NationStates Jolt Archive

Asking all UN delegates to show their support for democracy. Please vote to pass the proposal titled 'Affirmation of Democracy' to be passed for UN resolutoion.

The proposal sets out a basic level of recognition of democracy in all nation states, including free and fair elections, etc. If you believe in democracy and free and fair democracy for the citizens of a nation then it is vital this proposal is passed.

The proposal votes end on SAT 1st May.
Thankyou

UK Hawkins

Posting text of resolution:

Affirmation of Democracy
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: UK Hawkins

Description: This resolution passed by a majority of UN Delegate votes will ensure that all nation states under the mandate of the United Nations provide their citizens with fundamental rights of legitimate democracy as identified by the following articles.

Article 1

All citizens (as described by individual nation states) shall be granted the right to universal voting of public officials of the national legislature every seven years (or sooner if this is set out by individual nation states.

Article 2

All citizens over and including 18 years of age shall have access to voting in national legislative elections, by any means. Whether this be by ballot, post, information technology etc, it will be up to the nation state to ensure this access.

Article 3

All election votes will be conducted in secret so that no citizen is forced to vote in view of anyone else, or will be forced to reveal votes by means of personal or state pressure of any means.

Article 4

No voter will be pressured by force of sanction, threat, direct financial gain or by threat of death to vote for any particular person.

Article 5

A free and independent press and media will have access to all elections to ensure free and fair elections occur. Any press censorship or government intervention in free and fair elections will result in fresh elections under the scrutiny of UN election monitoring teams and world media.

Article 6

No government or individual will arrest opposition members on the grounds of political dissent. Only arrests where substantial belief exists that the person has committed a recognised and legislated crime will be valid. These arrests will be subject to the usual rules of length of imprisonment without trial of individual nations.

Article 7

All legislatures will be open to the citizens of its nation and will accommodate all those that are elected on the voting rules of individual nations without bias or discrimination (unless as a result of imprisonment).

Article 8

All citizens, organizations and other parties will have freedom of speech in relation to government criticism provided this does not break the nation's law on slander.

This goes against Rights and Duties, unless I'm very much mistaken. Which I may well be; it's late and I have a margarita.

I would like to say that Richardelphia will NOT support this resolution.

This proposal gorssly overreaches the spirit and intent of the United Nations to guard the sovereignty and self-determination of its individual member nations. The UN has no business infringing on the rights of nations to choose their own systems of government, representative or not.

In addition, pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule, and is not a sustainable form of government in the long-term. This is an incredibly dangerous proposal, and it should not be allowd to come to a vote of the general UN body.

Although our nation cherishes freedom and a measure of equality, we cannot be described as a democracy per se. Our tribes each have their own indigenous form s of government, which vary widely. If a citizen does not care for the system he or she is under, they can easily and painlessly relocate to a more politically congenial tribe.

Democracy could be very disruptive to our creative amalgam.

In addition, pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule, and is not a sustainable form of government in the long-term. This is an incredibly dangerous proposal, and it should not be allowd to come to a vote of the general UN body.

That mob consists of the average people. Are we to believe that the people in power have some superhuman ability to rule?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Bootai-Bootai will not support this legislation since it restricts the type of government that UN member states can have.

In addition, pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule, and is not a sustainable form of government in the long-term. This is an incredibly dangerous proposal, and it should not be allowd to come to a vote of the general UN body.

That mob consists of the average people. Are we to believe that the people in power have some superhuman ability to rule?
Are we to believe that you would be satisfied with the decision of a lynch mob to hang somebody just because they happen to be the majority? I'd rather live under a system that instead makes supreme the rule of law--in spite of the current whim of "average" people?

A real world example would be the United States in the 1960s with segragation in the south. The majority of Americans at that time favored segregation. Left to a popular vote (pure democracy), that would have not changed. Fortunately, US citizens are guarenteed equal protection under the law. The rule of law trumped the will of the majority and segregation was forced to end.

As the newly, freely, elected President of Engleterra, I Thomas Jefferon have been sent to the Executive Office on a foreign relations ticket. My felow citizens yearn, as I do, for the continuation of democratic ideals at home and world wide. It is the position of my government to pursue and defend the rights of human beings everywhere through out this world; an unprecedented position in the history of Engleterra.

