As a broader scope from how the corruption, and failures of government and corporations continues to linger, there is the massive problem with our systems the way we still have them today. I have also been up front for a lot of months now, that democracy never works, at all.

The long term problems that unfolds before our very eyes, is why I despise democratic systems themselves as opposed to the countries. But don’t fret, I also hate autocratic regimes, so that’s off the table too. See, Plato for instance, had warned for years ad nosium about the dangers of democracy and the stigmas they bring. The boat analogy he gives really sums it all up. The ship is democracy, the people on the boat are the voters, and the sailors are the politicians. Once a sailor gets horribly ill or gets tragically made redundant somehow, the people on the boat wants to vote who can take his place. However, within the realm of democratic functionality and norms, it heavily relies on popularity and promise contests, and who shouts the loudest. Disgracefully, it puts all these before morals, virtue, expertise, and civics, which are all needed for a system to function reliably. In the process, the guy with the actual expertise and who can accurately read the stars, is mocked, sneered, and thrown to the wayside.

Instead, they if not all of them voted for a guy who promised the most, spoke boisterously, and with flamboyance. But here’s the thing; he lacked any form of expertise and knowledge of how to sail. As a result, the boat crashes into the rocks and sinks. That’s democracy in a nutshell. Popularity contests, promise contests, and loud speaking… all these are heavy burdons that democracy gives behind the curtain, and gets placed casually on countries that have toppled a dictatorship. Overtime, those same troubling aspects will at some point cause monsters to rise like Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, Trump, (which of whom has sadly become president again by MAGA’s cultists), and the vicious and blood-drenched cycle repeats. More people will suffer, up to the point the country may become an insignificant footnote in history. Which is why, being the intro to my solutions, is that we all must break that cycle. To do that, is that we all must cooperate and work together… to initiate new alternatives systems of our own…

This video needs to be watched until the end, and to never look away:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceqrJZePeYc

The only parts I disagree with, are as follows:

1: As a correction within the video; the concept of Souls as our true being presents an intriguing perspective on mortal existence. They propose that what we perceive as our identity - our thoughts, emotions, and consciousness - is fundamentally spiritual or metaphysical, existing beyond the physical realm. In this framework, our physical bodies serve merely as vessels or bio-suits, analogous to robotic mechs or mechanical suits operated by our true selves - the Souls. Imagine piloting a sophisticated robotic mech designed for exploration in an unfamiliar environment. This mech allows the pilot to interact effectively with surroundings they otherwise couldn’t engage with directly. Similarly, the body functions as a biological suit or “bio-mech” controlled by the Soul. Our senses - sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell - can be viewed as sensory input mechanisms of this suit, allowing the Soul to experience and interact with the physical environment in ways impossible in purely metaphysical form. Much like a pilot’s control over their robotic mech, the Soul or Spirit, exerts control over the body. Decisions, actions, and reactions are directed by this conscious Spirit operator, navigating the world according to the laws governing the physical plane. However, like any complex machinery, the body has limitations and vulnerabilities. These limitations are dictated by physical laws - gravity, inertia, biological needs like hunger and fatigue - and act as boundaries within which the Souls can express themselves in the material universe.

This perspective also provides insight into philosophical questions concerning identity and death. If the body is merely a bio-suit, then death could be interpreted as the moment the suit becomes nonfunctional or irreparable, forcing Souls to detach and return to their purely spiritual forms. This understanding could offer solace by suggesting that the essence of our identity continues to exist independently of physical deterioration, ageing, or destruction of the biological vessel. Additionally, embracing this view carries implications for how we care for our physical health. Understanding that we are essentially operators of a sophisticated biological mechanism encourages the responsible maintenance of the body. Just as pilots or mech operators diligently maintain their machines, we should care for our bodies through proper nutrition, exercise, rest, and medical attention to ensure optimal function and longevity. Ultimately, this analogy of the Soul as the true self or one’s true form, controlling a bio-mech suit, reinforces a meaningful distinction between the physical and metaphysical aspects of our existence. It suggests a deeper dimension of existence and consciousness, inspiring reflections on spiritual identity, purpose, and the nature of life itself.

The TL;DR of this, is that we are all technically Souls/Spirits inhabiting bodies to interact with the physical plane, and upon physical death, we then leave our rotting bodies straight towards the afterlife. The words being looked for are heart, mind, and virtue.

