[DRAFT] Independent Candidate Rights

[Excidium Planetis]

How does Anarcho-capitalism harm innocent people?

OOC:
It contains both Anarchism, and Capitalism.
The problem here should be obvious.

OOC:
No, it isn't. Please elaborate.

In anarcho-capitalism, there is no state which a political party could use to harm people. The only harm results from people independently harming others... this is not, however, the result of allowing political parties, as even in a one-party state such wrongs could occur. The political manifesto itself does not cause harm to any innocent party.

On the other hand, take socialism. If you have a socialist state, the state is used by the the political party to confiscate wealth from individuals and give it to others. Some of the people who have their wealth taken are innocent people and are "harmed" by the loss of wealth, thus, socialism does harm innocent people.

You may argue that the net effect of socialism is good for society and the net effect of anarcho-captalism is bad for society. And I might even agree, at least in the latter case. But the fact remains that the ideology of anarcho-capitalism doesn't harm an innocent party.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: In fact, I can't think of any political manifesto that wouldn't cause harm to some innocent party.

...

And this resolution's ban on party list systems

Barbera: What ban are you referring to, Ambassador Blackbourne?

disincentivization of democracy

Barbera: In what way does this proposal disincentivize democracy?

complete absence of international utility

Barbera: Perhaps you consider the advancement of political rights to be of no international utility. Our delegation would disagree with that.

Even if you should succeed in passing it, I will personally make sure it gets repealed.

Barbera: Even if you should succeed in repealing it, Neville here will personally make sure it gets passed again. Right, Neville?

Neville: ...What? Who are you talking to?

Barbera: Right.

[Excidium Planetis]

And this resolution's ban on party list systems

Barbera: What ban are you referring to, Ambassador Blackbourne?

Blackbourne says nothing.

Sergeant Timmons begins to sweat.

Barbera: In what way does this proposal disincentivize democracy?

Sergeant Timmons goes rigid.

Blackbourne looks at him. "Sergeant Timmons?"

Timmons frantically shakes his head.

Barbera: Perhaps you consider the advancement of political rights to be of no international utility. Our delegation would disagree with that.

"Party list systems cannot operate with candidates who have no political party! It doesn't work that way!" Timmons blurts out. "This would necessarily ban party list systems, which is to the detriment of democracy and places an undue burden on those considering transitioning to that form of democracy!"

Barbera: Even if you should succeed in repealing it, Neville here will personally make sure it gets passed again. Right, Neville?

Neville: ...What? Who are you talking to?

Barbera: Right.

"Democracy is important to the Excidian people." Timmons says. He looks forward again, and remains silent.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: OK, what on Earth is Sergeant Timmons' deal?

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: OK, what on Earth is Sergeant Timmons' deal?

That's for me to know and someone else to find out ICly.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: It's been over a month. Let's see if we can stir up a bit of activity. (triggers fire alarm)

[Wallenburg]

Ogenbond rushes in with a cart carrying several jugs of water. "What the hell is going on now? Oh, let me guess, you did it again, didn't you, Neville?"

[Aclion]

NOTING that inhabitants of member states have the right to assemble freely and to form political parties,

Do they?

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

Neville: It's been over a month. Let's see if we can stir up a bit of activity. (triggers fire alarm)

The Honorable J. Everett hears a sudden noise from a quiet block of offices while strolling through the WA Complex late at night. He can hear the alarms and sees a suspicious gentleman sneaking away from the fire control room. Upon finding no fire, he reads over the materials left behind in the chamber.

[Wallenburg]

NOTING that inhabitants of member states have the right to assemble freely and to form political parties,

Do they?

Well...yes. Yes they do.

[Aclion]

Do they?

Well...yes. Yes they do.

And the latter?

[Wallenburg]

Well...yes. Yes they do.

And the latter?

"All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate...No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights". This resolution guarantees freedom of association. Political parties are a form of association, and so neither the WA nor any member nations may prohibit the development or continuation of political parties."

[Aclion]

And the latter?

"All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate...No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights". This resolution guarantees freedom of association. Political parties are a form of association, and so neither the WA nor any member nations may prohibit the development or continuation of political parties."

