Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. History of Democracy and the Republic
3. Sociocultural and Technological Evolution
4. Critique of Original Premises
5. The Human Psyche in the 21st Century
6. Proposals for New Premises
7. Revised Objectives for Democracy
8. IFAND: Institute for a New Democracy
9. Conclusion
10. References

1. Introduction

From its humble origins in ancient Athens to its omnipresence in the contemporary world, democracy has been celebrated as a pillar of human governance. This system gives people a sense of agency and responsibility in directing their society. Similarly, the republican model and its division of powers have served as safeguards against tyranny, ensuring that no individual or entity accumulates excessive power. However, in the 21st Century, democracy and the republic face an identity and effectiveness crisis.

As our societies become more complex, driven by rapid technological changes and a deeper understanding of the human psyche, we face a disquieting question: Are our foundational premises about democracy and the republic, many of which have not been explicitly articulated, still valid? This question is not merely academic; its answer has palpable implications. From the election of populist leaders to endemic corruption and political stagnation, the shortcomings of our governance systems are increasingly exposed.

The objective of this essay is twofold. First, we will unravel the implicit premises underpinning democracy and the republic since its inception. Second, with a new understanding of human and social complexity, we will propose a series of new premises and revised objectives that can build a more robust and resilient system. Finally, we will introduce the concept of IFAND (Institute for a New Democracy) as a practical step towards updating these long-revered but currently inadequate governance systems.

2. History of Democracy and the Republic

The history of democracy and the republic dates back to antiquity, although the ways in which they have manifested and developed over time are diverse. Focusing first on democracy, the most cited model is Athenian democracy. In 5th-century B.C. Athens, under the leadership of figures like Pericles, the city-state experienced a system of governance where free citizens could directly participate in political decisions. It's crucial to understand that this democracy was not universal; it excluded women, slaves, and non-citizens. However, it established the radical principle that governmental authority should be exercised by citizens rather than a monarch or oligarchy.

The republic, on the other hand, has its deepest roots in Rome. In contrast to Athenian democracy, the Roman republican model was characterized by a system of representation and a strict division of powers among different branches of government, such as the Senate and the Popular Assemblies. Although it wasn't a republic in the modern sense, it presented an early form of checks and balances, designed to prevent the concentration of power and potential tyranny.

It's also worth mentioning other early models of democracy and republic that existed in different parts of the world, from the assemblies of the Republic of Venice in Europe to communal decision-making systems in some indigenous societies. However, the Athenian and Roman models have had the most significant impact on the formation of Western democratic and republican systems.

In summary, these ancient systems laid the groundwork for the forms of government that prevail in much of the world today. They offer us not only historical context but also a starting point for evaluating and reforming current systems.

Objectives of Democracy

Continuing with our exploration of democracy and the republic, it's crucial to stop and consider the objectives that these systems of government aim to achieve. Some of these objectives are more explicit than others, but all contribute to the legitimacy and functionality of these models.

Objectives of Democracy:

1. Citizen Participation:
   • Feature: Encourages active participation of citizens in the political process.
   • Benefit: Fosters a sense of belonging and civic responsibility.
2. Fundamental Freedoms:
   • Feature: Protects individual liberties and human rights.
   • Benefit: Ensures the respect and dignity of all citizens.
3. Pluralism:
   • Feature: Encourages a diversity of opinions and political parties.
   • Benefit: Reduces the risk of authoritarianism.
4. Accountability:
   • Feature: Rulers are accountable to the ruled.
   • Benefit: Limits abuse of power.
5. Transparency:
   • Feature: Decision-making processes are open and transparent.
   • Benefit: Promotes trust in government.
6. Political Stability:
   • Feature: Resolves conflicts in a peaceful and orderly manner.
   • Benefit: Fosters a safe and predictable environment.
7. Legality:
   • Feature: Is based on a legal framework.
   • Benefit: Ensures justice and equality.
8. Innovation and Adaptability:
   • Feature: Allows for evolution and adaptation.
   • Benefit: Fosters continual improvement.
9. Representation:
   • Feature: Citizens elect representatives.
   • Benefit: Enables efficient governance.
10. Separation of Powers:
    • Feature: The powers of the state are divided.
    • Benefit: Prevents the concentration of power.

