NationStates Jolt Archive

Following some discussion elsewhere in the forum about what a viable proposal for the 'Furtherment of Democracy' category might look like (and now that 'Meteorological Cooperation' is [fairly] safely in the queue), I've turned my attention to the subject. Here's a draft proposal for one concept (re-written several times, latest draft = 8th April...) that occurred to me, what do you think about it?


Assistance In Democratic Education

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Author: St Edmund

The United Nations,

REALISING that multi-party, representative democracy is a good way of running nations, inasmuch as governments formed by this method are significantly less likely than those formed by various other methods either to oppress their citizens cruelly or to launch wars of aggression;

BELIEVING that this form of government, and democracy in general, should therefore be encouraged;

REALISING that some nations which attempt to change over from other forms of government to this one may find the process difficult, if they lack an existing tradition of democracy locally upon which to build, and that even nations which have already been run under this system for a while may sometimes experience difficulties in operating it properly;

1. URGES the governments of nations where any elections for public office are held to ensure that these are conducted fairly;

2. URGES those same governments to allow the presence of neutral 'observers' during all stages of those elections;

3. CREATES the ‘United Nations Executive Liaison, Electoral Commission and Theoretical Education Department’ (or ‘UNELECTED’) to provide national governments with assistance in these matters, and defines its roles as being _
a. To gather information about the existing and theoretical designs for democratic systems of government, electoral systems and electoral methods;
b. To analyse this information, and then to draw up models of “best practice” in such matters to take account of the differing circumstances in different countries;
c. To make all of this information freely available to any legal governments and legal political parties who request it, and to send advisers to any legal governments who request this;
d. To provide whoever is now in effective control of any nations whose former regimes have either been overthrown or just collapsed with advice on the creation of democratic governments there, if they request this;
e. To accredit suitable governments, political parties, religious organisations and other organisations, as suitable sources of neutral observers for monitoring national and/or local elections to see whether these are carried out fairly and efficiently;
f. To coordinate and facilitate the despatch of teams of those observers, which may also include or even consist solely of UNELECTED personnel, to monitor elections in any nations whose legal governments officially request this and also in any nations whose governments publicly claim them to be multi-party democracies where any legal political party requests this, and to arrange for the publication and distribution of those missions’ reports;

4. REQUIRES the governments of nations to which those observation missions are sent to refrain from harassing the observers or impeding their work, to provide them with adequate protection from any other sources of harassment and/or impediment if they so request, and to refrain from impeding the subsequent publication and distribution of their reports;

5. STIPULATES that, to prevent any possible conflict of interest, UNELECTED may not accept donations or gifts from the governments of — or any other politicians, organisations or private individuals from — any nations where it either has sent an observation mission during the past five standard years or currently seems likely to send such a mission.

UPDATE:
The latest draft is on page 6 of this thread, under the title of Aid In Democratic Elections, with a FAQ added: It has just been resubmitted, by the nation of 'St Edmundan Antarctic', on the 2nd June 2006...

It uses "inasmuch," I like it. Sounds sensible too. But as a political text, it should be taken out and shot. If L&E is complaining that the masses found his resolution to hard to read, what do you think they would do with this?

So I shouldn't have let the civil service's legislation-drafting team near it? Oh well, let's see what other people say...

iii/ To make all of this information freely available to any governments and political parties which request it, and to send advisers to any governments who request this;?

to monitor elections in any nations whose governments officially request this


I like it as it forces nobody to do nothing but let them do what they are asked to do; yet provides for those who might request such a source to get help in these matters. Thus clean out another broom closet in the UN basement for this UNELECTED and give them a table, phone, and let them wait to be called for assistance..

I'd vote for it simply based on the acronym. :D

I'd vote for it simply based on the acronym. :D

Designing that actually took a significant proportion of the drafting time... ;)

:eek: But but but... you mean it is not an accident???

Designing that actually took a significant proportion of the drafting time... ;)

OOC: I once wrote a short love story about two proctologists who meet at a professional conference. Imagine how long I spent coming up with a name for the conference so that it spelled out "SPHINCTER." :D

(Unfortunately, that was years ago, and I can't recall what I eventually came up with. :( )

But is democracy superior? Many say it is, but looking in history, many nations have done better when a small, elite, professional group of people ran the government. Democracy creates weakness and instablity, and should be avoided.

isnt this ill eagle? Surly favouring one form of government or political ethos over others by legislating a proposal which clearly is designed at aiding democracy at the expense of others is against Game rules?
Gah i hear you say, but if this were to pass it would be enforced in my Monarchal Nation by the Compliance Ministry thus forcing me to withdraw from the UN. (Yet Again :D )

But is democracy superior? Many say it is, but looking in history, many nations have done better when a small, elite, professional group of people ran the government. Democracy creates weakness and instablity, and should be avoided.
Why don't you take a look at the Country with the largest GDP in the world, second highest GDP per capita, and 10th highest HDI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) which just, you know, happens to be democratic.

If L&E is complaining that the masses found his resolution to hard to read, what do you think they would do with this?

Agreed. It takes a lot of work to slug through this text. The idea behind the resolution itself is good, though. Encouragement, and improvement of access to resources, without ramming a lot of mandatory actions down anyone's throats. That's exactly the type of thing I like to see from the NSUN.

Why don't you take a look at the Country with the largest GDP in the world, second highest GDP per capita, and 10th highest HDI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) which just, you know, happens to be democratic.
OOC: Debatable.

Argh! I didn't say that...

IC:

The St Edmund representative deserves credit for their efforts here, though I remain unconvinced that the initial assertions are correct. 'Representative democracy' strikes me as an anachronistic system now eclipsed by more anarchic philosophies of government, such as 'direct democracy'.*

I'll note once again that the political activity of a nation's citizens ought to be measured not just by their participation in democratic instruments such as elections**.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

*OOC again: widely abused, baby!

**OOC once again: which makes me wonder if there might be a way of crafting an FoD proposal of at least Significant strength that will undermine dictatorships without using conventional means...

Agreed. It takes a lot of work to slug through this text.

Okay, it's only an early draft: Would you like to suggest any specific changes?

now eclipsed by more anarchic philosophies of government, such as 'direct democracy'.

"now" for Ecopoeia, maybe, but not necessarily for all of the UN's other members too considering how widely they vary in matters such as size, population, Tech Level, and political traditions...

isnt this ill eagle? Surly favouring one form of government or political ethos over others by legislating a proposal which clearly is designed at aiding democracy at the expense of others is against Game rules?

Not necessarily, it seems. I've been trying to get what the rule against ideological bans actually means clarified, in the 'Recreational Drugs Legalization' thread* (starting at the bottom of this page here _ http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468681&page=6 ) and was told on the following page that

Taking an absolute hard line on rules such as the ideological ban can easily result in every Resolution being declared illegal. and
The ideological ban is generally applied to "broader" bans, such as outlawing capitalism or mandating that all dictatorships suddenly become democracies.

so this might be legal: I’ve posted it here more to see what [if anything] the Mods have to say about its legality — and thus to obtain a clearer understanding of how the rules work — than with any intention of actually submitting it…




*(as well as, with less success, in some other threads...)

