The problem with hierarchical organisations with a high level of obedience is that they are very vulnerable to capture and infiltration.
The "Wormtongue Strategy" or the "Evil Grand Vizier" trope is a classic for a reason. It is common.
Naturally obedience is the first rule and the most enforced one in any military organisation. Not only to prevent mutiny, but also because heading into mortal danger is inevitably going to make soldiers doubt and hesitate in a time when decisive action might make the difference between victory and defeat. Unquestioning, fast obedience is integral part of boot camp. It is drilled into recruits before they learn anything else.
Religious and political institutions are only slightly less insistent on blind obedience, but it is still a fundamental part of doctrine. Belief in authority, hierarchy and the chain of command is vital to maintain cohesion.
This has many advantages... but there is one fatal flaw in the plan: infiltration and capture at a high level can completely destroy centralised institutions or focus their efforts on goals completely opposed to their original intent. This goes beyond the "iron law of oligarchy" effects that corrupt or redirect focus to the personal interest of those in charge. Infiltration can make an institution work directly against its founding principles.
Centralised organisations are vulnerable to 3 major risks:
1. Incompetence
2. Corruption
3. Capture
Blind obedience to an incompetent general that sends millions of soldiers to march across the trenches into machine guns can lead to persistence in a losing strategy to the point of total defeat.
Blind obedience to a corrupt leader will distract efforts and resources for his personal gain, in detriment to the effectiveness of the war effort.
Blind obedience to a leader that is working for the enemy will surely lead to defeat.
Even open source projects can suffer from this, despite the fact that the entire ethos of FOSS is against hierarchy. Humans are naturally tribal and hierarchical. Most rebellions require a competing focus of loyalty to succeed. It is not enough to claim that the King Theoden is bewitched, you need a Gandalf to rally behind.
Historically many checks and balances have been established to mitigate these risks. The Roman Republic had two consuls to prevent concentration of power. The english barons forced the Magna Carta on King John in 1215. Jefferson forced the Bill of Rights on the US constitution.
The idea that the King, the President or the Pope has limits on his power is important.
But is it enough?
The people actually enforcing Law and Authority, when it comes to choosing between the two, will very often obey the illegal order.
Why? The chain of command is something real, tangible and very immediate. Principles are abstract. Principles cannot arrest you or dock your pay, your commanding officer can.
The Milgram experiment shows that obedience is the norm. Standing on principle is the exception. Unless of course, the illegal order is countermanded by another figure of authority. To succeed the "mutiny" against illegitimate authority requires legitimate authority.
If you want to arrest and depose a president, you better get Congress on your side. If you want to expel Wormtongue, you need Gandalf.
But if you want to prevent the tyrannical capture from happening in the first place, you need decentralisation. Many competing centers of power and authority.
Decentralisation plus voluntary interaction make for the most virtuous system in this imperfect world.
#FOSS