2: The main criticisms I have with the video however, is that while the video is indeed powerful and brings the importance of Plato’s criticisms to the spotlight again, the video ultimately, offers no solutions and alternatives to the garbage systems we have. It’s almost all doom and gloom. If placed in your shoes Think Mate, the solution I’d give, is that as a whole kingdom of Sapiens, we need to put our differences aside and all work together, in creating an ideal system to govern for the vast majority of people. Plus, I have four systems I will definitely propose. Technocratic Constitutional Democracies, Civic-Republic Meritocracies, Technocratic Constitutional Monarchies, and Civic-Monarch Meritocracies. Sure, Plato may have proposed an alternative of his own, but it is just as problematic so long as morality, virtues, and expertise is left out of the equation. Because there is still a chance that a person can be very wise, yet still be an evil person. And I did create a contingency plan on how to implement the systems I would propose carefully and slowly, with preparation in mind. And I am more than welcome to explain how the four systems will work as a form of clarity.

For me, the four systems I personally cooked up and prepared, are Technocratic Constitutional Monarchies (TCMs) and Democracies (TCDs), Civic-Republican Meritocracies (CRMs), and Civic-Monarch Meritocracies (CMMs) respectively.

TECHNOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY

1: Origins and Conceptual Foundations

The Technocratic Constitutional Monarchy (TCM) is a hybrid system that merges three long-standing traditions of governance:

Monarchy: Historically, monarchies provided stability, continuity, and a unifying cultural or spiritual identity for nations. Constitutional monarchies (e.g., the UK, Japan, Sweden) reduced the monarch’s political power while preserving them as national symbols.

Technocracy: Emerging in the early 20th century, technocracy called for governance by experts, scientists, and professionals, focusing on data-driven, rational, and long-term solutions instead of populist or ideological politics.

Constitutionalism: The Enlightenment-era tradition that established binding constitutions to limit power, enshrine rights, and prevent arbitrary rule.

The Technocratic Constitutional Monarchy combines these traditions into a system where the monarch provides symbolic unity and constitutional oversight, while expert councils manage key policy areas within the limits of constitutional law.

2: Structure and Key Principles

A Technocratic Constitutional Monarchy is built upon the following pillars:

Ceremonial or Limited Monarch: The monarch acts as a guardian of the constitution, a symbol of national unity, and a moral-cultural anchor. Their role is largely apolitical, ensuring continuity and stability.

Technocratic Governance: Policy-making authority in specific sectors (e.g., economy, healthcare, infrastructure, environment, education, digital governance) is delegated to expert councils composed of scientists, professionals, and nonpartisan specialists.

Constitutional Framework: A rigid constitution enshrines rights, freedoms, and limits, ensuring neither monarch nor experts can override fundamental protections.

Elected Legislature: Citizens still elect representatives who deliberate on broad social priorities, propose laws, and oversee the performance of technocratic councils.

Checks and Balances: Expert bodies are subject to constitutional review, judicial oversight, and periodic evaluation by independent watchdogs.

Transparency: All expert decisions must be justified with accessible data, peer-reviewed evidence, and clear communication to the public.

3: Strengths

Stability and Continuity: The monarchy provides cultural and symbolic continuity, which reduces fears of instability during systemic reform.

Expert-Driven Policy: Professionals and specialists handle complex matters (climate change, healthcare, economic planning) that career politicians often mismanage.

Constitutional Safeguards: Prevents both monarchical overreach and technocratic authoritarianism by embedding inviolable rights and legal limits.

Reduced Populist Volatility: Prevents short-term electoral populism from derailing long-term strategic plans.

Public Trust: Citizens may trust decisions more if they see both a respected monarch and independent experts overseeing governance, as opposed to partisan politicians.

Balance Between Tradition and Modernity: Preserves national identity while modernising governance with rational, future-oriented policy.

4: Weaknesses and Risks

Dependence on Monarchy’s Legitimacy: If the monarch is unpopular or perceived as irrelevant, the system’s symbolic strength is weakened.

Technocratic Detachment: Experts may focus on efficiency at the cost of empathy, overlooking the cultural or emotional needs of citizens.

Risk of Corporate Capture: Expert councils could be infiltrated by lobbyists or industry groups, corrupting their political neutrality.

Democratic Dilution: Citizens may feel that too much power rests in unelected experts, reducing their sense of political agency.

Complexity of Implementation: Transitioning from current democratic or monarchical systems requires careful planning to prevent instability.

Cultural Fit: Success depends on whether a nation values both monarchy and technocracy - not all societies do.

