Depending on which edition of Civ you play, every political and economic system has strengths and weaknesses. Despotism isn’t efficient but it keeps the cost of running government low, while Bureaucracy is expensive to run but it boosts production and revenue in your capital city. Theocracy gives bonuses to armies (presumably imbued by religious zeal), while Free Religion means a happier population as well as faster technological progress.

Of all the government types, democracy provides the most economic and scientific bonuses; for players who want to win by creating a wealthy, high-tech nation, it’s the political system of choice. The downside of democracies in Civ is that they are more susceptible to war weariness; like America during the Vietnam War, the longer a war lasts, the more likely that citizens will riot in the streets.

On the other hand, for those who prefer to win victory at the point of a sword, authoritarian systems like Fascism, Communism and Theocracy are the way to go. In Civ 3, a Communist empire suffers no war weariness, which means it can fight forever without provoking draft riots. Civ 4’s Fascist government allows creation of the Police State, which boosts military production. Both Fascist and Communist states also get espionage bonuses useful for stealing technologies as well as fomenting rebellions in rival states.

Does all this sound familiar? It should to Americans and Europeans, because it fits the modern Western view of politics so nicely. Democracies are creative and wealthy, but not suited for war. Authoritarian political systems are warlike, not prosperous, and they get their technology by stealing it from the democracies. Translate Civ into a book, and it could serve as a text in an American high school civics class.

At a time when the West is shaken by self-doubt about its values and vitality, how reassuring it is that even space aliens buy into the liberal vision. In Master of Orion 2 and 3, which are Civ-like games of galactic conquest, democratic races such as the Humans who receive scientific and financial bonuses. The insect-like Klackons and their totalitarian government produce more goods than other races, but are less adept at researching new technologies. It’s a wonder the game didn’t name the Klackon homeworld Beijing Prime.

Admittedly, some Civ political depictions are debatable. Communism in Civ 4 increases food and factory production and reduces waste from corruption? Someone should have told this to the Soviets in 1989, or China’s rulers today. Authoritarian regimes can’t create new technologies? Cheery news for Londoners who watched their city destroyed by Nazi V-2 rockets in 1944. Democracies embrace science? In Civ 3, the first nation to discover Darwin’s Theory of Evolution gets a science bonus, a game feature that some Kansas school boards would disapprove of.

What is most remarkable about the politics of Civ is how unremarkable all this seems to an American like myself. Of course, a game should show democracies as being advanced and prosperous. Of course, democracy is evidence that a nation has progressed beyond primitive and brutal form of government. How could it be otherwise?

Yet suppose Civ had been developed in Saudi Arabia. Would theocracy be depicted as the highest form of government? Would free practice of religion be a sign of an enlightened society or a symptom of an immoral one?

Or if Civ had been developed in China, would bureaucracy offer the fastest path to progress? If Sim City were based on the Swedish economic model, wouldn’t the game encourage taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than the poor?

Civilization 5: Democracy for Everyone

Agree or disagree with the political and economic theories in a game, it is important to remember that games that attempt to simulate reality have to make assumptions. When Pentagon wargames conclude that X number of interceptor rockets can shoot down Y number of North Korean missiles, or that Y number of F-22 fighters can destroy Z number of Chinese jets, these conclusions are based on estimates of weapons that that have never been fired in anger, or might not even exist yet. But without making those assumptions, planners cannot test new weapons and strategies short of war.

Civilization 5: North Korea vs. The Rest of the World

The same applies to video games. Sim City could just as easily have gone Keynesian and made higher taxes and public spending the key to a thriving economy. Whether Laffer or Keynes is correct does matter for a real economy, but not a virtual one. What counts is that as an economic simulation, Sim City has to include some kind of tax system; as a game, it has to reward or penalize players for making decisions such as choosing a particular tax rate. Until all economists agree on the One True Tax Rate and all politicians on the One Best Form of Government, games will inevitably favor one set of theories and beliefs over another.

Ultimately, the question boils down to whether games influence political beliefs in the same way that they allegedly induce violence. Just think of all those budding economists playing Sim City, or aspiring politicians and policy-makers building empires in Civilization. “Videogames can disrupt and change fundamental attitudes and beliefs about the world, leading to potentially significant long-term social change,” writes games scholar Ian Bogost in his book Persuasive Games. Bogost co-designed the Howard Dean for Iowa computer game to drum up support for Dean in the 2004 election.

Already, games have become propaganda tools. During last year’s Israel-Gaza conflict, several games were released by supporters of Israel and Hamas. Google ultimately removed them from its app store, while Apple has refused to allow games on the Syrian civil war to be sold on its store. The Pentagon considers the five domains of warfare to be air, land, sea, outer space and cyberspace. Perhaps games will be a sixth.

But the most likely answer for the relationship between video games and politics is that there won’t be a definitive answer at all. Proving causality between virtual and real violence is hard enough, but at least violence manifests itself in some measurable physical action such as murder. How do you prove that someone changed their vote from Democrat to Republican because they played Sim City? How do you prove that playing Civ converted someone to a realist, or a neo-con, or a progressive belief in politics?

Beliefs are the most intangible and fluid of things to measure. They are formed and shaped by all sorts of forces, from parents and coworkers to books and television ads. However, high-level strategy games like Civ and Sim City have one unique attribute: They let us get hands-on with things we could never hope to control in real life.

It’s not that most of us will ever blast terrorists or fly jet fighters like we do in video games. However, we can partly experience the real thing by going to a shooting range or taking flying lessons. But guiding a nation over 5,000 years of history? Experimenting with political and economic system to find some optimum blend? Tinkering with the growth and financing of a major city like some kind of civic watchmaker? No president or dictator has that kind of power.

But the ordinary gamer does. How realistic the experience is can be argued. Nonetheless, at a time when so many feel powerless at the hands of vast and impersonal forces that seem to control our lives, from spy agencies to big corporations, virtual reality may be the closest we can come to feeling like we can shape the world as we would like it.

If games have the potential to change political and economic beliefs, then they may indeed become a part of the political process. The Xbox and the keyboard may yet become as important as the voting machine.