Reflections on Democracy

It was 365 days ago today that I received a telegram notifying me that I would be going on trial for violating the Codex of The North Pacific Directorate.

Heft, my main nation until just this past week, was born into The North Pacific just in time for the Pixiedance wars. The conflict can be simplified as one between the pro-Limited Government Confederation and the pro-Strong Executive Directorate. At the time, I sided with the Confederation. Democracy seemed like the right choice; no one owns a Feeder region, how could someone seek to dominate one? Government authority came from the people, how could someone ignore the people’s will?

I got in trouble early on, as I was quite the vocal dissenter (evidenced by my being put on trial). I used every argument I could think of to prove that no one nation had any right, in a Feeder at least, to rule over the rest. The first time I heard of John Locke was when I was asked if I was fan of his, or something along those lines. But even then, did I believe those arguments? Despite my vehement outward support of them, my own feelings were much more conflicted. If these arguments were true, then why was this one person able to defy them?

Every nation has the power to endorse, or not endorse, whomever they wish. This is quite obviously true. If a nation tells you to endorse them, you can refuse; if that nation is the regional delegate and threatens to ban you, you can still refuse, although you probably won’t remain in the region. No nation, not even a regional delegate or founder, can force you to participate, or even to accept, any particular government. All they can do is expel you from the region and keep you from trying to spread dissent amongst those loyal to the government. Thus, all nations have the right to self-determination.

However, this does not equate into a right to choose or in any way influence the government of a region, other than by endorsing or not endorsing the delegate, and even that small influence is lost with founders. Whereas we have absolute control regarding our own nation, we lack any definite powers over our region. We lack even the power to choose our own home, as we can easily be removed from any region we inhabit.

At first, this would seem to support the cause of democracy; no one nation can control the rest, absolutely. Not even the delegate, not even the founder. But, the delegate, in a Feeder, and the founder, in a user-created region, does control the region, if not its inhabitants. They control what form of government is allowable; they dictate what rights are acceptable. If a nation disagrees, they have the choice and power to remove them. Just as a nation has the natural right to dissent, a delegate or founder has the natural right to ban. Founders own their regions, while delegates act as temporary landlords, but in both cases, they have absolute power over the region itself.

True democracy is only possible in small player created regions that have lost their founder, and remain active.

We have reached our first conclusion: Democracy is, in almost all instances, a fraud, perpetrated by the ignorant or manipulative. As such, it seems to follow that Autocracy is the only realistic choice of the honest.

However, to retreat into Dictatorship simply because it is the only honest option is just as pretentious as advocating democracy on moral grounds. It may be more rational to admit that a region's Dictator is just that, but that does not preclude any chance of the Dictator allowing governmental decisions to be made by the populace.

Autocracy for the sake of Autocracy is weak and shallow.

I have fought for democracy, and am currently working to build up a democratic region. I know democracy only works as long as those involved pretend it works, and that the founder of the region can easily eject us all, or turn the region into a blatant autocracy, yet I continue to work for and within it. I pretend it exists.

Why? I know the truth, and I continue to defy it. But must we have truth?
“Why not rather untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance?” (Friedrich Nietzsche, Prejudices of Philosophers) Certainly, it is possible for a founder or delegate to appreciate democracy, and believe in those principles. Also certainly, founders and delegates are Dictators, but they can be Benevolent, and allow or even encourage the growth of democracy, respectable dissent, civil disobedience, and Nation’s Rights. If one refuses to accept that democracy is possible even in a limited form, then they may choose to reside in a region that makes no pretense of being democratic.

A Benevolent Dictator may allow some form of Limited Democracy, and may even go so far as to allow the citizens wishes to supercede their own.

So then, how do we decide which is preferable? We recognize that the strength of the government does not lie in its form, but rather who is driving it. In the hands of an incompetent, even a tank can be rendered useless. In a general sense, it is true that both autocracies and democracies have their own, unique benefits and hurdles. Which is preferable depends on the nations that make up the region and its government. The needs and wants of each region differ, and are for that region to sort out.

