The British Stratocracy wrote:OOC: what is your opinion on the following? if you agree, please explain. If it outrages you, please explain. if it arouses you, get help. Thanks
Note: To those of you who will probebly message me and ask, yes this is what I belief should be in place in real life.
IS DEMOCRACY ACCEPTABLE?
Non Militarist Democracy in general (Termed by Militarists as "Unlimited democracy") is considered to be harmful to the strength and morality of national leadership, national economic, and public interests. Militarist theory holds that if anyone can be elected to public office as part of or sponsord by a political group, then the elected offical is far more likely to be loyal to that sociel-political-economic group.
For example, a Militarist would argue that a capitlist conservative christian offical would only act in the interests of his own personal values. He would then only be as loyal to his country as his political pary/church/business allowed him to be, thus making him very unfit for public office. The same argument is put forward for left-wingers who are more likely to bow to trade unions and populism. To a Militarist, dictatorship of the proletariat is simply a polished word for mob rule.
Miliatrists argue that the national leadership must think logically for whats best for the country. They also argue that just because something is populer with the public, does not mean it is a good idea. An example often used is the rise of Hitler, who used populism to stirr up public aggression and take absolute power for himself.
All of this therefore rules out representative or sociel democracy as means of selection public officals.
WHO SHOULD HAVE THE VOTE?
Another issue is who should be a voter. Miliatrists reject the idea that voting is somehow a "birth right" and argue it is something that must be earned through meritocracy. It is for this reason why a citizen must serve at least five years as either a full time or part time public servant if they wish to earn the right to take political action via voting.
Leftists and democrats have argued that this leads to political elitism and gives the Armed forces complete control over civilans and therefore the majority of the people.
However this is not directly true for two reasons:
One: In the Stratocracy, the Armed Forces ARE the public services, policemen are in the forces, firemen are in the forces, politicans are in the forces, doctors are in the forces. 50% of citizens from age 18 to 45 serves the state in some capacity, as anything from a infantry soldier to an public administrator, from a construction engineer to a sanitation worker, all of wich are in the Armed Forces. thus is why the ideology is labeled "militarism" and the state named a "Stratocracy" (Stratocracy:from the greek στρατός, stratos, "army" and κράτος, kratos, "dominion", "power") a form of government headed by military chiefs). This means that the greater amount of the population can vote in the more important elections.
Two: Citizans who have chosen not to enlist in the public forces do have some representation within the country's parliament. The third chamber of the Union parliament, the house of commons, is reserved for specifically those who do not wish to serve in such a way. This gives them some voice in affairs, though it is by far the least powerful . (NOTE: for more info on the leadership and parliament see the factbook entry called "The Militarist System")