Thus I lend my support for this resolution and extend a hand to all nations with a history of freedom, or a desire to reform thier political, social, and economic policies to join with the citizens of Engleterra and I on this quest to bring the light of democracy around the world.

If you wish to contact me further, please send a telegram to my offices in the region of Coalition of The Willing.

Are we to believe that you would be satisfied with the decision of a lynch mob to hang somebody just because they happen to be the majority? I'd rather live under a system that instead makes supreme the rule of law--in spite of the current whim of "average" people?

A real world example would be the United States in the 1960s with segragation in the south. The majority of Americans at that time favored segregation. Left to a popular vote (pure democracy), that would have not changed. Fortunately, US citizens are guarenteed equal protection under the law. The rule of law trumped the will of the majority and segregation was forced to end.

That's all and well until it's the government favoring segregation. Anarchism does have something called direct action and free association. People opposed to segregation could use the same techniques to get equality.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

That mob consists of the average people. Are we to believe that the people in power have some superhuman ability to rule?


I believe that the chief motovation behind the critique of democracy as being "mob rule" is the rejection of the idea that the "common people" have any right to rule over me, simply because there are more of them than me.

People will say (correctly, I think) that democracy has an inherent flaw in that it allows the outright abuse of those of minority opinions because it only considers the soverignity of the majority. In such a democracy, one is only free if one conforms to the majority opinion.

(EDIT: frankly, this critique is based on the belief that nobody, commoner or political elite, really has any real moral justification for making decisions that effect other people.)

I believe that the chief motovation behind the critique of democracy as being "mob rule" is the rejection of the idea that the "common people" have any right to rule over me, simply because there are more of them than me.

People will say (correctly, I think) that democracy has an inherent flaw in that it allows the outright abuse of those of minority opinions because it only considers the soverignity of the majority. In such a democracy, one is only free if one conforms to the majority opinion.

(EDIT: frankly, this critique is based on the belief that nobody, commoner or political elite, really has any real moral justification for making decisions that effect other people.)

I totally agree, which is why anarchism also has free association, allowing people to leave groups they don't like.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

the DSH remain neutral in this matter - we appreciate the authors intention to spread democracy, but feel that it is a step too far too quickly...such reforms take time.

You may find quite a lot of nations with alternative government styles, who don't wish to be a democracy. Democracy does have failings too you know. Also, we wouldn't wish to offend our red obsessed comrades would we?

Article 1
All citizens (as described by individual nation states) shall be granted the right to universal voting of public officials of the national legislature every seven years (or sooner if this is set out by individual nation states.


There is a very simple loophole in this. If a citizen is what the government says it is, then the government can make a severely limited selection of the population citizens. For example, I could declare that only governmental employees and their families are citizens. I could declare only I was a citizen, for that matter.

Article 2
All citizens over and including 18 years of age shall have access to voting in national legislative elections, by any means. Whether this be by ballot, post, information technology etc, it will be up to the nation state to ensure this access.


Why 18? Does this not allow individula nation-states to set their own age of majority? The age of majority is 20 in Daryn. Am I to allow citizens who are not able to make a legal contract the privledge of voting?

Article 4
No voter will be pressured by force of sanction, threat, direct financial gain or by threat of death to vote for any particular person.
Last time I checked, weren't most campiang strategies based on pointing out the financial gain one candfidate would give the voter? lower taxes, more government benefits and that sort of thing?

Article 7
All legislatures will be open to the citizens of its nation and will accommodate all those that are elected on the voting rules of individual nations without bias or discrimination (unless as a result of imprisonment).
See my comment on citizens above. If the leader is the only citizen, she has to be elected as a member of the legislature.

Article 8
All citizens, organizations and other parties will have freedom of speech in relation to government criticism provided this does not break the nation's law on slander.
See my comment on redefining terms above. If slander is speaking 'lies' about how the government is wrong and the leaders should be unelected, then every form of dissent is slander.

Forgive me for playing Devil's Advocate, but someone should point these out to you before you get this thing passed and dictators everywhere find these loopholes.

I have been in politics far too long, I think -- I am getting cynical in my old age.

-- Minister Mar Darneka, Daryn