I don't know, That's a difficult interpretation to accept for an organization that recognizes absolute dictatorship as a legitimate governmental system.

[Tinfect]

I don't know, That's a difficult interpretation to accept for an organization that recognizes absolute dictatorship as a legitimate governmental system.

"Ambassador, the insinuation that superior forms of governance are inherently unable to recognize human rights simply because they do not allow their people to fall to anarchic mob-rule, is quite the naive one."

[Excidium Planetis]

I don't know, That's a difficult interpretation to accept for an organization that recognizes absolute dictatorship as a legitimate governmental system.

"It's an interpretation you must accept, regardless of how difficult. The WA recognizes the right to associate freely, this necessarily includes political parties." Blackbourne replies.

[Aclion]

"Ambassador, the insinuation that superior forms of governance are inherently unable to recognize human rights simply because they do not allow their people to fall to anarchic mob-rule, is quite the naive one."

Well then, please do educate me. What is a political party in a nation where public office is not up for contest and public policy is not up for debate?

I don't know, That's a difficult interpretation to accept for an organization that recognizes absolute dictatorship as a legitimate governmental system.

"It's an interpretation you must accept, regardless of how difficult. The WA recognizes the right to associate freely, this necessarily includes political parties." Blackbourne replies.

I was not aware you were an arbitrator of WA law Ambassador, but I am somewhat confused by the implication of your claim. You see. It is my understanding that first; under WA guidelines a proposed resolution that contradicts existing law is illegal, and second; a resolution, once passed, cannot be illegal.

It seems to me therefore that any interpretation of a resolution that would place it in contradiction with any resolution in place at the time of it's proposal must, necessarily be an incorrect one. Otherwise the proposed resolution would be illegal, which it cannot be.

This presents a serious problem for your interpretation of GAR #27 as your interpretation would require nations to adopt a form of government that allows political parties, yet GAR#2 grants member states carta blanche to choose their own form of government. What should happen if a member state should choose a form of government that does not allow for the free creation of parties? Say for example nonpartisan democracy, or Marxist-Leninist vanguardism?

[Excidium Planetis]

It seems to me therefore that any interpretation of a resolution that would place it in contradiction with any resolution in place at the time of it's proposal must, necessarily be an incorrect one. Otherwise the proposed resolution would be illegal, which it cannot be.

This presents a serious problem for your interpretation of GAR #27 as your interpretation would require nations to adopt a form of government that allows political parties, yet GAR#2 grants member states carta blanche to choose their own form of government. What should happen if a member state should choose a form of government that does not allow for the free creation of parties? Say for example nonpartisan democracy, or Marxist-Leninist vanguardism?

"GA#2 protects the rights of nations to choose their governments without dictation from any other NationState. This does include the World Assembly, which is not a NationState. The WA can and does ban specific practices, which sometimes limit which ideologies can be effectively practiced."

[Aclion]

It seems to me therefore that any interpretation of a resolution that would place it in contradiction with any resolution in place at the time of it's proposal must, necessarily be an incorrect one. Otherwise the proposed resolution would be illegal, which it cannot be.

This presents a serious problem for your interpretation of GAR #27 as your interpretation would require nations to adopt a form of government that allows political parties, yet GAR#2 grants member states carta blanche to choose their own form of government. What should happen if a member state should choose a form of government that does not allow for the free creation of parties? Say for example nonpartisan democracy, or Marxist-Leninist vanguardism?

"GA#2 protects the rights of nations to choose their governments without dictation from any other NationState. This does include the World Assembly, which is not a NationState. The WA can and does ban specific practices, which sometimes limit which ideologies can be effectively practiced."

...
Is the World Assembly not an assembly of nation-states? And if the resolution only applies to individual member states and not assemblies thereof am I to understand that any assembly is exempt? Or is the world assembly specifically exempted.

[Excidium Planetis]

Is the World Assembly not an assembly of nation-states? And if the resolution only applies to individual member states and not assemblies thereof am I to understand that any assembly is exempt? Or is the world assembly specifically exempted.

"The resolution only applies to individual member states and not assemblies thereof, as made clear by Article 10:

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

"Note that the supremacy of international law applies to organizations and treaties outside the WA, and nations may not use provisions in their constitutions or laws to ignore such international pacts.

