NationStates Jolt Archive

I have just submitted a resolution requiring a basic level of popular consent in all U.N. member nations. I ask for the support of all democracy-loving delegates so that this resolution may reach a quorum. Its official name is 'Mandatory Elections'. Read it under the proposals section and let me know what you think.

Just a note, it is generally considered polite to post your proposal here, rather than telling people how to find it.
Mandatory Elections
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Annenburg

Description: Recognizing the commitment of the United Nations to human rights, all U.N. member nations shall be required to support at least a basic level of popular consent in the determination of public policy.

Therefore, it is proposed that all U.N. members hold, at the very least, elections for executive office once every eight years. Nations may choose to hold elections more frequently and for more offices.

To monitor these elections and ensure the legitimacy of elected officials, the United Nations shall form a Central Election Commission. The Commission will observe all elections, and based on its observations will either confirm the results of the election as legitimate, or render them null and void.

The mechanics of the election (whether by popular vote, electoral college, or parliamentary vote) shall be decided by individual nations, but are subject to approval by the United Nations Central Election Commission.
This could interfere with Rights and Duties by mandating a specific government type. If the mods judge that way, then this would count as being illegal.

Mandatory Elections
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Annenburg

Description: Recognizing the commitment of the United Nations to human rights, all U.N. member nations shall be required to support at least a basic level of popular consent in the determination of public policy.

Therefore, it is proposed that all U.N. members hold, at the very least, elections for executive office once every eight years. Nations may choose to hold elections more frequently and for more offices.

To monitor these elections and ensure the legitimacy of elected officials, the United Nations shall form a Central Election Commission. The Commission will observe all elections, and based on its observations will either confirm the results of the election as legitimate, or render them null and void.

The mechanics of the election (whether by popular vote, electoral college, or parliamentary vote) shall be decided by individual nations, but are subject to approval by the United Nations Central Election Commission.

We are not a democracy by any imaginable definition; our leader is not elected.

This would force our nation to become a democracy; as such, it is illegal by resolution and by mechanics.

Whack (x237)
Good start to your UN posting career. Nice knowing you.

Enn is correct. Not only does Rights and Duties prohibit requiring a specific form of government, but so does Max. I wish I could remember where he posted that, but Rights and Duties was merely acknowledging a stated rule of NationStates. Technically, "Citizen Rule Required" is also in violation of this policy, but it appears to have been grandfathered in.

You don't elect Kings and Dictators. Doesn't Divine Right mean anything anymore?

Of course, the interesting thing is that he left open oligarchies and aristocracies.
The mechanics of the election (whether by popular vote, electoral college, or parliamentary vote) shall be decided by individual nations, but are subject to approval by the United Nations Central Election Commission.
All any oligarchy or aristocracy would need to do would be to declare themselves parliament, then vote for themselves.

Holding a single election for one of many public offices does not necessarily constitute a democracy. However, requiring a naton with no elections whatsoever to hold at least one every eight years would increase the level of democracy in that nation. The elected leader could still exercise unlimited power. And the exact nature of such an election would be entirely decided by the government of that nation, and would probably be created to favor those already in power (this happens all the time in contemporary politics). Thus, it does not completely endanger the power of psychotic dictators, but rather ensures that there is some level of consent from the governed, in accordance with the previous resolution 'Citizen Rule Required'.

And, although the resolution 'Rights and Duties' states that

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'

this resolution hardly dictates a specific form of government. Even if we were mandating a true democracy, that would still leave enormous room for variation. And the resolution very clearly does not mandate a true democracy, only some level of popular consent. By ensuring that leaders, no matter how psychotic or corrupt, are accountable to some extent to the people, we can ensure that governments are more stable and more legitimate. Thus, this resolution could potentially allow a dictator, if he plays his cards right, to maintain a greater degree of control over his nation.

And what's the point of having a section called 'The Furtherment of Democracy' if furthering democratic institutions is illegal?

And what's the point of having a section called 'The Furtherment of Democracy' if furthering democratic institutions is illegal?
I must agree that having such a category always struck me as odd. I believe there's a difference between 'furthering' and 'making mandatory', though.

Description: Recognizing the commitment of the United Nations to human rights, all U.N. member nations shall be required to support at least a basic level of popular consent in the determination of public policy.

Does "has a major religion native to the nation worshipping him in spite of his opposition to being worshipped" count?

