Democracy and Nation States

[Caer Rialis]

Democracy



We hear this term bandied about often in NS. People and groups rise, joining together, claiming to be in favor of democracy, claiming to be fighting for democracy, claiming to want democracy. But what, exactly, is meant by democracy?



I suppose, the vast majority of us all raised in the Western tradition, in which the ideas of the Enlightenment remain robust, there is this continued yearning for democracy and to prove ourselves good democrats. Among the worst insults hissed at nations and regions in NS is that of being a despotism, of being a dictatorship, of being un-democratic. This, too, is part of the Western tradition. After all, if I am a democrat and others created a system which I disagree with, they simply must not be democrats. But is this truly the case?



The <em class='bbc'>American Heritage Dictionary</em> defines ?Democracy? as ?A system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives.? Now, as it pertains to NS one must be careful as to who is determined as the people. Most democratic regions in NS typically would argue that we are not looking at the freely elected representatives, as this system is rather small for that, but rather that power is vested in the hands of the people. This is well and good; it is most certainly laudable and what all should strive for. However, as one considers the nature of this beast which is NS, it becomes quite difficult to maintain a sense of community while also maintaining a true sense of democracy.



The difficulty, of course, lies in the power of the Delegacy. Delegates in NS have a great deal of power: n government system can remain in place, if the regional delegate does not agree to it; no systems of laws can remain in place, unless the Delegate abides by them; no true freedoms can exist, without the Delegate?s approval. Yes, yes, the people do determine who shall hold the power of the Delegacy through their endorsements, but, with the power to eject and ban, a wary Delegate can keep any potential rival from being able to mount a coup de main



Therefore any region which wishes to be democratic must take several steps to limit the power of the Delegate. However what should these steps be? An unscrupulous delegate may decide that, in his/her infinite wisdom, that it is better to hold naked power than to be truly ?democratic?. If said delegate had a solid supporting cabal, he/she might even be able to put democratic trappings on their system, but, in the end, we see autocracy, rather than democracy.



The only step, ladies and gentlemen, in the NS world is to choose delegates whom are willing to accept limitations on their power. Delegates whom are able to set aside their personal power to aid their region for the sake of the region and not for themselves. Delegates whom set aside the personal glory for that of their region. We have been lucky in the South Pacific to have had delegates willing to do just that since the heady days of the summer of 2003.



This is why, though some from the outside might claim otherwise, we maintain a strict adherence to the Martial Law/Law of Succession. The only way to know if a person would be such scrupulous delegate and would respect the community we have all had a hand in developing here, is to know the person, to meet the person on these boards, to hear their arguments, to look at their views, and to know that, yes, this person would be willing to limit his/her power.



Others have and will in the future, claim that we are not democratic. They will point at the longevity of our delegates and the lack of consistent elections and argue that the system here was developed to keep individuals in power. Others will argue that our system breeds stagnation. However, when one looks at these arguments, they cannot say, with any real certainty, what would happen if we did change to be more ?democratic?, as they define it. They offer philosophical ideals but, as all know, what is theorized often bears little resemblance to that theory once put into place. This, of course, is only true if they are honesty in their quest for ?democracy?. More often than not, these ?democrats? use the term as a clarion call, hiding their true agenda up their sleeves, an agenda which is often decidedly un-democratic.



Thank you. In the future, I will expand more on the ideas of ?Democracy? in our NS world

[Guest]

Well said!

Yes, yes, the people do determine who shall hold the power of the Delegacy through their endorsements, but, with the power to eject and ban, a wary Delegate can keep any potential rival from being able to mount a coup de main

Also, the endorsement process is not a true democratic process. This because the handing out of endorsements is in many cases not a decision that the person receiving endorsement should become the delegate. Endorsements are handed out for friendship, for making the other feel welcome, etc. Endorsements are also seen as status symbol. So, does gathering the most endorsements in the region mean that you have been democratically elected by "The People"? No, because many of the endorsements were not handed out for that purpose. Many were handed out without it being known that you even wanted to become a leader. If "The People" do not see the endorsements as a vote, it means you are not elected by them.