We oppose this on political grounds in some cases. Representative democracy is not true democracy. Direct democracy combined with the electronic commons is a much more egalitarian form of democracy. We view this as a half measure. We are also a new political system and wish to track the development of other political systems like technocracy and the concept of the RICH economy http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/TheRICHEconomy . If we allow representative democracy to be the only end product we will never see a better option come about. Part of the solution we have to making our direct democracy run is three year universal military conscription with a large portion of it devoted to intensive practical education.

We oppose this on political grounds in some cases. Representative democracy is not true democracy. Direct democracy combined with the electronic commons is a much more egalitarian form of democracy. We view this as a half measure. We are also a new political system and wish to track the development of other political systems like technocracy and the concept of the RICH economy http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/TheRICHEconomy . If we allow representative democracy to be the only end product we will never see a better option come about.

Direct democracy means jackshit if people are not able to make educated decisions. I can imagine a vote on the government budget by referendum...

Direct democracy means jackshit if people are not able to make educated decisions. I can imagine a vote on the government budget by referendum...

[Applause]

While I in no way mean to sound elitist, this is absolutely true. I agree that representative democracy may not be the only good system of democracy, and the resolution needs to recognize this. However, I don't want to see the kind of decisions the average person makes on an important decision. You don't really know the whole issue by watching the news, and no one except government hacks really have enough time to research every issue and figure out exactly what every course will mean.

Besides, I don't think people would really want to vote on everything. That would just be too much work. OOC: Besides people here in Canada are already pissed that they had to go to the polls twice in two years. Imagine if they had to go every week, even if they could vote online!

Direct democracy combined with the electronic commons is a much more egalitarian form of democracy.

There are nations within the NSUN that either don't have the technology for that, don't trust the security of their computer-systems for that, or are organised on an interstellar scale so that -- if they don't have any sort of FTL linkage between their separate stellar systems' computer networks -- the time-lag would make this impossible...

We view this as a half measure.

Isn't half better than nothing?

If we allow representative democracy to be the only end product we will never see a better option come about. Part of the solution we have to making our direct democracy run is three year universal military conscription with a large portion of it devoted to intensive practical education.


Where did I say "only"?
REALISING that multi-party, representative democracy is a good way of running nations
I wrote this proposal solely about representative democracy for simplicity's sake: If you want to encourage direct democracy as well, or instead, then write a proposal for that purpose and I might support it...

Direct democracy means jackshit if people are not able to make educated decisions. I can imagine a vote on the government budget by referendum...


And that sort of system may actually give the people who draft & schedule the referenda, who may or may not have been elected, more effective freedom of action than the elected legislators in a representative democracy...

OOC: I should explain that in RL I advocate moving towards direct democracy but I feel such a move requires time and a lot of education. I'm also serious about exploring other avenues of citizen participation.

Ecopoeia, however, is being snotty and smug. OOC, I like the proposal (without going into specifics); IC, you might get grudging support...

Would the nations with legislation by 'direct democracy' still have elections for the heads of their governments' executive branches? If so, then maybe a reference to those elections could be included here although I'm quite close to the character-limit as it is...

Would the nations with legislation by 'direct democracy' still have elections for the heads of their governments' executive branches? If so, then maybe a reference to those elections could be included here although I'm quite close to the character-limit as it is...
OOC: I wouldn't worry too much, you'll only get bogged down. You can't please everyone, especially not the quirky nations.

In general concept, I wholeheartedly support this. It doesn't attack any particular political ethos at all, simply creates a useful tool for those who might be willing to try something new or perhaps refine what they already have in place. Kivisto is not a democracy, nor are we likely to become one anytime soon, however if we were to consider it I think it incredibly considerate that there would be an international body that could help guide us towards that path.

As for some of the particulars that I've seen mentioned so far (eg - representative democracy vs. direct democracy) it is my understanding that that would be one of the things that UNELECTED would be there to help determine through observation and analysis of current models in place.

A grand idea all in all. My only concern would be that this resolution seems to do very little other than create the UNELECTED organization along with its' inherent rights and duties. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that may be disallowed by the Proposal Rules Sticky.

If I am wrong in that, then I will most likely support this in its current form.

My only concern would be that this resolution seems to do very little other than create the UNELECTED organization along with its' inherent rights and duties. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that may be disallowed by the Proposal Rules Sticky.


Good point.
*checks rules*

Oh well...

Afterthought: Maybe adding a clause that urges those national governments that might benefit from doing so to make use of UNELECTED's services would be enough of a change to legalise it?

The Federation of Questionable Industries cannot support any kind of NSUN-sanctioned ideology machine. That the preamble of this Resolution pre-supposes the rightness of representative democracy in all cases is offensive to responsible and just monarchies, oligarchies, tribal councils, theocracies, communes, clans and innumerable other beneficent forms of political authority that exist in NSUN nations. In fact, that very pre-supposition flies in the face of the Resolution's second operative statement:

ii/ To analyse this information, and then to draw up models of “best practice” in such matters to fit differing circumstances;

The preamble suggests that this Resolution would like to sweep "differing circumstances" under the rug, declaring all nations equally well-served by representative democracy, regardless of the efficacy of past systems employed in that nation or the specific needs of that nation's populace.

There seem to be numerous limits placed upon this Resolution which suggest that it is to be used solely as an instrument to facilitate the placement of responsible governments nations that are currently without a governing body. However, unless this is stated explicitly in the text, we fear that it could be used as a way for the NSUN to actively seed revolutions in member nations. Obviously this latter situation is wholly unacceptable.

If proper and explicit protections against abuse were added and the pro-republican rhetoric of the preamble were moderated or stricken, we would be happy and willing to support the Resolution.

The Federation of Questionable Industries cannot support any kind of NSUN-sanctioned ideology machine.

So how do you feel about the very fact that the UN has a 'Furtherment of Democracy' category for proposals & resolutions?

That the preamble of this Resolution pre-supposes the rightness of representative democracy in all cases is offensive to responsible and just monarchies, oligarchies, tribal councils, theocracies, communes, clans and innumerable other beneficent forms of political authority that exist in NSUN nations.

In all cases? Where did I say that?

REALISING that multi-party, representative democracy is a good way of running nations

"a" is not the same as "in all cases"...


There seem to be numerous limits placed upon this Resolution which suggest that it is to be used solely as an instrument to facilitate the placement of responsible governments nations that are currently without a governing body.

Or where a nation itself is trying to become more democratic through political means and requests help with this, or where the validity of what are supposed to be "free & fair" elections is being questioned...

