Leerlo en español

‍

Healthy systems are both effective and efficient, in the short run and the long run. To achieve this balance, all four PAEI functions must be performed well.

The P(Producer) function delivers short-term effectiveness. It focuses on action—doing what must be done now so results are produced.

The A(Administrator) function delivers efficiency. It programs, organizes, disciplines, and stabilizes operations so resources are used wisely.

The E(Entrepreneur) function drives change. It challenges the status quo, anticipates the future, and pushes for change.

The I(Integrator) function focuses on people interactions. It builds cohesion, trust, and cooperation so the system functions as a whole rather than as competing parts.

When any of these functions is missing or very weak, the system becomes unhealthy. This principle applies not only to organizations—but also to political systems.

Democracy Through the PAEI Lens

Modern democracy rests on three branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.

Viewed systemically, these branches map naturally onto PAEI

• The executive branch performs the (P) function. It acts. It executes policy. It produces results.
• The judicial branch performs the (A) function. It interprets rules, enforces discipline, and ensures     consistency.
• The legislative branch performs the (E) function. It debates, initiates change and redefines direction.

But there is a structural flaw: no branch performs the (I) function.

No institution is explicitly responsible for integration—building unity, trust, and cooperation among competing interests. No one owns the health of the whole.

The Missing Integrator

In some societies, religion historically filled the (I) role, providing shared values and social cohesion. But in modern democracies, where church and state are separated, that function disappears.

This absence helps explain why democracies increasingly fragment, polarize, and paralyze.Each branch performs its role—often aggressively—but no effective mechanism exists to integrate them.

In monarchies, the royal family traditionally performs the (I) function. The monarch does not govern day-to-day but symbolizes unity above politics.

In some republics, presidents are elected directly not to govern but to embody integration—intellectual authority, moral stature, and broad respect. Such leaders are not politicians in the operational sense. Their legitimacy comes from admiration, not power.

When (P) and (E) Overwhelm Democracy

In systems like the United States, the president functions as both head of state and head of government. This concentrates the (I) function with the (P)function in one office.

If a leader with strong (E) tendencies—a change-driven, disruptive personality—is elected, the danger escalates. A (PE) executive naturally seeks to dominate: first the legislature, then the judiciary. The system loses balance.Checks and balances erode not because of bad intentions, but because without the (I) function the PE functions overpower the (A) and (I); Functionality overpowers the form. What follows is lots of changes leading to disintegration.

An Outdated Design for a New Reality

Democracy was designed in ancient Greece, when the rate of change was slow and societal complexity limited. Governing a city-state is not the same as governing a globalized, technologically dense nation under constant disruption.

Today’s conditions demand integration more than ever. Yet democracy, as currently structured, has no one institution preforming the integration role. This is why democracy is under threat—not only from bad application ideology or bad actors, but from structural imbalance.

Democracy does not need defending. It needs rethinking and restructuring.

Without restoring the (I) function, democratic systems will continue to fragment.

‍