Therefore, it is proposed that all U.N. members hold, at the very least, elections for executive office once every eight years. Nations may choose to hold elections more frequently and for more offices.

No executive office in my nation. There is the office of Dictator, and that's it. He appoints a few advisers he likes to have work delegated to, but he's pretty much the government.

To monitor these elections and ensure the legitimacy of elected officials, the United Nations shall form a Central Election Commission. The Commission will observe all elections, and based on its observations will either confirm the results of the election as legitimate, or render them null and void.

I'm still wondering how these committees are supposed to magically get to my nation.

The mechanics of the election (whether by popular vote, electoral college, or parliamentary vote) shall be decided by individual nations, but are subject to approval by the United Nations Central Election Commission.

Do said mechanics include obeying the will of a people who voted to not vote?

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying. What I'm getting from your post is that the people in your country would choose not to participate in elections because they worship you in their religion...well, kudos to you and to them. That doesn't mean this resolution can't work, though.

But seriously, nearly every country (it would probably be inaccurate to say every) has an executive branch...they are just called different things. In one case it may be a presidency, in another a kingship. And, contrary to popular belief, it is potentially possible to create a dictatorial government that has a certain degree of popular consent. Since the United Nations is committed to increasing human rights and worldwide political stability, and since self-determination is the best way to ensure that, it does not seem outside the realm of the U.N. to address such an issue. And I intentionally made the wording of the resolution very weak so that it would not specifically mandate a true democracy in every U.N. nation.

This proposal will not, and is not intended to, change the U.N. description of every member nation. It is intended to increase political freedoms, much as other proposals aim at increasing civil rights or improving the environment.

Our executive branch would be - well me. And I have no power over the way the government is run. All I do is advise whether or not the laws being passed would be in violation of UN resolutions or not, which, I admit, is a tiny little bit of power, but not enough to warrant actually having to elect me every eight years.

And my position is for life, or until I chose to give it up. However if this does pass, I can ask my government to pass a law saying that the Council has to vote on who should be the President for the next eight years. (The proposal does NOT say that the elections have to be national). And since the proposal also doesn't state how the elections should be run, it is not beyond reason that I can be the only person who they have a choice about. And that you can't abstain.

(OOC)
I think that the whole idea of the proposal is proceeding from a very "Americanised" view point - the UK for example doesn't have an executive branch in the way the US does - it has a Queen who is not elected. Yet no one would accuse the UK of being a democractically backward country (not unless you live here of course!!).

As far as I am concerned, the important issue is how a government acts. The rights and freedoms it protects, and the services it provides to citizens. If a nation has managed to produce a government whose actions I agree with, then I don't really care if it is elected or not, and I'm not about to force democracy upon that nation given the risk that a majority of the electorate will deny the entire population rights, freedoms and services which I believe they deserve to be able to use.

It strikes me as odd that the UN can intervene in all other ways in the affairs of member states, but not to increase political and personal freedoms.

I have outlawed elections in my nation. Overriding this decision is a significant blow to my nation's sovereignty, and we hope it is counted illegal before it has the chance to impose itself.

It strikes me as odd that the UN can intervene in all other ways in the affairs of member states, but not to increase political and personal freedoms.

Welcome to the NSUN.

I think that the whole idea of the proposal is proceeding from a very "Americanised" view point - the UK for example doesn't have an executive branch in the way the US does - it has a Queen who is not elected.

When I said 'executive branch', I didn't necessarily mean it in the American way. I meant it as a generic term for whatever individual possesses the power of action and leadership, much as the president in the United States or the prime minister in the United Kingdom. And, of course, that could also refer to a dictator. In any case, 'executive branch' was meant to represent that part of government dominated by a single individual, even if it's not called by that name.

To Doraland:

I agree. It's odd that the U.N. is averse to increasing political freedoms. I can understand that people might feel it as a violation of their sovereignty, but essentially the U.N. is a well-intentioned meddler, and should be able to meddle in political affairs when it is of major concern, just as it meddles when their is a major concern of human rights.

And if we can't increase political freedoms, why have a section called 'The Furtherment of Democracy' if it's intention is to do exactly that?

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying. What I'm getting from your post is that the people in your country would choose not to participate in elections because they worship you in their religion...well, kudos to you and to them. That doesn't mean this resolution can't work, though.

Just asking if it counted.

