The following agora took place between the 13th of February, 2021, and the 20th of February, 2021. The moderators were Sammy23, Nociav (Askar), and Aivinits. The participants were Nociav and Zukchiva. The Agora was done in an RP-esque manner with the setting being a bar
Nociav
Suddenly, while the debate about memory was happening, another bartender appeared:
I love this debating. So why not another topic in order to boom all this? Most of us come from regions with healthy democracies with varying degrees of democratic institutions. Because we do things differently, we should discuss how our regions do things (and how we think they ought to). Everything to do with democracy and how far it can work in NS. Should we elect ministers, should the RMB vote on laws and in elections, how far should authority extend without a vote? Do game mechanics hinder it? What are your thoughts?
Opening Statements
Nociav
Askar takes his seat, putting away two horns affixed to his forehead before beginning.
I think this is a very interesting topic. It is my opinion that democracy is impossible because of game mechanics. I will talking about GCRs here but the general principles apply to UCRs to an extent. The reasons I give for this are first, the lack of an in-built democratic system. There are substitutes for this such as forum elections but I consider these undemocratic as well. Where do the rest of you stand on this? We can get to cross examining each other after we find out where we all stand.
Askar ends his statement and waits eagerly to hear other opinions.
Zukchiva
The goose sits down, ignoring the mounds of homework stuck in his car. He ruffles his feathers before presenting his own opening statement:
In my opinion, of course the oligarchic nature of NationStates has to be acknowledged before a debate on democracy can begin.
User-Created Regions (UCRs) are, for sure, oligarchic so long as they have a Founder. The Founder holds ultimate power. As for the Game-Created Regions (GCRs) and Founderless UCRs, they too are oligarchic by nature for security reasons with “Security Councils” or “Guardians” holding more endorsements and influence than anyone else.
So, democracy. Where does democracy get its mandate from? One could say it is a form of a social contract between those in mechanical “power” (Founders, Guardians) versus those who are not (everyone else). In effect, the Founders/Guardians agree to form/participate in a democracy and self-limit their power, in return for making a democratic government possible. This social contract is much more stable with GCRs (since even if one Guardian refuses the social contract, so long as the other Guardians uphold it everything is fine) than UCRs (Founder can just coup on their lonesome), but nonetheless it exists.
So is democracy possible? I would say yes. It is. So long as those in power allow it to exist and subscribe to its system, such a government can exist. The same can, infact, be said of any government no matter how on-site it is or how authoritarian it is.
Democracy does not have to necessarily rest on the mandate of the people, it only needs structures which allow the people to exercise their voice via vote. So despite being based upon oligarchy, democracy can exist in a very pure form so long as Founders/Guardians allow it too. But what if democracy does rely on the average resident afterall?
Take two examples: the East Pacific Fedele 2019 coup, where your everyday TEP resident decided to unendorse Fedele and endorse then-in-power government, showing that the residents wanted a democracy. Or take the recent Social Liberal Union Founder coup- yes, the Founder denied his region democracy, so many SLU residents moved to another region called The Social Liberal Union. And one can see that TSLU is now thriving while SLU is dead. So in a sense, despite not having much power individually compared to Founders/Guardians, as a collective, the people themselves can rebel and throw off anyone who threatens democracy.
So I would ultimately close off by saying that yes, democracy is possible and it can exist so long as the people (or residents of a region) choose to give the Founder or Guardians any power (Founders= residents don’t try to found a splinter region, Guardians= residents give their endorsements to Guardians). Should a Founder/Guardians coup, the people have a choice on whether they want to go along with the coup, or re-instate their democracy in some way, shape, or form.
In other words, yes. Democracy is possible in the context of NationStates.
Cross Examination
Nociav
Askar listens to the goose, surprised that it has developed language capabilities.
I’m glad that we found common ground to debate from. Indeed, UCRs with founders are inherently oligarchical since the founder has power regardless of the people. I also agree that democracy is a social agreement. The agreement is quickly summarised as “power comes from the people”. The points you bring up are very good but I insist. And I similarly agree that, in theory, democracy is possible.
