NationStates

Choice of Government

~*~*~*~ Furtherment of Democracy ~*~*~*~ Strong ~*~*~*~

---

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Convinced that the form and nature of a nation's government cannot be effectively or sustainably imposed over the long term by an outside force;

Recognizing that the form and nature of a nation's government must ultimately be derived from the will of the people, who are that nation.

Aware of the following universal truth: that every person who lives under a government wants their government to be responsive to their needs, respectful of their liberties, and capable of changing for the better;

Proceeding only upon those basic premises, the General Assembly resolves as follows:

Article 1: Every member nation must ensure that their form of government (whether communism, liberal democracy, psychotic dictatorship, or anything besides) is the form of government freely chosen by the people of that nation.

Member nations may comply with this requirement in any way they choose, subject to their national and international law, so long as their system produces reliable extrinsic evidence (such as election results or equivalent data) clearly showing how the form of government was chosen by the people.

Article 2: Every member nation must ensure that the people of that nation have regular, periodic opportunities to influence the national government by directly choosing the national leaders who are empowered to (1) make or change the laws of the nation and (2) enforce the laws of the nation.

Member nations may comply with this requirement in any way they choose, subject to their national and international law.

Member nations may comply with this requirement in any way they choose, subject to their national and international law, so long as their system produces reliable extrinsic evidence (such as election results or equivalent data) clearly showing how the form of government was chosen by the people.

The Orwell Society wrote:"Furthermore, how would a "psychotic dictatorship" (a rather unfortunate name) be "freely chosen by the people"? This proposal's idea is too flawed to stand."
-the Orwellian Delegation

Comfed wrote:

The Orwell Society wrote:"Furthermore, how would a "psychotic dictatorship" (a rather unfortunate name) be "freely chosen by the people"? This proposal's idea is too flawed to stand."
-the Orwellian Delegation

"It is impossible for a 'psychotic dictatorship' to comply with this proposal, ambassador."

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:

Comfed wrote:"It is impossible for a 'psychotic dictatorship' to comply with this proposal, ambassador."

OOC: Yeah, on second thought trying to jump straight to a universal demand for democratic government is foolhardy. There's lots of intermediate steps that need to be taken first. As IA pointed out in their post, nations often come with generations of legal development and tradition that led to their current form of government. Trying to upend that with a single resolution would probably prove ineffective, and outright dangerous.

I'm not giving up on looking for more ways to promote democracy under the current ruleset. But I'll revise this down to a much more modest first step in the coming days.

Thanks to those who took an immediate interest!

Rho Ophiuchi wrote:Hello All,

Speaking OOC, I should note that the "Autocracy" policy exists, and any enforcement of democracy would conflict with that policy - all nations using it would be in breach. The only way for it to be enforced would be to remove the policy from all WA nations - something I am not even sure if the WA can do.

Rho Ophiuchi wrote:Hello All,

Speaking OOC, I should note that the "Autocracy" policy exists, and any enforcement of democracy would conflict with that policy - all nations using it would be in breach. The only way for it to be enforced would be to remove the policy from all WA nations - something I am not even sure if the WA can do.

Also, as a quick side note, what happens if the population of a country decides to vote to abolish democracy and install an oligarchic or autocratic system? Either the will of the people would be followed, making the government nondemocratic, and violating the resolution, or the government would need to go against the people, also violating this resolution.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC. How do you intend to separate "form of government" from "people in charge of the government"? What I mean by that more specifically is that people in – basically all – countries rarely decide the fundamental laws by which they are governed. Even in the countries where they do, they take them as given and modify them slowly, if at all, through their representatives (eg the stupid Fixed Terms Parliaments Act 2010). Questions of organic law are settled and rarely revisited in most societies.

My nation's lore involves a descendant government which claims to be the continuation of the Roman republic; a subset of the army voted over a thousand years ago to restore the republic, acting as the comitia centuriata under the presidency of the consuls who had been elected illegally – under Roman religious law – by a non-patrician first interrex. Nobody since has called something like a constitutional referendum, though that might be beside the point, inasmuch as the constitution is not written and exists in the mos maiorum only.

But there are similar parallels in the real world: the basic law of San Marino was adopted almost five hundred 421 years ago, the US constitution over 230 years ago, etc. Would you call the election of consuls, captains-regent, or presidents "reliable extrinsic evidence" of a popular choice for the relevant "form of government"? It certainly would be evidence that the specific people elected had been kindly honoured by the people (cf Cic. Leg. Agr. 2.1,) but is it evidence that the people as a whole have confidence in their mode of government? Even if they can conceive of no alternative? (Cf Christian Meier, Re publica amissa, s.v. "crisis without alternative", passim.)

Rho Ophiuchi wrote:Hello All,

Speaking OOC, I should note that the "Autocracy" policy exists, and any enforcement of democracy would conflict with that policy - all nations using it would be in breach. The only way for it to be enforced would be to remove the policy from all WA nations - something I am not even sure if the WA can do.

Umbratellus wrote:

Rho Ophiuchi wrote:Hello All,

Speaking OOC, I should note that the "Autocracy" policy exists, and any enforcement of democracy would conflict with that policy - all nations using it would be in breach. The only way for it to be enforced would be to remove the policy from all WA nations - something I am not even sure if the WA can do.

If that were truly the case, then the slavery policy (which I have active) would prevent the World Assembly from acting against such — yet legislation has long stood against it!

The Orwell Society wrote:"Furthermore, how would a "psychotic dictatorship" (a rather unfortunate name) be "freely chosen by the people"? This proposal's idea is too flawed to stand."
-the Orwellian Delegation