NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a new proposal out that discourages attempts to set up democratic elections in nations that are possibly hostile or have a significant amount of unrest (OOC: *cough*Listen up, United States!*cough*). Attempts to set up democratic elections could potentially waste military money used to stabilize unruly citizens. The proposal's probably on the last page right now, so...go accept it!

Jack-a-nape, the last page doesn't stay the last page for long. Always post the entire resolution.Democratic Elections
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Jack-a-nape

Description: This proposal/resolution...

(1) understands that the furtherment of democracy is a major issue.
(2) recognizes that an attempt to set up democratic elections in non-democratic nations can potentially be a danger to the nation attempting to set up elections.
(3) also recognizes that money set aside for military purposes can be wasted because of the necessity for the providing of troops to stabilize a nation in which elections are to be set up.
(4) also recognizes the fact that not all citizens/leaders prefer democratic elections to other types of leader election.
(5) discourages attempts to set up democratic elections in nations that are potentially hostile or full of unrest.
I'm sorry, this makes no sense to me. I can't even tell if it's legal. Could you explain why we should vote for this, please?

I believe this is an infringement of the rights of all states. We have the right to encourage democratic processes in nations. We have the right to actively participate in the transition to democracy - if the nation's government violates UN rules and regulations. But not merely because they have another form of political structure in place.
Your proposal is a cork on the spread of freedom throughout the world.
Wars should not be started merely because a nation is communist, a corrupt dictatorship, or otherwise. Perhaps this is the point you should attempt to get across.

Oh, where to begin? I'd like to echo Shasoria's comments, and add my two cents' worth.

Gee, I can't possibly imagine where this proposal is coming from. Oh yeah, it's the complete ignorance of the purpose of the war in Iraq and the swallowing whole of liberal rhetoric. It does not cease to amaze me that so many out there just don't believe that Saddam was a threat to anyone, with WMDs and terrorist ties, and the rape, torture and murder of so many of his own citizens. (Do you understand what the term 'mass graves' means?) Do you really think we invaded Iraq so that we could force Democracy down their throats? Give me a break.

Without going further into the above, this proposal could actually be made more presentable with some major rephrasing, more to the tune of "No member nation shall initiate Acts of War against another sovereign state under the pretense of overthrowing said state's government. Such a violation will be subject to sanctions, military action, etc." Except that generally, going to war with another nation has the purpose of -- overthrowing or eliminating that nation's goverment, and replacing it with another, or even one's own. Except maybe wars of genocide. So there's the alternative. Let's limit wars to only the ones that wipe out a nation, or leave it in anarchy for the most ruthless dicator to take over. Great idea.

I have no problem with this resolution. While democracy is a laudable idea, it is not something that people should have forced upon them when they are not ready or not willing. While the members of the UN doubtless have many fantastic qualities for running their own governments, that does not give them the ability to see in to the future, or the power to see how such an endeavour would turn out.

While I (mostly) support UN intervention to prevent genocide and other such violations of human rights, having the UN intercede to enforce a government on an unwilling people is a violation of their right to govern their country as they see fit. As would be the imposition of a dictatorship on a democractic government.

I believe this is an infringement of the rights of all states. We have the right to encourage democratic processes in nations. We have the right to actively participate in the transition to democracy - if the nation's government violates UN rules and regulations. But not merely because they have another form of political structure in place.
Your proposal is a cork on the spread of freedom throughout the world.
Wars should not be started merely because a nation is communist, a corrupt dictatorship, or otherwise. Perhaps this is the point you should attempt to get across.


I accept that we have the right to encourage democracy through the world, but to do it by force of arms is a little too much encouragement for my taste :}

In some cases, military action to end dictatorship and appalling human rights abuses can be justified. So no, I will not support a blanket discouragement.

In some cases, military action to end dictatorship and appalling human rights abuses can be justified. So no, I will not support a blanket discouragement.

Which is all well and good, but dictatorship and appalling human rights abuses can be viewed as being subjective, not objective. Judging by a lot of the arguements on this forum there are a lot of nations who would find that letting 14 year olds get married, have sex and have children, and not banning sex with animals would be considered appalling human rights abuses. Yet I would not be happy for anyone to use this as an excuse to invade my country and force their version of democracy on me.

Which is what this proposal would seek to end the potential of. (And yes - I am aware how bad that last sentence was, but I could not think of a better way to phrase it)

But it would also oppose actions against real, serious human rights violations, carried out by nations and leaders honest and purely humanitarian in their intention.

