everyone gets a say all of the time. Obviously some sort of cyber or genetic implants to create to facilitate continuous voting, and the governing system should naturally emerge. I would expect it to be functionally similar to "Whuffie", a currency system in a post-scarcity economy where enough reputation will earn you certain privileges (sounds familiar...). So rather than being governed by representatives, everyone represents themselves in a macro government.

In your interpretation I think you’re applying "macro" to the already elected representatives. So the representatives form groups bigger than individuals, hence macros. In "democracy", the representatives are people, so that’s a fair interpretation. My interpretation is from the view of the represented and "macro" applies to the large number of representatives.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.