5: Practical Applications and Modern Context

A Technocratic Constitutional Monarchy is particularly well-suited for nations that:

Already have respected constitutional monarchies (e.g., Japan, the UK, Scandinavian countries, Spain, Thailand, Belgium).

Face pressing long-term challenges that require expertise (e.g., ageing populations, climate change, healthcare reform, digital governance).

Seek to preserve cultural traditions while modernising political systems.

Possible areas of application include:

Japan: Stability via the Emperor’s symbolic role, paired with technocratic governance to address demographics and overwork.

United Kingdom: Using the monarchy’s unifying role while experts reform healthcare (NHS), housing, and justice.

Nordic monarchies: Could refine already effective welfare states with stronger technocratic planning.

6: Conclusion

The Technocratic Constitutional Monarchy is not simply a blend of monarchy and technocracy; it is a stability-first governance model that leverages tradition (monarchy), reason (technocracy), and liberty (constitutionalism). Its promise lies in its ability to reassure the public through continuity while simultaneously ensuring rational, evidence-based governance.

However, its weaknesses - particularly the risks of elitism, detachment, or public disengagement - mean it must be introduced gradually, with civic education, transparency, and safeguards for citizen participation.

If implemented carefully, the TCM could serve as a bridge between past and future: preserving cultural identity while ensuring governance that is rational, fair, and sustainable.

CIVIC-REPUBLICAN MERITOCRACY

1: Origins and Conceptual Foundations

The Civic-Republican Meritocracy (CRM) draws on two rich traditions of governance thought:

Civic Republicanism - Rooted in ancient Rome and revitalised during the Renaissance (e.g., Machiavelli) and Enlightenment, civic republicanism emphasises civic virtue, active citizenship, and the common good. It stresses that liberty requires not only rights, but also responsibility and participation in public life.

Meritocracy - A more modern concept, popularised in the mid-20th century (notably by Michael Young’s satirical 1958 book The Rise of the Meritocracy, though later reinterpreted positively), meritocracy insists that leadership and opportunity should be based on ability, competence, and moral character rather than birth, wealth, or status.

By combining these, CRM envisions a political system in which leaders are chosen not for popularity or privilege, but for demonstrated civic virtue, competence, and moral integrity, and where citizens themselves are educated and engaged in upholding the common good.

2: Structure and Key Principles

A Civic-Republican Meritocracy typically rests on the following foundations:

Merit-Based Leadership Selection: Candidates for political office must pass rigorous evaluations of knowledge, integrity, and civic responsibility before being allowed to stand for election.

Civic Education: Citizens are expected to be educated in history, ethics, governance, and civic responsibility, ensuring they are active and responsible participants in democracy.

Emphasis on Virtue: Leadership is tied not only to technical competence but also to moral character, humility, and public service.

Participatory Governance: Citizens are expected to play an active role through assemblies, local councils, and public forums, reinforcing the culture of accountability.

Checks on Wealth and Status: Barriers to prevent plutocracy, nepotism, and oligarchy are built in, ensuring that privilege alone cannot secure leadership roles.

Institutional Oversight: Independent bodies ensure that merit-based principles are upheld and corruption punished.

3: Strengths

Integrity in Leadership: Ensures leaders are chosen for competence and moral fitness, not wealth, popularity, or family ties.

Stronger Public Trust: Citizens are more likely to trust institutions if leadership selection is seen as fair and merit-based.

Civic Engagement: Citizens are not passive voters but active participants, fostering responsibility and community.

Reduced Populism: Focus on civic education and merit diminishes the appeal of demagogues and opportunistic populists.

Long-Term Policy Orientation: Leaders chosen for their competence are more likely to prioritise sustainable solutions over short-term popularity.

Social Mobility: Merit-based systems can help dismantle entrenched classism or nepotism.

4: Weaknesses and Risks

Risk of Elitism: If not carefully designed, meritocratic systems may slide into technocratic elitism, where only the highly educated or privileged can pass “merit tests.”

Potential for Manipulation: Powerful groups could influence the design of merit evaluations to favour their own candidates.

Citizen Resistance: If the process is seen as overly complex or restrictive, citizens may feel disenfranchised.

Difficulty of Defining Merit: Balancing technical skill, civic virtue, and moral integrity in measurable ways is challenging.

Implementation Barriers: Transitioning from current electoral democracies to meritocratic systems could be met with political and institutional resistance.

Risk of Rigidity: If overly bureaucratic, the system might stifle innovation and flexibility in leadership.

