NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, for all of you delegates out there, I am asking for your support for the No-Dictator Act. This resolution makes it so that if a nation has a dictator, the dictator must be elected by the people. This is a good idea so that if a nation's people want to give a ruler complete power, they can decide who they want to invest that powe into!


Thank You for your time,

The Titanian Democracy

A copy of the text of the Act on this thread would be most helpful.

The link is about to change as the update will occur shortly, so I won't inlude a link.


No-Dictator Act
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The Titanian Democracy

Description: WHEREAS: If the United Nations so chooses to pass this proposal, all dictators will be required to be elected by the people and no dictator or other leader cannot be an unelected official.



Approvals: 16 (The Titanian Democracy, Seamus McCaffrey, WZ Forums, Sargonastan, No Breaks, Ghigha, Docekaheedron, JS Nijmegen, Tekania, The Dancing Butterfly, Bum Wipe, La Commune Quebecoise, Texas and Missouri, The Fallen Fairies, Lastinia, Astriana)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 130 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Dec 23 2004

Does this include monarchies? How about oligarchies? Or juntas?

Does this include monarchies? How about oligarchies? Or juntas?

Actually, the term would be non-inclusive; that is, a dictator, which is "one who weilds absolute power" would be applied. Such that, any monarchy, oligarchy, or juntas (regardless of form) would be applied, as such, that the one, or members, be elected by the people. Any form which does not weild ultimate power, that is Constitutional Republics, Communals, Constitutional Democracies, and other more specific forms, would not be applicable to this order, since "absolute power" is relegated to the "people" and not the government.

Well then, this certainly won't get Enn's vote. There is no way the Councillors will let anyone other than themselves decide who sits with them.

Er...

How do you elect a dictator? Isn't that kind of against the whole point of being a dictator? Besides, this is really just a re-tread of Citizen Rule Required.

The Rogue Nation of The Irish Brotherhood is against this proposal!

Isn't this in violation of "The Rights and Duties of UN States" (Resolution #49), more specifically Article 1? It states that UN States have the right to choose their own form of government, including one that's not chosen by the people.

Strongly Against it

Isn't this in violation of "The Rights and Duties of UN States" (Resolution #49), more specifically Article 1? It states that UN States have the right to choose their own form of government, including one that's not chosen by the people.

Actually, you are reffering to:


Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

However, reffer to the language of the bold, and then underline.

This would not be a violation of within the language, since it is not interference by another nationstate.

This would not be a violation of within the language, since it is not interference by another nationstate.
By inference, the previous poster was in fact correct.
Article 1
§ Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
Since Articles 2 and 3 clearly define the limits of "the immunities recognized by international law", and since Article 1 does not include such immunities, the UN has accepted that it does not have the power to dictate the choice of government.

(As author of this resolution, let me point out that no single article in Rights and Duties was ever intended to stand alone. The resolution is the entire package of 11 Articles, with each modifying one or more of the others. You can't source from Article 1 without considering the effects of Articles 2, 3, 9 10, and 11.)

I disgree, the resolutions language, in no way prevents the United Nations from acting against the government of a member nation. Merely other nationstates from acting or imposing.

That might have been your intent, but that is not what is said.

As much has been prooven by "Citizen Rule Required". The NSUN has the jurisdiction, and power, to change the form of government. Member nations, do not have the power or authority or force another membernation to change its form of government.

The United Nations is not a nationstate.

The Confederacy of Sirul believes that by passing legislation to force dictatorships to hold an election would be wrong. Voting for the Dictator would completely go against the whole concept of a Dictatorship.

Sirul also believes that by passing this resolution, the United Nations itself would be forcing their political beliefs upon the said dictatorships, which would be a clear violation of Article 3, listed previously.

I disgree, the resolutions language, in no way prevents the United Nations from acting against the government of a member nation.
I respect your interpretation but maintain my disagreement. I am forced to retreat to practicality.

A recent proposal to ban Theocracies was removed as illegal. Reason given: The UN cannot limit the form of government. I believe the discussion took place in #themodcave, so I don't have a handly link to show you ... but it's been considered illegal for as long as I've been playing. There is something somewhere in one of Max's notes, the FAQ, or moderation rules that states this as well, I just can't put my finger on it right now.

against

The Dictatorship Of East Lithuania would never let this happen

I respect your interpretation but maintain my disagreement. I am forced to retreat to practicality.

A recent proposal to ban Theocracies was removed as illegal. Reason given: The UN cannot limit the form of government. I believe the discussion took place in #themodcave, so I don't have a handly link to show you ... but it's been considered illegal for as long as I've been playing. There is something somewhere in one of Max's notes, the FAQ, or moderation rules that states this as well, I just can't put my finger on it right now.

Except, this resolution bans nothing. It merely makes Dictators electable by the people (though they are still dictators). No change in governmental form. Dictator is elected, runs his power trip till death, dies; a new one is elected, so on.

((OOC: Why are you so interested in this passing anyways? If you are not a dictatorship then it wouldn't affect you no matter what.))

