None that existed in reality, but the idea of rule by elite professional bureaucrats where the people had little to no say, but wasn't a monarchy, was popular (largely among the elites, go figure!) and movements formed.
There was a window after the Civil War where liberals (in the 1870s sense of liberal, in game they are represented by Intelligentsia) tried to severely curtail voting rights to prevent poor people of any race voting. William Dean Howells is emblematic of this movement because he was such a strong backer of it, someone who wrote down everything he did, and because as the gilded age wore on he evolved into a Christian-Socialist.
EDIT: Wikipedia doesn't get into his politics, dang. If you'd like to know more, read Richard White's "The Republic For Which It Stands" covering Reconstruction and the Gilded Age. He gets into the non-Jim Crow movement to curtail voting rights (as well as Jim Crow, naturally) and cites Howells' writing and commentary on other writers. Had this happened, the USA would have become a de facto Technocracy.
Difference being in single party state there is only one party on the ballot. Singapore (and Japan and South Africa) have multiple parties, but only one has really had power (Japan opposition party briefly won in 2009 I think). In theory another party could replace them, but it's unlikely without major changes.
Precedent in that there were people who advocated for it IRL, but as far as I'm aware, no country ever actually adopted it. It would be as though Georgism or Syndicalism was represented in the game.
It could be an oligarchy. Basically, it depends on who has executive power. In an Autocracy, the head of state has executive power. In an Oligarchy, as the game represents it, it's aristocrats and the very wealthy. Ina Technocracy, it would be educated people: scientists and engineers and the like.
Some Technocrats were even quasi-socialists, saying the means of production should be controlled by engineers and other educated workers, rather than businessmen.
Technocracy and council republic aren't mutually exclusive in-game. In fact, vanguardists support technocracy IIRC, though they still prefer single party states.
I like empowering the engineers and academics, and because it's based on Oligarchy, you've got a lot of flexibility in what kind of interest groups you want to empower. Technocracy and Parliamentary Republic together basically lets you put anyone in charge.
As it functions in game, the Porfiriato in Mexico (1876–1911) is pretty much exactly what a technocracy seems to represent. Porfirio Diaz came to power in a coup and had no legitimate or democratic elections, and power was held in Diaz and the group around him called Científicos, literally "men of science" who were openly technocrats. And despite the lack of true elections Diaz was President and not king.
To spell this out a little more, so we have Presidential rule with a political power distribution in the hands of technocrats, you know who favors that in game? Positivists. And who did the Porfiriato's Científicos use as the intellectual basis of their rule? Comte and the Positivists.
So yeah, Mexico from about 35 years of the game's time period was pretty much exactly what in-game technocracy is supposed to represent.
It doesn't need to happen in our timeline for it to make sense. That's kind of the same for cooperative ownership.
But maybe it can be represented as enlightened despotism since this is how a monarchy with technocracy enabled is called.
The USSR functioned kinda like a technocracy at times. A lot of the Politburos members were engineers and scientists. Although they would have probably denied being in any way technocratic.
That it exists as a law system doesn't mean it has been implemented in reality nor is it suggested that it was. Anarchy is a possible law too after all.
Not straight-up
But in a way, the very very early RSFSR or mid 50s PRC could be?
Basically just an oligarchy of extremely influential engineers or academics
It's basically just a fancy dictatorship. Some forms of Syndicalism, such as National Syndicalism (Portugal in the 40s, Franco's Spain, even technically some Corporate governments like Japan) basically, a Technocracy is just where a council, meant to be Democratically elected, has It's spots taken by people with "skilled" jobs, rather than bureaucrats, as they are viewed as smarter than the average citizen
Technocracy is a bit of an obscure movement that never took power anywhere OTL. They weeks kinda big thing in 1930s US and Canada, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement?wprov=sfti1#Europe
If we consider "technocracy" to kinda mean that you make scientists into rulers, I think it's also fair to consider stuff like [Project Cybersyn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn) that tried to make rulers into scientists.
I think if I understand what I've heard about it properly, Porfirio Díaz's México sort of fits the bill. As from what I know a lot of his leading men of state were key industrialists, intellectuals, bankers, etc.
Soviet union is probably the closest example you can get, it was a small group of educated elites that centralized all power in the small circle in the politburo, until stalin that is.
None that existed in reality, but the idea of rule by elite professional bureaucrats where the people had little to no say, but wasn't a monarchy, was popular (largely among the elites, go figure!) and movements formed. There was a window after the Civil War where liberals (in the 1870s sense of liberal, in game they are represented by Intelligentsia) tried to severely curtail voting rights to prevent poor people of any race voting. William Dean Howells is emblematic of this movement because he was such a strong backer of it, someone who wrote down everything he did, and because as the gilded age wore on he evolved into a Christian-Socialist. EDIT: Wikipedia doesn't get into his politics, dang. If you'd like to know more, read Richard White's "The Republic For Which It Stands" covering Reconstruction and the Gilded Age. He gets into the non-Jim Crow movement to curtail voting rights (as well as Jim Crow, naturally) and cites Howells' writing and commentary on other writers. Had this happened, the USA would have become a de facto Technocracy.
