I agree with this. And would like to extend it a bit further.

In the instances where each of these 3 attributes (Propaganda, censorship & surveillance) -- are also essential part of a business model -- I would call those specific large businesses as Super-Monopolies.

If we look at any large and successful business that has the above, plus is in the business of end-user Advertisement (that is in the business of promoting one thing over another .. that's advertisement for end consumers).

It fits into a 'super-monopoly' bucket.

It must surveil (to understand the target audience), and it must do it covertly.

It must censor (remove, downplay, gray-out content that does not fit the business model, or, as we see lately, the political bias of the org's leadership)

It has to monopolize the market place, so that every end-user 'walks through a single door'.

It will use propaganda to pacify critical thinkers, and to mislead folks with less developed 'critical thinking' -- that they are 'not a monopoly by any stretch', that they are just and fair, and hard working... As that's a necessary function to survive in a system with anti-trust laws.

- - -

What is, of course, very notable about these 3 attributes -- that they are also a must for Dictatorships and Monarchy style of government.

- - -

If the above is an accepted analogy. There are 2 positions about it ( a) -- that's good, continue on (b) no, that's bad, we need to have constitutional checks that this cannot happen, even if most powerful people try to do it.

- - -

So what could constitution (assuming that it cannot be changed) could look like to prevent a 'country-wide' analogy of a monopoly - a Dictatorship?

- - -

Well, the first thing, is to agree, that no matter how fair-minded, or 'saint' a person is -- given enough power, he/she will get corrupt.

That applies for groups of people as well as for individual.

- - -

Therefore, the first solution -- is power distribution. Under no circumstances political, economic and military power can be concentrated within the power of the same group of people.

That means 'de-centralization', and more practically 'de-urbanization'. Meaning that having small geographical areas and their elected representative wielding most power is good for Dictatorship. So a Constitution must prevent that.

The nuance there is what is 'economic power'. Well that's mostly means, control of tax revenue, and control of within country trade.

Therefore, a good constitution, to avoid corruption would:

- Prohibit same group of people to control tax revenue, to control laws of intra-country trades

- Prohibit same group of people (as above) from having control of military force. And prevent military from interfering within the border.

- Prohibit same group of from forcing a 'single choice' of any article of commerce, education, health.

- Prohibit same group from enforcing any emigration choices (meaning if the person wants to leave the country, they can).

--

Other thing that a good Constitution would do, is to enable the voting citizens to be the 'final backstop', the final judge to decide if actions of elected officials are constitutional or not,.. the final police police, acting as a threat with force, speaking allegorically.

With regard to comment

> I am pretty certain, if our society manages to survive the current times, our attitude to centralization and globalization will change

I think it may be more nuance. Or at least, I am trying to come up with the framework that will let me understand if the country will change and how...

I am speculating, that has to do with 'critical thinking' abilities of voting public...

I have came to read somewhere, that critical thinking is more like an 'immune system'.

We are not born with it, instead ,it develops over time, by experience. When meeting with bad, malignant information, manipulation and lies.

Just like immune system that gets stronger when surviving infections deceases.

Critical thinking does not directly correlate to our cognitive gifts, just like immune system may not be a reflection of visible physiological gifts.

With that analogy, we can say there always be a portion of voting population (due to
age, particular environment that they were brought up, fear, etc.) -- that will have somewhat reduced critical thinking (or have in decline) compared to others.

That is, those folks have reduced cognitive immunity to being manipulated. And that deficiency can change (improve or get worse) over time... (it is not static).

Depending on how string & aggressive the malignant manipulation of people is in a particular period -- and depending on the percentage of folks with delayed development of critical thinking at that same period -- we will have different outcomes.

It is that ratio of how virulent manipulative malignancy is, divided by percent of voting population with underdeveloped critical thinking, that will decide the outcome for a country in a particular time period.

- - -

Without claiming an affinity to a particular side in the current US politics, I would say that it appears (at least to me ), that percentage of voting public with underdeveloped critical thinking, is higher now than was say 35 years ago or so.

If we can agree on the percentage of underdeveloped critical thinkers in the current voting population.
Then if we can agree on the measure of malignant manipulation (that, underneath reflects stakes)

Then if we agree and find these ratios in other consequential historical periods. We will be able to 'predict' what will happen, with, hopefully, better certainty.

I know this may easily fall into confirmation bias, as we start picking and choosing the percentages, etc. But nevertheless, I hope the above represents a 'framework' to apply.