These objectives were not always explicitly stated by the founders of Athenian democracy or the Roman republic. For example, the Athenians focused more on direct participation and less on representation or the separation of powers. The Romans, on the other hand, did show greater concern for the separation of powers, but accountability and transparency were not as explicit.

Implicit Premises in the Creation of Democracy: Human Psychology and Democracy

Democracy and the republic are political concepts that have deeply influenced the shaping of societies throughout history. From their beginnings in Athenian democracy and other early models, these systems of government have been seen as ideal mechanisms for promoting common welfare and individual freedom. But what underpinnings lie beneath these political structures? By exploring the core of these concepts, we find that certain psychological and philosophical premises about human nature are implicit in their design and operation.

Premises Related to Human Psychology:

1. Rationality:
   • Premise: Humans are capable of reasoning and making informed decisions.
   • Democratic Implication: Democracy relies on informed citizens who vote according to their interests and values.
2. Informed Self-Interest:
   • Premise: Individuals act according to their own interest but can also be altruistic.
   • Democratic Implication: Voters choose leaders and policies they consider beneficial for them and for society.
3. Free Will:
   • Premise: People have the ability to make decisions freely.
   • Democratic Implication: Legitimizes the mandate of elected leaders by allowing multiple political options.
4. Ability for Self-Control and Moderation:
   • Premise: Individuals can control their impulses.
   • Democratic Implication: Control systems and the division of powers are effective in preventing abuse.
5. Socialization and Learning:
   • Premise: Humans are malleable and learn social norms.
   • Democratic Implication: Education and civic participation create informed and ethical citizens.
6. Ability for Empathy and Solidarity:
   • Premise: Individuals can feel empathy and solidarity.
   • Democratic Implication: This fosters social cooperation and cohesion.
7. Desire for Recognition and Validation:
   • Premise: Humans desire recognition and validation.
   • Democratic Implication: Participating in democracy satisfies the need for belonging and recognition.

In summary, the psychological premises underlying democracy have been implicitly present since its inception and have evolved over time. Although rarely articulated explicitly by the founders of democratic systems, these assumptions act as the foundation upon which democratic practice is built. 

From Athenian democracy to modern theorists like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, there is a line of continuity that reflects fundamental beliefs about human capacity for reason, informed self-interest, and social cooperation. 

By recognizing these underlying premises, we not only gain a deeper understanding of what democracy truly means, but we are also better equipped to address its inherent challenges, which arise precisely because human nature is complex and multifaceted. This understanding is crucial for any serious discussion on the viability and effectiveness of democracy as a system of government.

3. Sociocultural and Technological Evolution

Since the time of Athenian democracy, societies have undergone drastic transformations in sociocultural and technological terms. In ancient Athens, democracy was confined to a city-state with a population much smaller than modern nations. The available technology was limited to the realms of writing, oratory, and public debate in spaces like the Agora.

Moving along the timeline, the Renaissance marked a shift in the understanding of the individual and society. This era laid the foundation for the political and social changes that led to the democratic revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries. During the Enlightenment, political thinkers began to articulate principles that are fundamental to modern democracies, such as the separation of powers and human rights.

The 20th century brought with it a technological explosion, which included everything from mass media to the Internet. These technologies have changed the way democracy is practiced, allowing for greater participation and access to information, but also presenting new challenges such as disinformation and polarization.

The development of information technologies, in particular, has radically altered the way people interact and make political decisions. Now more than ever, information and disinformation spread rapidly, affecting public perception and, ultimately, decision-making in a democratic system.

Similarly, the world has transitioned from relatively homogeneous social structures to unprecedented multicultural complexity. Societies are now more diverse in terms of ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation, and this diversity brings with it new challenges for social cohesion and democratic governance.

