Why Democracies Don't Work

[Delta1212]

I think continuity and consistency in policy and government is important to an alliance.

That's not necessarily mutually exclusive with democratic alliances. My position is elected, after all.

[Tygaland]

That's not necessarily mutually exclusive with democratic alliances. My position is elected, after all.

Never said it was. Just that the autocratic system guarantees that consistency and continuity moreso than democratic models do.

[zimmerwald1915]

Yes, it is the method of identifying those members that is the crux of the issue. Does a democratic vote to elect representatives successfully identify the best candidate or does it promote a popular but possibly unsuitable member to a role better suited to someone else less spam-inclined? Does direct democracy as a system water down any potential assets to the alliance by removing any way of a talented and dedicated member to rise above the others and put their skills to use?

I've got to say that I've never felt this argument held much water. I won't hold my own experience in CN up as representative (I've spent pretty much all my time in small-to-midsize niche alliances; the largest alliance I've ever been a part of had something like 300 nominal, that is, not necessarily forum-active, members), but I have yet to personally see a case where an election is decided by who is the best spammer. In almost all the elections I've witnessed, both candidates had a record, and they made vociferous use of it. Either they had been in high gov before, or had been exceptionally active or talented in lower, usually appointed, positions. Most alliances that aren't "scratch" alliances, that is, started from nothing by a member who hasn't been in gov before, tend to have a core group of players that know their business, and that people are aware know their business. I will say that the people I've worked with in my own alliance's gov, and the people I've worked with among the gov of our allies who happen to be democratic, knew what they were doing, had some experience, and made use of those things. Then again, I worked with FA people, so again, I should beware of generalizing.

A word about one of the arguments I've used: alliances have a core membership that usually stays in gov. This could be used equally well as a justification for autocratic "meritocracy". The major differences, as I pointed out in my last post, are that the hiring and firing power has been transferred from the autocrat to the body politic, and that there is a turnover in democratic alliances not necessarily seen in "meritocracies". When the talented pool of a meritocracy gets too big for the current number of positions, the usual solution is either to fire people and replace them (not a good move unless the person fired is either inactive or of suspect loyalty), or to create new positions. The new positions created are usually subordinate to existing positions; this can, and does not have to, lead to ossification and sclerosis, as the person and the position become inextricably linked over time. It can also lead to some resentment in the lower ranks precisely because there isn't room for promotion into the smaller higher ranks. In a democracy, you don't necessarily have this problem. In the alliances I've been in (which are, again, not necessarily representative), you have a couple possible situations. The first is that yes, one member and one position are intimately associated, but there is a persistent challenger that, though he has little chance at the polls, nevertheless keeps the incumbent on his toes and innovative. The second is that there is rapid turnaround, either caused by one person switching jobs every election (some people are just THAT good), and his perennial challenger taking his place, or by there being actual competition between to just-about-equally-competent and well-liked people for the job. The third is that only one person is actually suited to the job and thus is the only person who runs; this situation is not really different from the situation in autocratic "meritocracies", except that the person goes through the form of an election every once in a while.

As almost everybody with sense (or who has been through this debate ad nauseum already) has said in this thread, it's basically a matter of taste. The actual results produced by democratic and autocratic forms of government aren't really that different; it comes down to what kind of a community you want to live in.

Lame ending, I know.

P.S. To Legend: learn to take a joke.

Edited October 10, 2009 by zimmerwald1915

[Joe Kremlin]

It's good to be able to affect public policy more than just discussing the issue. If anything a democracy at least lets members get a little more involved.

[Delta1212]

Never said it was. Just that the autocratic system guarantees that consistency and continuity moreso than democratic models do.

Certain continuities aren't exactly as desirable as others though.

Democracies certainly can fall into the popularity contest trap, but autocracies are equally at risk of falling into the trap of complacency. Once the leadership that built a successful alliance cycles out, it needs to be replaced. A poor replacement in a democracy can be removed fairly easily. A poor replacement in an autocracy is unlikely to relinquish power even if they aren't doing very well.

