Ariddia
16-04-2007, 21:53
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/5728/pinaariaz1.jpg
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/2042/nettlestagvv4.jpg
Single Party a "problem" for Ariddian democracy?
Last year, in 2129, Ariddian citizens - and Ariddian political life - were confronted with a situation our country had never known until then. For the first time in our nation's history, Ariddians went to vote for their leader in an election in which there was only one candidate.
This had, of course, been predictable. When the Ariddian Communist League and the Morality Party both disbanded of their own free will in 2124, we were left with only one national political organisation, the Democratic Communist Party. From that very moment, it was obvious that there would be only one candidate in the next election. But this created remarkably little debate until the election was actually upon us, and surprisingly little even at that point.
Only 19% of Ariddians bothered to vote last year, and, leaving aside about 4% of blank votes and spoiled ballots, of course all cast their vote to re-elect Comrade Nuriyah Khadhim (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Nuriyah_bint_Rashad_Khadhim), our current Prime Secretary. Within Ariddia, this lack of choice was never a major issue. But to the outside world, it must have appeared surprising, and perhaps even cause for concern.
How, after all, can a country with only one remaining political party continue to refer to itself as a democracy? And is this going to impact negatively on Ariddia's image abroad?
It is, I think, necessary to clarify a few points for our foreign readers and viewers.
First of all, it is important to explain that the disbanding of the Ariddian Communist League and the Morality Party was neither sudden, unexpected nor a new occurrence in Ariddian politics. Rather, it was the final point in a gradual fading away of small, often anachronistic parties from the public stage.
The Green Party was the first to go in recent years, back in 2116. It did not so much crumble away as fuse into the DCP, with which it had always agreed on more issues than not. Two years later, the Movement for a Democratic Alternative, the centre-right major Opposition party, disbanded in turn, following an announcement that it would no longer be competing in any elections.
Why was this? The MDA had dwindled to minuscule proportions, with a tiny number of members and supporters. To most Ariddians, its suggested policies - legalisation of free enterprise, the return to a monetary economy - were perceived as not only unecessary but anachronistic, a step back into a divisive and flawed past which we had left behind at the end of the twentieth century. A party cannot survive if its message has become meaningless to citizens. The MDA was out of touch with the accepted reality of a modern, socialist, consensual Ariddian society. Ariddians had been re-electing DCP candidates continuously for over a century. The MDA had been doomed for decades, if not longer.
In 2120, the People's Party likewise disbanded. Like the MDA, it had realised that it was not an effective or popular voice of Opposition. These parties' voices had become whispers, and their struggles sterile. What sense was there in preaching change to a population overwhelmingly content with the status quo?
And that, of course, is the main issue. Or, if you wish, the central paradox. Ariddian citizens have built, defined and refined Ariddian socialism over a long period, to the point where it has constantly reflected an almost unanimous consensus among the people. It was, undoubtedly, inevitable that, if the citizens wanted only one party, that is what they would obtain.
Does this mean democracy has become self-defeating, in abolishing itself? I think not. There is no reason why politics need be about conflict and opposition rather than national consensus. And if no Ariddian wishes to start up an Opposition party, then clearly none can exist, and none is needed.
But is Ariddia still a democracy?
Yes... but a democracy of a new kind, which has transcended the age-old patterns of traditional Western politics. Clearly, Ariddians still do choose their national leader. Under our current system, the DCP's candidate is chosen by the members of the Party, but Party membership is free and open to all who are interested in politics, even those who may not agree with all of the government's ideals and policies. In other words, any Ariddian citizen can participate in selecting the DCP candidate, who is then - as he or she has been for decades - confirmed as Prime Secretary in a national election which is little more than a formality. We have reached a rather bizarre state of affairs in which the election internal to the Party has become, de facto, the election of the next Prime Secretary.
But it is fully democratic.
Just as importantly, on a local level, forms of direct, participatory democracy and consensual decision-making are alive and thriving.
Perhaps, one day, the Democratic Communist Party itself will fade away, as the concept of a political party becomes anachronistic in turn. I do not know how exactly we will choose our leader when that happens. We will have entered an entirely new stage of politics... one which we will have to shape ourselves, all together, as we go along and uphold Ariddia's active and flourishing (if somewhat unconventional) democracy.