However, common ground ends there. I maintain that democracy in NS is impossible.
Because of the severe power imbalance between the Delegate and the average nation, democracy can not work in practice. It depends too much on the goodwill of those in power.
In GCRs the social agreement has been breached and I will explain how.
Askar pauses before continuing.
Firstly, modern GCRs consider it treasonous to have another person propelled to the Delegacy no matter how much more popular the candidate it. The Delegacy isn’t legitimised in GCRs by the most endorsements but by forum elections and these forum elections are not democratic.
The structures you mention that people exercise their vote through is not democracy. Democracy is power from the people. This democratically means it comes from endorsements. Forum elections are a proxy system where nations forfeit true democracy in the form of endorsements and instead list preferred candidates. Democracy is power from the people not power from the people by proxy.
Further to my point before. Forums are not representative which undermines the point that they are democratic. The vast majority of nations are not registered on the forums of their region which excludes them from election the Delegate which is supposed to be democratic. Further removing the democratic element is the mandatory citizenship process that every region requires a nation to go through before being given the right to democratically elect their Delegate. Requiring forum registration is undemocratic enough but citizenship for electing a Delegate that they should have the natural right to do is, in my view, absurd.
Adding to the removal from democracy is forcing nations to ratify the regional governments laws before recieving citizenship. I have already explained how the regional goverbment is undemocratic but forcing ratification of the governments laws before electing the Delegate forces nations to capitulate to the oligarchy already in place.
You mention the Fedele coup and SLU as examples. The SLU is an example of the undemocratic power of founders being turned against the people and I see this as holding both our points.
The Fedele coup is an interesting example as it hapoened in a GCR but the Fedele coup happened within the undemocratic system itself. The people were forbidden from electing anyone else other than government officials opposing the coup and were subject to ejections and bans by Fedele. Truly a double bind.
Enough from me though. I’m eager to hear your thoughts.
Askar drinks some of his ginger beer.
Zukchiva
The goose thinks for a second before replying:
I, too, am glad we have found some common ground between us- that is what makes for a good debate.
Your entire argument rests upon the idea that forum governments are undemocratic. I disagree with this idea, and I will focus on it whilst focusing on principles applicable to Game-Created Regions for now.
Democracy can come in many forms. It is true that in-game mechanics possibly present the most “pure” form of democracy in this game. But to say forum governments are oligarchic is incorrect.
Why? Because people can always unendorse in a democracy. Even if the leaders of the region are chosen in an off-site method, it ultimately rests upon the World Assembly nations of the Region to confirm the World Assembly Delegate. They have the sovereign choice of endorsing- or not. The same goes for any Game-Created Region Delegacy and any GCR government. If enough people refuse to endorse, the government doesn’t have power. Period.
The reason this doesn’t work in theory is because most people do not think of the greater ideal when they endorse someone- most people just endorse to get endorsed in return. But, remember that democracy is not about having educated voters but just giving people the ability to vote in general. Even uneducated, these people are still casting their vote daily, twice a day. And they elect to keep the government in power.
So while it is true that people may be limited in endorsements, the fact is that ultimately if they really wanted too, people could tear down the entire regional structure. They just do not want too- and that is their choice. Ergo, any forum government DOES lie on the mandate of the people, because ultimately it survives on the people’s on-going assent to that system of governance.
Now, the next part that needs to be addressed is your claim that forums and citizenship processes are oligarchic because they prevent a certain amount of people from participating in government processes. In this regard, you are correct. However, what tends to be ignored here is that GCRs are not trying to prevent people from getting into power. In reality, GCRs always crave new citizens- it’s almost an addiction. To say that a group is “oligarchic” and imply that it is corrupt when the same group constantly seeks to involve new people creates a contradiction. Ergo, forum governments are not oligarchic.
In essence, it is true that forum governments are not that representative of the Region, but not being fully representative does not automatically make something oligarchic or corrupt. Ultimately, forum governments allow a smaller (but not actually small) group of people to select from any interested candidate- and that candidate must be confirmed by the greater population before they can receive power. This is not the most direct government system, of course, but nonetheless it is in my view a democracy because the people do have power to change the system in their own way.