It's also worth mentioning that the economic system has evolved significantly. From agricultural and feudal models to industrial and service capitalism, these changes have had a profound impact on the way democracy is practiced and understood.

Global interconnection, both cultural and economic, has transformed national sovereignty and governance. Political issues are no longer confined to national borders; now, global issues such as climate change, immigration, and international trade demand cooperative solutions that often challenge traditional premises of democracy.

These transformations necessitate a reevaluation of the original premises upon which democracy was founded and adapting them to a world that is much more complex in sociocultural and technological terms.

4. Critique of Original Premises

The ideal of democracy has been one of the most significant influences on the political and social organization of modern nations. However, as we learn more about the complexity of human psychology, it's imperative to subject the basic premises of democracy to rigorous scrutiny. The current understanding of the human mind challenges some of the conceptual pillars upon which the democratic system is built.

1. Rationality: Modern research in psychology and behavioral economics (e.g., the work of Daniel Kahneman^[1]) has shown that humans are not always rational. We are influenced by cognitive biases, emotions, and heuristics that often guide our decisions more than pure logic.
2. Informed Self-interest: While people may act in their own interest, game theory and evolutionary psychology show that cooperation and altruism are also integral parts of human nature. Furthermore, "self-interest" is not always clear or well-understood by the individual.
3. Free Will: The concept of free will is highly debated. Advances in neuroscience suggest that many of our behaviors are the result of unconscious brain processes. In addition, factors such as genetics and environment play a crucial role in shaping our decisions and behaviors.
4. Capacity for Self-control and Moderation: Although we have some capacity for self-control, we are also subject to irrational impulses and desires. Willpower can be limited and is influenced by factors like mental health, stress, and environmental influences.
5. Socialization and Learning: The capacity to learn and adapt is undeniable, but is also limited by biological and environmental factors. Brain plasticity varies among individuals, and some beliefs and behaviors may be resistant to change.
6. Capacity for Empathy and Solidarity: While empathy is a human capability, it varies widely among individuals. Factors like mental health, personal experiences, and cultural influences can profoundly affect a person's ability to empathize with others.
7. Desire for Recognition and Validation: This desire is generally accepted in psychology, but can also manifest in unhealthy ways. The need for validation can lead to conformity, social dependency, and other behaviors that may not be optimal for the individual or society.

The critical analysis of the psychological premises upon which democracy is based leads us to recognize that human nature is more complex than originally assumed. It's not simply a matter of rationality or free will, but a mix of cognitive biases, emotions, and genetic and environmental factors that interact in unpredictable ways. This more nuanced understanding presents significant challenges for the effectiveness and evolution of democracy as a system of governance. Ignoring these complexities could jeopardize the long-term health and stability of democratic institutions. It's imperative that democratic theory and practice adapt to reflect our more complete and nuanced understanding of human psychology.

Examples of Current Issues Traced Back to These Premises

In today's political landscape, a host of current issues call into question the viability and effectiveness of modern democracies. These tensions largely arise from a misalignment between traditional democratic premises and what modern psychology tells us about the complexities of human nature. This disconnect is not a mere coincidence but a symptom of a system in need of adaptation to a more nuanced understanding of the psychological mechanisms that guide human behavior.

Citizen Participation:

Failure: The election of populist leaders is partly due to an inadequate understanding of how emotions, rather than rationality, guide voter decisions. The assumption that citizens engage in an informed and rational manner is debunked by the popularity of leaders who appeal to deeply ingrained feelings and beliefs.

Outdated Premise: The belief that citizens are rational actors making decisions based on information and careful analysis.

Transparency and Accountability:

Failure: Corruption persists in established democracies, reflecting that human nature is not as ethically and morally inclined as once assumed. The quest for power and personal gain can overshadow democratic norms.

Outdated Premise: The expectation that elected leaders and citizens will act in the interest of the common good, prioritizing ethics over personal interest.

Political Stability:

Failure: Political gridlock and extreme polarization stem from underestimating the influence of group identity and tribal psychology in human decision-making.