However, unless this is stated explicitly in the text, we fear that it could be used as a way for the NSUN to actively seed revolutions in member nations. Obviously this latter situation is wholly unacceptable.

Obviously.
If you don't consider the definition of UNELECTED's roles limiting its possible intervention to providing [1] advice & [2] election monitors (and even then only to doing so when properly requested) as adequate safeguards, then what would you suggest?

If proper and explicit protections against abuse were added and the pro-republican rhetoric of the preamble were moderated or stricken, we would be happy and willing to support the Resolution.

If you bother to look you'll see that St Edmund is in fact a 'Kingdom' rather than a 'Republic', it just happens to be a "parliamentary" one...

Well a Confederacy is the best government in my opinion. The one thing that went badly was the Confederate States of America's war with the Union. They lost mostly because the Union had sheer numbers and had factories not agriculture for their economy. But lets not debate on the Civil War. I chose this government not because of the CSA but because I like the type of government that allows little bit more freedom to the states.

REALISING ...;

BELIEVING ...;

REALISING ...;

1. CREATES the United Nations Executive Liaison, Electoral Commission and Theoretical Education Department (UNELECTED) ...;

2. DEFINES the roles of UNELECTED as being:
a. ...;

b. ...;

c. ...;

d. ...;

e. ...;

f. ...;

3. REQUIRES ...;

4. STIPULATES ....

I'll double check on standard RL UN convention on lettered subclauses, but I'd highly recommend you change the basic formatting to something more like the above. By using numbered clauses, debate of the real body of the resolution is much easier.

Agreed. It takes a lot of work to slug through this text. The idea behind the resolution itself is good, though. Encouragement, and improvement of access to resources, without ramming a lot of mandatory actions down anyone's throats. That's exactly the type of thing I like to see from the NSUN.

A. White Space. :)

The basic concepts are strong and good, we just need to work on the appearance.

What I don't like about this proposal is this:

However much you say it's not forcing multi-party democracy above other forms, however much you say it's not championing that form of government, it is. It's an agency of the largest international organization in the world going around telling people about democracy: it is a clear endorsement. I'd much prefer an agency that concentrated on general political education: one that also espoused the joys of fascism, for example.

What I don't like about this proposal is this:

However much you say it's not forcing multi-party democracy above other forms, however much you say it's not championing that form of government, it is. It's an agency of the largest international organization in the world going around telling people about democracy: it is a clear endorsement. I'd much prefer an agency that concentrated on general political education: one that also espoused the joys of fascism, for example.

This is true, by facilitating fair and free elections, the UN is endorsing democratic processes ... however, two things bear pointing out:

1) the UN itself is based on a democratic ideal ... your vote is equal to my vote, and the UN Secretariat have an excellent track record in conducting unbiased votes on UN resolutions (not perfect, the "human" element enters in the screening of UN proposals, and some Secretariat members could be more selective than others),

2) Isn't the proposal written in such a way that nations have a choice / option to use the UNELECTED (BTW, cute name for a joke, but I think it is a bit too long).

This is true, by facilitating fair and free elections, the UN is endorsing democratic processes ... however, two things bear pointing out:

1) the UN itself is based on a democratic ideal ... your vote is equal to my vote, and the UN Secretariat have an excellent track record in conducting unbiased votes on UN resolutions (not perfect, the "human" element enters in the screening of UN proposals, and some Secretariat members could be more selective than others),

2) Isn't the proposal written in such a way that nations have a choice / option to use the UNELECTED (BTW, cute name for a joke, but I think it is a bit too long).
1) My vote is equal to yours. My vote is not equal to Antrium's. It is certainly not equal to Noctaurus's. Further, the UN may be run on 'a democratic ideal', but that's only a show: it's not very representative at all, potentially.

2) My understanding of the proposal was that if Gruenbergers requested UN services, we couldn't stop them. Which we'd like to. With bullets.

1) My vote is equal to yours. My vote is not equal to Antrium's. It is certainly not equal to Noctaurus's. Further, the UN may be run on 'a democratic ideal', but that's only a show: it's not very representative at all, potentially.

2) My understanding of the proposal was that if Gruenbergers requested UN services, we couldn't stop them. Which we'd like to. With bullets.

For your first point, the same charges can be laid against most modern democracies. For example, do US Congressional Representatives really represent their constituents or the lobbists whom provide them the money needed for re-election? Can one person really represent 10,000s?

In our UN, if you are worried about your Delegate's vote, you can unendorse that nation, even if temporarily.

For your second point, I'll need to reread the proposal, but I would think that the government hosting the election should have to approve of UNELECTED observation / aid ... if that isn't a provision, perhaps we should talk about making it a provision of the proposal.

I'll double check on standard RL UN convention on lettered subclauses, but I'd highly recommend you change the basic formatting to something more like the above. By using numbered clauses, debate of the real body of the resolution is much easier.

That's reasonable. If I actually submit this then I might make those changes first... unless that would take it over the maximum character allowance.

What I don't like about this proposal is this:

However much you say it's not forcing multi-party democracy above other forms, however much you say it's not championing that form of government, it is. It's an agency of the largest international organization in the world going around telling people about democracy: it is a clear endorsement. I'd much prefer an agency that concentrated on general political education: one that also espoused the joys of fascism, for example.


It's telling people specifically about democracy because I was trying my hand at writing a viable 'Furtherment of Democracy' proposal: One that promoted fascism instead (justifying this in terms of ability to carry out long-term policies, & doing away with the cost & trouble of regular elections; dropping the clauses about election observers but maybe adding ones about advising on internal security policies; & calling the organisation something like 'UN Political Utilitarianism & Restrictive Government Education Department [or 'UNPURGED']) would presumably belong in the 'Political Stability' category instead... and mightn't one providing advice on all sorts of political systems be rather harder to classify?

Isn't the proposal written in such a way that nations have a choice / option to use the UNELECTED (BTW, cute name for a joke, but I think it is a bit too long).

We could cut the 'UN' off of its title... or change the last bit from 'Theoretical Education Department' to 'Teams' for 'UNELECT'... or make both of those changes.

2) My understanding of the proposal was that if Gruenbergers requested UN services, we couldn't stop them. Which we'd like to. With bullets.

Your government can request information, advisers &/or election observers.
If your government is destroyed (an action that you could, of course, resist with the means that you suggested) then whoever seems to be in charge afterwards could also do so.
Failing that, political parties can ask for information and if (but only if) you claim that you're holding free & fair elections then they can ask for election observers too.

Is that really too much?

Well, its clear the resolution does not force democracy, it simply helps with tthe conversion. Which, like the resolution states, is incredibly helpful with nations rebuilding after a civil war, or a war of independance. After any ruling pwoer is forcebly ousted, there is always a power vacuum, this could aid the the filling of that vacuum with an effective government. I would however add that the duties of UNELECTED include researching and collecting information for the general purpose of finding the best way to create order, any sort, in an anarchich nation, as the establishment of any sort of government is usually better than chaos. That and most 'democracies' don't even have elections for sometime after being formed, as holding an election in a country still in turmoil is not a great idea.

