Jiwasa and Complex Systems: organic leadership by issues and biomes

When I say Jiwasa, I’m invoking the pronoun of belonging:

neither “I” nor “you” nor “they”,
but “we-as-one”,
a body of many bodies moving together.

To understand how this Jiwasa can govern itself,
I often think of a flock of birds:

• there is no fixed president-bird;
  
  

• there is no “CEO of the flock”;
  
  

• yet the whole group turns, rises and lands
  with astonishing coherence.
  
  

Complex systems science shows that flocking emerges from simple local rules:

• keep a certain distance from neighbours (separation);
  
  

• align with their direction (alignment);
  
  

• stay close to the group (cohesion).
  
  

In every moment, some birds are “leaders de mentirinha”:

they are in front for that turn,
because of position and movement,
not because they were elected to dominate forever.

This is my image for Jiwasa leadership in politics:

• leaders are contextual and temporary;
  
  

• they emerge around issues and biomes, not personal cults;
  
  

• when direction changes, other bodies – more apt for that path –
  move to the front.
  
  

The focus I want to light

Among all the things we can say about complex systems and democracy, I choose one focus:

leadership must be an emergent property of the Jiwasa,
not a frozen position above it.

I want institutions where:

• pautas (issues, biomes, crises) call forth the leaders they need;
  
  

• when the pauta changes, leadership naturally reconfigures;
  
  

• the system remains organic and high-performance,
  instead of rigid and hierarchical.
  
  

Flocks, boids and emergent order

Computer simulations of bird flocking, like Boids,
have become classic examples of emergence:

• each agent follows three simple rules (separation, alignment, cohesion);
  
  

• no central controller coordinates the flock;
  
  

• yet complex, beautiful collective patterns appear.
  
  

Complex systems science uses these models to show that:

collective behaviour can be more intelligent than individuals,
provided that local rules and feedbacks are well tuned.

If we translate this to Jiwasa politics:

• separation = avoid harmful crowding of power (checks, term limits, rotation);
  
  

• alignment = stay oriented by shared values and biomes’ limits;
  
  

• cohesion = maintain belonging and Quorum Sensing Humano,
  so people feel inside the same flock even when directions differ.
  
  

We move from “leaders who command from above”
to leaders as temporary front-lines of a moving body.

Neuroscience of networks and shared brains

The brain itself is a complex network:

• different regions are heterogeneous,
  yet they coordinate through circuits and networks;
  
  

• dysfunction in one node can disrupt distant areas
  through network effects.
  
  

This network logic is mirrored between brains:

• inter-brain synchrony occurs when people coordinate attention, movement or decisions;
  
  

• higher synchrony in teams predicts better collective performance and cooperation.
  
  

Neuroscience of team flow shows that:

• groups in shared flow states present unique patterns of brain activity,
  with increased information integration and synchrony;
  
  

• leadership can emerge from subtle physical and timing cues,
  facilitating synchronisation in complex human networks.
  
  

To me, this is the neurobiological image of Jiwasa:

many brains entering temporary synchrony
around a shared task or biome,
with leadership patterns emerging spontaneously
instead of being imposed permanently.

Complexity leadership theories build on this to propose that:

• leadership is not a role, but a dynamic pattern of interaction;
  
  

• innovation and adaptation arise when systems allow
  distributed initiative and local experimentation,
  not just top-down control.
  
  

This is exactly what I want when I talk about Jiwasa and systems:

• leadership by issue and biome;
  
  

• Jiwasa as the field of synchrony where leaders appear and disappear
  in rhythm with metabolic needs.
  
  

From personal leaders to leadership by pautas and biomes

How do we translate this into concrete democratic design?

Some principles I see:

1. Issue-based mandates
   
   

• instead of electing leaders with a vague “mandate to govern everything”,
  we elect or appoint leaders for specific pautas:
  climate adaptation in a biome, food systems, DREX architecture,
  data sovereignty, childhood protection, etc.;
  
  

• their legitimacy is tied to that issue, not to a general claim of authority.
  
  

2. Biome-based representation
   
   

• parliamentary or council seats are reserved for biomes
  (coast, desert, forest, highlands, urban basins),
  not only for population-based districts;
  
  

• these representatives must co-govern with biome councils
  made of local communities, scientists and Indigenous authorities.
  
  

3. Temporal rotation and recall
   
   

• leaders are rotating front-lines:
  fixed maximum times for each pauta;
  clear mechanisms for recall when alignment with Jiwasa breaks;
  
  

• this maintains separation in the flock:
  no bird can forever occupy the front.
  