Outdated Premise: The notion that political actors will seek rational consensus and compromises to ensure political stability.

The examples outlined spotlight the fundamental discrepancies between the premises on which democracy is built and the complex nature of human psychology. From the election of populist leaders to the persistence of corruption and political stalemate, these current issues reveal the inherent shortcomings of a system designed on assumptions that now appear outmoded. Recognizing these deficiencies is the first step in adapting democratic institutions to the reality of the human condition, in all its complexity and diversity. This adjustment is critical for ensuring the relevance and efficacy of democracy in the contemporary world.

5. The Human Psyche in the 21st Century

In the 21st century, our understanding of human behavior has evolved leaps and bounds compared to the views held by ancient societies. Thanks to advancements in psychology, neuroscience, and social sciences, we now have a more nuanced and complex understanding that goes beyond archaic conceptions often rooted in philosophy, religion, and anecdotal observation.

1. Mind-Body Duality: While thinkers like Descartes advocated a strict separation between mind and body, we now know, thanks to authors like Antonio Damasio^[2] ("Descartes' Error"), that emotions and reason are inextricably linked.
2. Consciousness and Self-Awareness: Self-awareness is no longer considered a purely human phenomenon. Studies in ethology and animal psychology have shown that other species also exhibit forms of self-awareness, thereby challenging the traditional anthropocentric narrative.
3. Biases and Heuristics: Rather than seeing humans as rational beings, research in cognitive psychology (such as the work of Daniel Kahneman^[1], "Thinking, Fast and Slow") shows that our decisions are often influenced by cognitive biases and mental shortcuts.
4. Genetics and Environment: Ancient societies often attributed behaviors and social roles to individuals' intrinsic nature. However, advances in genetics and epigenetics have shown that human behavior is the result of a complex interplay between genes and environment.
5. Brain Plasticity: The age-old belief that fate and character are set in stone has been debunked by research into neuroplasticity, such as the work of Michael Merzenich^[3]. We now know that the brain can change and adapt throughout one's lifetime.
6. Collective Behavior: While ancient societies might have attributed collective behavior to supernatural or divine influences, we now understand the psychological and social mechanisms driving group behaviors, thanks in part to game theory and studies in social psychology.
7. Mental Well-being: Unlike earlier times where mental well-being was misunderstood and stigmatized, it is now recognized as an integral part of human health, supported by a plethora of research and evidence-based therapies.

These advancements offer us a richer and more complex view of the human psyche, allowing us to question and reframe many of the assumptions that have guided human thought for centuries.

From a psychological perspective, certain problems are endemic in modern democratic systems due to inherent characteristics of human cognition and social behavior. The following aspects outline some of these:

1. Cognitive Biases: As Daniel Kahneman^[1] explains in "Thinking, Fast and Slow," humans don't always make rational decisions. This can lead to the election of policies or candidates based on flawed perceptions or incomplete information, rather than a careful analysis of the facts.
2. Social Influence: As detailed by Robert Cialdini^[5] in "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion," people are subject to various social influence factors such as authority and consensus. This can explain why, in democracies, public opinion often moves in "waves" that don't necessarily reflect individual rational judgment.
3. Lack of Self-Control and Long-Term Vision: Studies by Roy Baumeister^[4] on willpower indicate that humans often opt for immediate gratification over long-term benefits. This translates into populist policies that promise quick fixes but don't address structural issues.
4. Misinformation and Polarization: Social psychology shows that individuals are more likely to accept information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs and to ignore contradicting evidence, creating echo chambers that intensify polarization.
5. Cooperation and Altruism: Although game theory and the studies of Robert Axelrod^[6] in "The Evolution of Cooperation" show that cooperation can be beneficial, competition and conflict are also innate in human psychology. This sometimes manifests as partisanship that can stymie legislative progress.
6. Anonymity and Depersonalization: In large democracies, the sense of individual responsibility can wane due to anonymity and depersonalization, leading to reduced civic engagement.
7. Lack of Empathy and Solidarity: As Simon Baron-Cohen^[7] discusses in "The Science of Evil," not all individuals possess similar levels of empathy, which can result in policies that overlook the needs of minorities or the disadvantaged.