Back to the point, just add make it so that UNELECTED helps in the formation of any government out of an anarchy, just prefferably a democratic one.

I've just made some minor changes to the draft text, back on page 1.

Until you change it to providing information about all political systems, this will meet with blanket opposition from us.

O_o at my last post.

O_o at my last post.

Odd person to have edited it.
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://67.15.129.139/5693/128/upload/p1243092.png ( http://s15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/GTT-member.png (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?act=idx)http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/defcontag-A.jpg (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1) | Author of Rights of indigenous peoples (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8090030&postcount=90) | One of the few nations known to turn Cluichstan fluffy and cuddly

Proposal's title altered, again, and various minor changes made to text.

Suggested rewrite (changes in bold):

The United Nations,

REALISING that there are a variety of methods of government and political organization, and that it would be grossly inappropriate for the UN in its role as an impartial international body to pass judgment on one particular system being more acceptable or appropriate for widely differing nations,

BELIEVING that the greatest possible exchange of ideas with regard to different systems of government should be encouraged,

REALISING that some nations which attempt to change or adapt their forms of government may find the process difficult, if they lack sufficient experience, knowledge, or logistical ability to implement new forms of government, and that even nations which have a stable and relatively settled form of government may sometimes experience difficulties in operating it properly,

1. CREATES the ‘United Nations Executive Liaison, Electoral Commission and Theoretical Education Department’ [or ‘UNELECTED’] to provide national governments with assistance in these matters;

2. DEFINES the roles of UNELECTED as being:
a. To gather information about the existing & theoretical designs for all forms of governmental systems, electoral systems and electoral methods;
b. To analyse this information, and then to draw up models of “best practice” in such matters to take account of differing circumstances;
c. To make all of this information freely available to any internationally recognised governments and legal political parties or other institutions which request it, and to send advisers to any internationally recognised governments who request this;
d. To provide advice on the creation of effective governments in nations or smaller areas whose former regimes have been overthrown or just collapsed, if so requested by whoever is trying to stabilise those territories;*
e. To accredit suitable governments, political parties, or other appropriate organizations as suitable sources of neutral ‘observers’ for monitoring national &/or local elections and other apsects of political and governmental processes to see whether these are carried out fairly & efficiently;
f. To coordinate & facilitate the despatch of teams of those ‘observers’, which may also include [or even consist solely of] UNELECTED personnel, to monitor elections and other apsects of political and governmental processes in any nations whose internationally recognised governments officially request this and also in any nations whose governments publicly claim them to be multi-party representative democracies where the leaders of any legal political party which is not currently in government requests this, and to arrange for the publication & distribution of those missions’ subsequent reports;

3. REQUIRES the governments of nations to which those observation missions are sent to refrain from harassing the observers or impeding their work, to provide them with adequate protection from any other sources of harassment &/or impediment if they so request, and to refrain from impeding the subsequent publication & distribution of their reports;

4. STIPULATES that UNELECTED may accept any funds that are voluntarily offered to it directly by national governments which support its purposes, to supplement the budget with which it is provided out of the UN’s central funds, but may not accept donations or gifts from the governments of — or any other politicians, organisations or private individuals from — any nations where it is either due to send observation missions or has already sent at least one such mission during the past five standard years.

*clause needs better wording, in my opinion

Suggested rewrite

No.

What category would your version belong in? I'm not sure whether it could still be 'Furtherment of Democracy'...

Oh, and according to this computer your version is slightly over the maximum number of characters allowed...

Category can be decided later - possibly FoD, possibly the new Education one. But I absolutely refuse to accept it is the place of the UN to in any way express preference for a particular style of government.

But I absolutely refuse to accept it is the place of the UN to in any way express preference for a particular style of government.

In that case, at the risk of my sounding a little bit like Groot Gouda or Forgottenlands when they're talking about 'Human Rights', I have to ask what you think the whole 'Furtherment of Democracy' category is actually for?
I'd certainly agree that the UN would have no business trying to insist on any particular style of government, but do think that -- if enough member-nations agree -- it can try to encourage one... and of course you could always try submitting a proposal in the 'Political Stability' category that would encourage some non-democratic style, instead...

If you continue with this, I will indeed draft an "Encouragement to Theocracy" proposal.

I see the FoD category as being about personal political freedoms, not about institutional change. Freedom of information, of assembly, of expression - these would fall under FoD. International exchanges, similarly. Perhaps a proposal along the lines of Representation in Taxation, which takes an aspect of a nation's system - maybe the judicial system for a new proposal - and encourages local representation.

But I do not see it as the place of the UN to express preference for one particular style of political organization.

If you continue with this, I will indeed draft an "Encouragement to Theocracy" proposal.

OOC I like the idea... ;)

New operative clause added in the hope of increasing legality; various other changes made, for streamlining (partly because the new clause would otherwise have made it too long...) _

Assistance In Democratic Education

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Author: St Edmund

The United Nations,

REALISING that multi-party, representative democracy is a good way of running nations, inasmuch as governments formed by this method are significantly less likely than those formed by various other methods either to oppress their citizens cruelly or to launch wars of aggression;

BELIEVING that this form of government should therefore be encouraged;

REALISING that some nations which attempt to change over from other forms of government to this one may find the process difficult, if they lack an existing tradition of democracy locally upon which to build, and that even nations which have already been run under this system for a while may sometimes experience difficulties in operating it properly;

1. URGES the governments of nations where public elections are held to ensure that these are conducted fairly;

2. CREATES the ‘United Nations Executive Liaison, Electoral Commission and Theoretical Education Department’ (or ‘UNELECTED’) to provide national governments with assistance in these matters;

2. DEFINES the roles of ‘UNELECTED’ as being _
a. To gather information about the existing and theoretical designs for democratic systems of government, electoral systems and electoral methods;
b. To analyse this information, and then to draw up models of “best practice” in such matters to take account of the differing circumstances in different countries;
c. To make all of this information freely available to any legal governments and legal political parties who request it, and to send advisers to any legal governments who request this;
d. To provide whoever is now in effective control of any nations whose former regimes have either been overthrown or just collapsed with advice on the creation of democratic governments there, if they request this;
e. To accredit suitable governments, political parties, religious organisations and other organisations, as suitable sources of neutral ‘observers’ for monitoring national and/or local elections to see whether these are carried out fairly and efficiently;
f. To coordinate and facilitate the despatch of teams of those ‘observers’, which may also include (or even consist solely of) UNELECTED personnel, to monitor elections in any nations whose legal governments officially request this and also in any nations whose governments publicly claim them to be multi-party representative democracies where any legal political party requests this, and to arrange for the publication and distribution of those missions’ subsequent reports;

3. REQUIRES the governments of nations to which those observation missions are sent to refrain from harassing the observers or impeding their work, to provide them with adequate protection from any other sources of harassment and/or impediment if they so request, and to refrain from impeding the subsequent publication and distribution of their reports;

4. STIPULATES that UNELECTED may not accept donations or gifts from the governments of — or any other politicians, organisations or private individuals from — any nations where it is either due to send observation missions or has already sent at least one such mission during the past five standard years, but may accept any other funds that are voluntarily offered to it to supplement the budget with which the UN provides it.

