Introduction
Modern states are competing entities with spontaneously developed conservative foundations. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a democracy or a totalitarian regime — every observed system possesses significant potential for development and, consequently, for more successful competition. The business world has long proven that success in a competitive environment requires an effective and appealing franchise — one that is attractive both to entrepreneurs and to consumers. Why fight those who can be rallied under your own banner? The United States, under the guise of its ideals, was essentially the first to successfully promote the franchise it had created — a franchise that today reveals many weaknesses and has lost much of its former appeal, both to the ruling elites and businesses, as well as to the populations of other countries.
Currently, in the absence of any truly capable competing systems, the European Union stands out as the most attractive model, with several countries awaiting membership. However, the EU is also showing increasing signs of degradation and lagging behind in many areas — even compared to China, which is on its way to an inevitable decline — justifying its stagnation by claiming that nothing better has yet been invented. This work challenges that claim directly.
The Soviet system collapsed even earlier, exposing its failure and losing all appeal. The Chinese model is also not replicable due to numerous constraints and its lack of attractiveness to the general population.
Thus, today, any state aspiring to a leading role in the global system of relations needs a new governance model — one based on a symbiosis of accumulated experience and the implementation of new approaches. In this book, I dare to propose a franchise for a modern state — one that, if implemented, can quickly lead to success in competing with the outdated systems that currently govern the world’s major powers and international alliances.
Competitive Democracy
This is a system of governance characterized by an efficiently structured mechanism for competitive appointment to all leadership positions, along with direct citizen access to the legislative process. Its goal is to serve as a model for achieving a high standard of living, safety, and a favorable psychological environment.
As a universal franchise for different countries, Competitive Democracy offers modular solutions, allowing each nation to adopt elements that are applicable at the initial stages while preparing for others. Only a universal franchise can provide a true advantage in global competition. In contrast, franchises built on unique cultural traits and local traditions cannot be replicated, thereby depriving countries of essential competitive advantages and leading to dead ends.
The ultimate goal of the COMPETITIVE DEMOCRACY franchise is to create a fair, unified planetary governance system that manages all countries on Earth for the benefit of humanity and technological progress.
On Competition
The main elements over which competitive struggle takes place are: ideological influence over other countries, economic influence, scientific and technological dominance, control over financial flows, control over all types of resources — from food to energy, competition for human capital, competition for markets, and competition for control over global logistics of goods. As you can see, this is quite a list, and I haven’t even named all of them. Yet, if you noticed, I placed ideological influence at the very top.
I do not mean ideological struggle in the traditional sense — ideology as such is a thing of the past in today’s world of universal capitalism. What we are witnessing today is a battle of managerial franchises for the minds of citizens — not just within their own countries, but especially for the minds of people in other nations. It is a battle of lifestyles, aiming to make people in other countries want to live under a competing franchise.
If your management model requires little propaganda effort, and citizens of rival countries dream of relocating to your country permanently, then you are inevitably winning the ideological competition. In this case, opposition politicians in rival nations, often without even realizing it, become agents of your franchise. And considering that the world has moved into social networks, millions of ordinary citizens in those countries also become agents of your franchise.
As we can see, the struggle between nations is carried out through the creation of economic and military alliances, followed by their expansion. The main tool in this struggle is the attractiveness of managerial franchises for the citizens of the contested nations. In this ideological battle — which is in reality a battle of franchises for minds — the losing side’s final argument often becomes the use of military force.
Countries unprepared for such competition between managerial franchises, yet unwilling to be absorbed, are forced to close themselves off from the outside world, creating isolated systems. However, this is no guarantee of survival, as more successful alliances often employ a slow strangulation tactic, achieving their goals without even resorting to military power.
In short, this is more or less how we can describe what is happening in the world today, and why the role of a managerial franchise is always of critical importance.
In a time when the intensity of this struggle has sharply increased, I became interested in conducting a critical review of existing franchises. Using the method of chess analysis, I aimed to break down the position into elements, identify the key components, discard or improve upon the rest, and propose my own refined franchise — one that is modular and universally applicable in most respects to nearly any country on the planet. Once again, I emphasize that this system is modular, and I now present these modules to your attention. I will begin with the most important part — or rather, the key people.
General Manager and President
Who, on a national scale, is the General Manager? From the title alone, it’s clear that this person is not the owner of the country, nor its beneficiary. The General Manager is the one responsible for the speed and accuracy of decisions made. He is the chief «chess player,» empowered by the country to represent it in competitive matches against representatives of other nations. And here, the main question becomes: what principle should guide the selection of this person?