  

4. Institutionalised synchrony spaces
   
   

• deliberative assemblies, citizens’ panels and digital platforms
  designed to enhance inter-brain synchrony rather than polarisation:
  
  

• slower formats,
  
  

• embodied encounters,
  
  

• facilitation to build shared attention and trust;
  
  

• in my language: spaces that favour Zone 2 –
  fruição and metacognition – over reactive Zone 3.
  
  

The goal is that:

no leader can claim “I am the flock”;
they can only say, honestly,
“for this moment, around this issue and this biome,
Jiwasa asked me to fly in front.”

A constitutional sketch (in Spanish)

Artículo X – Jiwasa y liderazgo orgánico por pautas y biomas

1. La democracia se fundamenta en el reconocimiento del Jiwasa, entendido como el cuerpo social compuesto por múltiples personas, comunidades y biomas que actúan en interdependencia, de manera tal que el liderazgo político se concibe como una función emergente y temporal al servicio de este cuerpo colectivo.
   
   

2. Los cargos de representación y las funciones de gobierno podrán organizarse por pautas temáticas y por biomas, de modo que las personas titulares ejerzan liderazgo específico en materias tales como clima, agua, alimentación, soberanía de datos, educación o salud, dentro de ámbitos territoriales definidos por biomas.
   
   

3. La ley establecerá mecanismos de rotación periódica, revocatoria y rendición de cuentas para los liderazgos por pautas y biomas, evitando la concentración permanente de poder y promoviendo la circulación de experiencias y saberes dentro del Jiwasa.
   
   

4. El Estado promoverá espacios deliberativos presenciales y digitales que faciliten la sincronía cognitiva y afectiva entre las personas —incluyendo asambleas ciudadanas, consejos de bioma y foros interculturales— con el fin de fortalecer la cooperación, la creatividad y la toma de decisiones basadas en evidencia y en los límites metabólicos de los biomas.
   
   

5. En la evaluación del desempeño de los liderazgos, se considerarán no solo resultados materiales, sino también indicadores de cohesión social, confianza, salud mental colectiva y protección de los biomas, como expresión de un liderazgo orgánico alineado con el Jiwasa y con la Democracia Metabólica de los Biomas.
   
   

Suggested references (up to 8, with comments – ≥3 neuroscientific / psychological)

1. Reynolds, C. (1987). “Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model.” Computer Graphics.
   Classic paper introducing the Boids model, showing how flocking emerges from simple local rules without a central leader—an essential metaphor for Jiwasa leadership.
   
   

2. NECSI (Santa Fe Institute). “Concepts: Emergence.”
   Explains emergence as collective behaviours that arise from local interactions, supporting the idea that leadership can be an emergent property of social systems.
   
   

3. Segal, A. et al. (2023). “Regional, circuit and network heterogeneity of brain abnormalities across disorders.” Nature Neuroscience.
   Highlights the brain as a distributed network in which local deviations affect global function, serving as a neurobiological analogue for distributed political systems.
   
   

4. Reinero, D. A. et al. (2021). “Inter-brain synchrony in teams predicts collective performance.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.
   Shows that teams with higher inter-brain synchrony perform better collectively, supporting the idea that Jiwasa decision-making depends on neural synchrony across people.
   
   

5. Shehata, M. et al. (2021). “Team Flow Is a Unique Brain State Associated with Enhanced Information Integration and Inter-Brain Synchrony.” eNeuro.
   Provides neural evidence that team flow is a distinct brain state marked by synchrony and integration, aligning with my notion of Zone 2 collective creativity.
   
   

6. Calabrese, C. et al. (2021). “Spontaneous emergence of leadership patterns drives synchronization in complex human networks.” Scientific Reports.
   Demonstrates experimentally that leadership can emerge spontaneously through physical signalling, enhancing group synchrony, reinforcing the idea of “leaders de mentirinha”.
   
   

7. Lichtenstein, B. et al. (2009). “Complexity leadership theory: A complex systems leadership theory of emergence at successive organizational levels.” Leadership Quarterly.
   Develops a complexity-based view of leadership as emergent from interactions rather than located in individuals, providing theoretical grounding for Jiwasa-style leadership.
   
   

8. Gatto, A. & Busato, F. (2022). “Polycentric and resilient perspectives for governing the global climate.” Climate Risk Management.
   Argues that polycentric governance enhances adaptability and resilience to climate change, supporting my proposal for leadership distributed across biomes and issues.