What is it with you and square brackets? :p

What is it with you and square brackets? :p

OOC: I tend to use square brackets for short remarks that are meant to clarify or expand the surrounding sentences [like this], and to reserve rounded brackets for longer asides (such as perhaps, a question as to whether there aren't more important matters for people to worry about?).

Square brackets are used only to edit quotes. Everything else should be with parentheses.

Okay, as a few people have been making a fuss about it, I've replaced the square brackets with parentheses: Now if I could just get a Mod's ruling (as already requested) about whether the current draft -- with its added 'URGES' clause -- does enough to be legal...

Shit... forgot all about this. I'll review it tomorrow and let you know.

Who is to determine which kind of democracy is the "best?" What if the nation in question is a kind of benevolent monarchy (there's even a UN category for them). What if the ruler is somewhat of an elected monarch (the Pope, as a real-world example), but the people have no say after that? What if it's not representative democracy, but direct (Athens, as another real-world example)?

This is a biased resolution and Gruenberg's version should be adopted. If it is not, Caratia would certainly support the "Encouragement to Theocracy" proposal. ;)

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

Who is to determine which kind of democracy is the "best?" What if the nation in question is a kind of benevolent monarchy (there's even a UN category for them). What if the ruler is somewhat of an elected monarch (the Pope, as a real-world example), but the people have no say after that? What if it's not representative democracy, but direct (Athens, as another real-world example)?

This is a biased resolution and Gruenberg's version should be adopted. If it is not, Caratia would certainly support the "Encouragement to Theocracy" proposal. ;)

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations


This proposal doesn't give the UN any power to force any political system on nations, and leaves it to the peoples & existing governments of the separate nations to decide whether to adopt any changes that UNELECTED suggests.

I'll jus' post here as opposed to the thread in Moderation...

This is still pretty gray. The URGES line was simply added to make this more than the Committee of the Week, and it shows. I realise that this is also skirting the shoals of style, but it still feels like a wink and a nod.

I'd say its current status is "Legal, But..."

As in: it's legal, but it still gives me bad mojo. Perhaps another URGES clause yammering something about nations introducing more democratic methods. That wouldn't be outlawing dictatorships, just saying "Oy. This'd be good, mate."

I dunno. You could run it as is, but it still feels like it needs something.

Nice and vague, aren't I?

Clauses 2 and 2 should be merged.

This is still pretty gray. The URGES line was simply added to make this more than the Committee of the Week, and it shows. I realise that this is also skirting the shoals of style, but it still feels like a wink and a nod.

I'd say its current status is "Legal, But..."

As in: it's legal, but it still gives me bad mojo. Perhaps another URGES clause yammering something about nations introducing more democratic methods. That wouldn't be outlawing dictatorships, just saying "Oy. This'd be good, mate."

I dunno. You could run it as is, but it still feels like it needs something.

Nice and vague, aren't I?


Umm.
I'll think about it.

Clauses 2 and 2 should be merged.

Why? Clause #2 defines UNELECTED's roles, whereas clause #3 is about how national governments should treat UNELECTED's observers, which are different enough matters for separation like that to seem reasonable to me...

OOC: The last draft posted has two articles labelled 2)

Sigh. Instead of
2. CREATES the ‘United Nations Executive Liaison, Electoral Commission and Theoretical Education Department’ (or ‘UNELECTED’) to provide national governments with assistance in these matters;

2. DEFINES the roles of ‘UNELECTED’ as being _
I suggest

2. CREATES the United Nations Executive Liaison, Electoral Commission and Theoretical Education Department (UNELECTED) to provide national governments with assistance in these matters, with the following roles:

OOC: The last draft posted has two articles labelled 2)

What? Oh... How did I manage to miss that?!? :confused:

Sigh. Instead of
2. CREATES the ‘United Nations Executive Liaison, Electoral Commission and Theoretical Education Department’ (or ‘UNELECTED’) to provide national governments with assistance in these matters;

2. DEFINES the roles of ‘UNELECTED’ as being _

I suggest

2. CREATES the United Nations Executive Liaison, Electoral Commission and Theoretical Education Department (UNELECTED) to provide national governments with assistance in these matters, with the following roles:

So what you actually meant wasn’t “merge clauses 2 & 3”, it was “merge clauses 2 &” — as Ecopoeia has just pointed out — “2” instead? Fair enough, I was going to make some other changes today anyway and I’ll take another look at that detail when I’m doing so…

Yep. What I meant and what I said.

Yep. What I meant and what I said.

OOC: Oops! Sorry! I really need to get more sleep at night, so that I'll be more alert when I read these pages...

Latest draft (as also now shown in the [edited] first post of this thread): New 'clause 2', later clauses re-numbered, some other changes to wording...

Assistance In Democratic Education

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Author: St Edmund

The United Nations,

REALISING that multi-party, representative democracy is a good way of running nations, inasmuch as governments formed by this method are significantly less likely than those formed by various other methods either to oppress their citizens cruelly or to launch wars of aggression;

BELIEVING that this form of government, and democracy in general, should therefore be encouraged;

REALISING that some nations which attempt to change over from other forms of government to this one may find the process difficult, if they lack an existing tradition of democracy locally upon which to build, and that even nations which have already been run under this system for a while may sometimes experience difficulties in operating it properly;

1. URGES the governments of nations where any elections for public office are held to ensure that these are conducted fairly;

2. URGES those same governments to allow the presence of neutral 'observers' during all stages of those elections;

3. CREATES the ‘United Nations Executive Liaison, Electoral Commission and Theoretical Education Department’ (or ‘UNELECTED’) to provide national governments with assistance in these matters, and defines its roles as being _
a. To gather information about the existing and theoretical designs for democratic systems of government, electoral systems and electoral methods;
b. To analyse this information, and then to draw up models of “best practice” in such matters to take account of the differing circumstances in different countries;
c. To make all of this information freely available to any legal governments and legal political parties who request it, and to send advisers to any legal governments who request this;
d. To provide whoever is now in effective control of any nations whose former regimes have either been overthrown or just collapsed with advice on the creation of democratic governments there, if they request this;
e. To accredit suitable governments, political parties, religious organisations and other organisations, as suitable sources of neutral observers for monitoring national and/or local elections to see whether these are carried out fairly and efficiently;
f. To coordinate and facilitate the despatch of teams of those observers, which may also include or even consist solely of UNELECTED personnel, to monitor elections in any nations whose legal governments officially request this and also in any nations whose governments publicly claim them to be multi-party democracies where any legal political party requests this, and to arrange for the publication and distribution of those missions’ reports;

4. REQUIRES the governments of nations to which those observation missions are sent to refrain from harassing the observers or impeding their work, to provide them with adequate protection from any other sources of harassment and/or impediment if they so request, and to refrain from impeding the subsequent publication and distribution of their reports;

5. STIPULATES that, to prevent any possible conflict of interest, UNELECTED may not accept donations or gifts from the governments of — or any other politicians, organisations or private individuals from — any nations where it either has sent an observation mission during the past five standard years or currently seems likely to send such a mission.