But seriously, nearly every country (it would probably be inaccurate to say every) has an executive branch...they are just called different things. In one case it may be a presidency, in another a kingship. And, contrary to popular belief, it is potentially possible to create a dictatorial government that has a certain degree of popular consent. Since the United Nations is committed to increasing human rights and worldwide political stability, and since self-determination is the best way to ensure that, it does not seem outside the realm of the U.N. to address such an issue. And I intentionally made the wording of the resolution very weak so that it would not specifically mandate a true democracy in every U.N. nation.

The problem is that DLE doesn't have government branches. The DLE government doesn't even have more than one person. No branches means no executive branch.

oposal will not, and is not intended to, change the U.N. description of every member nation. It is intended to increase political freedoms, much as other proposals aim at increasing civil rights or improving the environment.

But it will change the description of many nations.

The problem is that DLE doesn't have government branches. The DLE government doesn't even have more than one person. No branches means no executive branch.

'Executive branch' is a generic term for the head of state. A dictatorship may not have branches of government, but it certainly has a head of state.


But it will change the description of many nations.

That's not any different than a resolution on human rights. The U.N. often passes resolutions that increase the level of civil rights in member nations, so it is completely within its right to pass resolutions that increase the level of political freedoms in member nations.

Obviously, some people would be opposed to this, but there are always people opposed to proposals and resolutions. If they don't like it, they can vote against it, lobby against it, or just leave the U.N. That's no grounds for calling my proposal illegal or deletable, though.

When I said 'executive branch', I didn't necessarily mean it in the American way. I meant it as a generic term for whatever individual possesses the power of action and leadership, much as the president in the United States or the prime minister in the United Kingdom. And, of course, that could also refer to a dictator. In any case, 'executive branch' was meant to represent that part of government dominated by a single individual, even if it's not called by that name.

So you want people to elect a dictator? Seriously?

And the UK has two leaders - the Queen is the head of state, the national represtative of our nation. The Prime Minister is the head of government, and the representative of his party and the government.

Which one would need to be elected?


I agree. It's odd that the U.N. is averse to increasing political freedoms. I can understand that people might feel it as a violation of their sovereignty, but essentially the U.N. is a well-intentioned meddler, and should be able to meddle in political affairs when it is of major concern, just as it meddles when their is a major concern of human rights.


How is forcing a nation to get rid of a good leader a good thing in terms of human rights? And me - who has no power over government policy - what does it matter to human rights if I am in power or someone else is?


And if we can't increase political freedoms, why have a section called 'The Furtherment of Democracy' if it's intention is to do exactly that?

That's a good question :}

Just to get an answer on this - does anyone know how many furtherment of demoracy proposals have been proposed? And how many (if any?) made it to the floor and what happened to them?

What happens in a nation with no recognised government? I refer to the real-world example Somalia, as well as numerous NS nations. Somalia has been in a state of anarchy for several years.

Or how about civil wars? How is an election to be held in a nation in which large portions of the country are violently opposed to other parts? Civil wars can definitely stretch longer than 8 years - the Sudan civil war, recently ended, lasted about 20 years.

I'm not having a go at the author here, but am wondering how this proposal will affect nations that already have freely and fairly elected governments at all levels?

Does this mean nations like mine (our political freedoms are rated excessive) will have to have extra elections to satify the requirements of the propsal, or is what we are already doing enough to satisfy the requirements?

Having the UN observe all elections world wide, will be a massive undertaking, and in some cases is un-necessary. Maybe they should send observers in on a case by case basis, instead of all elections. In strong democratic nations, that already have a free, open system in place, observers would be a waste of money, time and manpower.

I also find the last paragraph a bit confusing. If the UN has to approve election mechanics, then its not really the individual nations "choice". This reads more like the nations suggests a electrol system and the UN says yes you can use it or no you can't. It seems to me that this section would give the UN a bit too much of a say in the electrol processes of all nations.

'Executive branch' is a generic term for the head of state. A dictatorship may not have branches of government, but it certainly has a head of state.

Who, in this case, happens to own everything not in private ownership.

That's not any different than a resolution on human rights. The U.N. often passes resolutions that increase the level of civil rights in member nations, so it is completely within its right to pass resolutions that increase the level of political freedoms in member nations.

Yes, but how is this increasing actual political freedoms? We already have a resolution that deals with voting and all this does is ignore the political freedom of my people by forcing them to have elections when they voted to have elections abolished.

Obviously, some people would be opposed to this, but there are always people opposed to proposals and resolutions. If they don't like it, they can vote against it, lobby against it, or just leave the U.N. That's no grounds for calling my proposal illegal or deletable, though.

