A Three-Layer Analysis (TLA) of Livy, History of Rome, Book 1
1. Question
Why is popular approval necessary to transform rule into the will of the community?
2. Abstract
Popular approval is necessary because it is a form of consensus formation that allows the Execution Layer to accept the judgment of the governing OS. By transforming rule into the will of the community, popular approval forms and maintains Trust T.
Popular approval should not be understood mainly as a system for limiting kingship. Even if the people approve a king, this does not necessarily stop the king’s tyranny. In fact, during the reign of Tarquinius Superbus at the end of the Roman monarchy, kingship moved toward rule by fear, disregard for procedure, and privatization of power. This eventually led to the abolition of monarchy. Therefore, the essence of popular approval is not the limitation of kingship. Its essence is the connection of kingship to the will of the community.
In TLA Layer 2, popular approval and civic recognition are understood as approval devices that transform rule into the will of the community. Kingship and public offices gain public form not only through force or bloodline, but also through the approval of the people. In other words, popular approval is an institutional procedure that transforms the king’s command from “the command of one king” into “the order of the community.”
From the viewpoint of OS Organizational Design Theory, popular approval is consensus formation between the governing OS and the Execution Layer. Even if the governing OS makes a strong and correct judgment, the whole system loses effectiveness if the Execution Layer does not accept, trust, and execute that judgment. Here, T, or Trust, becomes important.
Popular approval gives the Execution Layer the form that “this rule has passed through the will formation of our community.” This allows the ruled people to become not merely targets of command, but participants in the order of the community. Popular approval is therefore an institutional connection that forms and maintains Trust T.
However, forced consensus formation does not necessarily form Trust T. Fear, bribery, staging, pressure, or forced conformity can create the appearance of approval. But this does not mean that the Execution Layer trusts the governing OS. Rather, such approval creates distrust because the people feel not that “we approved this,” but that “we were made to have approved this.”
3. Method
This study follows the structure of Three-Layer Analysis, or TLA.
In Layer 1, this study organizes facts related to the formation of kingship in the Roman monarchy, the vacancy of kingship, the selection of a king by the people, and approval by the Senate.
In Layer 2, these facts are connected to structures such as kingship, popular approval and civic recognition, the Senate, the state OS, the Execution Layer, the health of the ruled side, and Trust T.
In Layer 3, this study explains that popular approval is not mainly a mechanism for limiting kingship. Rather, it is a form of consensus formation that allows the Execution Layer to accept the judgment of the governing OS and transforms rule into the will of the community.
4. Layer 1: Fact
In Livy, History of Rome, Book 1, Roman kingship is not established by force or bloodline alone.
The kingship of Romulus is supported by the founding of the city, augury, the integration of the people, the formation of legal order, and the establishment of the Senate. This does not mean that Romulus ruled simply because he was strong. Kingship was formed as a public governing center through divine will, force, institutional design, popular approval, and senatorial approval.
After the death of Romulus, there was no royal house that naturally inherited the throne. Therefore, a vacancy in kingship appeared. The Fathers who formed the Senate operated the interregnum. After that, a structure became necessary in which the people chose the king and the Senate approved that choice.
This fact shows that kingship was not established merely by “someone ruling.” The king was connected to the will of the community through popular acceptance, and connected to the continuity structure of the state through the Senate. Popular approval carried the former function: connecting kingship to the will of the community.
At the same time, popular approval does not necessarily stop the tyranny of kingship. As shown by Tarquinius Superbus at the end of the Roman monarchy, kingship can move toward rule by fear, disregard for procedure, and privatization of power. Therefore, popular approval should not be understood as an effective restraint on kingship. It should be understood as an approval device that connects kingship to the will of the community.
5. Layer 2: Order
In Layer 2, popular approval and civic recognition are approval devices that transform rule into the will of the community. Kingship and public offices gain public form not only through force or bloodline, but also through popular approval.
This means that popular approval is not a mere ritual of agreement. It is an institutional procedure that transforms the king’s command from “the command of one king” into “the order of the community.” Through popular approval, the ruled people are positioned not merely as targets of command, but as participants in the order of the community.
The structure of kingship also shows this point. Kingship is the governing center that carries founding, war, institutional creation, and judgment in one role. However, kingship is not established by heredity or force alone. It is supported by military achievement, divine will, popular approval, senatorial approval, marriage networks, and crisis response.
In other words, kingship does not exist simply because the king is strong. Kingship becomes a public governing center only when military power, divine will, institutional design, popular approval, and senatorial approval are combined.