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/2042/nettlestagvv4.jpg
Single Party a "problem" for Ariddian democracy?
Last year, in 2129, Ariddian citizens - and Ariddian political life - were confronted with a situation our country had never known until then. For the first time in our nation's history, Ariddians went to vote for their leader in an election in which there was only one candidate.
This had, of course, been predictable. When the Ariddian Communist League and the Morality Party both disbanded of their own free will in 2124, we were left with only one national political organisation, the Democratic Communist Party. From that very moment, it was obvious that there would be only one candidate in the next election. But this created remarkably little debate until the election was actually upon us, and surprisingly little even at that point.
Only 19% of Ariddians bothered to vote last year, and, leaving aside about 4% of blank votes and spoiled ballots, of course all cast their vote to re-elect Comrade Nuriyah Khadhim (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Nuriyah_bint_Rashad_Khadhim), our current Prime Secretary. Within Ariddia, this lack of choice was never a major issue. But to the outside world, it must have appeared surprising, and perhaps even cause for concern.
How, after all, can a country with only one remaining political party continue to refer to itself as a democracy? And is this going to impact negatively on Ariddia's image abroad?
It is, I think, necessary to clarify a few points for our foreign readers and viewers.
First of all, it is important to explain that the disbanding of the Ariddian Communist League and the Morality Party was neither sudden, unexpected nor a new occurrence in Ariddian politics. Rather, it was the final point in a gradual fading away of small, often anachronistic parties from the public stage.
The Green Party was the first to go in recent years, back in 2116. It did not so much crumble away as fuse into the DCP, with which it had always agreed on more issues than not. Two years later, the Movement for a Democratic Alternative, the centre-right major Opposition party, disbanded in turn, following an announcement that it would no longer be competing in any elections.
Why was this? The MDA had dwindled to minuscule proportions, with a tiny number of members and supporters. To most Ariddians, its suggested policies - legalisation of free enterprise, the return to a monetary economy - were perceived as not only unecessary but anachronistic, a step back into a divisive and flawed past which we had left behind at the end of the twentieth century. A party cannot survive if its message has become meaningless to citizens. The MDA was out of touch with the accepted reality of a modern, socialist, consensual Ariddian society. Ariddians had been re-electing DCP candidates continuously for over a century. The MDA had been doomed for decades, if not longer.
In 2120, the People's Party likewise disbanded. Like the MDA, it had realised that it was not an effective or popular voice of Opposition. These parties' voices had become whispers, and their struggles sterile. What sense was there in preaching change to a population overwhelmingly content with the status quo?
And that, of course, is the main issue. Or, if you wish, the central paradox. Ariddian citizens have built, defined and refined Ariddian socialism over a long period, to the point where it has constantly reflected an almost unanimous consensus among the people. It was, undoubtedly, inevitable that, if the citizens wanted only one party, that is what they would obtain.
Does this mean democracy has become self-defeating, in abolishing itself? I think not. There is no reason why politics need be about conflict and opposition rather than national consensus. And if no Ariddian wishes to start up an Opposition party, then clearly none can exist, and none is needed.
But is Ariddia still a democracy?
Yes... but a democracy of a new kind, which has transcended the age-old patterns of traditional Western politics. Clearly, Ariddians still do choose their national leader. Under our current system, the DCP's candidate is chosen by the members of the Party, but Party membership is free and open to all who are interested in politics, even those who may not agree with all of the government's ideals and policies. In other words, any Ariddian citizen can participate in selecting the DCP candidate, who is then - as he or she has been for decades - confirmed as Prime Secretary in a national election which is little more than a formality. We have reached a rather bizarre state of affairs in which the election internal to the Party has become, de facto, the election of the next Prime Secretary.
But it is fully democratic.
Just as importantly, on a local level, forms of direct, participatory democracy and consensual decision-making are alive and thriving.
Perhaps, one day, the Democratic Communist Party itself will fade away, as the concept of a political party becomes anachronistic in turn. I do not know how exactly we will choose our leader when that happens. We will have entered an entirely new stage of politics... one which we will have to shape ourselves, all together, as we go along and uphold Ariddia's active and flourishing (if somewhat unconventional) democracy.