NationStates Jolt Archive

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,


DEEPLY DISTURBED at the increase in dictatorships among UN member nations,

CONVINCED that the UN is an institution of good-will and democracy,

SEEKING to bring freedom to the peoples of all nations within the UN.

1. CALLS UPON the UN, as a symbol of international democracy, to no longer ignore the degree of tyranny and dictatorship that pervades it. It shall forthwith be adopted into UN policy that free elections must be immediately instituted for all member states.

2. URGES that non-compliance will carry the penalty of ejection from the UN.

3. ACCEPTS UN guidelines as to what shall be considered as democratic practice among its members; the guiding principle of which will be the periodic election of representatives by the citizens of a nation to that nation’s respective law-making institution.

4. FURTHER REMINDS that the UN shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of any man or woman to participate in any capacity OTHER THAN THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.

Unfortunately this proposal would require a change in game mechanics, Anyone can join the UN regardless of their political stance.

Respectfully,
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

thats really pleasin then :D:D:D:D

thats really pleasin then :D:D:D:D

this proposal is as idiotic as it is useless.

let's get to work:


THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. I wouldn't vote for this.

DEEPLY DISTURBED at the increase in dictatorships among UN member nations,

You must realize that all those dictatorships would vote against this.


CONVINCED that the UN is an institution of good-will and democracy,

That's a new one on me. I have yet to see a discernable about of good will, and it's not truly a democracy, as the delegates have extra power, not that I'm saying that that is a bad thing.

SEEKING to bring freedom to the peoples of all nations within the UN.

My definition of freedom may differ from your own, and I don't seek to make people accept my ideals in the name of "freedom."

1. CALLS UPON the UN, as a symbol of international democracy, to no longer ignore the degree of tyranny and dictatorship that pervades it.
It shall forthwith be adopted into UN policy that free elections must be immediately instituted for all member states.

A resolution has already passed requiring elections for at least some level of the government. So that part is useless.

2. URGES that non-compliance will carry the penalty of ejection from the UN.

Ah, yes. If we kick them out of our club, they'll really want to be just like us. Then again, disreguarding a resolution will kick them out anyway, correcct? So that's also a useless clause.

3. ACCEPTS UN guidelines as to what shall be considered as democratic practice among its members;

Because clearly you've spelled out those guidlines to us: useless.
the guiding principle of which will be the periodic election of representatives by the citizens of a nation to that nation’s respective law-making institution.

Here you do try to loosely define it.
However, you don't state how a person gets onto the ballot. The ruling party can simply put down the one person they want for each position and then, if someone does vote, they'll always win. That part is useless once again.

4. FURTHER REMINDS that the UN shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of any man or woman to participate in any capacity OTHER THAN THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.
What will prevent a nation from placing restrictions? Useless.

I'm not against the idea of democracy, but Nation States allows people to run thier countries how they like, and this undermines that.

There are three fundamental problems with the resolution.

First from the view point of our nation we are religiously opposed to elections. How can one legislate right from wrong? A vote by the majority? We view a more equitable solution as being bound by the will of our most reverend maximum leader.

The second problem in a broader sense goes into the notion that each state is different and has their own ways of resolving conflicts. Some may choose elections. Some may choose a more consensus based approach. Others may choose one where the responsibility of governance is delegated to those show themselves to be the elites in any given society.

And third it limits democracy within this body. World leaders have a hard enough time squashing dissent in their own nation without being told what to think and do in this body. We should show support for each other and listen to each others ideas towards creating a more morally sound and compliant citizenry.

We might however welcome a counter resolution encouraging (though not requiring) those nations who do have elections to cancel them since democracy does inevitably cause both social and moral anarchy.

There are three fundamental problems with the resolution.

First from the view point of our nation we are religiously opposed to elections. How can one legislate right from wrong? A vote by the majority? We view a more equitable solution as being bound by the will of our most reverend maximum leader.