But it would also oppose actions against real, serious human rights violations, carried out by nations and leaders honest and purely humanitarian in their intention.

It's the lesser of two evils. I would rather not have people invading my country because of mymoral beliefs and let other countries enjoy the same protection, than have countries and their armies invading willy-nilly because they find something objectionable about the country they are invading.

I should probably change it so that it discourages using military action in attempting to set up democratic elections.

We can still invade other countries to promote some other form of government right?

I still don't think a blanket condemnation is a good idea. Anyway, "discouragement" wouldn't outright prevent, and anything stronger would be even more inappropriate. This is the kind of thing that would be better dealt with case-by-case, if the UN's resolutions were able to reference individual nations, or if we had a security council. But they can't and we don't, and neither is going to change in NS1, I think.

The Kingdom would support this Resolution, we do not believe in forcing democracy on other nations. Each nation should have their chance to rule their people with their chosen form of government, we can condemn their form and encourage democratic elections but we cannot force it on them. It will only cause more trouble.

Gee, I can't possibly imagine where this proposal is coming from. Oh yeah, it's the complete ignorance of the purpose of the war in Iraq and the swallowing whole of liberal rhetoric. It does not cease to amaze me that so many out there just don't believe that Saddam was a threat to anyone, with WMDs and terrorist ties, and the rape, torture and murder of so many of his own citizens. (Do you understand what the term 'mass graves' means?) Do you really think we invaded Iraq so that we could force Democracy down their throats? Give me a break.

No, I believe America invaded Iraq so they could get at the precioussssss, precioussss oil. Also to keep Bush's approval ratings from slipping. And it doesn't cease to amaze me that people do believe what you claim to be true. For further elaboration, please consult me at 3 in the morning so I have additional motivation to scream at you.

It's the lesser of two evils. I would rather not have people invading my country because of mymoral beliefs and let other countries enjoy the same protection, than have countries and their armies invading willy-nilly because they find something objectionable about the country they are invading.

You have my agreement there.

A suggestion for the proposal, maybe it'd be better as a condemnation specifically directed at the overthrow of a government, any government, rather than focusing on trying to set up democracies.

Voting against.

[QUOTE=Kelssek]No, I believe America invaded Iraq so they could get at the precioussssss, precioussss oil. Also to keep Bush's approval ratings from slipping. And it doesn't cease to amaze me that people do believe what you claim to be true. For further elaboration, please consult me at 3 in the morning so I have additional motivation to scream at you.

OIL - yeah, that's it. That's why our gas prices are higher than ever and heating oil/natural gas will skyrocket again this winter. Well, I guess that proves it. If we were really after oil, we'd invade Mexico, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, since they all have more. Hey, I think I'll call my senator now.

RL discussions about Bush and oil and such belong in General. Please keep this topic focused on Jack-a-nape's proposal, if you would.

Since this proposal is obviously based on real world crap, it should be canned.

Since this proposal is obviously based on real world crap, it should be canned.
The discussion has certainly been based on real world crap, but the proposal seems to be quite generic.

I think that there are ample reasons not to approve this proposal based on its own lack of merit and clarity, but RL aspects are not a factor here IMO.

The discussion has certainly been based on real world crap, but the proposal seems to be quite generic.

I think that there are ample reasons not to approve this proposal based on its own lack of merit and clarity, but RL aspects are not a factor here IMO.

Having read the actual resolution, and not just the first post in this thread (sorry about that!), there is an arguement to be made that, should any nation find itself a conquering power in the war that allowed it to invade and occupy another nation, it should not have the right to decide what type of government is best for the nation it just invaded. This doesn't apply just to democracy - a sudden change in governmental philosophy is always a bugger for a country to deal with - but democracy is the one with most issues because it requires the population to take some responsibility for itself - something that it might not be used to or capable of.

But due to the clarity issues I would have to support your view that it should either be not supported, or redrafted for more clarity.

If the Liberating/Conquering nation does not set up a governmental process in the defeated country, then who will? A spontaneous government formed from the will of the people might be ideal, but sometimes unrealistic. So, will the UN put the new government style to a vote? Who, then, will fund the setup of a governmental structure?

All this is pretty moot in a game in which wars can only be RP'd, but my point remains: what is the purpose of invading a country, if not regime change, genocide, or creating anarchy?

there is an arguement to be made that, should any nation find itself a conquering power in the war that allowed it to invade and occupy another nation, it should not have the right to decide what type of government is best for the nation it just invaded.