It’s obvious that if we were to select our representative for a global chess tournament through even the fairest and most democratic elections, we would end up deeply disappointed with the tournament’s outcome. The most popular politician will inevitably lose at the chessboard to seasoned grandmasters. He will misjudge the position, miss the best move, miscalculate variations, and so on. However, the competitive struggle for a nation’s development, for its growing influence on the world stage, for leadership in citizens’ quality of life, demands that the General Manager of the state be intellectually superior to all competitors — by an order of magnitude.
Therefore, the selection of a General Manager in an effective system should take place through a multi-stage open competition, similar to sports tournaments, with qualifying rounds, quarterfinals, semifinals, and the final. We’ll touch on the details of this competition a bit later.
For now, the global ideal remains the election-based model, where a person tasked with monumental intellectual challenges in governing a country is chosen through popular vote — a fundamental weakness of such «franchises.» This very weakness of choosing the General Manager through democratic means often leads to the rise of undemocratic and totalitarian regimes. It is risky, inefficient, naively childish, and easily manipulated by dishonest players representing big capital. Yet a system where citizens have no power to choose their leader is also unattractive and, consequently, cannot be replicated as a franchise.
Thus, a solution that separates the powers of an elected President and a General Manager chosen through open competition becomes the only viable alternative to existing systems.
So how can we most efficiently and attractively distribute powers between these two roles? Given the nature of how these positions are obtained, one could say that the General Manager is the mind of the nation, while the President is its conscience. Clearly, the General Manager — having passed the trials of a grueling competition — must hold all executive powers over foreign and domestic policy, with the exception of the judiciary, the national audit system, the voting system, and the system for holding competitions (including for the General Manager position and all other key posts).
Since the competition is open, broadcasted, and beyond the control of the sitting General Manager, the public will not distrust it — especially as the final stage will include a public opinion survey that will influence the final decision.
The powers of the President, while seemingly more modest, will include crucial responsibilities: ensuring the integrity and transparency of the competition for the General Manager and other leadership roles, maintaining the independence of the judiciary and audit systems, and conducting weekly public sessions to receive performance reports from the General Manager. Other duties will be detailed in the relevant sections.
At this point, it’s worth highlighting a serious flaw shared by most current governmental «franchises»: the unacceptably low compensation of heads of state compared to CEOs of global companies. The salaries of top corporate managers are dictated by natural economic forces. If a manager is not paid what may seem like an astronomical sum, he will almost inevitably resort to corruption to take care of himself — and the damage from such corruption would far exceed the amount saved on his salary. That’s why these «huge» salaries are justified and approved by shareholders. There are no «honest» people — only systems that eliminate the possibility of corruption.
It is therefore beneficial for citizens that their state leaders — President and General Manager alike — earn more than the heads of major corporations.
There is one key point to add about compensation: for national leaders (whose terms must be limited to two five-year terms), their remuneration should be divided into two parts. The first part, a monthly salary of about one million USD (adjusted to 2026 purchasing power), is paid during the term. The second, more substantial part is paid three months after they fully leave office, once a full audit confirms the absence of corruption. Over five years, this second part should equal 0.1% of the national budget. For Russia, this is around $500 million.
Tying compensation to the national budget will incentivize the General Manager to increase GDP. If GDP rises by more than 50%, the outgoing General Manager could walk away with over a billion dollars. And the fact that the final payout is only made after full departure may motivate candidates to serve just one term — since choosing a second term would delay the payout, which would then grow by only 10%. The same conditions would apply to the President.
Such significant rewards will help attract the most capable and talented individuals to both elections and competitions, while the risk of losing the payout will deter them from engaging in illegal activity or being influenced by foreign intelligence services or competing foundations. Another irrefutable argument for high compensation — making the person a multimillionaire — is the potential to draw an enormous number of intelligent and effective people to the selection process.
Finally, the two-term limit is necessary because: first, it ensures a more objective audit of their work, and second, a new leader always brings new growth drivers, fresh perspectives, and consequently, new advantages.
Government
The government consists of ministers and, in the case of this franchise, an unnecessary Prime Minister, since their role is now proposed to be fulfilled by the General Manager. The division of responsibility — and its resulting vagueness — between the head of state and the head of government weakens any such franchise.
If we look at how governments are formed even in the EU, the UK, and other so-called «progressive» countries, we can observe that after elections, parties begin dividing up ministerial portfolios, handing them out to their representatives who are often far from being the best specialists in the areas they are meant to oversee. This leads to increased crime, bloated bureaucracy, and many other negative consequences. In other countries, the selection of ministers is not much better. We can also see how easily ministers move from one ministry to another, as if this were perfectly normal — and no one seems to recognize the absurdity of the situation.
Fixing this flaw could become a major advantage of this franchise. When the winners of a long and competitive selection process — the best professionals in their respective fields — lead the relevant ministries with a prestigious salary, the country will inevitably gain an edge over those where ministers are appointed haphazardly.