The second problem in a broader sense goes into the notion that each state is different and has their own ways of resolving conflicts. Some may choose elections. Some may choose a more consensus based approach. Others may choose one where the responsibility of governance is delegated to those show themselves to be the elites in any given society.

And third it limits democracy within this body. World leaders have a hard enough time squashing dissent in their own nation without being told what to think and do in this body. We should show support for each other and listen to each others ideas towards creating a more morally sound and compliant citizenry.

We might however welcome a counter resolution encouraging (though not requiring) those nations who do have elections to cancel them since democracy does inevitably cause both social and moral anarchy.

I find that interesting that you would adobt the idea that democracy leads to social and moral anarchy... The two oldest single standing governments on the planet currently are democracies... The two longest lived single republic/democratic principle empires upon the planet also were.... no dictatorial, facist, or monarchial gov't has lasted much longer then 120 years without a major, violent powerstrungle to replace it with another.... While facist philosphy argues for your point, history prooves your philosophy to be incorrect in it's assumptions....

I find it interesting that some of the posts replying to this topic that are against democracy are made by the same people that are unable to reply in a civil manner and that neglect key maxims of conversation.

My Country Is A Dictatorship, And Yet Everyone Seems Fine With It *Except The Dead Politicians, But They Don't Talk About It* Everything in our country is fine with 1 person making a decision for the better good of the country

Game mechanics change. Not gonna fly, sorry.

OOC: I'm a tad confused. Are you saying sorry to the proponant of this resoulution, or sorry to the person that offered the argument that this would cause a change in game mechanics.

IC: I beleive that certain peoples are missing the key points and spirit of this resoulution. Without bickering about the personal meaning of Freedom, and what the U.N. was established for (Which is to keep peace and furthur human rights.) The Spirit of this Resolution is ideal and sound to such democracies as Corennia, however, certain issues would need to be addressed, such as what would constitute a democracy? An article would first need to be passed enabling universal sufferage. Unfortunatly, I do not believe that the DSC (Democratic States of Corennia) would support such a resoulition. We stand firm in a belief that although Democracy is a common goal of man, nation's may operate in a humane way, and allow maximum civil and political freedom's without having free elections. It is difficult, but it is possible. If citizen's have a problem with there nation's policy's regardining this, the DSC currently has an open border's policy. With application, we are accepting refugees and immigrants from other nations.

Ambassador Pauline Lamont Saul
Representative to the U.N. for Corennia

It won't let me delete this accidental post!!!!!

I blame demons!!!

Demons!!!!!!!!

The Grand Duchy of Northrobland declares your proposal simultaneously the most brilliant thing ever presented to the United Nations, and completely ludicrous.

We would have supported it, but you did not put any emoticons into it. Next time, we would like to see at least two of these things: :twisted:

In one of your later posts, you used the word "maxims". That magazine, sir, borders on pornography. And I can no more support pornography than I can support your ludicrous proposal.

For these reasons, and many more, we will do everything in our power to effect this noble change. God bless you.

let's get to work:


THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. I wouldn't vote for this.

It's a standard phrase. Don't nitpick, most nations don't bother even trying to be as formal and eloquent.


CONVINCED that the UN is an institution of good-will and democracy,

That's a new one on me. I have yet to see a discernable about of good will, and it's not truly a democracy, as the delegates have extra power, not that I'm saying that that is a bad thing.

Yes it is. Assuming the NS UN was founded on the same basis as the RL UN, one if it's guiding principles is "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom," and another is "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small," they sound well intentioned to me.

As for the delegates have extra power scenario, I would compare the relationships between delegates and members as being similar to that of those who actually sit in session(elected or permanent), and those who are members of the RL UN.


2. URGES that non-compliance will carry the penalty of ejection from the UN.

Ah, yes. If we kick them out of our club, they'll really want to be just like us. Then again, disreguarding a resolution will kick them out anyway, correcct? So that's also a useless clause.

it is "useless" but not for the reasons you implied. Nations can't ignore resolutions. period. Thus they are not kicked out for it, they normally resign.

won't this require a change in game mechanics?