"Furthermore, by necessity the WA must be excluded, as Article 3 states:

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

"Obviously, the WA intervenes in member nations' affairs unrequested every time it passes a resolution. All resolutions would be illegal if the WA was not exempted."

[Bananaistan]

"This idea that political parties are permitted by international law in nations which either do not have elections or do not allow candidates to affiliated to political parties needs further examination. It all depends on your definition of political party. A typical definition of political party is "a group of persons organised for the purpose of directing the policies of a government". Anther is "a formally constituted political group that contests elections and attempts to form or take part in a government." Most definitions available to me seem to run with this idea that political parties attempt to win power or direct the government's policies. However, at least one takes a slightly different stance: "an organization of people who share the same views about the way power should be used in a country or society."

"It seems to me that in a country which does not hold elections, a political party is little more than a pointless talking shop. They cannot win power, they cannot contest elections where none are held, and they can never advance their political opinions. What use is a political party where it can never gain power?

"I would also further point out that the relevant international law is weak and a reasonable nation could reasonably ban almost all political parties. Under section 3 of GAR#27, "Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for ... actions that would cause harm to innocent people." Can anyone point me to any political position which dose not cause harm to some innocent person? For example, a socialist platform might want to tax more. This causes harm to those who would have pay the additional taxes. A centrist might say that the taxes are just grand as they are, this still causes harm to those who have to pay. A conservative platform might want to cut taxes and consequently cut public services, such actions would cause harm to those who currently receive a benefit from such services

"So we have a situation where, yes, international law permits the formation of political parties but only if their policies are so inane and benign that no one would ever be harmed by them should they be implemented. Furthermore, this interpretation only works if we ignore the common definition of political parties which refers to contesting elections.

"Regarding the current proposal, I note that clause 3 does not in fact prohibit party list systems as Comrade Hornwood previously maintained. A party list system simply does not have independent candidates. In Bananaistan where half of the seats in our lower house are elected through a party list system, this will remain the case should this pass as the same requirement applies to everyone: only registered parties complying with relevant laws can enter a party list. An individual candidate cannot be a registered party and so cannot enter a party list. In any case, in Bananaistan independent candidates have an opportunity to run for a seat in the half that are elected using PR-STV in multi-seat constituencies.

"However, we remain opposed due to our longstanding opposition to any WA interference in the internal conduct in member state's democratic processes."

- Brian.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Ogenbond rushes in with a cart carrying several jugs of water. "What the hell is going on now? Oh, let me guess, you did it again, didn't you, Neville?"

Neville: ...Were you going to use jugs to extinguish the hypothetical flames? What if it were a flammable liquid or a metal fire? Then what?

Fairburn: They'd have had burned down the whole building, that's what! ...Actually, that might not be a bad idea.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Harold marches into the chamber and sets off the fire alarm.

[Tinhampton]

Jamie Williamson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: What in the actual fuck am I meant to do now? This proposal's been to sleep for five weeks, and it had to take a clown belatedly activating a fire alarm to wake it up again?

[Bakhton]

BELIEVING that, in democratic institutions, citizens should have the right to run for office without being associated with any particular organisation,

"This is a political belief." Lara rubs her chin having finished her tea. She takes a brief look through her Big Blue Law Book.
"This proposal also could possibly be in violation of Article 1 of the The Principles of National Sovereignty as defined in GA #2: Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other nation all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government. Nations like our own would like to see a much larger role for the World Assembly in limiting government policies opposed to personal individual freedom, including the structure of elections. However, we cannot ignore legal precedent, and that precedent would seem to show that this is an issue best relegated to individual nations. The case that would need to be made is that there is a fundamental human right to run without party designations and I find that legally -at least in the World Assembly- shaky. There can be no right of individuals to run under the independent label if this assembly cannot also believe it to be a right that all people should have a democracy, and of course that is illegal under GA #2. We cannot support this proposal due to it being illegal."

[Christian Democrats]

Harold marches into the chamber and sets off the fire alarm.

What about electoral systems, such as party-list PR, where independent candidacies are nonsensical or impossible?