But, if it forces a government type, it is illegal. We do have rules we must obey.

Yes, but how is this increasing actual political freedoms? We already have a resolution that deals with voting and all this does is ignore the political freedom of my people by forcing them to have elections when they voted to have elections abolished.

This resolution attempts to take 'Citizen Rule Required' a step further. In the case of your nation, your people would simply be required to reaffirm their support for you every eight years. Think of it as a 'We Love Our Divine Ruler' holiday.

But, if it forces a government type, it is illegal. We do have rules we must obey.

But it does not force a government type. If it were implemented, you would not see a 'benevolent dictatorship' become an 'inoffensive centrist democracy'. You would simply see an increase in the political freedoms category, similar to how many resolutions have increased civil rights ratings.

Does this mean nations like mine (our political freedoms are rated excessive) will have to have extra elections to satify the requirements of the propsal, or is what we are already doing enough to satisfy the requirements?

Based on the language of the proposal, a nation like yours would already satisfy the requirements. It was mostly aimed at bringing less democratic nations to a higher standard of political freedom.

And I won't deny that there are a lot of 'what ifs' concerning the proposal. But I think it's important to look at the idea and evaluate whether or not this is something within the scope of the United Nations, which I believe it to be so. In response to another question, I don't believe 'Furtherment of Democracy' proposals come up very often, and I think 'Citizen Rule Required' is the only resolution in that category to ever pass. This might be due to the difficulty in convincing people this category of proposals is even legal anymore, since legality has been the major basis of opposition to my proposal.

Of course, if it isn't even legal to propose this category of resolutions, it might be best to scrap it, although that would require changing the mechanics of the game. It might be something to look at if we were to revise NationStates.

This resolution attempts to take 'Citizen Rule Required' a step further. In the case of your nation, your people would simply be required to reaffirm their support for you every eight years. Think of it as a 'We Love Our Divine Ruler' holiday.

Which is a major trampling of their civil rights on this issue.

But it does not force a government type. If it were implemented, you would not see a 'benevolent dictatorship' become an 'inoffensive centrist democracy'. You would simply see an increase in the political freedoms category, similar to how many resolutions have increased civil rights ratings.

That's game mechanics. I'm dealing with the RP aspects.

Increasing political freedoms in NS also means right to express different political views, right to protest etc. "Furtherment of Democracy" proposals doing those things are legal, but ones whose text dictates how nations select their governments are, to the best of my knowledge, illegal because of game mechanics.

At least check with a mod.

But it does not force a government type. If it were implemented, you would not see a 'benevolent dictatorship' become an 'inoffensive centrist democracy'. You would simply see an increase in the political freedoms category, similar to how many resolutions have increased civil rights ratings.

So a Theocracy would then need to "elect" it's Pope. And a Dictator would need to be "elected". And a Sulta would need to be "elected".

It does force a government typology, and as such is illegal as per earlier resolutions.

As for the "I'll argue by meshing RP and Game Stats" - this is just plain silly. A similar arguement was attempted to repeal ALL resolutions. It was judged illegal by a moderator, as this will be.

I'm going to ask this again, because it seems to have been missed.

What about countries without any governing body? Is the UN going to be in the business of creating a government?

What about countries undergoing massive civil unrest, or even civil war? Is the UN going to be in the business of deciding which side is deserves to be in control of the country, so that these elections can be held?

If either of these is the case, then, quite simply, then I oppose it on principle.

Oppose it on principle then. ;)

I should probably clarify my position. What I want to know is:
If a country is in no condition for an election to be held every 8 years, what is the UN going to do about it to ensure that those elections are held?

I find it rather odd that the UN would force people into holding elections every eight years when most dictators/kings were chosen through some sort of popular consensus in the first place. Weather it be through power and force, in which case forcing the nation to ease its iron grip would be all that would be necessary, or through subterfuge and "buying" an election, which would be harder to detect and even harder to enforce. Or, as is true in my country, a war between people who supported a Republican ideal of government, and one who supported an Absolutist Monarchy, whom, after a while, got together and decided that they would compromise with a Constitutional Monarchy. This allows a Parliament that acts much like an American congress in supporting the peoples views on issues that have to do with the people. However, under this preposal, I would think that, simply because I don't hold elections and conform to this sort of psuedo-democratic vision of a perfect government, that I would be held responsible for not giving my people enough freedoms.