NationStates Jolt Archive

More Political Participation for Citizens

Description: A proposal to increase the citizens political autonomy.

Argument:

NOTING that the United Nations has undertook large efforts to retain and improve the inviolability of democracy in all their member nations.

HOWEVER the possibilities of democracy should still be expanded.

IT IS FACT that the entire government authority should proceed from the people of a nation.

THEREFORE it is no longer up-to-date, that political decisions in democratic nations are exclusively felt by selected representatives.
The people of a nation should be able to stop new laws or constitutional amendments if they consider that these changes are unjustified.

FOR THIS REASON we endorse the introduction of a new decree, which makes it possible, that the people of each UN member nation have the right and possibility to stop new laws or constitutional amendments (which their national governments want to introduce) by a “Popular Vote”.

The United Nation:

1. ADVISES all member nations to introduce the possibility of “Popular Votes” in their laws, which guarantee a larger influence on the political decision-making processes in their own states.

2. WANTS to increase the political autonomy of citizens in their own nations.

3. DECLARES that all members of the United Nations have to embody following articles in their legislation:

- Each citizen has the right to start a referendum against a new law or a constitutional amendments by the suggestion of a signature action.

- If min. 10% of all entitled citizens registers itself, the government has to accomplish a “Popular Vote”.

- If more than 50% of the people of a country vote against this new law or the constitutional amendments the national government has to respect the decision of the people. The new law or the constitutional amendment can not enter into force.



Whats your opinion?
Is it only silly or does it make sense?
Is there something which should be changed?



Sorry for possible grammatical or spelling errors in this text. English is not my native language, so some mistakes could be possible;)

Promotes a single form of government over others. No.

Promotes a single form of government over others. No.

What he said.

(Although [OOC: due to a daily issue] St Edmund actually has a national law along very similar lines...)

3. DECLARES that all members of the United Nations have to embody following articles in their legislation:

- Each citizen has the right to start a referendum against a new law or a constitutional amendments by the suggestion of a signature action.

- If min. 10% of all entitled citizens registers itself, the government has to accomplish a “Popular Vote”.

- If more than 50% of the people of a country vote against this new law or the constitutional amendments the national government has to respect the decision of the people. The new law or the constitutional amendment can not enter into force.

Removes ability for dictatorships to operate. Ideological ban, illegal.

Edit:
Ideological Bans

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

Unfortunately, the previous posters are correct. However, I encourage you to consider ways to circumvent the ideological ban - this will require a lot of subtlety and probably a bit of luck, but it is possible. I hope.

Unfortunately, the previous posters are correct. However, I encourage you to consider ways to circumvent the ideological ban - this will require a lot of subtlety and probably a bit of luck, but it is possible. I hope.


I agree:(

On a different note:

I believe in 2000, Stockwell Day of the Canadian Alliance Party in Canada was promoting the concept of referrendums according to popular vote. Now, his theory was pretty damn stupid as he only pushed 3%, but alas, even 10% would've probably made little difference to this story.

The comedy-news program "This Hour has 22 Minutes" responded by doing an online petition for a referendum on "Should Stockwell Day be required to change his name to Doris Day". I can't remember if it took them 2 weeks or 3, but they successfully passed the 3% mark. When Day heard this, he admitted to the number being too low, and THH22M challenged him to give them a number, and they would beat that too. In 2 months, they probably could've gotten word out enough to pick up a full 10%, especially considering they are on the least-watched Canadian network run during prime time when other channels are watching pop culture programs, etc etc etc.

Oh, and I proudly signed the petition

OOC: I think that RL Switzerland has some system for popular referendums, but don't know the details of this...

Oh, and I proudly signed the petition
OOC: Which one? Or both?

IC: Such a proposal would be regarded as a declaration of war upon Darsomir. Indeed, it could even be taken as an act of aggression towards the Flame. Her Holiness Aristhia, His Holiness Berenon and Elgin will never accept any proposal that could possibly be read in such a manner, and would immediately withdraw Darsomir from the UN if there appeared a possibility of such a proposal passing.

While the Federation of Kedalfax has a policy that is simmilar, it is not the same. Our nation is not willing to change its entire government to a form simply because another nation beleives it is right. You can be assured that we wil not endorse this proposal, and, in the unfortunate case that it actually goes to vote, we will be voting against this resolution. Kedalfax has no intrest in forcing a blanket ban on forms of government. Non-democratic nations should be delt with on a case to case basis.