The Commicratic Engine of Ethnopublican Governance: Vetting, Validation, and the Architecture of Responsible Popular Power
BY: OMOLAJA MAKINEE
In an ethnopublican State governed through commicracy and populocracy, government is not reduced to spectacle, impulse, or episodic elections. Instead, it is organised as a continuous, research-driven, citizen-responsive system, where public-will is empowered without being abandoned to chaos. At the heart of this system lie Commicratic Departments—government-centred policy laboratories that transform collective aspiration into implementable governance.
These departments are not instruments of control, nor are they gatekeepers of elite authority. They exist to operationalise popular sovereignty, ensuring that when citizens are asked to decide, they are deciding between real, viable, and consequential options.
1. What Are Commicratic Departments?
Commicratic Departments are specialised policy-development bodies embedded within the ethnopublican State. Each department is responsible for a defined domain—such as infrastructure, health, education, energy, environment, technology, social welfare, or regional development.
Their mandate is threefold:
- Research: Conducting continuous research at local, national, continental, and international levels to identify best practices, risks, innovations, and contextual realities relevant to African ethnopublics.
- Policy Construction: Translating research into structured policy proposals that align with ethnopublican values, non-monetary economics, and socio-cultural realities.
- Validation & Vetting: Ensuring that any policy eligible for citizen selection is implementable in principle, resource-aware, and constitutionally coherent.
In this sense, Commicratic Departments function as the intellectual infrastructure of populocracy.
2. Validation Is Not Restriction — It Is Populocratic Enhancement
A common misconception—especially inherited from republican democracies—is that any form of policy validation weakens popular sovereignty. Ethnopublicanism rejects this false dichotomy.
Government validation of policies eligible for public selection is not intended to restrict popular sovereignty, but to elevate its quality.
Validation ensures that when citizens vote, they are not choosing between fantasies, slogans, or emotional reactions, but between genuinely actionable pathways.
Validation is designed to guarantee that:
- At least two competing policy options exist.
- Each option is capable, in principle, of advancing social well-being in a defined direction.
- Long-term consequences have been examined, not ignored.
- Emotional appeal has not replaced structural feasibility.
Populocracy, therefore, does not mean unchecked populism. It means informed collective decision-making.
3. The Collaborative Axis: Secretariat & Economic-Unionist Consultation
Commicratic Departments do not operate in isolation. Before a policy reaches citizenry ballots, departments consult extensively with:
- Secretariat ministries, who will ultimately implement the policy.
- Economic-unionists, who assess labour capacity, production feasibility, and resource alignment.
This consultation serves a critical function: It aligns desire with delivery. By the time a policy reaches citizenry-electorates:
- The secretariat already understands how to execute it.
- The Economy-branch has assessed its viability.
- Citizens are not voting into a vacuum.
This prevents the chronic republican failure where policies pass politically but collapse administratively.
4. Citizen-Initiated Policies: From Aspiration to Assessment
Ethnopublican governance does not reserve policy creation for State offices alone. Citizens remain active policy authors. However, the pathway is structured to protect both the citizens and the State from dysfunction.
Step 1: Submission to StateLord-Councillors
Any individual citizen or group may submit proposals through their local StateLord-Councillors, ensuring early constitutional awareness.
Step 2: Referral to Relevant Commicratic Department
The proposal is forwarded to the appropriate Commicratic Department for:
- Technical vetting.
- Feasibility assessment.
- Identification of blind spots.
Step 3: Validation Outcome
The Department may:
- Approve the policy for progression,
- Request revision with detailed feedback,
- Carry out own investigation on the policy development.
- Or reject it, with explicit reasons.
Importantly, Commicratic Departments welcome citizen proposals, as these often reveal:
- Regional needs invisible to central offices,
- Cultural variables overlooked by technocratic models,
- Innovative solutions beyond institutional imagination.
Step 4: Escalation Through Lord-Councillor Review
Where a proposal is rejected by the relevant Commicratic Department, the decision does not terminate the citizen’s legislative agency. The originating citizen or group retains the constitutional right to contest the rejection through their local StateLord-Councillor office. At this stage, the Lord-Councillor is obligated not to act as an advocate for or against the proposal, but as a constitutional auditor—examining whether the rejection adhered to prescribed procedural, evidentiary, and ethical standards.
The Lord-Councillor reviews:
- Whether the commicratic assessment remained within its technical mandate,
- Whether the reasons for rejection were clearly articulated, proportionate, and evidence-based,
- Whether the proposal was dismissed due to genuine infeasibility or merely institutional conservatism.