Just as every nation has the right to self-determination, so does every region.

Every region has the power and, even, responsibility of self-determination. A regions form of governance should not be decided by outside powers or influences. Where the largest threat to a nation’s sovereignty is the UN, the largest threat to a region’s is Democratic Imperialism. Democratic Imperialists are those nations and regions that believe they have a moral obligation to spread the joys of democracy throughout the NationStates world, whether or not anyone wants those particular joys.

These people are not only the enemies of Autocracy in every form, but the enemies of the very Democracy they champion. They can usually be classified as the astonishingly ignorant ones in Democratic regions. Very few are willing (or perhaps able) to understand basic concepts such as “Democracies are usually just benevolent dictatorships in disguise”, “Autocracies, especially successful ones, are capable of being just as effective and intellectual as any democracy, and just as good for their participants”, and, most importantly, “In NationStates, those living under Autocracies do not need to be freed.”

These noble ones, these enlightened liberators! They are the vermin of NationStates. The Morally Righteous! They do not but harm their own cause, while all the true friends of freedom and democracy hang their heads in embarrassment. It is no accident that I have grown from an advocate of democracy to a defender of autocracy; these ignoramuses, the Free Idiots, have cultivated within me disgust for freedom. It is they who have pushed me to admire the honest Autocrat.

A common symptom of the Free Idiot is the complete lack of independent thought. But, if these people were able, or willing (whichever the case may be), to think for themselves, they would undoubtedly realize they are wrong and misguided. As such, herd addiction is a requirement. The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard got it right, “People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid.”


originally from the Gatesville Gazette, Edition IV, Issue I, February 19th

Crikey. I can honestly say I've never seen an article go from something I agreed with to something I considered guff quite as quickly as this one. I don't mean to offend, but this particular statement

A common symptom of the Free Idiot is the complete lack of independent thought. But, if these people were able, or willing (whichever the case may be), to think for themselves, they would undoubtedly realize they are wrong and misguided.

Click to expand...

appears paradoxical. Is it just me? Rephrase it and you get - "If you could think for yourself, you'd realise that what I thought was the one true path after all!" Or something similar.

What seems to be the point of this article, that regions should not be forced into democracy, is a valid point. In my personal opinion though, which I have spent a lot of time in forming, any honest autocrat would suspend his/her absolute power in order to provide for the mutual good of the nations in their region. I would try to, or at least I hope I would, I've never been a delegate.

Also, I have to confess I don't really understand the article's viewpoint on democracy. It seems to be saying that democracy is benevolent dictatorship in disguise and decrying it because of that, but then saying that benevolent dictatorship is the ideal form of government. Bit odd really

I absolutely love this statement:

Democratic Imperialists are those nations and regions that believe they have a moral obligation to spread the joys of democracy throughout the NationStates world, whether or not anyone wants those particular joys.

Click to expand...

In an autocracy, the delegate/founder's attitudes are his/her "divine right". They are the voice of their region, so who else but them is going to decide whether they want democracy or not? I think that people have no form of government imposed upon them, they should decide for themselves. If they reject democracy then there's nothing wrong with that as long as it floats their collective boats, but if they reject autocracy and the autocrat disagrees, that's wrong. Many people feel it is an innate truth that in a social environment, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (God bless Captain Kirk). I suppose that really, the article's argument is that Autocracy is the underlying truth protected by game mechanics, so therefore dictators get a natural pro to add to their list, regardless of the cons of having one will in charge of a region. I don't believe this is the case, as "The Federal Republic of Some Guy" just turning up in a region, endotarting and gaining the delegacy does not innately ensure that they are fair, just and intend to look after all and not self-promote, ruling with the will of the region's collective nations. By "ruling with the will of the region's collective nations", I don't mean the loudmouthed political climbing sociopaths who say that the will of the collective nations is being taken into account while completely disregarding it. My argument is that neither democracy nor autocracy is innate, but that both are capable of being chosen, and that concentrated power is always present but it is possible to minimise it's concentration and provide a common quality of existence for all within a region. I do not believe that autocratic beliefs, self-promoting beliefs, however, are valid ones. They cause pain and upset for other people and are selfish. That is why I reject that kind of Autocracy, and accept the benevolent autocracy of democratic government.