Okay, Hack (or any other Mod who might be looking), what do you think of the latest draft? Does it have a second 'URGES' clause added, and one that more specifically leads into the establishment of UNELECTED at that, make it more acceptable now?

Sure.

I stand in opposition, because the bill doesn't do anything to actually change the current state of affairs and I think your acronym is really cheesy.

Submitted, as Aid In Democratic Education (because the old title was slightly too long to fit...), for a trial run.

I stand in opposition, because the bill doesn't do anything to actually change the current state of affairs

There's a limit on how much a 'Furtherment of Democracy' proposal can actually try to do before it runs into the rule against banning ideologies... and I generally favour a 'National Sovereignty' attitude anyway...

and I think your acronym is really cheesy.

Tastes differ: I like cheese... ;)

Submitted, as Aid In Democratic Education (because the old title was slightly too long to fit...), for a trial run.
Well, good luck. I shall have to see about getting my proposal going, too.

Current status =
Approvals: 27 (St Edmund, Blackbird, Saxanglia, Desert Storm Iraq, The Beltway, Zanem, Elletania, Tarmsden, Anfalsanth, Phlogisten, Jresnada, Erith Avlantia, Neo Tyros, British Whiskum, Faerie-Sprite, Adolf Barham, Petisolandia, Vespeterium Minor, Tsagalir, Stefan VII, Republic of Freedonia, The Fallen Fairies, Eve the First, Greater Valmiera, Agramerland, Storage Inbox, The Derrak Quadrant)

I have to go offline now (although I managed to pop back, very briefly, and update the list once...), and won't be around again until Tuesday evening: I'd appreciate it if one of you would check the proposal again shortly before it's due to leave the queue, and make a note (in this thread) of any further delegates who've approved it.

Oh well, it looks as though this idea isn't worth continuing with...

Damn. Completely forgot to check the proposals queue - sorry.

Damn. Completely forgot to check the proposals queue - sorry.

OOC: Apology accepted: I've certainly forgotten to do various things that I should have done, now & then...

Here's a slightly-revised draft (which now mentions referenda as well as elections), with a slightly different title, which I plan on [re]submitting fairly soon...

Aid In Democratic Elections

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Author: St Edmund

The United Nations,

REALISING that multi-party, representative democracy is a good way of running nations, inasmuch as governments formed by this method are significantly less likely than those formed by various other methods either to oppress their peoples cruelly or to launch wars of aggression;

BELIEVING that this form of government, and democracy in general, should therefore be encouraged;

REALISING that some nations which attempt to change over from other forms of government to this one may find the process difficult, if they lack existing local traditions of democracy upon which to build, and that even nations that have already been run under this system for a while may sometimes experience difficulties in operating it properly;

1. URGES the governments of nations where any elections for public office and/or referenda are held to ensure that these are conducted fairly;

2. URGES those same governments to allow the presence of neutral 'observers' during all stages of those events;

3. CREATES the ‘United Nations Executive Liaison, Electoral Commission and Theoretical Education Directorate’ (or ‘UNELECTED’) to provide national governments with assistance in these matters, and defines its roles as being _
a. To gather information about the existing and theoretical designs for democratic systems of government, electoral systems and voting methods;
b. To analyse this information, and then to draw up models of “best practice” in such matters to take account of the differing circumstances in different countries;
c. To make all this information freely available to any legal governments and legal political parties who request it, and to send advisers to any legal governments who request this;
d. To provide whoever is now in effective control of any nations whose former regimes have either been overthrown or just collapsed with advice on the creation of democratic governments there, if they request this;
e. To accredit suitable governments, political parties, religious organisations and other organisations, as suitable sources of neutral observers for monitoring elections and/or referenda to see whether these are carried out fairly and efficiently;
f. To coordinate and facilitate the despatch of teams of those observers, which may also include or even consist solely of UNELECTED personnel, to monitor elections in any nations whose legal governments officially request this and also in any nations whose governments publicly claim them to be multi-party democracies where any legal political party requests this, and to arrange for the publication and distribution of those missions’ reports;

4. REQUIRES the governments of nations to which those observation missions are sent to refrain from harassing the observers or impeding their work, to provide them with adequate protection from any other sources of harassment and/or impediment if they so request, and to refrain from impeding the subsequent publication and distribution of their reports;

5. STIPULATES that, to prevent any possible conflict of interest, UNELECTED may not accept donations or gifts from the governments of — or any other politicians, organisations or private individuals from — any nations where it either has sent an observation mission during the past five standard years or currently seems likely to send such a mission.


AIDE FAQ

1. Isn’t this trying to force Democracy on every nation?
No. It doesn’t force any nation to make any changes at all to its government, it simply provides a source of advice to help those nations that actually want to become more democratic with this process.

2. Why does this only provide advice on Democracy, and not on any of the other possible forms of government as well?
Because I was specifically trying to write a proposal that would fit in the ‘Furtherment of Democracy’ category, and fitting one that covered a much wider range of options into that category could be difficult. Also, a proposal with a much wider scope in that respect would presumably have to be longer than this one and I’ve only just managed to stay within the limited number of characters that's allowed anyway.

3. Okay, so why doesn’t it [at least] provide advice on “direct” (or “participatory”) systems of Democracy, as well as on “representative” ones?
Mainly because of the limit on proposals’ lengths, but also because I have doubts about how viable those systems would really be for populations as large as those of many UN member-nations.

4. Isn’t this trying to force all democratic nations into a single pattern?
No. See clause 3.b, which specifically says that UNELECTED should design “models of “best practice” in such matters to take account of the differing circumstances in different countries;”… and its advice isn’t binding, anyway.

5. Is this trying to turn all nations into republics?
No. See See clause 3.b, which specifically says that UNELECTED should design “models of “best practice” in such matters to take account of the differing circumstances in different countries;”: There are already plenty of quite democratic ‘kingdoms’, ‘queendoms’, ‘empires’ & so on – such as St Edmund, for example – around, so there’s no reason why it shouldn’t consider their systems as possible prototypes for any monarchical nations that want to become more democratic… and its advice isn’t binding, anyway.

