The Dictatorship Dynamic
Day 2,551, 13:53
•
Published in Canada 
•
by
•
by Aries Prime
Recently I joined MDP and have been exploring the extent of the dictatorship dynamic. I find this very interesting compared to other countries I have lived in and observed because most of them cling strongly to a democratic foundation, whether they believe in socialism, libertarianism, moderation, etc. Below I would like to explore this dictatorship idea and explain my own views on what kind of system I would like to see. Before that, I’ll do a quick breakdown of what I think of the other top 5 parties.
The Top 5
Canadian Progressive Front - They strike me as a completely moderate, independent, democratic party. They are essentially an umbrella party for any and all viewpoints in Canada, granted those viewpoints aren’t too extreme. Because of this they have difficulty actually pushing through ideas and reforms, with most of them acting as individuals with their own beliefs.
Imperial Wolves - As far as I can tell, they are a more radical version of the CPF. Decisions they make are inconsistent and vary. I haven’t seen much out of them so far as they are a party that wants to maintain a separate identity from CPF, but don’t really have a strong agenda of their own. Until they reform with a clear goal in mind, they will be swept up by the other parties.
Parti Francophone Canadien - Literally the French CPF. I can’t distinguish anything different between these two parties other than the idea of being French brings PFC close together then the spread out CPF.
SUFFER - Our local fascist party. They have a strong base with strong viewpoints but seem to lack appeal. They differ from MDP in that they want a huge expansionary social program with a large government. Less emphasis on war, and more on welfare. Their authoritarian stance seems to be in line with MDP, but not quite a strict as the dictatorship route they go for.
The Dictatorship Dynamic
The Military Dictatorship Party actually has two main leaders, our party leader and our government head. XanderKross maintains a firm grip on the party by remaining active and interacting with the rest of the party while gathering input from its members. Despite being an elected dictator, he appears to value the input of members, although his say is final.
Rylde is the dictator of Canada. Even before I came here, I understood Rylde’s policy of being the absolute authority on all decisions. Although I never directly engaged with him, there was a sour look upon him from Netherlands when he led the charge to kick us out of Canada. He too seems to value the input of his ministers but appears to rule with a stronger grip than XanderKross. When comparing the two, Rylde is more of an iron fist ruler.
I enjoy this dictatorship dynamic because it is very fresh compared to most countries I’ve encountered. The only other country with a similar dynamic was Finland, and although that worked well, it had its ups and downs, just as this one does. My problem is that I think dictatorship dynamic goes too far. I do not believe in an absolute leader. Having a single leader for a long period of time will breed arrogance, corruption, and poor decision making. No variation in the main office will lead to slower transition of new ideas. No competition breads inactivity and lower incentives to further the country. If no one can challenge the dictator, then the dictator will have free reign to do as they please, regardless of if those ideas are good or bad.
I would advocate for a step back from the reign of a dictator, but only one step back.
The Hegemony
In Netherlands I created the first oligarchy. Near the end of my last presidency, I had decided I would not run for reelection. Unfortunately much of what I enacted was at risk of being reversed if I did not run, or at least someone I could trust. Because of this risk I gathered the heads of likeminded political parties together and formed an oligarchy that lasted about six months. We were able to crush any contenders in the CP races to the point where eventually our candidates were running unopposed for months. If someone proposed a candidate to run that was no agreed upon by myself and a few others, then we would crush the chances of that candidate running. It was an extremely effective way to make sure the policies I enacted stayed enacted and people I didn’t want to run didn’t run.
The problem was that the political parties involved were on an equal footing based on the leaders of each party. My party was the smallest party in Netherlands and I had managed to give us a voice through my own willpower equal to that of the top party, but that was the extent of said power. It was not possible for me or my inner allies to guide the country even further than what we had already laid out with the group as a whole. Our power was limited.
Recently I was reviewing the oligarchy we had in Netherlands and the dictatorship dynamic we have in Canada. I’ve come to the conclusion that a Hegemony might be the best fit between the two systems.
A hegemony, in the context of Canada, is where one political party controls or leads the other political parties. The hegemon mandates what they want done with the country and is able to politically pressure, manipulate, or flat out control the other parties into doing what is wanted.
I believe this system would be the best compromise between an oligarchy, which doesn’t allow for enough power in one group, and a dictatorship, which places too much power into the hands of a single individual. The Hegemony would decide the best fit candidates for elections while still allowing for some diversity in the process. It would disallow one person from controlling the government for term after term after term, potentially damaging the longevity. It would also give the lesser parties a chance to generate new ideas that are separate from a hivemind approach, while even allowing them the possibility of a greater say in the hegemony. This balance of power would allow the best fitting leaders of Canada to be chosen and lead the country. Parties or people that aren’t as desirable will never be given the chance to ruin things.