5: Practical Applications and Modern Context

CRM would be most effective in societies struggling with:

Corruption and Nepotism: To ensure leaders cannot rise solely through wealth, connections, or party loyalty.

Distrust in Democracy: By introducing higher standards for leadership, it can restore faith in governance.

Youth Disengagement: Civic education would foster a more politically literate and engaged younger generation.

Populist Waves: By filtering out demagogues who lack civic responsibility.

Examples of partial inspiration:

Ancient Rome’s early republic: Leadership required civic virtue, not merely aristocracy.

Imperial China’s examination system: A flawed but historic attempt at merit-based officialdom.

Singapore’s governance model: Though not fully democratic, it incorporates meritocratic selection in government roles.

6: Conclusion

The Civic-Republican Meritocracy represents a moral and participatory alternative to both pure democracy and autocracy. It insists that governance should be entrusted to those who have proven their competence, integrity, and commitment to the common good, while also expecting citizens to actively uphold civic virtue.

Its strengths - integrity, trust, civic engagement, and reduced populism - make it a compelling option for societies plagued by corruption, disillusionment, and inequality. However, its weaknesses - risks of elitism, manipulation, and citizen alienation - mean that it must be designed with strong safeguards for transparency, accessibility, and fairness.

If implemented carefully and gradually, a Civic-Republican Meritocracy could help bridge the gap between freedom and order, tradition and progress, offering a governance model that empowers both leaders and citizens to build societies rooted in dignity, justice, and responsibility.

CIVIC-MONARCH MERITOCRACY

1: Origins and Conceptual Foundations

The Civic-Monarch Meritocracy (CMM) is a hybrid system that blends three governance traditions:

Monarchy (Symbolic and Stabilising): Historically, monarchies provided continuity, identity, and national cohesion. In constitutional forms (e.g., the UK, Japan, Sweden), monarchs serve as symbolic guardians of cultural heritage rather than wielders of unchecked political power.

Civic Republicanism: Emerging from Roman, Renaissance, and Enlightenment traditions, civic republicanism emphasises civic virtue, public responsibility, and prioritising the common good over personal gain. Citizens and leaders alike are expected to uphold duties to society, not just individual rights.

Meritocracy: Popularised in the 20th century, meritocracy is the idea that leadership and advancement should be based on ability, competence, and moral integrity, not on wealth, nepotism, or birth.

By combining these traditions, CMM envisions a governance model where the monarch serves as a unifying figure and constitutional guardian, while political leaders are selected through merit-based processes that emphasise civic virtue and competence.

2: Structure and Key Principles

The structure of a Civic-Monarch Meritocracy typically includes:

Ceremonial or Limited Monarch: The monarch retains a symbolic role as a unifying figure, cultural guardian, and protector of the constitution, but does not wield unchecked political authority.

Meritocratic Selection of Leaders: Candidates for high office must pass rigorous evaluations in knowledge, civic virtue, moral integrity, and competence before being eligible to serve.

Civic Foundations: Strong civic education ensures citizens understand their responsibilities, fostering active participation and accountability.

Participatory Governance: While leadership is filtered through merit-based criteria, citizens retain voting rights and opportunities to participate in assemblies, councils, or referendums.

Checks on Privilege: The system is designed to prevent plutocracy, nepotism, and classism by ensuring that leadership cannot be bought through wealth or inherited through lineage (beyond the symbolic monarchy).

Monarch as Moral Guardian: The monarch provides symbolic oversight to ensure that civic virtue and national identity are preserved, acting as a stabiliser above partisan politics.

3: Strengths

National Stability: The monarchy provides continuity and cultural unity, preventing societal fragmentation.

High-Quality Leadership: Meritocratic processes ensure leaders are competent, morally grounded, and socially responsible.

Civic Engagement: Citizens are educated and encouraged to uphold their civic responsibilities, reducing apathy.

Trust in Governance: A combination of symbolic monarchy and merit-based leadership fosters greater public trust.

Protection from Populism: Leaders must prove merit, making it harder for demagogues or corrupt elites to rise to power.

Cultural Balance: Preserves national traditions while ensuring modern, rational governance.

4: Weaknesses and Risks

Risk of Elitism: If merit tests favour only highly educated or privileged groups, ordinary citizens may feel excluded.

Transparency Challenges: The legitimacy of meritocratic processes depends on fairness; opaque systems risk accusations of bias.

