Hi Tommaso,
thanks for your interest and observations. In my reply to Michael Alan I have talked about some of the less Utopian aspects of the tale.
You are right indoctrination, shared affirmations, is used as a means of maintaining social cohesion. Common knowledge of past mistakes, necessary limits, optimism and common purpose are used. As can be seen it is part of the education system, parental guidance and public information. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion. Self interest to the detriment of others, greed, and profits do not have a place, success is measured in other ways. Nor does anarchy have a place. Perhaps there can be discussion among the populous about the affirmations, choosing perhaps the shared affirmations for the next quarter, discussion of the meaning/interpretations, validity and benefits of the different affirmations. Perhaps voting to delete some from the public list or adding new ones as they seem appropriate to new circumstances. In this way the people might feel they have some democratic input into the steering of the society.
Re. bad guys. I think they are not all of one type. There are people who can dedicate themselves to service of the sanctuaries as external protectors and gatherers of data. Their character may make them unsuited to permanent sanctuary life as it does not sufficiently challenge their competitive drive. These are not bad guys but could become bad guys if trapped in an unsuitable environment and culture. There are those opposed to the social control of the system and want to overthrow it in favor of their own form of government or anarchy and those who are have personality disorders that can not be cured and are a danger to the other residents.Using brain scans it is now possible to observe the structural differences of such people and screen them out of the population, and exile them.It may be possible to detect them while still children and put them into a different education path that will prepare them for life outside of the sanctuary.It may be possible to think of some positive role that those fearless, ambitious, self interested people could play.
Re. the political system I have in mind a benign democratically elected meritocracy, rather than sinister hidden authoritarian control. Social leadership would be a dedication like any other and suitable personalities would have appropriate broad based education (e.g.sociology, psychology, history, science, leadership, prior to becoming candidates for election. I haven't gone as far as thinking about a suitable curriculum : )
I think that putting in the infrastructure and construction of the sanctuaries would happen with a background of unrest as the need for them would not be agreed to until the environmental conditions have made survival difficult.I imagine it would require peace keepers to prevent obstruction from those who regard them as a waste of resources that could be better spent on food production and basic necessities of life, and those that would want to take resources from the sanctuaries for their own personal survival.The only way a peaceful transition could take place is if the 'indoctrination' of the people begins before construction so that the majority are in support of the projects.
Thanks for helping me put some more flesh on the bare bones, Georgina