How each model solves the same problems
Instead of “democracy versus anarchism”, compare the concrete ways collective problems get solved.
| Question | + Model | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| How are decisions made? | Each subak's assembly (paruman) of member farmers sets planting dates, work and fines under its own rules (awig-awig); water temples coordinate schedules between subaks. | A 28-member General Council (half elected by parish, half by national list) elects the head of government; the co-princes sanction laws with countersignature. | |
| How are conflicts resolved? | Disputes are heard by subak heads and assemblies; conflicts between upstream and downstream subaks are negotiated at shared temples. | A four-member Constitutional Tribunal appointed by the co-princes and the General Council; ordinary courts. | |
| How are public goods funded? | Proportional water division, canal maintenance, pest control through synchronised fallowing and shared ritual. | Health, education and infrastructure funded by indirect, corporate and personal taxes; parishes run local services. | |
| How is AI used? | None in governance. Lansing's computer simulations were research tools that informed, but did not run, scheduling. | No specific role for AI. | |
| What are the main risks? | Conversion of rice land to housing and tourism, water competition with hotels, falling water tables and state programmes that ignore local coordination. | Clash between the episcopal co-prince and legislation such as abortion; exclusion of non-citizens; dependence on France, Spain and the EU. |
This illustrates differences in design; it is not a universal claim about outcomes. Each cell links to mechanisms and the claims behind them.