So should the western allies not have set up a democracy in West Germany after WW2? Should they have simply re-installed a dictatorship then left? A UN resolution such as what is being suggested would have been in opposition to the Allies' actions. I recognise that the flipside is that such a resolution would have (IMO rightly) opposed the establishment of "communist" dictatorships in post-WW2 eastern Europe, but my point is that this principle is not cast-iron and there are cases where the principle is wrong - therefore a blanket condemnation is a bad idea (as I have said repeatedly).

Having read the actual resolution, and not just the first post in this thread (sorry about that!), there is an arguement to be made that, should any nation find itself a conquering power in the war that allowed it to invade and occupy another nation, it should not have the right to decide what type of government is best for the nation it just invaded. This doesn't apply just to democracy - a sudden change in governmental philosophy is always a bugger for a country to deal with - but democracy is the one with most issues because it requires the population to take some responsibility for itself - something that it might not be used to or capable of.

But due to the clarity issues I would have to support your view that it should either be not supported, or redrafted for more clarity.


I will shoot down your argument by pointing out that the winner in a war decides what happens to the loser, and not the UN.

If the Liberating/Conquering nation does not set up a governmental process in the defeated country, then who will? A spontaneous government formed from the will of the people might be ideal, but sometimes unrealistic. So, will the UN put the new government style to a vote? Who, then, will fund the setup of a governmental structure?

All this is pretty moot in a game in which wars can only be RP'd, but my point remains: what is the purpose of invading a country, if not regime change, genocide, or creating anarchy?

Ok - I am not all that good at explaining things without examples, so here is one.

The Nation of Burrowsville is a monarchy. However the country of Smalton believes that Burrowsville is abusing it's people in some way. So they invade and remove the current monarch. In it's place they give the people of Burrowsville complete autonomy and democracy.

A year later Burrowsville is a mess, and there are fights in every district. Six months after that it falls in to civil war. Thousands of people are killed, simply because the people of Smalton thought they knew better about the governing of a nation than Burrowsville did.

My point being that an invading nation is responsible for setting up the government, but since overthrowing another government is an international matter, the UN should at least have a say on what goes on, and to ensure the best form of government for the region is set up.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying democracy should be abandoned and consigned to history - but the blanket assumption that it is the best government in the world, and every nation should be required to be democractic is just wrong.

So should the western allies not have set up a democracy in West Germany after WW2? Should they have simply re-installed a dictatorship then left? A UN resolution such as what is being suggested would have been in opposition to the Allies' actions. I recognise that the flipside is that such a resolution would have (IMO rightly) opposed the establishment of "communist" dictatorships in post-WW2 eastern Europe, but my point is that this principle is not cast-iron and there are cases where the principle is wrong - therefore a blanket condemnation is a bad idea (as I have said repeatedly).

Since you are siting the real world, I was going to say that establishing democracy in Iraq seems to be working just fine (and then admit I was being sarcastic) but leaving the real world behind for the moment (as this is not the real world) I didn't think it was a blanket ban.

I believe this is the salient point : "discourages attempts to set up democratic elections in nations that are potentially hostile or full of unrest"

So it doesn't say that you can't do it - it just questions the assumption that democracy is the best form of government all the time. Which is a laudable goal in my view :}

I will shoot down your argument by pointing out that the winner in a war decides what happens to the loser, and not the UN.

And I will respond that maybe that this is not the way to run an international community.

Above all, this denies the fact that it is the natural yearning of the human soul to be free. And this is best possible with a democratic or republican form of government (if not libertarian), with direct or representative government. Simply assuming that some people "are not ready" to determine their own fate or that they will do better under an oppressive government is condescending.

I would recommend you listen to the broadcast lectures of the Limbaugh Institute for Conservative Studies, on major radio stations in the U.S. from 10am to 1pm Eastern Time.

Above all, this denies the fact that it is the natural yearning of the human soul to be free. And this is best possible with a democratic or republican form of government (if not libertarian), with direct or representative government. Simply assuming that some people "are not ready" to determine their own fate or that they will do better under an oppressive government is condescending.

I would recommend you listen to the broadcast lectures of the Limbaugh Institute for Conservative Studies, on major radio stations in the U.S. from 10am to 1pm Eastern Time.

"Democracy gives people what it wants, not what it needs"

And I would rather be a little condescending than watch a country implode in to civil war.

Above all, this denies the fact that it is the natural yearning of the human soul to be free. And this is best possible with a democratic or republican form of government (if not libertarian), with direct or representative government. Simply assuming that some people "are not ready" to determine their own fate or that they will do better under an oppressive government is condescending.


