Games are older than humanity itself. One of the most famous quotes about gambling is from The Bible (Matthew 27, 35â37): âThe soldiers nailed Jesus to a cross. Then the soldiers gambled with dice to decide who would get Jesusâ clothes.â Playing games is an inevitable part of human nature and was probably even more so the past. Chimpanzees are already very good at using joysticks to play âPacmanâ or to catch and trap a villain (Savage-Rumbaugh 1992, 141) and nearly all mammals play (Sharpe 2011). Moreover, playing and being involved in games seems to be very important for human evolution. The social psychologist G. H. Mead (1934) stated that âtaking the role of the otherâ within the playing of games is necessary to develop a human self, as a dialogue of âMe, myself and I.â
Games are more popular than anything else. With an average audience of 593 million people worldwide (Harris 2010) the Summer Olympics opening ceremony in 2008 might have had the largest TV audience ever. Sports events like the Olympic Games and the football World Cup are global events fascinating the masses in almost every country of the world. As the name suggests, the modern Olympic Games are a relaunch of an event from the ancient Hellenic world. The ancient Olympic Games were incredibly popular at that time and having started as a one-day event in 776 BC, they lasted nearly 12 centuries and covered a period of up to five days after numerous extensions (IOC 2017). What marked the Hellenic world of that time were the continuous conflicts between the myriad kingdoms and city-states. Apparently, the introduction of the tradition of the Truce (Ekecheiria) was a consequence of the importance of the Olympic Games. During the truce period everyone, especially the athletes, could travel in total safety to participate or attend the games. Messengers announced the Truce throughout Greece. Back then, as well as today, victoryâespecially for the multiple winnersâentailed enormous prestige. Furthermore, the ancient Olympic Games had the special feature of democratic procedures. First, all free male citizens could participate, regardless of their country of origin or social status. Second, judges (Hellanodikai) (one or two at the beginning, 10 to 12 later on) were selected by all. The judges were supposed to be impartial, fair and incorruptible, although occasional rumors surfaced about individual corrupt judges. Thus, here we have two of the main principles of democracy : Equality (equal, free access) and justice (fairness of rules by impartial judges and procedures such as random selection). A third important criterion for the games and their democratic selection procedures is competition. The ancient Olympic Games comprised classic sports such as running, jumping, throwing the discus, and wrestling. Necessarily, two or more persons or groups have to compete to win. Similar but smaller sports events of merely regional or local significance existed all over Greece. This means that the ideas or the blueprint to gamify political procedures were already available in the Hellenic World at that time, which is remarkable when looking at the proclaimed new approach of gamification within democratic decisions nowadays.
Athens: Gamification Gave Birth to Democracy
If we look at the development of democracy in Athens from the seventh to the fifth century BC, similar circumstances to today were at work roughly at the same time that the Olympic Games evolved. Impoverishment and a growing social inequality are the reasons for a widespread dissatisfaction with the political system among citizens and subsequently provide the basis for the growing demands for political reform. The kingdom of Athensâthe city (Polis) and the surrounding territory of Atticaâtransformed into an aristocracy (oligarchy), then a tyranny, and then finally a democracy. The Greek term demos means âgreat numberâ or rather âmajority.â Thus, democracy means the rule of the majority, probably a political slogan against older concepts such as monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, theocracy, and tyranny. As a consequence, the questions came up of how could the takeover of power from elites to the people come into existence? Two principles played a major role:
- 1.Participation: Openness & Competition (Freedom of Choice)âFree Space for the People to Play
- 2.Selection: Voting (Elections) & LotteryâDecision Making by the Majority.
The development of democracy in Athens (Pabst 2003) meant a radical redistribution of power with decision making no longer reserved to a small group of elite people, and democracy being literally handed over to the people, although women, slaves, and foreigners were still excluded. Approximately 40,000 out of a total population of 250,000â300,000 people, or about 30%, made up the empowered group of citizens. As in other Hellenic communities, the backbone of the infantry were citizen-soldiers (Hoplites) attended by poor citizens or slaves who assisted them. Athensâ military success was largely due to the development of a professional navy during the Persian Wars of 499 BC to 449 BC with rowers drawn from the lower classes of society. Several centuries later, the troops of the French Revolution under General Napoleon Bonaparte achieved military victories which seemed impossible, but were based on the âlevĂ©e en masseâ with the citizen-soldiers gained. Therefore, it seemed to be a good idea to include all classes of society in political decision making. This implied a need for new decision-making mechanisms:
- 1.Elections/Voting: The most important institution was the assembly (Ecclesia). All citizensâthe population as a wholeâdecided on all important issues, laws, contracts, very significant office bearers, and jurisdiction (verdicts). This often happened very simply in the form of a yes or no. For example, one person would plead for a new law/regulation, while another advocate would argue against this proposal. Finally, the assembly of the people voted either pro or contra the proposal. Maybe the most famous democratic procedure is ostracism (honorable exile). This game had some quite amusing rules: It started with the question âDo you want to punish/ban someone?â If the majority voted in favor of an ostracism, the next question would be âWho?â Everybody could scratch the name of a person to be banished onto a clay shard. The person with the most votes had to leave. There was no possibility of argument or vindication and no chance therefore to influence or manipulate results. On the other hand, the penaltyâan exile of 10 yearsâwas rather mild at the time and the property of the victim was left untouched. However, the assembly with its voting was apparently very popular. The openness of decisions, such as who would be banned, guaranteed a lot of suspension and excitement. Majority voting was the decisive mechanism to determine the winner from two competing sides. Modern direct democratic instruments, such as referenda, work in just the same way.