You may have noticed that I put "The People" between quotation marks. This is because the theory of classes does not hold in online communities. Your status, and the amount of power you can get, is not dependent on the amount of money you have or where you are born. It only depends on how active you are and on how much effort you are willing to put in the community. You can rise and fall purely on own merit.

[htz31361849782]

Well said CR

[Caer Rialis]

Also, the endorsement process is not a true democratic process. This because the handing out of endorsements is in many cases not a decision that the person receiving endorsement should become the delegate. Endorsements are handed out for friendship, for making the other feel welcome, etc. Endorsements are also seen as status symbol. So, does gathering the most endorsements in the region mean that you have been democratically elected by "The People"? No, because many of the endorsements were not handed out for that purpose. Many were handed out without it being known that you even wanted to become a leader. If "The People" do not see the endorsements as a vote, it means you are not elected by them.

Excellent point, Tsrill, and a good starting off point for discussion as well.



As we consider democratic institutions, the first characteristic many associate with democracies are elections. Whether in rl or NS, we like our lawmakers and governmental leaders to respond to our needs, our desires, our opinions. The surest way for this to happen is the vote. When one considers the delegate?s seat, however, the vote becomes problematic in many different ways.



<strong class='bbc'>The Endorsement Battle</strong>



Because Delegates are chosen by the World Assembly members of a particular region through the endorsement process, many often assume that delegates are chosen via elections. After all, what is an endorsement but a vote in favor of a particular nation based on his/her voting record, his/her personal nation?s decision making, flag, etc.



This is a false assumption, especially for the feeders, for several reasons. The first is simply a logistical matter. If endorsement battles are, in effect, elections, what we see in NS is something completely absent in the real-world, namely perpetual elections. Delegates are not giving a particular term of office, via NS rules. Nations are not limited as to when and how often they can endorse other WA members in their particular region. Were this the case, were, by some chance, delegates chosen for a particular time and the ability to endorse nations outside of a well-specified time for voting, then, certainly, we could call them elections. As it stands, however, they are not because of the perpetual nature of the process.



Similarly feeder regions are not able to choose their membership at all. There are no invitations, no recruitment process, nothing. As such, not all who reside within a feeder region participate on the off-site forums where the real activity of the region occurs. Heck, most do not even bother to register. It is in the off-site forums where the true elections take place, not on the RMB where, when a region gets inundated by recruitment spam, it is well-nigh impossible to have a fair and free election.



<strong class='bbc'>Awarding Endorsements</strong>



As Tsrill touched upon, not all people issue endorsements based on an informed choice. People are endorsed because they like someone, they are swapping endorsements, they want to make sure a nation has that magic number of two endorsements, the mottos are imaginative, etc. Similarly, with the use of scripts, one nation may, in extremely short periods of time, rack up large numbers of endorsements in one fell swoop. Is it truly a fair election, if one side or another has access to these scripts, and the other does not?



Similarly, when people simply ?swap? endorsements, are they truly making an informed choice? Typically there are no grand election platforms sent with endorsements, no promises on what that nation will do if entrusted with the delegacy, no Q/A between the electorate and the candidate. People simply reciprocate endorsements they receive. Is this really an election, or is it not just a popularity contest between those who have more resources for the NS world.



These are some of the dangers of awarding endorsements willy-nilly. To use an example, I teach social studies in a high school which is predominantly African-American. One year, a conservative African-American was running for his party?s presidential nomination. At our mock elections, large numbers of my students voted for him, simply saying ?I?m voting for the Black guy?. After we came back to the classroom, I read this candidate?s opinion on a series of issues, without naming him, then asked the class if they would vote for him. The result was resounding ?No!? The reaction when I posted the candidate?s photo was priceless. This is not an attack on African-American voting patterns; Lord knows other groups decide to vote for or against candidates based on race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, and/or gender but do not consider substantive issues. It is simply illuminating the problems of an election and an informed populace.



<strong class='bbc'>Other Opinions</strong>



Of course, for those who, for whatever reason, do not participate in the off-site forums, the system may appear to be rigged against them. After all, a forum can produce a solid cadre of supporters for the seated delegate. It may also provide, in some regions, heir-presumptives which prevent the delegacy from falling out of the circle of the ?Old Boys Network?. For these, the charge of ?un-Democratic? comes very easy as the definition they would use for ?democracy? differs from that of the forum members.