Therefore, I would retort that democracy is possible in NS.
Nociav
After Zuk had fisnished speaking, Askar replied.
It is true to say that nations can unendorse a government however this does not work in practice considering the power imbalance between those in charge and those who are not.
You say that nations have the right of not endorsing the Delegate however this right does not mean they can endorse anyone as Delegate. Should the average nation endorse someone other than the forum elect for the Delegacy, the nation would be charged for treason and would quickly banned from the region. They may endorse the Delegate and they may not but they must not elect a different Delegate.
Moving on to your next point, you say that Democracy is about giving the people the vote and the people choose to give the government power. I would say choose is too strong a word. Acquiescence is a more accurate word. These nations, despite their acquiescence, still should be given the right to elect a Delegate other than the forum elect. Furthermore, democracy undone by a once democratically elected government does not make the new system democratic. There once was a government elected by endorsements rather forum elections but that government no longer exists. It turned to off site methods and has since been removed from the democracy it once was.
Regarding your next point, I admit that GCRs do not try to prevent people from achieving power through forum elections and I certainly would not call the GCRs oligarchic. I have been careful to avoid that term. I believe the only time I have used it was to refer to UCRs with founders. Even there, I used it too freely and I have to withdraw that.
It is true that GCRs do not prevent people from entering power through the Citizenship process and actively encourage Citizenship.
You mention the forum process of electing the Delegate. Although not being wholly representative does not mean being undemocratic, I do insist that it is still undemocratic. As you mention, a smaller group of nations must select candidates before being elected by the citizenry. The problem with this is that it is power from the people by proxy and democracy is power from the people. The distinction, in my opinion, does matter.
In anticipation of your response, I will spring another point that I have been thinking of. The purpose of Citizenship is to ensure security from subversives. I admit that a security system is required because of how easy it is for a nation to masquerade as a native and maliciously endorse a subversive Delegate. It is too easy to have a World Assembly nation in any GCR. This is the result of game mechanics and does stump democracy.
I look forward to hearing your response.
Askar drinks some of his ginger beer.
Zukchiva
The goose nodded, gave a listen, then said another piece:
The first point to your rebuttal is incorrect. There is no democratic region (that I know of at least) which banjects the people who refuse to unendorse an individual OR refuse to endorse an individual. The individual in question who gets punished is the one over the endorsement cap- not those endorsing them. At least, the actual people doing the endorsing won’t get punished by a democratic government.
As for those giving acquiescence, they do have the ability to elect the Delegate- just become a Citizen! As you admit a bit later, GCRs are always trying to get new citizens, and most honest natives (meaning coupers or foreigners) get accepted quite easily.
You call forum governments power by proxy yet you admit that the people themselves give acquiescence to this system. This distinction, while it may not matter to all, is an important one because it means that the government is acting upon the people’s agreement. Ergo, the voice of the people is ultimately heard even in forum governments.
Additionally, the basic question of this debate is whether democracy is possible on NationStates. Not whether it is sustainable, but whether it is possible. In this regard, you already mentioned that such democracies have existed in the past and shifted to forum government.
AND, let us not forget about the region of Europe, which is a UCR. In this region, endorsement caps do not exist. While an off-site forum government does exist, all power is invested within the Delegate who holds full Executive authority. Europe is, in a sense, a fully democratic region, as its Founder has agreed to the social contract and has not (from what I know) breached it. This is a democracy in action, and it further proves my point whilst following your princiiples.
Closing Statements
Nociav
Askar looks at the time.
Looks like the bar’s about to close. I would like to thank you Zuk for discussing this with me. I certainly enjoyed discussing this even if I decided to play devil’s advocate. I did learn quite a few things myself.
Zukchiva
The goose gets up and makes to leave, but he turns around a last time before speaking.
“This was a fun debate, thank you for playing the devil’s advocate. It certainly has made the idea of on-site governments much more stronger in my eyes. I, too, learned a lot.”
He then waddles to his home.