- 2.Lottery/Random Selection: Assignment by lot was the usual means for the selection of public officers, except, for example, chief military leaders (Strategoi). Every citizen willing to apply for an official position had the same chance to get the job regardless of birth, wealth, demagogic abilities and so on. Therefore, the probability of getting the job was identical for each applicant. For instance, a machine (Kleroterion) helped to select the members of the city council or Boule of the 500. Likewise, throwing dice, tossing a coin or a random roulette selection was the modus operandi of the Kleroterion. Exactly the same principle used in modern statistics to create representative samples.
Both major principles of democracy , majority voting and lottery, rely on equality and openness. They are two sides of the same coin. Every vote counts equally. No one has privileges to get an official position, and in Germany, or rather Prussia, the key characteristic of the biggest reform of public administration was the so-called Stein-/Hardenberg-Reforms; a reaction to the crushing defeats of the Napoleonic Wars. It is exactly in games like the rolling of dice or roulette, or in performances judged by referees where the result is not purely objective that chance plays a role, which is akin to throwing a match into a powder keg. Whenever there is any evidence that a result was influenced or determined in advance, the game no longer works. Another important finding is that even if we have a fundamental version of direct democracy in ancient Greece, there is still a division of labor between the players or actors who are applying for positions, making proposals and so on and the overwhelming majority of the citizen with just one vote. This is in sharp contrast to any kind of clear democratic system, whether it be representative or direct (Schumpeter 1942) or deliberative (Fishkin), such as citizensâ juries. The crucial distinction is that the latter desire the audience to become actors. As a result, the mode of deliberative decision making (how much approval does a consensus need: 100%?), is rather unclear, unlike in majority voting (for instance the influence of the facilitators of deliberative procedures).
Rome: Violating the Rules Is Blowing up the Whole Arena
At first glance, the second very famous ancient city besides Athens, namely Rome, seems to have a completely different history. In the case of Rome, the city-state developed into an empire with a hegemony of roughly 500 years throughout the Mediterranean area and beyond. Furthermore, emperors governed the empire, which was anything but a democracy . However, looking at the republican era beginning roughly around 500 BC and ending in 27 BC we find striking similarities. Like Athens, Rome was a kingdom in the beginning before turning into an aristocracy, with the people gaining more and more influence as time passed. For instance, the citizens elected the twin heads of the government (two collegial consuls) and after a period of social unrest the position of a peopleâs tribune was established and elected by the lower parts of society, or Plebs, with an extensive veto right. Moreover, more and more plebeians were able to hold offices, even supreme ones, such as consul. Attentive readers of Asterix comics will remember the SPQR on the vexilloids of Roman legions. SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus) means âthe Senate (the aristocracy) and the People (Plebs) of Rome.â Similar to Athens, the Roman army was based on the militia system of hoplite armies, being citizen-soldiers, mostly peasants. However, the relationship between the aristocracy and the plebs was anything but harmonious. The period of the Roman Republic appears to be a time of continuous struggle for influence and power. In the late republic period around 100 BC, the twin structure of consuls on one side and tribunes on the other became more and more problematic finally resulting in civil wars. It was Gaius Julius Caesar who triggered the end of the republic by breaking all the rules. He usurped several supreme offices, such as dictatorship, censorship and tribune at the same time. He acquired permanent tribune powers although the bearer was meant to alternate after the legislative term. In summary, he abolished all the checks and balances of the Roman Republic. After the Caesarâs assassination and a period of political and military conflict with Mark Antony, Cleopatra and Octavian as main actors, the latter established the empire adopting the title Augustus. However, games do not work if rules are broken. This applies to all kinds of manipulation, be they loaded dice, bribed referees or rigged elections with usurped power. To give an example from our times: In 2016, the constitutional tribunal of Austria declared the runoff presidential election void. It was a Solomonic judgment because it was a tig...