This is where being informed is vital. Yes, it?s easy to say ?you should allow any to be delegate?. Fine, but if that is the case, why not let us know what you plan to do if selected as delegate? Let us know what you plan for the forums which we all had a hand in creating. Let us know who you are. This is why we have, in this region, set certain limits on who might become delegate, not to maintain an ?Old Boys Network, but so that we can meet the individual running for the delegacy and <strong class='bbc'>be informed</strong>.







Of course, now we should look at who are the people, as Tsrill mentioned. That?s a discussion I?d like to put in a new thread

[mavenu]

As Tsrill touched upon, not all people issue endorsements based on an informed choice. People are endorsed because they like someone, they are swapping endorsements, they want to make sure a nation has that magic number of two endorsements, the mottos are imaginative, etc. Similarly, with the use of scripts, one nation may, in extremely short periods of time, rack up large numbers of endorsements in one fell swoop. Is it truly a fair election, if one side or another has access to these scripts, and the other does not?

<a class='bbc_url' href='http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/scripts.html'>Actually, (un)endorsement scripts are illegal for that reason</a>

<a class='bbc_url' href='http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=5812823&postcount=59'>jolt post</a>

[Limitless Events]

First off, keep in mind this is coming from someone who has only really watched TSP from afar. Second, I've always had an admiration ofr dictatorships in NS and the various paths they take.I've always thought of TSP as a semi-dictatorship with partial control given to the people. The delegate sits at the will of the region through endorsements. Those wishing to take the delegacy must meet certain qualifications and announce their intent. After that is becomes it battle to gather the most endorsements and keep/take control. A legalised coup of sorts. Like a couple of dogs fighting for alpha male. The one in charge directs and guide things but only as long as htey do not upset the region and cause the people to turn on them.

[Napieria]

Those wishing to take the delegacy must meet certain qualifications and announce their intent. After that is becomes it battle to gather the most endorsements and keep/take control. A legalised coup of sorts.

You've just described most RL elections.

[Caer Rialis]

I've always thought of TSP as a semi-dictatorship with partial control given to the people. The delegate sits at the will of the region through endorsements. Those wishing to take the delegacy must meet certain qualifications and announce their intent. After that is becomes it battle to gather the most endorsements and keep/take control. A legalised coup of sorts. Like a couple of dogs fighting for alpha male. The one in charge directs and guide things but only as long as htey do not upset the region and cause the people to turn on them.

Actually you could make the argument that, through NS rules, every feeder and founderless region is a semi-dictatorship. If the delegate in these regions refuses to abide by the laws, regulations, and customs of the region, without a founder, there is very little a region can do to change this without a massive, all-consuming fight.

However, since you mentioned the delegacy here, let?s focus on this view. From the outside, especially since we literally have not had a credible delegacy challenge as following the procedures of our Martial Law/Law of Succession, it may appear that way. Certainly we have had nations opt to challenge for the delegacy, but many of these did not meet one or another of the three qualifications for the position:

A. Must have been a registered member of the off-site forums of the South Pacific for a period no less than three months before announcing their intentions, under the provisions of this law
B. Must have had their UN nation resident in the South Pacific for a period of no less than thirty (30) days
C. Must have collected a minimum of 150 endorsements

Most who fail to meet these requirements, by the way, are those who have not been registered to these boards for three months.

What leads many to this misunderstanding is that we do not have formal delegate elections, such as are held in TWP and TNP. We?ve come to recognize that the parameters of the NS system aren?t as conducive to these elections as one might think. You don?t have to go very far back in the history of those regions to see times in which elected delegates tossed aside constitutions and charters, and sparked turmoil. No, rather, our elections are done far less visibly, through the NS system.

Think of it. We do use the NS system. No one on these boards or in the region is required to endorse our delegate. People are not ejected for this, nor are they ejected for suddenly amassing large numbers of endorsements. There is no limit to the number of endorsements one might have, so long as they abide by the reasonable requirements of the Law of Succession.