Sirul will stick to it's main point that dictatorships do not have elections, to force one would be forcing them to chang their government, not on a large scale, but to a small degree something would have to change.

To quote your previous statement of this resolution banning nothing, Sirul also disagrees with you. It would ban UN dictators from assuming power like they have always done.

((OOC: Why are you so interested in this passing anyways? If you are not a dictatorship then it wouldn't affect you no matter what.))

Sirul will stick to it's main point that dictatorships do not have elections, to force one would be forcing them to chang their government, not on a large scale, but to a small degree something would have to change.

To quote your previous statement of this resolution banning nothing, Sirul also disagrees with you. It would ban UN dictators from assuming power like they have always done.

Except, this resolution bans nothing. It merely makes Dictators electable by the people (though they are still dictators). No change in governmental form. Dictator is elected, runs his power trip till death, dies; a new one is elected, so on.

There is still a change. As soon as the ruler becomes elected the nation becomes a democracy. It may become an extremely controlled democracy, but it's still a democracy. Thus, under this Resolution totalitarian regimes cannot exist, as the regime would have to give up a little power- the power to choose who leads the nation- to the people, contradicting the whole point of a totalitarian regime.

Furthermore, examing what Article 1 says:

"Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government."

The commas seperating "without dictation by any other NationState" make this statement an aside, in other words meaning "in addition to". This means that Article 1 could be reworded to mean the following:

"Every UN Member Nation has the right to choose its own form of government, and this choice cannot be infringed upon by any other state."

Nowhere does it say that the UN has the right to change the state's government.

Additionally, this Proposal has another flaw- what is to stop a dictator from rigging his/her elections (allowing only certain people to vote- e.g. him-/herself)? Wouldn't that make this Proposal useless?

There is still a change. As soon as the ruler becomes elected the nation becomes a democracy. It may become an extremely controlled democracy, but it's still a democracy. Thus, under this Resolution totalitarian regimes cannot exist, as the regime would have to give up a little power- the power to choose who leads the nation- to the people, contradicting the whole point of a totalitarian regime.

Furthermore, examing what Article 1 says:

"Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government."

The commas seperating "without dictation by any other NationState" make this statement an aside, in other words meaning "in addition to". This means that Article 1 could be reworded to mean the following:

"Every UN Member Nation has the right to choose its own form of government, and this choice cannot be infringed upon by any other state."

Nowhere does it say that the UN has the right to change the state's government.

Additionally, this Proposal has another flaw- what is to stop a dictator from rigging his/her elections (allowing only certain people to vote- e.g. him-/herself)? Wouldn't that make this Proposal useless?

Rule #1, I do not care about dictatorships, they are a cancer that must be eliminated.
Rule #2, NSUN Resolutions can force governmental forms ("Citizen Rule Required").

Rule #2, NSUN Resolutions can force governmental forms ("Citizen Rule Required").

Meh. I'm none too sure of the legality of Citizen Rule Required. It strikes me as outlawing an ideology. Outlawing communism isn't allowable either. Granted, this was pre-mods, so there's not much that can be done about it. Feh.

-*precedent*-

And, since governmental forms are an effect of stats; and stats are effected by issues and resolution; changing forms of government (not banning them) is within the mechanics of the game.

So, to try to argue that "Citizen Rule" is somehow illegal; would be a hard one to pull.

Especially since it preceeds Rights and Duties. And therefore possesses precedent over Rights and Duties (And, one can argue Rights and Duties can violate [and therefore be illegal] "Citizen Rule".)

First of all, we are not a dictatorship- we have an Emperor but he is directly elected by the people.

Second of all, "Citizen Rule Required" does not change a government's form- it just merely states that the people have to play a role in the nation, with its vagueness allowing for nations to restrict the people to crummy government jobs (heading strange, completely useless organizations) while leaving all the important decisions to the main government employees. In "Citizen Rule Required" it does not strip as much power away as this Proposal does, which in effect eliminates most dictatorships (banning absolutism as the dictator does not now have the power to choose who gets to run the nation).

Third of all, as I've said before, Resolution #49, "Rights and Duties of UN States", nations are given the right- not the privledge- to form any government they wish, meaning if they wish to form an absolutist government they're allowed to. This Proposal abridges that right.

Fourth of all, not all dictatorships are inherently evil- our nation (OOC: our nation is meant to be a continuation of the Roman Empire) had long periods of prosperity under dictators (the Emperors), several of whom were progressive and thinking of the people (Caracalla, for example, bestowed Roman citizenship on every free person in the Empire in the early third century). While our nation eventually learned that a truly democratic system was needed for the continued success of Rome (OOC: this is something that I believe would have happened within Rome anyway if it had managed to survive to this day), we have not forgotten the glory our dictators in the past brought us.

So do not look down on all dictatorships- some of them, at the very least, can be good.

Thanks for all of the posts, you guys. And to all of you who voted for the proposal, thanks. But, unfortunately for me, the proposal failed. :(