The Senate is a higher-level decision-making body that strengthens kingship while also carrying its legitimation and continuity. It is connected to royal selection approval, the interregnum, the assembly, clan order, the aristocratic class, and decisions on diplomacy and war. It prevents the rupture of kingship and secures the continuity of rule.
Here, popular approval and senatorial approval have different functions. Popular approval connects kingship to the will of the community. Senatorial approval connects kingship to the continuity structure of the state. Therefore, the main function of popular approval lies in the trust connection on the community side, or the Execution Layer side.
From the viewpoint of OS Organizational Design Theory R1.30.15, the OS is the operating body that has decision-making authority. It selects and activates applications on the infrastructure and makes the Execution Layer carry them out. OS health is evaluated by A × IA × H × V. The health of the whole system is evaluated by multiplying OS health by the health of the ruled side.
Therefore, even if the governing OS is strong and makes correct judgments, the whole system loses output if the Execution Layer does not accept, trust, and execute those judgments. Even if the king’s command is valid in institutional form, governance remains only surface-level obedience if the Execution Layer does not receive it as “our own order.”
Here, T, or Trust, becomes important. In OS Organizational Design Theory, the health of the ruled side is organized as M × T. T means Trust. It is the degree of acceptance toward the decision-making of the ruling side. It is also the driving energy by which the Execution Layer moves voluntarily.
Popular approval is deeply connected to this T. Popular approval gives the Execution Layer the form that “this rule has passed through the will formation of our community.” Through this, the ruled can become not merely targets of command, but participants in the order of the community.
However, the mere form of popular approval is not enough. Forced consensus formation, bribed approval, approval through fear, and staged approval can create the appearance of agreement. But they do not form Trust T. Rather, the Execution Layer receives such approval not as “our own will,” but as “a result we were made to approve.” In that case, popular approval does not raise T. It lowers T.
6. Layer 3: Insight
Popular approval is necessary because it is a form of consensus formation that allows the Execution Layer to accept the judgment of the governing OS. By transforming rule into the will of the community, popular approval forms and maintains Trust T.
The essence of popular approval is not the limitation of kingship. Even if the people approve a king, this does not necessarily stop the king’s tyranny. As shown by the tyranny of Tarquinius Superbus, popular approval alone cannot always restrain the abuse of kingship in an effective way.
Therefore, popular approval should be understood not as a mechanism for limiting kingship, but as an approval device that connects kingship to the will of the community.
Popular approval is an institutional procedure that transforms the king’s command from “the command of one king” into “the order of the community.” Through popular approval, the ruled people are positioned not merely as targets of command, but as participants in the order of the community. The rule of the king becomes not rule imposed from outside the community, but an order accepted by the community itself.
If there is no popular approval, kingship easily becomes separated from the community. No matter how capable the king is, and no matter how successful he is militarily, if his rule is not approved as the will of the community, his commands are received not as “our own order,” but as “commands imposed from above.” This weakens the connection between the state OS and the Execution Layer.
In terms of OS Organizational Design Theory, popular approval is a trust connection between the OS and the Execution Layer. The OS makes decisions and causes the Execution Layer to execute them. However, if the Execution Layer does not accept those judgments as its own order, commands may be carried out only on the surface. They do not lead to deep cooperation or sustainable operation.
Here, T is essential. Popular approval gives the Execution Layer the form that “this rule has passed through the will formation of our community.” Through this, the ruled people can participate in the order of the community instead of remaining mere targets of command. Popular approval creates an institutional connection that forms and maintains Trust T between the governing OS and the Execution Layer.
However, even if popular approval is a form of consensus formation, forced consensus formation does not necessarily form Trust T.
Fear, bribery, staging, pressure, and forced conformity can create the appearance that the people have approved something. But this does not mean that the Execution Layer trusts the governing OS. Rather, such approval is the hollowing out of the approval procedure. It creates distrust because the people feel not that “we approved this,” but that “we were made to have approved this.”
Therefore, popular approval can form Trust T only when the Execution Layer can receive the approval as its own will formation. In other words, popular approval requires a certain degree of acceptance, participation, understanding, and recognition. At minimum, the Execution Layer must be able to feel that “this order can be treated as the order of our own community.”
Silent obedience can make commands execute for a time. However, this does not mean that rule has become the will of the community. People can obey commands because of fear, resignation, benefit, custom, or fear of punishment. But such obedience does not form the will of the community. Silent obedience creates external obedience to commands. Approval transforms rule into the will of the community. Silent obedience makes execution possible, but approval creates Trust T and self-involvement.
In this sense, popular approval is not merely a form of agreement. It is consensus formation that transforms the judgment of the governing OS into a form that the Execution Layer can accept.