6. Won’t this let rebels call for UN aid against my government?
No. The only people apart from your government who can seek advice from UNELECTED are “legal political parties”, and presumably your laws would let you declare any parties involved in promoting rebellions to be illegal instead… and anyway, UNELECTED can only provide advice on the design & operation of democratic systems, not on how to impose them by rebellion against nations’ existing governments…

7. Why should I tolerate neutral observers in my nation’s elections?
Because it will improve your image internationally… but if you still don’t want observers present then the proposal might actually include one or two subtle loopholes (although I'll leave finding these as an exercise for the reader...) to let you keep them from being invited in…

8. Won’t this make it impossible for me to keep on fixing the results of elections?
No. You’ll still be just about as able to fix elections as you were before this, it’s just that now you might find lying successfully about having done so rather more difficult. There’s a saying about how “If you want to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk” that seems appropriate here…
(And the UN is already defining your nation’s level of ‘Political Freedoms’ and placing it in a ‘UN Category’, both of which give people strong clues about just how “democratic” your government really is [or isn’t], so how does this added detail really change anything along those lines anyway?)

The version of this proposal that's included in the immediately-previous post has just been [re]submitted for approval: It's currently on page 10 of the list.
I'll be starting a TG campaign, targeting those delegates who approved its earlier version last time around and those delegates who voted against the repeal of CRR, later on today.

The direct link to the listed version of this proposal is here (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=elections).

Approvals: 19 (Ceorana, Gaiah, Adolf Barham, SPASTIC COLON, The Brown Legionnaires, Pazadux, Erissia, Wootelania, Square rootedness, Baudrillard, Centralis, Cadburybars, Wolfhawk, Erith Avlantia, Firebert, Frederickness, Darpatia, Finklestadt, Socially Rejected Peop)
(These are almost all from amongst the delegates whom I telegrammed...)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 111 more approvals)


******************************


I might not be able to check again before the proposal runs out of time (if it hasn't reached quorum) on Monday, and would appreciate it if one of you would post an updated list of approvals at some point on that day...

And now...

Approvals: 35 (Ceorana, Gaiah, Adolf Barham, SPASTIC COLON, The Brown Legionnaires, Pazadux, Erissia, Wootelania, Square rootedness, Baudrillard, Centralis, Cadburybars, Wolfhawk, Erith Avlantia, Firebert, Frederickness, Darpatia, Finklestadt, Socially Rejected Peop, The Skitz, Brozvakia, ShivaShiva, Zasavje org, Kamikastan, Neo Tyros, The kingdom of justice, Desert Storm Iraq, Treblatas, Renzy, Pelham Manor, Crookster_man, Oakridge London, The New Inquisitors, Jordaniates, Tezhy)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 94 more approvals)

Did any of you get a final or near-final list of approvals? No? Oh well...
I might try again with this one, but not until my next holidays (in July)...

Democracy is gay.

~Pippi Jiffjeff
Aged 8

Sorry about that.

Our objection to the proposal isn't that it forces democracy. It's that its preamble praises democracy, and states that it, above other systems, should be encouraged. Furthermore, there are several worrying clauses about "international observers". We in Gruenberg are a democracy, and we thrive on closed, corrupt elections where thousands of voters are harassed, beaten, "disappeared" or simply unable to attend (election day is not a holiday). Why do we need international observers - to check we're pummelling liberals with the correct length of stick?

There was a time when you were the loudest invoker of the 'Ideological Ban' clause. Now we in turn will level that charge at you.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"
Member, "Women's Council on Democracy"

Democracy is gay.

~Pippi Jiffjeff
Aged 8

Do we have a convert there?

(OOC: The versions of the English language that are used in the Earths where St Edmund has its territories still interpret the word 'gay' as meaning something along the lines of 'cheerful', or 'frolicsome', rather than 'homosexual... ;) )

Sorry about that.

Our objection to the proposal isn't that it forces democracy. It's that its preamble praises democracy, and states that it, above other systems, should be encouraged. Furthermore, there are several worrying clauses about "international observers". We in Gruenberg are a democracy, and we thrive on closed, corrupt elections where thousands of voters are harassed, beaten, "disappeared" or simply unable to attend (election day is not a holiday). Why do we need international observers - to check we're pummelling liberals with the correct length of stick?

There was a time when you were the loudest invoker of the 'Ideological Ban' clause. Now we in turn will level that charge at you.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"
Member, "Women's Council on Democracy"


OOC: I stopped invoking the 'Ideological Ban' clause as frequently as I'd previously been doing because the Mods finally managed to convince me that they weren't going to enforce it in the absolute sense that I'd thought the established rules (taken literally) said should apply, and that after all there are some ideologies which would keep the UN from doing anything -- even things of which both you and I might approve -- if their wishes were enforced in that way. I still consider the amount of "subtle" undermining of certain ideologies that certain other UN members have been engaged in under the looser interpretation of that rule rather excessive, but that doesn't mean that I mightn't try an occasional bit of subtle undermining myself -- in what I consider to be a good cause -- from time to time...

St Edmund's opposition to UN meddling hasn't just been because of a deep belief in the concept of Nationalism (and I myself wanting as little outside interference in how "my" nations work as possible), there were actually two other factors -- both of which are relevant to this matter -- also involved: These were [1] the fact that St Edmund's own government is (basically) democratically elected, but many of the other nations in the UN are significantly less democratic than this so that that government & most of the St Edmundan people found the idea that UN interference might be shaped not just by foreign governments but by unelected foreign governments at that particularly upsetting; and [2] the fact that St Edmund's government & many of its people (& I myself) regard the right to have a say in how one's homeland is run as one of the most important 'sapient rights' possible, so that as the UN not only hasn't guaranteed but (under even the looser interpretation that's currently being made of that 'Ideological Ban' rule) can't guarantee that right made it attempting to guarantee any other, "lesser" rights seem decidedly presumptuous to me.

The preamble praises democracy partly to help justify the proposal (& its place in the 'Furtherment of Democracy' category) as a whole, and partly because that's what both I myself and the government of St Edmund believe... I don't see why rejecting the idea of imposing any actual 'Ideological Bans' or any specific ideologies should have to rule out expressing one's support for any particular ideological viewpoint...

As regards those "international observers", this f. To coordinate and facilitate the despatch of teams of those observers, which may also include or even consist solely of UNELECTED personnel, to monitor elections in any nations whose legal governments officially request this and also in any nations whose governments publicly claim them to be multi-party democracies where any legal political party requests this, would seem to be the relevant section of the proposal. Note that if your own government doesn't invite them in then they can only arrive if [1] your government publicly proclaims the country to be a multi-party democracy and [2] the leaders of any legal political party ask for their presence. The loopholes seem fairly obvious to me...
And anyway, all that those observers could effectively do (apart from spending some more of the UN's budget within your borders) if they did turn up would be to tell people that your elections were rigged... which you yourself admit... so what difference would they make? None?