Overreliance on Monarchy: If the monarch loses public trust, the system’s stability may weaken.

Democratic Dilution: Citizens may feel their role is diminished if too much power is concentrated in filtered leadership.

Implementation Difficulty: Transitioning from current democratic systems to CMM would face strong resistance from entrenched elites and political parties.

Potential Rigidity: Strict meritocratic criteria might exclude unconventional but effective leaders.

5: Practical Applications and Modern Context

A Civic-Monarch Meritocracy would be particularly useful in nations that:

Already possess respected monarchies (e.g., Japan, the UK, Nordic monarchies, Spain).

Struggle with corruption, populism, or unqualified leaders dominating politics.

Seek to preserve cultural traditions while also reforming governance to prioritise competence and virtue.

Examples of application:

Japan: The Emperor as cultural symbol, with civic-meritocratic reforms addressing overwork, birthrate decline, and political stagnation.

United Kingdom: The Crown retains symbolic unifying power, while civic-meritocratic reforms raise the quality and accountability of political leadership.

Scandinavian monarchies: Already strong democracies could deepen trust by meritocratically filtering candidates for leadership positions.

6: Conclusion

The Civic-Monarch Meritocracy is a hybrid governance system that combines the symbolic stability of monarchy, the moral responsibility of civic republicanism, and the competence safeguards of meritocracy.

Its strengths lie in producing trustworthy leadership, preserving cultural identity, and stabilising society against populist or corrupt influences. However, its weaknesses - risks of elitism, transparency issues, and potential democratic dilution - mean that careful design and transparent institutions are essential.

If implemented responsibly, a Civic-Monarch Meritocracy could act as a bridge between tradition and progress, ensuring that governance is not only competent and fair, but also culturally grounded and morally accountable.

TECHNOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY

1: Origins and Conceptual Foundations

The idea of a Technocratic Constitutional Democracy (TCD) emerges from two historical streams of governance thought:

Technocracy - dating back to the early 20th century, particularly in North America and Europe, where movements such as the Technocracy Inc. organisation (1930s) argued that governance should be guided by engineers, scientists, and experts using data-driven planning rather than politicians swayed by ideology, money, or populism. The underlying belief was that rational management of resources and evidence-based decision-making would eliminate waste, inequality, and inefficiency.

Constitutional Democracy - rooted in Enlightenment thought and evolving through systems such as the U.S. Constitution (1789) and later liberal democracies, where elected representatives operate within a written constitution that enshrines rights, limits government power, and provides checks and balances.

The Technocratic Constitutional Democracy fuses these two traditions: a governance system where constitutional principles safeguard liberty and justice, while technocratic expertise ensures rational, long-term, evidence-based policy making. Unlike pure technocracy, which risks elitism, or pure democracy, which risks populist swings, TCD seeks to balance expertise with accountability, rights, and representation.

2: Structure and Key Principles

A Technocratic Constitutional Democracy typically operates on the following pillars:

Constitutional Supremacy: A rigid constitutional framework establishes unbreakable rights, protections, and limits on power. Neither experts nor politicians can override these.

Elected Representation: Citizens still elect representatives, but their role is more about setting broad priorities and oversight than micromanaging complex technical decisions.

Expert Councils: Panels of scientists, economists, engineers, healthcare professionals, and sociologists hold executive authority in specialised domains. These councils propose and implement policy solutions based on evidence, long-term modelling, and peer-reviewed knowledge.

Checks and Balances: Experts cannot act unchecked. Their proposals must align with constitutional principles, undergo judicial review if challenged, and remain transparent to the public.

Transparency and Accountability: All expert-driven policy decisions must be justified with open data, published models, and citizen-accessible explanations to maintain trust.

Civic Education: A strong emphasis on educating the populace ensures citizens understand how evidence-based governance functions and why it matters.

3: Strengths

Evidence-Based Policy: Decisions are driven by data, not ideology or electoral opportunism.

Long-Term Vision: Experts can plan decades ahead, addressing issues like climate change, demographics, and infrastructure without fear of short-term electoral backlash.

Reduced Corruption: Lobbyists and populists have less influence if decisions rest on measurable outcomes and professional standards.

Efficiency and Competence: Trained experts are better positioned to handle crises such as pandemics, economic recessions, and technological transitions.

Constitutional Safeguards: The democratic element ensures experts cannot override fundamental rights, preventing “cold technocracy” from sliding into authoritarianism.