Each of these psychological aspects contributes to the challenges faced by modern democracies. However, recognizing these factors also offers opportunities to address them more effectively.

6. Proposals for New Premises

We live in a time when advancements in fields such as psychology, neuroscience, and social sciences have radically transformed our understanding of human behavior. Given this, it's paramount to update the foundations of our democratic systems so they align with this deep and varied knowledge. This section aims to articulate new premises that serve both to diagnose the challenges we face and to outline more effective, human well-being-oriented solutions. It's important to note that these proposals are preliminary ideas requiring more detailed analysis from multidisciplinary expert teams.

Cognitive Complexity: Humans are beings of complex thought, influenced by a mix of rational and irrational factors.

• Implication: The "one person, one vote" policy doesn't fully capture the intricacies of human thought. Democratic systems need to include mechanisms to balance and mitigate impulsive decisions and cognitive biases.
• Measures:
  • Implement weighted voting systems or "liquid democracy" based on expertise or interest in specific issues.
  • Develop ways to present information that encourage critical thinking and rational analysis.

Emotional Influence: Emotions play a pivotal role in decision-making.

• Implication: Political campaigns often play on emotions. Strategies are needed to emotionally educate the population and mitigate emotional manipulation.
• Measures:
  • Introduce "cooling-off periods" where political advertising is restricted.
  • Establish media quality control mechanisms to reduce fake news and emotional manipulation.

Biases and Heuristics: Human beings are subject to biases and heuristics that affect their judgment.

• Implication: Biases can lead to discrimination and require processes to minimize their impact on decision-making.
• Measures:
  • Use algorithms to detect and neutralize biases in governmental decisions.
  • Encourage the formation of diverse and multidisciplinary decision-making groups.

Social Construction of Reality: Perception of reality is subjective and mediated by social and cultural constructs.

• Implication: "Echo chambers" polarize society and necessitate dialogue, respect, and mutual understanding to overcome divisions.
• Measures:
  • Create "social mixer" platforms that expose people to differing viewpoints.
  • Promote media literacy and critical thinking education.

Variability of Empathy: Empathy varies among individuals and is influenced by contextual factors.

• Implication: Systems that foster empathy and social cooperation are needed, while being inclusive of marginalized perspectives.
• Measures:
  • Implement "civic juries" composed of random samples of citizens.
  • Design policies that consider varying levels of empathy.

Social Interdependence: Individuals are inherently connected and influenced by social and community networks.

• Implication: Isolated individuals are less likely to engage. There's a need to strengthen communities and promote social responsibility.
• Measures:
  • Create "democratic circle networks" for civic discussion.
  • Use technology platforms to facilitate community interaction and democratic participation.

Plasticity and Learning: Humans have the ability to learn and change, although this plasticity is limited and varies.

• Implication: Adaptive and personalized educational and informational systems are required to meet society's shifting needs.
• Measures:
  • Initiate "learning cooperatives" for ongoing education.
  • Develop lifelong learning programs.

Biological and Psychological Constraints: There are biological and psychological limitations that affect an individual's ability to process information and make decisions.

• Implication: Accessibility barriers and biological limitations hinder full democratic participation.
• Measures:
  • Implement "decision assistants" to simplify information and guide the voting process.
  • Use technology to develop interfaces that are intuitive and adaptable to varying cognitive abilities.

The evolution of our democratic systems requires a nuanced understanding of human psychology and social interactions. The premises outlined in this document establish an evidence-based framework for rethinking and improving our democracy. Taking into account factors such as the complexity of human thought, emotions, and biological limitations, these new foundations enable us to develop strategies that address both current and future challenges in democratic governance. The next hurdle is to translate these theoretical principles into practice through policies and mechanisms that benefit the collective. To ensure the effectiveness and applicability of these proposals, it's imperative that they undergo rigorous scrutiny by multidisciplinary teams of experts.

