Political Theory and Practice
From the University of The Meritocracy, dated Jan 26 2005 (Lecture One) and Jan 28 2005 (Lecture Two). Written by Thomasia.
Introduction
Welcome to my course on political theory and practice. In this series, you will learn some of the ways by which nations interact, by which groups form, and how relations develop between them. This course will focus on both macropolitical issues, including the nature of the UN in NS, the necessity for alternatives, and explore what some of these are, and their various requirements.
Lecture One: What a Nation is Like
Before we get to the interesting stuff, like how organizations develop and maintain their identities, we need to consider the individual nations themselves, and the tendencies most common amongst them. Perhaps even more so than in reality, nations here tend to embrace their most antagonistic poles of belief, and therefore you end up with an infinitely more dense world that manages to be functionally sparse.
In this crowded nothingness, we can pick out a few archtype nations. Knowing what type of nation you are dealing with is essential, because anything you hope to attempt beyond your own borders depends on how well you can estimate your neighbors. Though the categories I use are a little simplistic, nations tend to fall into a few broad categories.
Indifferent - The vast majority of nations fall into this category. Do not waste time to trying to contact them because they are not there. Their interest will last about two weeks, and then they will fall off the face of the Earth. If you find someone abnormally concerned with their national issues beyond a month, expect that they will be gone, because those decisions are simply not interesting enough to warrant that much attention.
Ideologue - If the nation you are speaking too chooses to gratuitously feature some logo, like the sickle and hammer in the flag, or if their comments sound like they came straight from Marx, you are dealing with the revolutionary pajamadeen. These are nations who may not be able to bring the revolution to reality, but will stand firmly by their doctrine through everything, and should only be addressed in those terms. Be grateful their obstinance is restricted to here.
Groupie - As in sports, there are some who follow the popular team. They are fans of success and interest, and these nations drift to where they action is. They are not linked by anything other than a love of fame, but this will lead them across all ends of the ideological spectrum in interest of ever greater glory. For them, that is simply interaction.
Diplomat - Any nation that serves as a moderator is eligible for this classification. They are recognizable for their tendency to want to prevent conflict, and to peaceable resolve issues. If a nation has the tendency to talk endlessly, they may be this unit. These are the lawyers of the NS world, and are useful as allies, and indomitable as foes. Not because they believe anything specific, but because they have great faith in prodecuralism.
Miscreant - Sometimes, there are just troublemakers. The Kim Jong Il next door who would annex you in a heart beat is here too. Because of rule restrictions, many of these nations have lost interest, but some still persist and remain. Think of them like mercenaries, accountable task for task, and demanding ever more loot.
Leader - Some nations just get it. They manage to play all these aspects, but with such practised ease that they can stab you in the back, and tell you it was acupuncture. Respect these nations, for they will usually deal fairly, and they will be identifiable by their followers. They will appear otherwise than that which they are, if smart, but their talents reveal their mask.
You need to understand these nation types not by my convenient and amusing terms, but by some way of seeing how they think. Politics is about warfare in many cases. Here, that is not as true, as successful politics is merely the ability to use organizational forces and psychological pressure to gain your intended means. Anyone, conceivably, with enough skill, patience, and foresight can use these to play whatever role they desire, if they can successfully deal and/or manipulate these component states.
In my personal experience, a successful organization will necessarily find the value in each of these, and a successful leader, will make use of the attributes possessed by nations of each classification. Above all else, nations seek action or they will die, and you have a tactical advantage if you understand this fact. Things that are otherwise unthinkable become possible, and what happens justifies itself. Removed from consequences, the only successful gambit is to keep raising the stakes.
My course will be based as much around my personal experience and observation as anything else, but I want to be open to your questions and suggestions at any point. I tend to wander, but hopefully, I will be able to provide insight into the relationships that underlie this world.
Lecture Two: The UN
Upon entering the game, the only readily available option to a nation seeking involvement beyond the novelty of a new daily issue is the forums and the United Nations. This is a very tempting environment to enter because you have the presumed capacity to act upon decisions that will affect a majority of the nations in the world. Therefore, it is understandable that new nations often flock to the UN to try and have their voice be heard, or to become involved in the general hubbub of that body.
However, as Meritocrats know all too well, the UN is irredeemably corrupt. This is a function of two things: the number of nations involved and the level of particpation of those who are involved. Since it is simple to join the United Nations, many of the Indifferent nations described earlier come here and vote their will. However, they do so without any discussion or debate, so what the UN essentially degrades itself is a plebescite with a populace who has, on average, slightly leftist tendencies.
If you agree with this viewpoint, joining the UN will accomodate your nation nicely. If not, no amount of arguing, pleading, discussion, or logic will win your case in the UN. There was a time when that was not necessarily the case, as I well know from my experience as UN Delegate, but I can assure you now that it is utterly impossible for anyone to have any command there.
So, any player who actually wants a higher level of interaction is forced to look beyond the UN, and this sets the stage for our infinitely more interesting third session about the organizations that develop to fulfill this need.