Public Trust (if well-implemented): Transparent, rational decisions can restore confidence in government, especially when contrasted with the inefficiency and scandals of traditional politics.

4: Weaknesses and Risks

Elitism and Detachment: Experts may become disconnected from ordinary citizens’ lived experiences, prioritising technical efficiency over empathy.

Legitimacy Crisis: If people feel excluded from meaningful decision-making, they may resist technocratic authority, even if policies are rational.

Complexity Barrier: Scientific and technical policies can be difficult for the average citizen to understand, creating a communication gap.

Potential for Capture: Corporations and powerful lobbies could still attempt to infiltrate expert panels, corrupting their political neutrality.

Democratic Dilution: Over-reliance on experts might weaken the public’s role in shaping society’s moral and cultural direction.

Implementation Difficulty: Transitioning from existing political systems to a TCD requires careful, phased reforms to avoid instability.

5: Practical Applications and Modern Context

Technocratic Constitutional Democracy is particularly suited for addressing 21st-century challenges where expertise is critical:

Climate Change Mitigation - scientists set carbon targets and infrastructure policies.

Healthcare and Demographic Planning - doctors and demographers design family-support systems, anti-suicide initiatives, and public health strategies.

Digital and AI Governance - technologists and ethicists regulate emerging technologies transparently.

Economic Stability - economists and labour specialists balance growth with social protections.

Some nations already hint at TCD principles:

Singapore - technocratic governance with long-term planning, though not constitutionally protected against authoritarian drift.

Germany - strong constitutional democracy with technocratic influence in sectors like finance and environmental policy.

Nordic countries - blend of democracy and expert-driven policy with strong transparency.

6: Conclusion

The Technocratic Constitutional Democracy is not a utopian fix-all but a pragmatic evolution of governance. It acknowledges the failures of unchecked democracy (populism, corruption, inefficiency) and the dangers of pure technocracy (elitism, authoritarian drift). By integrating constitutional protections, expert-led policy making, and democratic accountability, it offers a balanced framework for building societies that are rational, just, and sustainable.

Its success depends on gradual implementation, robust civic education, and unwavering transparency, so that citizens feel included rather than excluded. Ultimately, TCDs strive to replace governance driven by ego and ideology with governance guided by truth, justice, and mortal dignity - without losing the democratic spirit of representation.

THE RULE-CYCLE GOVERNANCE SYSTEM (RCGS)

1: Foundational Premise

The Rule-Cycle Governance System (RCGS) is a meta-system of governance designed to directly counteract the slow corruption, cognitive dogma, and moral atrophy that inevitably emerge in any power structure over time.

It builds on the insights of systems like:

Technocratic Constitutionalism (competence and evidence-based policy), and

Civic Meritocracy (ethical and civic responsibility as prerequisites for authority).

But RCGS goes a step further by introducing self-correcting temporal governance cycles - a system that renews and purges itself systematically, rather than waiting for collapse or revolution.

2: The Core Mechanism - Governance in Cycles

Every major institution in an RCGS society - from government branches to regulatory boards, to economic councils - operates in fixed “Rule Cycles.”

Each cycle lasts, for example, 8 to 12 years.

During each cycle, specific roles, policies, and institutions undergo evaluation, rotation, and renewal.

The evaluation process is not political but multi-layered, combining:

Technocratic metrics (efficiency, policy accuracy, resource balance)

Civic evaluations (public satisfaction, mental health indices, quality-of-life data)

Ethical audits (integrity assessments, corruption exposure, social fairness)

This means the system is designed to never stagnate. Once the metrics signal decline or corruption, the structure undergoes procedural auto-correction - replacing decayed elements without uprooting the whole system.

3: Multi-Layered Leadership Model

RCGS divides leadership into three tiers to balance Human limitations:

The Rational Tier (Technocratic):

Experts in various domains (science, governance, engineering, psychology) guide policy based on data and results, but their authority is limited by oversight and time-bound mandates.

The Ethical Tier (Civic-Meritocratic):

Civic leaders are selected for proven moral integrity, social service, and civic dedication. They act as the moral compass of governance, with veto powers over policies deemed unethical or socially corrosive.

The Cultural Tier (Symbolic/Monarchical/Heritage):

A ceremonial figure (or council) serves as a long-term guardian of the nation’s identity, traditions, and inter-generational continuity - detached from political and technocratic cycles, providing emotional stability.

Together, these three tiers prevent dominance by any single power structure - technocrats cannot become detached elitists, civic leaders cannot moralize without practicality, and cultural guardians cannot impose tradition without accountability.