A non-democractic government is not by default an oppressive one. Neither does a democratic government guarentee freedom, in the sense of civil and personal liberty. The United States has been democratic since it was founded, yet racial equality didn't exist there for almost two hundred years. Adolf Hitler was democratically elected, and he decided to conduct a genocide.

By its nature, democracy lends itself to a tyranny of the majority, and while representative government is a good way to ensure personal freedom, it's not the be-all and end-all.

I'll grant you that pure democracy ("rule of the mob") is not necessarily the most free form of government (in fact, I'd prefer a republic in that sense), but with a good set of checks on the government that ensure the rights of citizens are upheld, and the will of the minority respected, it seems to be about the best. I'd challenge you to put forth another system of government that allows for more personal freedom, liberty and opportunity.

In Iraq, my opinion is that a republic might be a better form of government.

Since you are siting the real world, I was going to say that establishing democracy in Iraq seems to be working just fine (and then admit I was being sarcastic) but leaving the real world behind for the moment (as this is not the real world) I didn't think it was a blanket ban.

I believe this is the salient point : "discourages attempts to set up democratic elections in nations that are potentially hostile or full of unrest"

So it doesn't say that you can't do it - it just questions the assumption that democracy is the best form of government all the time. Which is a laudable goal in my view :}

Let me first point out that I was in fact against the Iraq war. My point is that although it doesn't stop the practice outright, it condemns it indiscriminately, because you can make the argument that pretty much any former non-democracy is going to be at least partially hostile to its occupiers establishing democracy, and a nation that has just been invaded and its government toppled is going to have unrest - so really the section you quote is a condemnation of pretty much all examples of setting up democracy.

Jesus freaking christ. If you want to whine and whine and whine about the freaking Iraq war and whether the US is evil or good or whatever, get the hell out of here and take it to General because this is the wrong place to talk about it.

Adolf Hitler was democratically elected

Sorry, nope:

When Hitler finally became chancellor, on January 30, 1933, it was not on the crest of a wave of popular support but as the result of backroom political intrigue by Schleicher, Papen, and the president's son, Oskar von Hindenburg. Only Hitler, they believed, could bring together a coalition with Hugenberg's DNVP and possibly the Centre Party that could command a majority in the Reichstag. They assured the reluctant president that Hitler's radical tendencies would be checked by the fact that Papen would hold the vice-chancellorship and that other conservatives would control the crucial ministries, such as those of war, foreign affairs, and economics.

Hitler was appointed Chancellor, not elected. And as for the election of the Nazi Party:

When the Centre Party refused to join the Nazi-DNVP coalition in January 1933, Hitler demanded elections for a new Reichstag. The elections of March 5, 1933, were preceded by a brutal and violent campaign in which Nazi storm troopers under the command of Ernst Röhm figured prominently. Hitler was also able to take advantage of the Reichstag fire (probably the work of a lone and deranged Dutch communist) of February 27 to suspend civil liberties and arrest communist as well as other opposition leaders. Despite this campaign of terror, the Nazis did not win a majority, gaining only 43.9 percent of the total. The 8 percent acquired by the DNVP, however, was sufficient for the two parties to wield a majority in the Reichstag. At its first meeting on March 23 the new Reichstag—under great pressure from the SA and the SS (Schutzstaffel; “Protective Echelon”), the elite corps of Nazis headed by Heinrich Himmler—voted in favour of the Enabling Act that allowed Hitler to ignore the constitution and to give his decrees the power of law.

So the Nazis first intimidated the electorate but failed to win a majority, then only managed to get Hitler the power he needed to do what he later did by intimidating the other elected representatives.

If democracy had been functioning as proper democracy should, this would not have happened.

My point is that although it doesn't stop the practice outright, it condemns it indiscriminately, because you can make the argument that pretty much any former non-democracy is going to be at least partially hostile to its occupiers establishing democracy, and a nation that has just been invaded and its government toppled is going to have unrest - so really the section you quote is a condemnation of pretty much all examples of setting up democracy.

I guess that could be a way to read it. And if it can be read like that then the people of the UN can interpret it like that.

So (and you can pick your mouth up off the floor) I will conceed your point. I don't believe democracy is right for everyone, but this might not be the right way to approach the problem.

I'll grant you that pure democracy ("rule of the mob") is not necessarily the most free form of government (in fact, I'd prefer a republic in that sense), but with a good set of checks on the government that ensure the rights of citizens are upheld, and the will of the minority respected, it seems to be about the best. I'd challenge you to put forth another system of government that allows for more personal freedom, liberty and opportunity.


