Good questions to ask about the relationship between governance and communication (from Ted Rau and SoFA): --- What is the relationship between governance and how we communicate? Are they the same/different?  Where is connection in sociocracy? Where is connection in other governance methods? If we had perfect governance, would we need special time on connection? If we had perfect connection, would we need governance? --- Governance is the machine, communication is the oil. Origin of governance = to steer Origin of communication = to impart Governance begins where communication leaves off. 3-5 people can get by with good communication. Beyond that, we need governance to set rules for decision-making. In the past, we dealt with decisions in big groups by going with whoever has the most power or can speak better. Sociocracy tries to distribute power more equitably. --- From Against Elections: > Democracy, aristocracy, oligarchy, dictatorship, despotism, totalitarianism, absolutism and anarchy: every political system has to achieve a balance between two fundamental criteria, efficiency and legitimacy. Efficiency is all about how quickly a government can find successful solutions to problems that arise, while legitimacy is about the degree to which people give their assent to the solution. To what degree do the people recognise the authority of the government? Efficiency is about decisive action while legitimacy is about support, the two criteria usually existing in inverse proportion to each other. A dictatorship is undoubtedly the most efficient form of government (one person decides and that’s it) but it rarely enjoys much lasting legitimacy. The reverse, a country that engages in endless consultation with all its residents, no doubt nurtures support for the government, but at the expense of its ability to act. ---