4: Anti-Corruption and Anti-Dogma Mechanisms

Key Point - corruption and dogma always seep in - is directly addressed in RCGS via the following innovations:

Rotational Power Cycles: No role can be held indefinitely; long-term influence requires periodic civic re-approval and performance re-evaluation.

Integrity Scanning Systems: Not literal “brain scans,” but continuous psychological and behavioural audits using independent ethics bodies (to detect coercion, undue influence, or hidden alliances).

Deliberative Cognitive Diversity Councils: To prevent group think among experts, councils are composed of individuals from distinct intellectual, cultural, and ideological backgrounds.

Decay Index Tracking: Institutions are graded annually for signs of bureaucratic inertia, moral decay, and rule exploitation. Once the index crosses a threshold, automatic restructuring begins.

5: Strengths of RCGS

Self-Correcting Design: The system evolves continuously; corruption cannot take deep root before renewal.

Human & Cultural Balance: Rational governance is balanced with ethical and cultural dimensions, preventing dehumanization.

Stable but Adaptive: The cyclical model avoids both stagnation and chaos - change is constant but controlled.

Cognitive Realism: Recognizes mortal flaws (greed, delusion, fatigue) as predictable forces, and institutionalizes ways to manage them.

Rule Equality: Adheres to the Rule of Rule principle - even governing bodies must obey procedural renewal.

6: Weaknesses and Challenges

Complex Implementation: The structure is sophisticated, requiring decades to establish properly.

Dependence on Civic Maturity: Citizens must understand and value systemic renewal - apathy or polarization could hinder it.

Potential Bureaucratic Overload: Multiple audits and tiers risk inefficiency if not streamlined.

Technological Vulnerability: Heavy reliance on transparent data systems could be targeted or corrupted digitally.

7: Philosophical Nature

The Rule-Cycle Governance System isn’t utopian - it’s pragmatic about imperfection. It doesn’t aim to eliminate corruption or stupidity; it aims to limit their lifespan.

Its foundation is that no system should depend on eternal virtue - only on periodic accountability and structural humility.

It assumes mortal nature’s flaws but channels them through design, not denial.

9: Conclusion

Every system collapses under corruption and delusion if left unchecked.

But what if collapse isn’t a failure - what if it’s scheduled maintenance?

That is the essence of the Rule-Cycle Governance System - not a utopian fix, but a self-renewing design built on realism, humility, and continuous adaptation.

DISCLAIMER

To all those who are possibly going to make counter-arguments and are still in doubts, I appreciate your honesty, and I want to give you a clearer and more grounded explanation of where I’m coming from. My goal here is not to dismiss democracy out of hand or to push for anything extreme. I want to explain why I believe alternative systems deserve serious consideration, and why I think our current model isn’t as stable or sustainable as many people assume.

I’m not arguing this because I want chaos. I’m arguing it because I genuinely believe we are repeating patterns that have already caused societies to collapse in the past, and I don’t want to see that cycle unfold again.

1: I’m not saying democracy is a villain, because I understand it was built on good intentions. But I’m saying it has built-in weaknesses we keep ignoring that are far too problematic.

Every system has flaws, but democracy has a specific vulnerability that keeps showing up in history. When decisions depend on popularity, loudness, branding, and emotional appeals, the people with actual competence are pushed aside in favor of entertainers or demagogues.

That isn’t theory. It’s observable:

  1. Ancient Athens fell partly because of demagogic manipulation.

  2. Weimar Germany collapsed from within, via elections many years ago.

  3. Modern countries, including the UK and the US, deal with polarization, populism, and declining trust.

I’m not claiming democracy “absolutely never works,” though it works in ways it shouldn’t be. I’m also saying it struggles to sustain itself long term without collapsing into either dysfunction or authoritarianism. That pattern matters.

2: I want alternatives because I don’t want to wait for a collapse before we act.

You mentioned that only totalitarian states have been alternatives. That used to be true, but that doesn’t mean we can’t design something modern, ethical, and genuinely people-focused.

My argument isn’t “democracy bad, authoritarianism good.”

It’s “democracy has predictable structural weaknesses, so we should invent and explore systems that avoid those weaknesses without losing personal freedoms, and to work together on that.”

I’m not promoting coups or unrest. I’m talking about peaceful, gradual reforms that build stability rather than tear anything down.

3: My frustration is not about hopelessness. It’s about direction.