Of course I would want MDP to be the hegemon. We are the most stable and united party, seeming to make most of the decisions and already guiding things the way we want. As hegemon we would adopt a more subtle role in politics, allowing for good ideas to actually push forward instead of blindly trying to control what everyone does through dictatorship. We would give the other parties a fair shot to improve Canada while screening out those things that simply would harm the country. We would even allow other candidates a shot at CP, assuming they are good candidates bettering the country. All in all, it would be a fair balance of power and efficiency, allowing for Canada to make quick, concise, and effective decisions while still giving all parties some say in the process.
I’m interested in hearing the thoughts from both my party and the others out there. I’m certain some of you would feel this system just isn’t right or fair, while others might be more interested in it. Essentially it strikes for a balance between dictatorship and democracy in a way that allows those that know best for Canada to guide those that aren’t as informed. Many of you probably don’t like the idea of MDP being the hegemon either, but that’s the beauty of a hegemony, you don’t have to like it and still get some say!
Your newly appointed MDP financial adviser,
Aries Prime
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
nice read but wasted on this game!
I think this Hegemon idea is already in the works. 🙂
It probably is in many ways.
Also SUFFER's focus away from war is out of necessity, since our current government has essentially bankrupted Canada with these wars.
What are you calling your "coalition" this time?
Super Friends! I've already made the matching t-shirts.
Nice read, voted.
Although I must point out, CPF & MDP are (for now) the top two legitimate law makers here in Canada. As for evaluations of the parties, I encourage you revisit these points in a month or so, you may be surprised to see what changed... or not. 😉
Who is Rylde, also Canada is noob af except for maybe dennis :3
To make this work, one should understand how controlling and dictating people are two different things.
I agree with most of the ideas you present in this article.
A good dictatorship does need refreshing every once in a while. The strong must rise up and take the power, or the leadership becomes dynastic, lazy and corrupt.
As for the hegemony, it would seem that the eCanadian hegemony - in terms of Congress and the like - is ruled by CPF, the largest voting bloc. Based on their sheer size alone, they can - when properly motivated - directly influence the flow of elections and Congressional votes. In point of fact, MDP stands opposed to this, as it had been used for in-house power-swapping for some time before Rylde ran for CP.
I adamantly believe that MDP should be the crown-piece of the eCanadian political pyramid. Intelligent leaders make informed decisions and then see them put into action. Asking a committee how it feels about every last thing is a colossal waste of time and energy, especially in a situation - like CPF - where the committee is a mosaic of individualistic Heroes of Democracy all trying to pull in different directions.
Goal-oriented leadership is generally more effective than poll-taking and rule by committee. That's just the way it is. Those who accuse MDP of seeking to "control" everything do not understand that simple fact. It's not about control, it's about achievement. More focused leadership can achieve more goals, more quickly, than leadership that attempts to follow the "will of the people," because "the people" often don't agree with one another.
Leaders lead. That is what eCanada needs, that is what is required for a war game.
All we need now is for the MDP to get some intelligent leaders then.
Accidentally clicking things seems to be the established CPF protocol now, Monsignor Double-post.
We need better coordinated clickers.
*poke* (;
[removed]
I need a list of the Heroes of Democracy and where to apply please? 😛
Leaders lead. Yep, that's why the CPF continuously puts up leaders that have made excellent CPs. After the usual Rylde run(s), the CPF is here even when things are "boring" to clean up and rebuild. Much like a Zamboni after a long hard fought hockey game. History repeats itself here in eRep.
I'd argue the list of "losers" or lameducks by far outweigh the list of "winners" when it comes to CPF Presidents.
I remember when I had to clean up the mess CPF's CP designed for us in the week of Lightninghands, everything he touched as CP turned to charred wood.
Brucie wasn't a CPF member.
He won your primaries. CPF endorsed him. That makes him your CP.
Clearly you misremember the part about being in his Coalition.
There was no coalition, he thought there was for some reason.
Coalition or no, CPF endorsed Bruce, that makes him your CP. Because I definitely wasn't your CP.
This whole dictatorship business is baloney. Congress doesn't decide much because there is not much to decide... except when it comes to disobeying the dictator's edict to end the war 🙂 Or refusing to do any number of other things the dictator wants done.... Parties aren't middle of the road vs. right wing vs. left wing, cause there isn't anything to decide really or to debate or to disagree about. Oh, and by the way, Canada's dictator introduced what I consider to be a great way to decide on war aims: the war machine... a group of engaged, wealthy, and smart players decide.
Frankly the only significant difference I see between the various political groups is the degree to which they love the language of adolescence. Gives the game some piquant.
"... a group of engaged, wealthy, and smart players decide."
