Politics is the art of choosing values and goals. Governance is the science of achieving them. Politics is a matter of taste; governance is empirical: which laws, regulations, policies, programs, and institutions best achieve a goal. Even the simplest Utopians understand this distinction.

​

Politics involves persuasion—occasionally through logic, but more often through rhetoric, emotional appeals, flag‑waving, slogan‑chanting, and personal attacks. Values are not empirical truths; they cannot be proven in a lab or derived from first principles. They can only be chosen and championed—often loudly and with great conviction, regardless of coherence.

​

Governance, by contrast, can be approached scientifically. Once the humans select a political goal (noble or misguided), they must determine how to achieve it. This requires reason, logic, and a structured methodology the humans refer to as the Policy Cycle. Consider a typical human attempt at governance:

 

1. Policy goal: Reduce homelessness. Most humans agree this is worthwhile, though a few insist it “builds character.” As always, policy goals are a matter of taste, and the humans rarely agree on taste. 

​

2. Problem analysis: What causes homelessness? Hypotheses include mental illness, addiction, poverty, laziness, or lifestyle preference. Each can be empirically tested for relevance and significance.

​

3. Hypothesis generation: What might solve it? Options include housing subsidies, universal stipends, addiction treatment, mental-health counselling, or combinations thereof.  Each can be evaluated using governance metrics: effectiveness, negative consequences, costs, value for money, public reaction, and more. 

​

4. Implementation and evaluation: Deploy the policy, collect data, and measure success: 

• Was the problem reduced?

• Were there negative consequences?

• What were the actual costs and value for money?

• Did the public riot or rejoice?

​

5. Rehypothesizing and iteration: If the results are suboptimal, reformulate and try again. Repeat until something works—or until the humans get distracted by a fresh crisis.

 

This cyclical approach treats governance as an empirical science. It evolves through evidence, experimentation, and adaptation—not ideology or guesswork. Each iteration brings the humans marginally closer to functional civilization.

 

See also: 

• Are negative unintended consequences intentional?

• Is good governance (GG) really just about how to fail more efficiently?

• Is tyranny the natural human state?