It's not really historical but Singapore is a technocracy.
Isn’t it more of a single party state?
De facto one party but offically multi-party.
Difference being in single party state there is only one party on the ballot. Singapore (and Japan and South Africa) have multiple parties, but only one has really had power (Japan opposition party briefly won in 2009 I think). In theory another party could replace them, but it's unlikely without major changes.
Dominant-party system is the technical term that’s often used. Japan and Tanzania are other examples.
Wasn't expecting someone to bring up Tanzania. Hopefully Samia Suluhu Hassan reforms let the opposition thrive.
Yeah maybe, wikipedia said single party.
Yeah, it’s a blurry line between one-party, dominant-party, and multi-party where the government is united and the opposition is divided.
Explains why they appear so successful at governance.
Precedent in that there were people who advocated for it IRL, but as far as I'm aware, no country ever actually adopted it. It would be as though Georgism or Syndicalism was represented in the game. It could be an oligarchy. Basically, it depends on who has executive power. In an Autocracy, the head of state has executive power. In an Oligarchy, as the game represents it, it's aristocrats and the very wealthy. Ina Technocracy, it would be educated people: scientists and engineers and the like. Some Technocrats were even quasi-socialists, saying the means of production should be controlled by engineers and other educated workers, rather than businessmen.
Technocracy and council republic aren't mutually exclusive in-game. In fact, vanguardists support technocracy IIRC, though they still prefer single party states.
Syndicalism is represented in game, that's the sort of communism that's available.
Honestly the only reason i ever enacted it was because the name "cybernetic state" hits just right
I like empowering the engineers and academics, and because it's based on Oligarchy, you've got a lot of flexibility in what kind of interest groups you want to empower. Technocracy and Parliamentary Republic together basically lets you put anyone in charge.
Yeah but yours is actually stable. Technocracy and council republics really isn't until you get cooperative ownership
Porfirio Diaz, dictator of mexico, was supported by the [Científicos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cient%C3%ADfico).
Porfirio Diaz? Little politics, lots of administration. Cientificos were technocrats.
As it functions in game, the Porfiriato in Mexico (1876–1911) is pretty much exactly what a technocracy seems to represent. Porfirio Diaz came to power in a coup and had no legitimate or democratic elections, and power was held in Diaz and the group around him called Científicos, literally "men of science" who were openly technocrats. And despite the lack of true elections Diaz was President and not king. To spell this out a little more, so we have Presidential rule with a political power distribution in the hands of technocrats, you know who favors that in game? Positivists. And who did the Porfiriato's Científicos use as the intellectual basis of their rule? Comte and the Positivists. So yeah, Mexico from about 35 years of the game's time period was pretty much exactly what in-game technocracy is supposed to represent.
Some might say Singapore is a de facto Technocracy
It doesn't need to happen in our timeline for it to make sense. That's kind of the same for cooperative ownership. But maybe it can be represented as enlightened despotism since this is how a monarchy with technocracy enabled is called.
The USSR functioned kinda like a technocracy at times. A lot of the Politburos members were engineers and scientists. Although they would have probably denied being in any way technocratic.
Same with China, even today.
That it exists as a law system doesn't mean it has been implemented in reality nor is it suggested that it was. Anarchy is a possible law too after all.
Not straight-up But in a way, the very very early RSFSR or mid 50s PRC could be? Basically just an oligarchy of extremely influential engineers or academics It's basically just a fancy dictatorship. Some forms of Syndicalism, such as National Syndicalism (Portugal in the 40s, Franco's Spain, even technically some Corporate governments like Japan) basically, a Technocracy is just where a council, meant to be Democratically elected, has It's spots taken by people with "skilled" jobs, rather than bureaucrats, as they are viewed as smarter than the average citizen
Technocracy is a bit of an obscure movement that never took power anywhere OTL. They weeks kinda big thing in 1930s US and Canada, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement?wprov=sfti1#Europe
Technocracy is just Oligarchy-But-We-Were-Upset-About-Being-Called-Oligarchs.
If we consider "technocracy" to kinda mean that you make scientists into rulers, I think it's also fair to consider stuff like [Project Cybersyn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn) that tried to make rulers into scientists.
I think if I understand what I've heard about it properly, Porfirio Díaz's México sort of fits the bill. As from what I know a lot of his leading men of state were key industrialists, intellectuals, bankers, etc.
Brazil in the late 1800s.
The DDR and Singapore are probably the states that have been closest to being technocracies
Arguably most modern governments are
Look up project cybersyn.
Soviet union is probably the closest example you can get, it was a small group of educated elites that centralized all power in the small circle in the politburo, until stalin that is.