If procedural irregularity, undue narrowing of scope, or constitutional overreach were not identified at the Lord-Councillor’s office capable of being returned to the Commicratic Department for re-assessment, the concerned citizen or group is empowered to elevate the matter to their regional Lord-Governor’s office.
Step 5: Regional Escalation to the StateLord-Governor
Upon escalation, the matter is transferred to the Regional StateLord-Governor’s office, where it is subjected to a higher-order constitutional review. The Governor applies the Doctrine of Lord Precedent, examining how similar proposals were treated across other regions, ethnopublics, or prior assemblies.
This doctrine prevents arbitrary rejection by ensuring consistency across ethnopublics. No Commicratic Department may silently develop a culture of refusal, nor may regional offices become ideological gatekeepers. Each rejection is tested against historical governance memory and inter-regional parity.
At this stage, the office of regional StateLord-Governor determines:
- Whether the rejection aligns with established constitutional precedent,
- Whether regional specificity justifies deviation from prior outcomes,
- Whether the proposal raises a novel constitutional question requiring collective adjudication.
If the matter cannot be resolved at the regional level, it proceeds upward—not outward—to the supreme deliberative body.
Step 6: Adjudication by the House-of-StateLords Assembly
Escalated rejections are formally tabled before the House-of-StateLords Assembly, where the matter is adjudicated not as a policy preference, but as a constitutional question: Was the rejection lawful?
The Assembly does not substitute itself for technical departments. Instead, it determines:
- Whether constitutional access to legislation has been obstructed,
- Whether citizen-rule has been compromised by administrative autonomy,
- Whether the rejection violates the principle of populocratic inclusion.
If the Assembly rules the rejection unconstitutional, it issues binding corrective instructions—either compelling the proposal’s progression to public selection or mandating revised commicratic engagement under stricter transparency requirements.
If the rejection is upheld, the Assembly provides a public, reasoned judgment, which enters State jurisprudence as future Doctrine of Lord precedent—closing blindspots and refining governance practice.
A System Without Autonomous Power
At no stage in this process does any office—Commicratic, Executive, or Judicial—exercise unchecked discretion. Every decision is reviewable; every rejection is accountable; every citizen retains procedural agency.
This layered escalation ensures that:
- Technical expertise does not mutate into technocratic dominance,
- Administrative caution does not fossilise into institutional veto,
- Governance remains responsive without becoming erratic.
In ethnopublican Statehood, citizen-rule is not symbolic participation but enforceable authority. The right to propose, to challenge, and to compel review is structurally guaranteed. Checks and balances are not concentrated at the apex of power; they are distributed throughout the system.
This is the truest meaning of populocracy governance form—not the absence of governance, but the impossibility of silent power.
5. Secretariat Assent and the Limits of Implementation
Even after successful vetting, secretariat assent remains essential. A policy may still be rejected at the House-of-StateLords Assembly if:
- The Secretary-of-State identifies resource constraints,
- Implementation capacity is currently unavailable,
- Or continental redistribution priorities are at risk.
Crucially, rejection does not mean erasure. When rejection occurs:
- Detailed reasons are formally recorded,
- Newly discovered blind spots are disclosed,
- The policy can be revised and resubmitted at a later stage.
This preserves institutional memory while preventing reckless execution.
6. When Validation Passes but Adjudication Fails
There are moments where a policy:
- Passes commicratic vetting,
- Gains citizen support,
- Yet is ultimately rejected by the StateLords’ Assembly or Secretariat.
This is not contradiction—it is institutional depth. Such moments expose:
- Structural constraints not previously apparent,
- Continental or inter-regional implications,
- Or constitutional tensions requiring higher-order judgment.
In ethnopublicanism, failure is documented, not buried, and becomes future guidance rather than govoxical embarrassment.
7. Populocracy as Structured Freedom
This system reflects the core ethos of ethnopublican populocracy:
- Citizens are never silenced.
- Government is never blind.
- Expertise informs choice without replacing it.
- Emotion is honoured without governing alone.
Validation does not tell citizens what to choose. It ensures that whatever they choose can actually be done.
Conclusion: Governance Without Illusion
Commicratic Departments represent the missing organ in modern governance—the space where public imagination meets institutional reality. They do not weaken populocracy. They prevent populocracy from collapsing under its own weight.
In an ethnopublican State:
- Power flows upward from citizens,
- Structure flows downward from reason,
- And governance emerges where the two meet.
This is not bureaucracy reborn. It is popular sovereignty, disciplined by collective intelligence.
Back to: 👇