Have you heard of the
Turkmenbasi? He was the president of Turkmenistan between 1990 and 2006 (until his death). He wasn't the greatest political leader of our time, but that wouldn't make him interesting. What made him stand out of the crowd of mediocre politicians is the 75 meters high
monument that had his
golden statue on top. No, it was not erected after his death. And it wasn't the only one. The country was littered with statues, paintings, and other artwork (of dubious value) featuring the Turkmenbasi, "the father of all Turkmens". Oh, he also renamed the
months, "April" was changed to the name of his mother.
How on Earth could this prime example of megalomania lead a country? Why did the people tolerate him? I mean there was
some violation of human rights and some opposing politicians and journalists found themselves dead, but there were no mass graves, concentration camps or revolts on the street. On the other hand in several other countries the people revolted against the tyrant, even when the mentioned leader was much-much less obviously unfit for command. Are they somehow better people than the Turkmens? They wanted freedom more?
I don't think so. I strongly believe that the survival of terrible or ridiculous regimes depend on one thing:
does the wealth of the people depend on their own work or not? Let me explain: the golden statue needs ... well, gold. That's expensive. The surveillance cameras, secret police, torture camps, execution squads and such they are also expensive. You don't find brutal murderers for cheap, except for those who believe in some Utopia, but you don't want to give guns to their hands, as they will turn it on you in the moment they believe you deviated from the Utopia. The army that protects you from other warlords (and hasty "democracy exports") is also expensive. Money, money, money.
How do you get it? If you have to tax your people, then their life standards will drop. Most people don't give a damn about politics and rights. Do you think that a 900DPS DK could quote a line from the constitution? Or even name his senator/congressman? As long as their stomach is full, they have a warm room and some substance to intoxicate that non-functional organ in their head, they are fine.
The costs of your army, secret police, golden statues and such risks exactly that. If you tax your people hard, it means they have to work more and "have fun" less. They won't be happy about that. Agitators have easy job among disgruntled people. Also if they have to work, they can easily sabotate because of political reasons. Of course you can punish them, but how do you tell the difference between saboteurs and suckers who just messed up their job. Hang them all? If your countrymen are similar to the playerbase of LFD, you'll need
lot of ropes mate!
On the other hand if you could magically make wealth (the currency of your suck country doesn't count) to finance the enforcers and the symbols of your tyranny, most of your people would be cool about it. All you'd have to kill are a few young Utopists. Too bad for every wannabe dictators that there is no free lunch.
Is there not? 85% (eighty-five percent) of Turkmenistan's GDP comes from oil and gas. The turkmens don't make oil and gas. It is just there. So our beloved Turkmenbasi sold it for $ and financed his system from this income. The people did not have to pay for the army and the statues. Strike that, many of them did not have to pay for his own food and drink, as the oil-dollars were plenty enough to allow the Turkmenbasi to hand out some welfare.
Most long-living dictatorships and terrible failed countries have a serious income source that does not depend on their own work. Oil, gas, copper, drugs (as you can't grow them in decent countries), financial aid from outside (or carelessly given loan). Trying to bring democracy into these countries is futile, because they are exactly like WoW. The dictator, like Blizzard, can create rewards out of thin air and hand it out to the M&S for free. And this makes them just as happy as the 900 DPS DK in his shiny T9.
Of course there is a minority in these countries who want a better life, but they are just as small minority as those players who know the class they play. And, just like in the case of WoW, they are not the "target audience" of the system. They can tag along, or they can go to hell.
If the country depends on its own work, the smart people necessarily get into better positions. They get local power and the leadership cannot do anything about it unless they want to destroy the economy itself. These smart people and using the power (money) they gained during leading the local economy can fight for a better world. The French Revolution leaders or the Founding Fathers of the US were no illiterate peasants. They were upstanding citizens, rich men in the old system. They belonged to the top 10% of the country, and recognized that there is no way up for them as the system doesn't let them higher. So they destroyed the system.
The whole thing came to my mind, when people in the guild did not applied for "raider" positions, despite having decent gear and proper skill. When I asked someone why not, he replied, because he is not 100% sure yet that he is perfect and if he fails I'll most probably kick him and ridicule on the blog. I was shocked. I
needed raiders. Why on Earth would I kick someone who can be used? Of course I wouldn't hesitate to kick a total failure. But to kick someone who is just "imperfect"?! That would be very-very stupid.
Then it hit me: in "social" guilds, you can be kicked for "causing drama" or "not being helpful" or "insulting someone" or such nonsense. The reason is that they don't need you. Any warm body can take your place. Their rewards come from Blizzard, not from their own efforts.
Our blue geared successes (or failures) depend on our own effort. If I would kick people for not being nice with me, or mentioning my low DPS when it's low, I would destroy the whole guild as it cannot function without able raiders. Therefore I have no power above my raiders, exactly because my "guild leader" position is nothing without guild progression.
In a meritocracy the leadership is just administration, not power holders. In a free-lunch system the leaders have real power over their subordinates. The subordinates need the leaders to give them welfare, the leaders don't need subordinates for any other purpose than "living statues", means of display of their power.
