Democracy, Communism, or a little of both?

[Sovyet Gelibolu]

I was going to say something along the lines of "I wonder which is cheaper, my shot at GGA or your shot at GATO," but then I realized I'd just be feeding a rather unskilled troll.

[xminorxthreatx]

i lol'd at the GATO post, the only way 100% democracy is possible is through direct means. like the LSF

[Byron Orpheus]

I was going to say something along the lines of "I wonder which is cheaper, my shot at GGA or your shot at GATO," but then I realized I'd just be feeding a rather unskilled troll.

I wasn't taking a cheap shot, I was talking about the efficiency of government.

[Vasili Markov]

The form of government we have right now is not in fact a democracy it is a republic or perhaps a Meritocracy.

Democracy, (lit: people (dêmos) rule (krátos)) is where all people participate in government and this is clearly not the case. many people have little to no say in the actual politics of CN. In many cases the only political power a typical CN player will have is to choose an alliance that reflects his/her own views and thus by increasing the size of that alliance that alliance's policies are made more powerful.

Republics, (lit: the public matter (i.e: the law) res publica) are a system where laws and customs are established to moderate a representative governing body of the public. This can be seen to a certain extent in CN with many alliances having constitutions that clearly define the role of government in the alliance and they will usually have checks and balances in place to allow for the removal of a corrupt mid ranked (and sometimes high ranking) leader.

Meritocracy (lit: Merit (Merito) rule (krátos), is a system where the talented are selected for leadership positions based on their abilities. This system is common in many clans for multi-player games and CN is no exception. A alliance leader is selected by his followers by them recognising his abilities and joining or remaining in his/her alliance. and the leader will then select deputies or ministers to assist him/her on the same basis. So all leaders can be said to be in at least part meritocratic in that they are constantly being judged by their followers and poor leadership will inevitably lead to their removal as leader by various means.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Vasili Markov

[Grand Emperor Brian]

Democracies are annoying in CyberNations.

[Cybren]

Democracy, in the Athenian sense doesn't mean having a voice, or conducting elections. It's about duty and service. Ancient Athens, one of the most belligerent of the city states in ancient Greece, expected all citizens (which was not all residents) to do their duty, and dolled out responsibility through the drawing of lots.

Just for context. What most people refer to democracy in cybernations is thinly veiled anarchy. The expectation of sovereignty of individual nations is what causes most CN democracies to fail. Plenty of alliances have democratic or republican principles and still work.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Cybren

[Starcraftmazter]

There's really only;

Republic (senators, elected officials)

Actual Democracy (referred to as communism - this is what INT has)

Dictatorship & Dictatorship with some elected officials.

I think all can work good and bad - just depends on the leadership.

[Beauty]

Democracy... The people should be Afraid of their government, The Government should be afraid of its people.

[Comrade Craig]

I really don't get this, and I think the fact that you made this thread pretty much proves that you really don't know about how these alliances actually work; it's absurd to make you pick between communist and democratic alliances considering that all communist alliances we have here are basically based on direct, participatory democratic model while ideology is just glitter around the core idea.

This.

I find it ironic that the OP attempts to draw a line between democracy and communism, when the most libertarian and democratic of all alliances on Planet Bob are the so-called "commie" alliances. As a representative of the largest and most successful of all the "communist" alliances, I can tell you that ideology is only a rallying point that unifies us on a social level. In other words, we associate with each other because of a common interest and a shared set of values. The operation of our alliance is strictly democratic, and democracy is not mutually incompatible with our political beliefs.

-Craig

[Finnish Commie]

Myself I am a big friend of authoritarian fascist governments. Down with personal liberties.

Okey directly democratic commie alliances are where I have always been and will most likely be.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Finnish Commie

[Bralor]

In all the alliances there are in the world of Bob, many have different forms of how they run. Some run on one leader for their entire duration, or untill the leader decides to resign. Some of them have monthly elections to see who will get what position.

My question is: Which would you prefer in an alliance: Democracy, Facism, Communism, or a mix of all in some way. Explain why you would choose or not choose this type of govenment

Communism wotrks good in theory, however in practice it is a dismal failure. I prefer a system of Representative Democracy similar to the United States.

[WernerHoffmann]

I guess this all depends on the size of the alliance, its purpose, and its membership. FOUND for example is too small for a large government with elections, but gets along fine as its membership is made up entirely of friends from past alliances and such. As we don't hold elections, the board membership is made up purely of appointees, unless the board wants to bring someone else aboard.

[mrcalkin]

I personally like a meritocracy with a mix in of democracy.

Find a good group of people, start up an alliance. Start out with 2-3 guys as head honchos, call em whatever. They appoint ministers based on merit and experience. Every 3 months have an election for one of the head honcho's seats.

Simple, effective, very strong, shouldn't be a problem with power politics. Problem is, its hard to find really good people that know their stuff to fill the positions. And then you'll always have the regular members that whine and complain about lack of democracy.

This is pretty similar to how Umbrella works now, but we have never seen any complaints about lack of democracy in our appointments. Maybe because we vote on one triumvir per month and have no shortage of voting because of it.