(Sorry that this isn't written IC, but some of it would have had to have been OOC anyway and I decided that sticking to a single viewpoint would be best...)

p.s. I'm still waiting eagerly to see your promised pro-theocracy proposal... ;)

The people of Airatum share the Gruenberg Ambassador's and others aversion to this proposal. We would question those in favor of this proposal, who state that it doesn't violate the UN's commitment to remain open to diverse forms of government, if they would feel the same about an "Encouragement of Christianity" proposal, that didn't force Christianity on any nation, but established a UN committee to promote how great Christianity is.

The illustration could be extended to many other areas, economic models for example. Would a "Encouragement of Capitalism" be received as a legitimate proposal, simply because it didn't enforce capitalism on countries, but created a body to extol its virtues?

The people of Airatum support an attempt to create a group that would help nations with their governments, drawing from a wide range of possible governance systems, rather than exclusively promoting one.

While this proposal doesn't force democracy on nations, it does create a soft endorsement of democracy, which sets democracy up as the norm, and casts the remaining governance systems as 'other'.

We offer our services to anyone who wishes to organize a campaign against this legislation when it comes up to vote.

Should it pass, we offer our support to the Gruenberg Ambassador for a "Encouragement of Theocracy" proposal.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

The list is very short today, so we're trying again... here (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=elections).

It's not like you need the added flak, but...... inasmuch as governments formed by this method are significantly less likely than those formed by various other methods either to oppress their citizens cruelly or to launch wars of aggression;There's no historical basis (RL or NS) for these assertions.

REALISING that multi-party, representative democracy is a good way of running nations, inasmuch as governments formed by this method are significantly less likely than those formed by various other methods either to oppress their peoples cruelly or to launch wars of aggression; ...Believe it or not, OMGTKK is a democracy.

It's not like you need the added flak, but...There's no historical basis (RL or NS) for these assertions.

OOC: For one example, would you care to compare modern Germany (lost of rights recognised, no wars started) with Nazi Germany?
On a wider basis, surely introducing harsh measures or starting wars is likely to be significantly harder when it requires obtaining a majority vote (quite possibly, as in some nations' political systems, several times during different stages of a law's passage) within an elected legislature than when a single leader can cause those effects on a personal whim?

Believe it or not, OMGTKK is a democracy.

So I've heard... and if this proposal ever becomes a full Resolution then it should make it even easier for you to show people just how much of a democracy your nation is...

We will offer no "assistance to democracy" as we are quite certain that this particular "flavour" of democracy is one we would not have a taste for.

This "democracy" of yours is the first signpost on the road to cultural decadence.

OOC: For one example, would you care to compare modern Germany (lost of rights recognised, no wars started) with Nazi Germany?
On a wider basis, surely introducing harsh measures or starting wars is likely to be significantly harder when it requires obtaining a majority vote (quite possibly, as in some nations' political systems, several times during different stages of a law's passage) within an elected legislature than when a single leader can cause those effects on a personal whim?Not to hijack the thread, but you ignore the ways in which public opinion can be manipulated through demagoguery, especially in the presence of a corrupt (France, 1913-14) or overly concentrated (America, 2001-????) national press.

REALISING that multi-party, representative democracy is a good way of running nations,

An unfounded assumption. Democracy is a nice idea, and when you have an educated, intelligent, socially-minded population it can work, but placing government into the hands of an ignorant, self-centred, prejudiced mob hardly strikes me as "a good way of running nations".


inasmuch as governments formed by this method are significantly less likely than those formed by various other methods either to oppress their peoples cruelly or to launch wars of aggression;

Utterly unfounded assumption. Demagogues in democratic nations may (and do) seek to rally nationalistic support by launching wars of aggression, for example.

We cannot vote for a proposal which contains such subjective untruths.


BELIEVING that this form of government, and democracy in general, should therefore be encouraged;


I disagree, for reasons stated above. Not to mention the fact that many peoples do not want democracy, and therefore should not have pro-democracy propaganda forced upon them.


1. URGES the governments of nations where any elections for public office and/or referenda are held to ensure that these are conducted fairly;


All right.


2. URGES those same governments to allow the presence of neutral 'observers' during all stages of those events;


Why not.


<SNIP sections 3 to 5>


Fair enough. The actual suggestions made by this proposal are good ones, but the wording of the introduction is something we cannot support.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

So I've heard... and if this proposal ever becomes a full Resolution then it should make it even easier for you to show people just how much of a democracy your nation is...OK, let me put it another way: it is highly insulting that you in this legislation would term as "wars of aggression" our noble campaign to liberate downtrodden peoples and secure the world from the scourge of terrorism. We likewise condemn your insinuation now that we are something less of a democracy because of our concern for oppressed peoples across the globe. We thumb our noses at you. Nyer-nyer-nyer.

Not to hijack the thread, but you ignore the ways in which public opinion can be manipulated through demagoguery, especially in the presence of a(n) ... overly concentrated (America, 2001-????) national press.[OOC: Irrelevant, and complete bullshit. Still, it was rather fascinating, wasn't it?, to discover in recent weeks that the national press's three-year obsession with Valerie Plame was based upon absolutely nothing. "Demagoguery," indeed.]

OK, let me put it another way: it is highly insulting that you in this legislation would term as "wars of aggression" our noble campaign to liberate downtrodden peoples and secure the world from the scourge of terrorism. We likewise condemn your insinuation now that we are something less of a democracy because of our concern for oppressed peoples across the globe. We thumb our noses at you. Nyer-nyer-nyer.


I came here to support this resolution, but this looks likea great tangent :) Terrorism isn't the sort of thing you can secure the world against. You can't secure the world against a method of warfare. I could go on a crusade against bullets too, but that wouldn't justify invading another country.

I came here to support this resolution, but this looks likea great tangent :) Terrorism isn't the sort of thing you can secure the world against. You can't secure the world against a method of warfare. I could go on a crusade against bullets too, but that wouldn't justify invading another country.

So you're supporting this resolution because OMGTKK made a sarcastic joke about his sovereign rights? That's always the best bet when deciding how to vote.

L. Pendankr
Ambassador

So you're supporting this resolution because OMGTKK made a sarcastic joke about his sovereign rights? That's always the best bet when deciding how to vote.

L. Pendankr
Ambassador

Of course you take the Kennyites into account when deciding how to vote, if you vote the wrong way, they'll invade you.:p

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

So you're supporting this resolution because OMGTKK made a sarcastic joke about his sovereign rights? That's always the best bet when deciding how to vote.

L. Pendankr
Ambassador

I totally don't follow. I came to support before I read OMGTKK's joke, but then got sidetracked.

Resubmitted, here (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=elections).

The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia announces that this proposal is ThoughtCrime. Any citizen of Excruciatia or any of it's puppets found with this material shall be taken on a free all expenses paid tour of MiniLuv and shall come out with their patriotism restored...