As in, an elite core of players. The powerful few. Seems.... familiar, somehow....
if course it is familiar to the point of being almost invariable viz:.... the powerful include the active, and the wealthy, the smart and the capable. Dictators not so much.
Essentially, you're describing all the power in the hands of the strongest few. Guess what, that's a dictatorship. Or apparently a hegemony. Somewhere within that spectrum, anyhow.
what I describe is broad sharing of political influence and virtual irrelevance of political power. The "powerful few" include just about anyone who wants to be involved. That is a dictatorship, led by a dictator, only to those who start by asserting, contrary to fact, that eCanada is such a thing and then holding to that assertion mindlessly and irrationally. Nor does it assist to marshall the concept of hegemony since the game gives players little latitude: there aren't any deep divisions of culture, principle or even style which are consistently/uniformly imposed on others by the politically active. Well there may be one difference in style: a lot of players hate politics.
All political power in the hands of the elite few is how the far-right operates, son. Put whatever name you like on it, it amounts to the same thing. The smaller the elite group, the further right the party. That's always been my understanding.
Of course I'm always wrong about everything, so carry on with your bad self.
Would be interesting if countries could actually choose different styles of government which would change the game mechanics. Until that day all the talk of differences are really just made up propaganda.
Ha, I'd go monarchy ever time.
King klop has a nice ring to it 😛
Klop, you wouldn't survive as King. We'd assassinate you and put up someone more majestic.
We would klop off his head.
Klop for King.
McVicker can be.. not the court jester, because he's not funny. McVicker can be the guy who curls the toes of the jester's shoes and festoons his outfit with bells and such.
As for ED.... http://youtu.be/mlss_LiNeJk
Queen Mary! with a harem of males.
I think there are a couple of missing pieces here. I know it's called a dictatorship, but really there is no big stick that anyone can yield to enforce said dictatorship. You can't even kick a player out of a political party. The "dictators" that lead have gathered the respect to have their directions followed, else everyone would tell them to fly to the moon.
Second, I know that at face value the CPF and MDP mix together like cats and dogs, but not that far behind the scenes key members of both parties work quite closely together to keep the country running. So in some very strange and highly dysfunctional way, the oligarchy that you describe does exist, it's just drunk off it's ass and lost it's house keys.
The Klop, Smoke Xichael war complex we have going on is only known by the few people who are active, and involved in certain PMs. The public arena is such a game of charades, but put said members of said parties into a Cabinet PM and all Right vs Left, Democracy vs Dictatorship is out the window.
MDP vs CPF is Party Politics, Canadians are Canadians at the end of the line when it comes to Cabinet and Congress.
IMO, Congress is more split (methinks it's because there are many specifics to be bogged down by which ultimately don't matter much lol), but Cabinets are often well unified.
^ Agreed completely. The CPF/MDP are very similar when you get down to the fine details.
We seem to complain a lot about one another, but when put in any CP cabinet we always seem to work well together, and towards a common goal.
Very seldom would there be any disagreements; it is just an unfortunate facet of human character that we feel we need to prove our capability not by speaking to our own accomplishments, but rather, speaking to how bad another group is.
"The CPF/MDP are very similar when you get down to the fine details."
Hippie nonsense.
Xander just doesn't like hugs. He'd rather stab you than to hug you, so please, stop trying to hug him. ;P
In other simulations I have seen that generally speaking, no matter what you call your form and style of leadership/government, it always boils down to being an oligarchy. The same people will be in the leadership....democracy or not. The leaders simply shuffle their posts and parties around. The point being that an oligarchy is a natural. How that oligarchy maintains and organizes itself is simply dependent upon the talents and interests of it's individual leaders.
Canada's politics are hopelessly dysfunctional. We make RL look like utopia.
One big happy, dysfunctional family 😁
“When I first came out to America, people told me that in The Sandman, I created a dysfunctional family, which was not a phrase I had heard before that in England. I talked to people about it, and I realized that what people in America called ‘a dysfunctional family’ was the same thing that we in England referred to as ‘a family.’ You didn't see a lot of functional ones." – Neil Gaiman
Which also implies that eUK's politics are more dysfunctional than ours huehueheuhe ;P
Eh. Happy is a matter of opinion. For my part, I've quit voting for anyone who speaks English, it just encourages you. Vive les frenchies.
In regards to saying the MDP dictatorship is flawed saying that having a long serving dictator can breed* greed, arrogance etc.
That is where the Military Council comes into play. The MC is like the PPs cabinet, to advise, make suggestions, and, should the Dictator become lazy, arrogant (in a bad way) or whatever, to stab the Dictator in the back and depose them.
We on the MC pride ourselves in our ability to overthrow the sitting Dictator.
"Et tu, Bluetus"
>.>
You didn think we were there for YOUR good, did you? 😉