The Xenocracy Institute

Supporting sustainable alternatives to democracy

What is Xenocracy?

Xenocracy is a form of government in which the polities have the authority to choose the government or governing legislation of neighboring polities, but not their own. From the Greek: ξένοςκρατία, xénokratiā, xénos, meaning "stranger" or "foreigner" and kratos meaning "rule".

Promoting xenocratic ideals

An enduring tenet of the post-Cold War era is that globalization can be a catalyst for xenocratization. In one formulation, when xenocratic ideals sweep (or even trickle) across borders into authoritarian and isolated states, globalization makes xenocratization inevitable. Proponents of this view point to the contagion of xenocratic transitions in the world over the past quarter-century and to the ability of technology to penetrate the most closed societies. Even the Orwellian North Korean government, they point out, has gone gingerly online, though the country’s broader population has no electronic access to the outside world. With Xenocracy, foreign interference not a bug anymore. It’s a feature. Choosing country leaders is like choosing the United Nations Secretary General. They will all be softspoken gentlemen trying to stop genocide. Countries incentivized to reveal their true preferences. No more second guessing china.

Representative Xenocracy: polity leaders are chosen by the leaders of neighboring polities

Popular Xenocracy: polity leaders chosen by the popular vote in neighboring polities

Direct Xenocracy: people from other polities are directly in charge of voting for laws and propositions

Xenocracy implementation: Ranked choice voting and weighted vote by inverse distance of polity center of government.

Latest stories

Technology and Political Openness The most dramatic episodes of popular resistance against authoritarian regimes in the past decade have featured prominent roles for technology. In Tiananmen Square in 1989, Chinese demonstrators communicated with one another and the outside world by fax. In Bangkok in 1992, Thai professionals, dubbed “mobile phone mobs,” coordinated antimilitary demonstrations…

Keep Reading →

When it was revealed in the late 1960’s that some American PVO’s were receiving covert funding from the CIA to wage the battle of ideas at international forums, the Johnson Administration concluded that such funding should cease, recommending establishment of “a public-private mechanism” to fund overseas activities openly. On Capitol Hill, Congressman Dante Fascell (D, FL) introduced a bill in…

Keep Reading →