It changes the king’s command from the will of one king into the will of the community.
It changes the ruled from targets of command into participants in the order.
It changes the judgment of the governing OS into an order that the Execution Layer can accept.
This is the positive function of popular approval.
The structure of royal selection in Livy, History of Rome, Book 1 also shows this point. In Rome, there was no royal house that naturally inherited the throne. After the death of Romulus, a vacancy in kingship appeared. Through the interregnum, a structure became necessary in which the people chose the king and the Senate approved that choice. This shows that kingship was not established merely by “someone ruling.” The king had to be connected to the will of the community through popular acceptance and to the continuity structure of the state through the Senate.
Without this structure, kingship always moves closer to external coercion. If the king commands and the people obey, rule may appear to exist. But it may lack internal acceptance within the community. When the king’s ability or prestige is high, governance may still operate. But when the king fails, when kingship becomes vacant, when military defeat occurs, when rule by fear spreads, or when factionalism grows, silent obedience can easily turn into resistance, departure, information blocking, or surface obedience.
Popular approval reduces this instability. By formalizing rule as the will of the community, kingship is accepted not merely as force, but as public order. The king’s command is carried out not as the private will of the king, but as the order of the community. At that moment, the Execution Layer becomes not merely the ruled side, but a set of members who carry the order of the community.
However, popular approval is not enough if it remains only as a form. Forced consensus formation, bribed approval, approval through fear, and staged approval can create the appearance of agreement. But they do not form Trust T. Rather, the Execution Layer receives such approval not as “our own will,” but as “a result we were made to approve.” In that case, popular approval does not raise T. It lowers T.
Therefore, popular approval is necessary to transform rule into the will of the community. Popular approval is consensus formation that allows the Execution Layer to accept the judgment of the governing OS. It is an approval device that forms and maintains Trust T. However, if that consensus formation is created by coercion, fear, bribery, or staging, it does not create real Trust T. The essence of popular approval is to root kingship inside the community and transform external coercion into an order accepted by the community.
7. Implications for the Present
This structure also applies directly to modern organizations.
In modern companies and organizations, acceptance by the front line or employees does not exist merely to limit management authority. Rather, it is necessary so that managerial judgment can be received by the Execution Layer as “our own order” and converted into execution.
Top-down commands can produce short-term execution. However, if the Execution Layer does not have Trust T, the organization cannot remain stable over the long term. Even if members appear to obey on the surface, silence, information blocking, surface obedience, turnover, sabotage, and policy failure may progress inside the organization.
In modern organizations, what corresponds to popular approval includes front-line acceptance, employee consensus formation, customer and market trust, and approval by shareholders and stakeholders. These are not merely devices for limiting executives. They are connection devices that transform the judgment of the managerial OS into a form that the Execution Layer can accept.
However, the same warning applies here. Forced consensus formation does not create Trust T. A meeting may be held. An explanation session may be held. A survey may be conducted. On the surface, agreement may appear to exist. But if the conclusion has already been decided, opposing opinions are suppressed, and people obey only because they fear evaluation or treatment, this does not create Trust T.
Rather, members of the organization feel not that “we agreed,” but that “we were made to agree.” In that case, the approval procedure does not create trust. It increases distrust.
Therefore, what matters in modern organizations is not merely getting approval. What matters is creating a condition in which the Execution Layer can receive the judgment as its own order. This is consensus formation between the OS and the Execution Layer. This is the essence of approval that forms and maintains Trust T.
8. Conclusion
Popular approval is necessary not because it limits kingship, but because it transforms rule into the will of the community.
Kingship cannot become public order through force or bloodline alone. If the king’s command is not approved as the will of the community, it is received not as “our own order,” but as “a command imposed from above.” This weakens the connection between the state OS and the Execution Layer.
Popular approval transforms the king’s command from “the command of one king” into “the order of the community.” It changes the ruled people from mere targets of command into participants in the order of the community. In terms of OS Organizational Design Theory, popular approval is an institutional connection that forms and maintains Trust T between the governing OS and the Execution Layer.
However, approval cannot remain a mere form. Consensus formation produced by coercion, fear, bribery, or staging does not create real Trust T. Rather, the Execution Layer feels not that “we approved,” but that “we were made to approve,” and distrust deepens.
Therefore, the essence of popular approval is to root kingship inside the community and transform external coercion into an order accepted by the community. Popular approval is indispensable because it transforms rule into the will of the community and connects the governing OS to the Execution Layer.
9. Sources
Titus Livius, History of Rome, Book 1, translated by Satoshi Iwaya, Kyoto University Press, 2008.
OS Organizational Design Theory_R1.30.15