7. Revised Objectives for Democracy

Based on the new premises outlined in the previous section, it's imperative to update the objectives of democracy. These revised goals should reflect a deeper and more nuanced understanding of human psychology and social interactions to more effectively address modern challenges. Like the premises, these revised objectives and structural measures must undergo meticulous scrutiny by interdisciplinary teams of experts to ensure their applicability and effectiveness.

Revised Objectives for Democracy:

1. Informed Civic Participation: The original notion of "Civic Participation" has been refined to emphasize the importance of informed engagement, in light of new premises about cognitive complexity and emotional influence on decision-making. In a nutshell, this objective aims for people to not just vote or engage in democracy, but to do so with a solid grasp of the issues at hand. Possible structural measures include: 
   1. Argument Auctions: A system where citizens can "bid" with arguments instead of money to support or refute political proposals, prioritizing the quality of debate.
   2. Policy Prediction Models: Simulation tools that allow voters to see the potential outcomes of a law before casting their vote.
   3. Context-Sensitive Voting: A voting system that presents questions and choices differently based on the voter's knowledge and experience.
   4. Impact Visualization: Using virtual or augmented reality to show voters the potential impacts of policies before they cast their vote.
2. Emotional Resilience: This new objective addresses the premise concerning emotional influence on decision-making. It aims to mitigate emotional manipulation and foster more rational decisions. In simple terms, this objective seeks to help people better manage their emotions when making critical decisions, such as voting. The idea is that if people are emotionally stronger, they are less likely to be swayed by emotional tactics. Possible structural measures include:
   1. Anti-Polarization Algorithm: An algorithm that detects and neutralizes polarizing language in online political discussions.
   2. Proposal Anonymizer: In the law-making process, proposals are presented anonymously to avoid bias.
   3. Emotional Reputation System: A system that gauges emotional stability in public discourse and adjusts the visibility of content accordingly.
   4. Anti-Manipulation Voting: An additional layer in the voting process that requires voters to justify their choices, detecting manipulation attempts.
3. Cognitive Inclusion: This new objective directly addresses the biological and psychological constraints that affect democratic participation, stemming from the new premises about cognitive variability and accessibility. This objective aims to ensure that individuals with varying mental abilities can easily participate in the democratic process. Put simply, if someone struggles with understanding complex texts or using a computer, assistance will be implemented to allow such individuals to vote or understand laws. Possible structural measures include:
   1. Adaptive Voting: Designing voting systems that adapt to the voter's level of comprehension and cognitive capacity.
   2. Decision AI Advisors: Using AI to assist in understanding and analyzing policy proposals in real-time.
   3. Cognitive Interpreters in Parliaments: Incorporating experts in adaptive communication during legislative debates.
   4. Cognitive Bias Filters: Implementing algorithms that detect and correct cognitive biases in policy proposals.
4. Flexibility and Adaptability: This objective replaces and expands upon "Innovation and Adaptability," emphasizing the need for democracy to quickly adapt to changes on various fronts, including social and environmental. In simple terms, this objective aims for the democratic system to be agile in adapting to new circumstances, such as unexpected social or environmental challenges. Possible structural measures include:
   1. Political Stress Scenarios: Using computational models to simulate different scenarios of political, social, or economic stress and proactively adapt legislation.
   2. Continuous Feedback Forums: Online platforms where changes in laws or policies are subject to real-time public feedback.
   3. Adaptive Policy Pilots: Implementing smaller-scale versions of proposed policies to evaluate their effectiveness and make adjustments.
   4. Modular Legislation: Designing laws as modules that can be added, removed, or adjusted easily.