Crikey. I can honestly say I've never seen an article go from something I agreed with to something I considered guff quite as quickly as this one.

Click to expand...

Heh, well at least you liked some of it, then.

I see how you can interpret that sentence that way, but it was more meant to point out that I just don't see how anyone thinking independently and somewhat objectively can still feel like they must enforce democracy around the NS World than to assert my superiority.

As for your second point (honest autocrat would suspend their power), we just disagree. While it is certainly possible and even common, it is not necessary. An honest Autocrat could run a regime based on merit and, if the Autocrat is competent enough, those that truly deserve to be in positions of responsibility would get there.

My viewpoint is mainly that democracy isn't inherently justified, as some people believe, that democracy isn't necessarily the best or worst form of government, that democracy is just a benevolent dictatorship in disguise, and that benevolent dictatorship, led by a competent dictator, whether through an effective democracy or an honest autocrat, is the best form of government. How well I managed to articulate that in the article, I'm not sure.

If a region is already Autocratic and a large group of nations enter the region and demand that it become a democracy because suddenly this new majority wants it that way, do you expect them to be taken seriously?

Now, if a region is already Democratic and a Delegate throws it into Autocracy against the will of the already established majority, I would expect those that truly cared about the region and believed it should be democratic to fight. However, I wouldn't fight alongside them. And, of course, the question must be asked, "How did the region get overthrown to begin with?" Not all the fault can lie with the new Dictator. With the exception of Pixiedance, a nation usually has to actually gain the delegacy to overthrow it. Why was this person allowed to gain the delegacy?

If a Founder removes a democratic government, than that's just too bad. It is their region, they certainly have that right. Besides, I don't think an unendorsement campaign would be too effective.

If The Federal Republic of Some Guy manages to come in and gain the delegacy, I would have to classify the previous Dictator (however fair and just they may be) as either neglectful or just plain incompetent in what should be a delegates main task: Protecting the region from The Federal Republic of Some Guy.

An Honest Autocrat could easily rule with the will and needs of the majority in mind. In fact, that is the best Autocrat, and usually the most competent and intelligent, since ruling like that is in their best interest and shows that they intend on actually being in charge of a good region, and not just playing Dictator.

I do not believe that autocratic beliefs, self-promoting beliefs, however, are valid ones. They cause pain and upset for other people and are selfish. That is why I reject that kind of Autocracy, and accept the benevolent autocracy of democratic government.

Click to expand...

This is not always true. Such an Autocracy is not something I would choose, or support. No one who has ambitions to rule in a region, whether as a democratically elected Prime Minister or President or whatever, or as an Autocrat, has purely unselfish motives. However, it is usually in their best interest to act in the interests of the people.

Autocracies do not have to cause pain or upset or suffering for those involved, and should not. Once again, a truly competent Honest Autocrat would rule in such a way as to make the game enjoyable for the populace, thereby attracting more people and making the game more enjoyable for the Autocrat.

My viewpoint is mainly that democracy isn't inherently justified, as some people believe, that democracy isn't necessarily the best or worst form of government, that democracy is just a benevolent dictatorship in disguise, and that benevolent dictatorship, led by a competent dictator, whether through an effective democracy or an honest autocrat, is the best form of government.

Click to expand...

I don't really understand that, sorry. You say that democracy is benevolent dictatorship and that it isn't the best or worst form of government, but then that benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government I'm backing out of this because I failed to keep to one of my main tenets, which is not to get involved in political debate on the internet