3) A nation that breaches the threshold of 50% of the current Delegate's endorsements will be asked by a designated member of the Cabinet to state their intentions, under Article 2 of this Law. They will be asked three (3) times, during a period of at least forty eight (48) hours.

What is so despotic about that?

Recently the Delegate here did have to eject a nation from the region. This nation had triggered the 50 % threshold, but refused to register here. Though in telegrams, he announced he was trying to have a ?democratic election? and that he hoped the people in the TSP valued ?democracy?, his actions spoke otherwise. I wonder what, if any, response he had to this ejection. It probably said something like ?Nice democracy here?, ?Way to uphold democracy? or ?what, afraid of a real election??

If said nation was unwilling to come here, to meet the people who call this region home, was he being democratic? I hold that he was not. That this nation had a script he used to identify WA nations and had gone on a massive tarting campaign. The 160 plus who endorsed him did not know who he was or what he stood for. The delegate was perfectly right to eject him, under the law.

[Bali Lo]

Of course, this is primarily a problem for the feeders and the other founderless regions: In regions that <em class='bbc'>do</em> have founders, it's <em class='bbc'>those</em> nations/players who can act (over-riding the Delegates, if necessary) as dictators... but if a region has a Founder who's willing to act as a constitutional monarch then they <em class='bbc'>can</em> have elections for Delegate and know that there's a force capable of keeping the Delegate from becoming a despot.

[Guest]

Think of it. We do use the NS system. No one on these boards or in the region is required to endorse our delegate. People are not ejected for this, nor are they ejected for suddenly amassing large numbers of endorsements. There is no limit to the number of endorsements one might have, so long as they abide by the reasonable requirements of the Law of Succession.

People often equate democracy with freedom. Indeed, a democratic system. where people have a choice to elect their leader, favor freedom of speech, religion and so on. Also from a mathematical point you could argue that the more choice, the more freedom. However, what people (especially those living in a republic) forget is that not only representative or direct democracies lead to freedom: other systems, such as constitutional monarchies or even enlightened dictatorships can lead to freedom, too. On the other hand, there are democratic system where the amount of freedom is questionable. Direct democracies face the threat of tyranny by majority, which could rise as a result of two or more widely segregated groups, of which one has a clear majority who dictate the others through elective processes what to do. In many third world countries so-called parasitic democracies can be found, where the people in power try to enrich their own support base as much as possible; at the next elections they are replaced by another group who do exactly the same, while the majority of the populace has the choice to be sucked dry by the one party or by the other party.



So, in the end, I would say it is freedom that we want, not democracy. I think the best test for freedom is if we can criticize our leaders. Can we do that here in the South Pacific? I think we can. If someone has an argument criticizing the delegate, and respect the delegate as a person (i.e., not resorting to trolling, flaming, calling names and such), he or she can do so without getting punished. If this person has a good argument, someone might even listen.



There are some misconceptions with regard to freedom, though. One of them I already touched above: freedom is not equal to being allowed to do or say whatever the heck you like. In any society there are rules in place to protect the individual. If you slander, abuse, threaten, kill, etc. the person you criticize, you will be punished. Freedom is always bounded within the limits of acceptable behavior of whatever community you are in. Total freedom leads to anarchy, and anarchy leads to destruction.

Secondly, freedom does not imply getting your way. Other people equally have freedoms, most prominently in this case, the freedom to ignore. If you want to get something done, you need to convince people. If you fail to convince people, you need to take your loss. If you think the delegate is doing a bad job and that you would do a much better job, but fail to convince people that this is indeed the case, you won't get the delegacy.



I want to conclude with something that is related to the second point above, but also goes back to one of the fundamental rights in most democratic systems: passive voting right (i.e., the right to get elected), does not mean you have the right to <em class='bbc'>hold</em> power. No one, anywhere, has the intrinsic right to be a leader. Passive voting right only means that you have the right to be a <em class='bbc'>candidate</em> for a position power. Whether people are willing to give you those powers depends on how well you can convince them that you can use them wisely and deal with the responsibilities that come along with them.



In summary:

No democracy != No freedom

Freedom == Right to criticize

Freedom != Say or do whatever you want

Freedom != getting your way

Power == responsibility