5. Enhanced Accountability: This modification aims to put more teeth into the original "Accountability" goal by introducing more rigorous mechanisms that allow for tangible and real accountability. In layman's terms, this goal focuses on ensuring that politicians and public officials genuinely explain and take responsibility for their actions. Some potential structural measures:
   1. Accountability Maps: Visualization tools that pinpoint who's responsible for what decisions in public administration.
   2. Role-Playing Games for Legislators: Simulations in which legislators must participate to demonstrate the consequences of their actions.
   3. Smart Performance Contracts: Blockchain-based contracts that execute automatically based on an official's performance.
   4. Public Policy Challenges: Allowing citizens to formally challenge existing policies that must be publicly addressed.
6. Transparency and Traceability: This goal refines the original "Transparency" concept by adding a traceability element, thus enabling more effective oversight and greater confidence in the system. Simply put, this goal aims to make all government actions easy to track and understand so that people can place greater trust in their leaders and the system. Some potential structural measures:
   1. Digital Notarization of Decisions: Each governmental decision is securely and traceably recorded using cryptography.
   2. Public Sentiment Dashboard: A real-time dashboard that displays public sentiment about various policies and decisions.
   3. Verifiable Voting System: A system that allows voters to confirm that their vote was counted without revealing who they voted for.
   4. Influence Alerts: Automatic notifications when an individual or business exerts unusual influence on a political decision.
7. Community Interconnectivity: A new goal that takes into account the social interdependence highlighted in the premises. It seeks to strengthen communities and foster social responsibility, something the original "Citizen Participation" goal didn't fully encompass. In layman's terms, this goal aims to strengthen the ties between people in a community and foster social responsibility, beyond just voting or participating in the democratic process. Some potential structural measures:
   1. Community Skill-Exchange Platform: A marketplace for skills and services that values individual contributions in a system of community credits.
   2. Community Sentiment Journals: Spaces where community members can anonymously share their emotions and concerns.
   3. Expandable Social Credit Systems: Allowing communities to establish their own social credit systems to incentivize desirable behavior.
   4. Local Social Network Mapping: Tools that identify natural leaders or influencers within communities for more effective involvement in decision-making.
8. Governmental Effectiveness: This new goal addresses the need for more efficient and effective administration, which was not explicitly covered in the previous goals. This goal aims to make the government run like a well-oiled machine, getting more done with fewer resources. Some potential structural measures:
   1. Custom Public Service Bots: AI bots that can handle citizen queries in a personalized and efficient manner.
   2. Predictive Bureaucracy Review System: An algorithm that predicts what procedures will be needed for different scenarios and prepares them in advance.
   3. Guaranteed Response Time: A system that guarantees a maximum response time for governmental queries.
   4. Adaptive Dashboards: Measurement instruments that adapt based on the most relevant KPIs at any given time.
9. Sustainable Development: Although not explicitly mentioned in the premises, it is added to reflect a growing awareness of the importance of sustainability for long-term societal well-being. Simply put, this goal aims to ensure that today's decisions don't rob future generations of opportunities or resources. Some potential structural measures:
   1. Emotional Footprint: Measure and publish the emotional impact of policies on the population, in addition to environmental impact.
   2. Ecosystem Simulations: Use detailed simulations to test the ecological impact of policies before implementing them.
   3. Smart Contracts for Sustainability: Implement smart contracts that execute when certain sustainability milestones are reached.
   4. Carbon Currency: Introduce a digital currency representing carbon credits to encourage citizens and businesses to reduce their carbon footprint.

