The new millennium - Democracy

Day 3,002, 14:19 • Published in Australia Australia • by Ranger Bob

I'll bite.

I will not repeat what gugature has posted in his article: http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/a-new-millennium-constitutional-dictatorship-2581579/1/20

But, I suggest you read it. It contains information on the nature of in game proposals, which are generally speaking of value to understand.

The problem of course in advocating any absolute (this way, that way etc is there are AWLAYS ARGUMENTS against). For brevity, I will focus on the arguments for this option. Others can argue against in comments if they so choose. So to that end, I will advocate for democracy. In doing so, I will make 5 points:

1. Activity.

EAus appeared very quiet during previous dictatorships. Unless things boiled over on to here - which was usually around more people arguing with people, debate was off erep and onto the forum or other areas. Having been back a bit recently, even reading internal discussion threads there is an element of being "in the know" that is assumed, and doesn't play out here.

What alliances are we tracking with? Where are we headed? To get new people engaged and involved in this stuff is hard enough, let alone if you add a dictator component that means there is really no real need to engage with people, or for your congress to be held accountable. You can't see votes as in a democratic in game law proposal to see what they are doing - it is reported third party form in forum, closed discussions.

In addition, you rely very much on the actual activity of the dictator. At least you know if a proposal is made in game it will resolve in a set time from when it is made. Under a dictator model you have to have the discussion, as, the dictator to propose and then it runs. It slows passage of things to a crawl, or in urgent situations forces them to act without discussion.

And, that leads to...

2. A dic can be a d***

There is always a chance a dictator can be a tosser. This COULD start with the best of intention. But the idea of the CP module is while the CP can alone propose things, the congress still votes in a number of things where the CP is one vote. Meaning, just because a CP is elected doesn't give them the mandate to do whatever they like. You might like the general approach of a CP, but collectively also like a congress group that doesn't agree. Unless whoever you elect are always participating in forum discussions, or are 100 percent active things will always come up that need a quick response. In this case, does the CP (if they are the dic) or another dic do something off their own bat without discussion?

Doesn't this lead to the mess around lack of democratic right for people to vote for a CP or congress? What is then the point of congress? It automatically relegates them to a lesser role.

Now I know some congress are about as active as an 80 year old who hasn't seen his "little friend" in 25 years, and can't afford Viagra. But, it means it becomes more and more "easy" to simply get it done, and makes congress more and more just about a shiny medal, and 5 gold.

3. Timely passage of laws

I have covered this above, but, if you have an urgent law or something to be passed, you can always propose it and debate OVER the 24 hours it is being put up as a law. If you follow a democratic model, even with a dictator, the dictator would likely not propose until AFTER this discussion had played out. Even if they tried to do the same 24 hour "live" proposal outlined above under point 2, there is always a chance people will argue it wasn't democratic or the decision was made by one person or a select group there at the time. This might be true but at least you can bag a congress member for inactivity and not voting, and it is their fault of inactivity for not voting if they had a chance to in game, and didn't.

Under this model, the old "wasn't democratic had the dictator model" is almost giving them an out.m and, really it doesn't matter anyway, as the law will pass on the select few active in the forum anyway.

4. Accountable and MEANINGFUL congress

Holding the people you elect to account is a good thing. Reminding people of the responsibility they hold when YOU make them a congress member is a good thing.

A congress member being able to propose what they will as law, and standing up for their view no matter whether you personally agree with it or not, is a good thing.

Many a time eAus have had congress propose laws where it plays out in articles, saying such and such is a knobhead. But at least you voted them, know who they are and they have to justify their view if they care enough about it. It makes them more relevant and more accountable for their actions.

This is a good thing.

5. fun, and other ways to mitigate risks

So, we are going to have an MTO. All of a sudden, people have to participate and fight, to take back what's theirs. Don't get me wrong, and MTO can suck, and depending on the group could last a while. But, conflict makes you active.

You can donate money out somewhere (even if must be to a trusted individual if orgs will be taken over) to try and save the treasury. There are some ways this has been done before, and could be done again. eAus ran as a government in exile when it was taken over by Indo in 2008! And managed to survive and prosper. It's not the end of the world, and if anything contributed to significant growth of active population because people wanted to fight back for their homeland.

It's not a perfect fix, but, my point is there are probably plenty of ways to survive without making the game more boring. If we always play safe then this game becomes more about clicking. And there are plenty of alternatives these days where even where you just click you seem to be doing something more.

----

There you go. Before people razz on my views above, keep in mind this is a discussion piece, which is aimed at ENCOURAGING debate. Not to convince you this model s the best. But there are a few solid arguments I hope.

Enjoy.

Ranger
EAus has been.