It turns out that pirates had a highly sophisticated, democratically elected constitutional dual-executive system. Each ship or fleet had "Articles of Agreement" which laid out the organizational structure of the ship. Each crew elected a captain and a quartermaster by popular vote. Captains were in charge of military decisions and in times of crisis, and their authority was absolute during battle or chase. However, quartermasters decided matters of discipline, resolved disputes and distributed loot and rations. Either officer could be replaced by popular vote at any time, and would step down to become a normal crew member. These officers did not enjoy any extra benefits from their duties, except extra shares of loot.
A ship's Articles of Agreement also provided punishments for crimes, including theft, keeping women on board the ship, gambling or desertion. These punishments ranged from lashes to mutilation to marooning or execution. Pirates also had a common fund for those who were wounded, giving a fixed sum of money or slaves to any pirate who lost a given limb or was crippled. Bonuses were also provided for pirates who showed exceptional skill, valor or helped the crew especially in some way. These bonuses, safety nets and potential for promotion provided incentives for pirates to work harder and prove their abilities.
Given the popular paradigm of pirates as lawless, immoral, ruthless scallywags, their system of governance was considerably more sophisticated than the other methods of keeping order on ships, or indeed many of the actual governments at the time. Some food for thought for a bunch of Gov nerds!
1 comment:
I remember you mentioning this at the Democrats meeting yesterday!
I also interestingly see, somewhat, reflections of state-specific and federal-specific roles within the respective duties of the captain and quartermaster; the captain being "federal" in his duties and the quartermaster being more like the states in their roles regarding the affairs of the ship!
Also interesting to note is who would be supreme in jurisdiction if there was an instance of conflict or overlap in the respective duties of the captain and the quartermaster, in say, pursuing a traitor in the crew who is leaking information to a rival pirate crew, and that wasn't specified in the Articles of Agreement; would it be the captain on the lines of "military engagement" or "crisis" or the quartermaster in dishing out proper discipline?
Food for thought indeed Christian!
Post a Comment