So you suddenly give a whole group of people the power to chose their own destiny, by mob rule (to coin a phrase!), and you don't see any potential for disaster?

Republics are not better - given the right set of circumstances. Mostly cause it concentrates the power in fewer hands.

I can't claim to be able to give you an answer about the best form of government for a country. But I do firmly believe the best form of government should be decided by the people that live there.

Hitler was appointed Chancellor, not elected.

My bad. I retract that bit.

Hitler was never elected Chancellor of Germany. He was elected to a lower post and assummed power when Hindenburg was forced to resign. The National Socialist also, how shall we say, managed the election in a rather unothodox way through intimidation and arm twisting if not arm braking. Thus you can say Hitler was elected but not in a free and open election. Not by any definition of a free and open election.

That out of the way look at Singapore. It is a pretty nice place to live. The people there are mostly happy to be Singaporians and don't try to skip out of the country in cargo containers of merchant ships like people in China. But you cannot in any way call Singapore a free country. The elections are a complete sham Lee Kwan Yue is gonna be the president until 10-years after he's dead.

I mean look at the place. It has a draconian legal system that includes public beating with a bamboo pole as a punishment for all sorts of crimes. It is illegal to chew gum. It is illegal, I think, to wear a bathing suit anywhere except at pool or beach. The police coerce conffesions out of suspects. EVERY male is in the army from age 18 to 20 and there are NO exceptions for any kind of objectors that I know of ecxept jail though I could be wrong. Government oficials are not exactly corrupt in the normal sense of the word so much as incompetant and lazy. The government controls the whole society rather closely.

But, I lived there three years and loved it. I'd go back today. You just have to keep on the right side of the law. Not free but a nice place. Moderate taxes. Cleanest city I've ever been but not free. Not by a mile. Most of the people who live there are happy folks. You could do worse.

I guess that could be a way to read it. And if it can be read like that then the people of the UN can interpret it like that.

So (and you can pick your mouth up off the floor) I will conceed your point. I don't believe democracy is right for everyone, but this might not be the right way to approach the problem.

:) Thanks. Now the question is, is it possible tyo create appropriate legislation, given the restriction that NSUN resolutions cannot deal with things case-by-case, or is it better left alone?

Democreacy means rule by the stooopid. We gets along fain wi'out it. All ye do in democracy is buy votes wi' drink and false promises, arrr....

:) Thanks. Now the question is, is it possible tyo create appropriate legislation, given the restriction that NSUN resolutions cannot deal with things case-by-case, or is it better left alone?

Could we ask that in the event of a war/invasion/occupation etc that the occupying power (if it is a UN member) is required to include the UN in any dicussions of forming and setting up the government?

Nah - I can't see a country that wants to invade and occupy another one willing to bow to that.

I don't know. I'd like to see something like this remain, but honestly I can't think of a way to phrase it so that it can't be taken the wrong way.

How about a resolution banning the invasion of another country altogether? That might sort out the problems!! (For the benifit of all members who are reading this, that was sarcasm. I am NOT suggesting such a proposal)

If this resolution actually comes to a vote I'll vote for it before a I vote against it! :P

Anyway, I don't really need a democracy. In fact, I don't even really have a government as such.

There is no government in the normal sense the word; however, a small group of community-minded, pro-business individuals juggles the competing demands of Defence, Law & Order, and Commerce.

I don't really see why the U.N. needs to come in and suddenly decide for me that I actually need a government. :rolleyes:

For the sake of us smaller nations, do not allow this. We of Lokuru are not ready for Democracy, I will admit, our foundations spent many years rotting before the revolution, and democracy is simply not meant for us now. The last thing we need is some conscientious (i.e. larger) nation telling us how to run our country and our lives. I say that we pass laws forbidding the evils of a society without freedom, but to enforce a certain idealism of political rule would be foolishness. Should you wish to cause unrest and anger in the smaller, non-democratic nations, then by all means, go ahead and form together as a conglomerate of larger states and push the smaller ones of us around.

Global peacekeeping is a noble endeavor, one that even I can hope for Lokuru to participate in, in the future. However, global watchdogging and priggishness is beyond description in its repugnance. If you bully the smaller state, we -will- band together and you will not be able to withstand what will be brought to bear. It is not a promise of violence, but a warning of what future will come in a world where such over-policing could exist.

Khar of Lokuru,
Loki Carrere