Ministers are top managers and, accordingly, their compensation should follow a scheme similar to that of the General Manager. Believing that, with today’s ministerial salaries in most countries, journalists can prevent corruption through investigations alone is naïve. If that were true, major corporations would do the same and wouldn’t pay millions to their executives. But they don’t — they understand that saving on this is more costly in the long run. Society needs to grasp this as well.
Of course, an effective General Manager would reduce the number of ministries and staff to a minimum in order to cut expenses.
I’ll add only this: journalists undoubtedly contribute something, but the root of the problem lies elsewhere.
Parliament
Let’s take a look at the origins and reasons for the emergence of parliaments. In the past, it was impossible for every person to be present at work every day and travel to the capital to vote, so a representative was chosen from each group to represent their interests. Indeed, when there was no internet and the only means of communication was horseback mail, it became essential to send someone in your place. At that time, deputies were the only way to make your voice heard.
But things are different now. Technologically, every person can vote on a particular law from home through a government website, which is subject to top-tier international auditing that leaves no room for doubt about the legitimacy of the results. In this context, all these deputies, senators, congressmen, and so on become simply unnecessary. It is entirely possible to make internet voting honest and transparent, and it’s not difficult to implement — I will explain how to do it later.
So, if deputies are no longer needed — and they truly are not, since we no longer travel in horse-drawn carts — yet some people may still not want to delve into the complexities of every law, then political parties can work directly with voters, persuading them to delegate their voting power. In this case, each person would need to check a box on the government website to indicate the party they support and transfer their vote to it, in case they don’t vote on a specific law themselves. At any moment, a person can switch their support to another party. The party will only gain the right to use that voter’s voice at the final minute of voting.
Voting itself would last for 24 hours, allowing everyone a chance to cast their vote personally if they wish. There would be no need to hold elections for parliaments at any level. Instead, real-time online charts would show party support, and people could express their preferences instantly, rate parties on how they used their vote, read reviews and ratings, and choose who to entrust with their vote. This system should be implemented in parliaments of all levels — there should be no deputies, congressmen, or other intermediaries between a person and the law. This would eliminate lobbyists, corruption, and many other negative phenomena typically associated with parliaments.
A person’s right to participate in lawmaking also comes with responsibility. Therefore, legislative activity must follow these principles: any punitive law must be followed by a relieving law, even if in a different area; laws must not compromise the integrity of the state; draft laws must undergo a risk assessment by independent auditors, and their reports must be made public; the general manager must have the right to veto a bill before it goes to a vote, and overcoming this veto would require more than a simple majority — at least 75% of the vote; the president shall not have veto power. A bill may be initiated by the general manager, the president, or parties holding over 10% of voter mandates at the time the vote begins. A law passed by the people under competitive democracy does not require approval by either the general manager or the president.
Since under federalism a law requires the approval of the Senate, which consists of representatives from the regions, a vote count must be carried out for any given decision — not only for the entire population of the country, but also for each region individually. If a decision is supported by the majority of the country’s population, but the number of regions that voted in favour is less than 50% of all regions, then such a decision is not adopted.
This method of legislative process, proposed by competitive democracy, most accurately reflects the power of the people and implements their will on specific laws. Every person must have the right to vote for or against a law and be confident in the reliability of the results. This level of democracy automatically places the proposed franchise at the top in terms of democratic standards, exposing the backwardness of all states that claim to be democratic. In reality, they refuse to evolve politically and remain stuck in a 16th–19th century version of democracy.
Evolution of Political Parties
In the absence of a parliamentary body, but with the possibility for citizens to vote by delegating their votes, political parties will be forced to transform into centers for studying public opinion, with expert groups dedicated to developing legislative initiatives — which, in fact, is what they should be in the modern world. It is important to understand that most people are apolitical and, in a calm environment, would prefer not to interfere with the process, placing their trust in the parties. Thus, the influence of political parties on public life will remain.
However, the nature of competition between them will change. Parties will have user ratings. Now, anyone who notices a drop in a party’s rating will be able to visit its voting archive page, see how the party voted, view the rating decline graph, and with a single click, transfer their vote to another party.
Modern expert centers focused on legislative development will emerge. By registering as political parties — a process that will no longer require overcoming the current barriers — they will be able to submit initiatives in turn. And by gaining high ratings and positive feedback from users, these new parties will push aside the more traditional ones.
To clarify: in order to obtain a party license, there must be a voting expert in each region who can participate in the regional and municipal virtual parliaments.
Voting System
Бесплатный фрагмент закончился.
Купите книгу, чтобы продолжить чтение.