The UK is a good example. Over the last few decades:

  1. workfare and harsh treatment of the unemployed remain

  2. wealth inequality remains

  3. party extremism remains

  4. police overreach and brutality remains

  5. short-term political games remain

  6. foreign influence and capitulation remains

  7. polarization remains

These issues don’t come from one party or one leader. They come from the structure of the system itself. It produces the same outcomes regardless of who wins. That’s why it feels like Groundhog Day.

I’m not saying Britain is a dictatorship or that we “live in fear.” I’m saying we are stuck in a loop where the same problems keep returning, because elections reward theatrics and promises more than ethics or expertise.

4: I’m not asking anyone to abandon democracy overnight.

My goal is to put forward alternatives that can:

  1. reduce the influence of manipulators

  2. protect voters from emotional political weaponization

  3. make sure leaders actually know what they’re doing

  4. prevent collapse before it starts

  5. keep freedoms while improving competence and ethics

I’m not preaching doom. I’m trying to prevent doom.

5: You’re right that ideas need to be simple to communicate. I’m learning that, and I’m improving it now.

You weren’t insulting me when you said my earlier explanation was hard to follow. You were giving me useful feedback. I accept that.

So this is me giving a clearer, simpler version because I want you to understand where I’m coming from without feeling overwhelmed.

7: If after all this you still prefer democracy, I accept that.

My disagreement isn’t with your values. You care about freedom and stability. So do I.

My disagreement is with whether democracy, as it exists today, can reliably deliver those things long term.

If you remain pro-democracy, that’s your right. I just want you to understand the reasons I’m looking for alternatives, and the fact that my intentions are peaceful, constructive, and motivated by concern rather than hostility.

ADDENDUM

It is natural and valid for some to express concern that replacing existing political systems with alternatives could bring about economic uncertainty, political turbulence, or social instability. I have been aware of these potential risks from the outset, which is precisely why any transition must be anchored in carefully and professionally developed strategies rather than impulsive execution. The aim is not reckless upheaval, but measured, evidence-based evolution.

From my perspective, a grassroots foundation is essential. This includes forming like-minded and socially engaged community networks, building citizen-driven campaigns, fostering independent political bodies, and most importantly, implementing accessible political education so the public understands both the reasons for change and the mechanics of new systems. Without broad civic comprehension and cooperation, any large-scale shift risks confusion or resistance. Additionally, strategic collaboration with legal scholars, economists, sociologists, and governance experts would ensure that transitions are grounded in professional insight, and that structural safeguards are in place before changes take effect.

Beyond these measures, I propose other complementary solutions to guarantee stability during such a profound transformation:

Slow Implementation: Introduce reforms in phases, beginning with small, low-risk changes that acclimate the public and institutions to new frameworks before expanding.

Systemic Testing: Use controlled pilot programs at local or municipal levels to test new governance mechanisms, measure their outcomes, and refine policies before nationwide roll out.

Economic Stability Plans: Work in parallel with financial experts to anticipate and counteract possible economic shocks, ensuring continuity of services, wages, and investment.

Legal and Constitutional Safeguards: Amend or introduce constitutional provisions to prevent power vacuums or the abuse of transition periods.

Cultural Preservation Measures: Ensure that in the process of system change, the beneficial and defining aspects of Japanese culture remain protected, easing fears of losing identity.

Transparent Communication: Maintain open dialogue with the public throughout the process, providing regular updates, data-driven progress reports, and forums for citizen feedback.

The purpose of this approach is to balance innovation with stability, so that system reform enhances, rather than disrupts, national well-being. By treating governance reform as both a technical project and a cultural undertaking, Japan can navigate change with confidence and unity, avoiding the chaos that too often accompanies poorly planned revolutions.

OVERALL CONCLUSION

Overall, considering all the negative legal challenges that we had to put up with in general, and all the constant pain and failures that are given to us, I think it is best that we deviate from our paths of relying on democracy, and use these proposed alternatives so long as they fit the theme of the systems we are in.

Britain as a whole, since it is a constitutional monarchy, needs to belong with either a TCM, a CRM system, or a RCGS.

So long as we tolerate democracy itself, then we are all poisoning and polluting our civilisations, and the blood-drenched cycle of democracy to autocracy will continue. Choosing leaders based on virtues, morality, civics, and expertise, are the source of a leader’s strength, and we are throwing all that to the curb in favor of popularity, promise, and boastful contests. And that cannot be right. With all that said, thanks for taking the time to read, and good luck.