The objectives of "Fundamental Freedoms," "Pluralism," "Political Stability," "Legality," "Representation," and "Separation of Powers" are not included in the revised goals to avoid redundancy and focus on the most critical aspects derived from the new premises. However, this doesn't mean these topics have become irrelevant; rather, they are implicit foundations that continue to be pertinent in any democratic system.

On the other hand, the revised objectives of democracy, inspired by our new premises, aim to adapt democratic systems to contemporary needs and challenges. These revised objectives provide a fresh framework for evaluating and improving democratic systems in line with modern understandings of human nature and social interactions. To ensure that these updates are both effective and applicable, it is crucial that they are rigorously evaluated by multidisciplinary teams of experts.

8. IFAND: Institute for a New Democracy

In light of the crisis facing modern democracies, highlighted throughout this essay, there is a pressing need for innovative solutions to update democratic systems for the challenges of the 21st century. In answer to this call, we propose the establishment of the Institute for a New Democracy (IFAND).

IFAND emerges as an independent, non-partisan organization with the mission to reshape the principles and mechanisms of democracy based on updated psychological and technological foundations. Its aim is to develop a new model of democracy that incorporates advancements in behavioral sciences, promotes well-informed citizen participation, and is resilient against emerging threats.

The primary objectives of IFAND are:

• Conduct multidisciplinary research on democratic governance, integrating insights from psychology, technology, social sciences, and other relevant fields.
• Design a detailed model of optimized democracy, specifying new processes, institutions, and enabling technologies.
• Validate this model through simulations, prototypes, and controlled tests.
• Develop a roadmap for the phased implementation of the new model.
• Disseminate the model and raise awareness of the need to revitalize democracy through publications, conferences, and educational campaigns.
• Advise governments, multilateral organizations, and other interested parties on adopting evidence-based democratic innovations.

To achieve these objectives, IFAND will require a multidisciplinary team of political scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists, data scientists, engineers, and governance experts. It is also crucial for IFAND to be funded from multiple sources to preserve its independence.

Some innovations that may emerge from IFAND's work include the implementation of adaptive voting systems, platforms for informed citizen participation, anti-bias algorithms, policy impact simulations, among many other measures aligned with the revised premises and objectives previously outlined.

In conclusion, IFAND offers a promising solution to the need for reinventing democracy for the 21st century. Through rigorous research and ongoing innovation, IFAND can lay the groundwork for a new, optimized democratic governance tailored to the inherent complexity of our contemporary societies.

9. Conclusion

Throughout this essay, we have delved into the historical and psychological foundations of democracy and the republic, two political systems that have had a profound impact on the shaping of modern societies.

We started by setting the stage with the origins of these models in ancient times, specifically in Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic. Next, we dissected their core objectives, both explicit and implicit, which arise from certain assumptions about human nature.

Through a critical lens, we scrutinized these original premises in light of advances in psychology and social sciences. We concluded that the underlying view of the mind and human behavior that supported these systems was lacking, accounting for various shortcomings in contemporary democracies.

Faced with this reality, we proposed a set of updated premises regarding the complexity of cognition and human motivations. On this new foundation, we outlined a series of renewed objectives to guide the evolution of democracy in the 21st century.

Lastly, we introduced the Institute for a New Democracy as a practical and viable solution to enact this much-needed transformation of democratic systems.

In conclusion, democracy and the republic must be dynamic and adaptable entities if we want them to remain as optimal models of governance. They require ongoing reevaluation and optimization in the face of new insights about the human condition. Only in this way can we build societies where politics reflects the best of our rational and social nature. The establishment of institutions like IFAND is an essential step toward achieving this higher aim.

10. References

1. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
   Wikipedia.org - Thinking Fast and Slow
2. Damasio, A.R. (2005). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Penguin Books.
   Wikipedia.org - Descartes' Error
3. Merzenich, M. (2013). Soft-Wired: How the New Science of Brain Plasticity Can Change Your Life. Parnassus Publishing.
   Soft-wired: how the new science of brain plasticity can change your life
   Wikipedia.org - Michael Merzenich  
4. Baumeister, R.F. (2002). Ego Depletion and Self-Control Failure: An Energy Model of the Self's Executive Function. Self and Identity, 1(2), 129-136.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Baumeister
   Ego Depletion and Self-Control Failure: An Energy Model of the Self's Executive Function
5. Cialdini, R.B. (1984). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. William Morrow and Company.
   Wikipedia.org - Robert Cialdini  
   Worldcat.org - Influence: The psychology of persuasion
6. Axelrod, R.M. (2006). The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books.
   Wikipedia - The Evolution of Cooperation
7. Baron-Cohen, S. (2011). The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty. Basic Books.
   Wikipedia.org - Simon Baron-Cohen
   https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-01299-000