[Tygaland]

I've got to say that I've never felt this argument held much water. I won't hold my own experience in CN up as representative (I've spent pretty much all my time in small-to-midsize niche alliances; the largest alliance I've ever been a part of had something like 300 nominal, that is, not necessarily forum-active, members), but I have yet to personally see a case where an election is decided by who is the best spammer. In almost all the elections I've witnessed, both candidates had a record, and they made vociferous use of it. Either they had been in high gov before, or had been exceptionally active or talented in lower, usually appointed, positions. Most alliances that aren't "scratch" alliances, that is, started from nothing by a member who hasn't been in gov before, tend to have a core group of players that know their business, and that people are aware know their business. I will say that the people I've worked with in my own alliance's gov, and the people I've worked with among the gov of our allies who happen to be democratic, knew what they were doing, had some experience, and made use of those things. Then again, I worked with FA people, so again, I should beware of generalizing.

A word about one of the arguments I've used: alliances have a core membership that usually stays in gov. This could be used equally well as a justification for autocratic "meritocracy". The major differences, as I pointed out in my last post, are that the hiring and firing power has been transferred from the autocrat to the body politic, and that there is a turnover in democratic alliances not necessarily seen in "meritocracies". When the talented pool of a meritocracy gets too big for the current number of positions, the usual solution is either to fire people and replace them (not a good move unless the person fired is either inactive or of suspect loyalty), or to create new positions. The new positions created are usually subordinate to existing positions; this can, and does not have to, lead to ossification and sclerosis, as the person and the position become inextricably linked over time. It can also lead to some resentment in the lower ranks precisely because there isn't room for promotion into the smaller higher ranks. In a democracy, you don't necessarily have this problem. In the alliances I've been in (which are, again, not necessarily representative), you have a couple possible situations. The first is that yes, one member and one position are intimately associated, but there is a persistent challenger that, though he has little chance at the polls, nevertheless keeps the incumbent on his toes and innovative. The second is that there is rapid turnaround, either caused by one person switching jobs every election (some people are just THAT good), and his perennial challenger taking his place, or by there being actual competition between to just-about-equally-competent and well-liked people for the job. The third is that only one person is actually suited to the job and thus is the only person who runs; this situation is not really different from the situation in autocratic "meritocracies", except that the person goes through the form of an election every once in a while.

As almost everybody with sense (or who has been through this debate ad nauseum already) has said in this thread, it's basically a matter of taste. The actual results produced by democratic and autocratic forms of government aren't really that different; it comes down to what kind of a community you want to live in.

Lame ending, I know.

P.S. To Legend: learn to take a joke.

Indeed, it is up to personal preference as to what sort of government you wish to live under which is why I have stressed that a number of times in my posts.

From my experience, both in CN and other political sims, democracy does not produce the best government. Noisy incompetents are often thrown into jobs they have no aptitude for or no desire to fulfil. You may not have had that experience but I have seen it happen a lot. The STA even experimented with an elected council to discuss and propose improvements to the alliance and a spammer who I'd not let near the levers of any alliance won the chairperson position (most votes received in council vote) a number of times which kind of proved my point with regards to democracy.

If people want to be part of a democracy (direct or representative) or an autocracy or anything in between then they certainly have a number of choices in CN which is good. Opinions are exactly that and I doubt pulling examples of this and that will change anyone's preferences. My preference is based on about 7 years of playing political simulation type games so it will take a fair bit to sway that opinion now.

[Tygaland]

Certain continuities aren't exactly as desirable as others though.

Democracies certainly can fall into the popularity contest trap, but autocracies are equally at risk of falling into the trap of complacency. Once the leadership that built a successful alliance cycles out, it needs to be replaced. A poor replacement in a democracy can be removed fairly easily. A poor replacement in an autocracy is unlikely to relinquish power even if they aren't doing very well.

Actually no. An autocracy such as the STA can remove people from roles as easily as they are appointed. I tend to find democracies have more red tape with regards to removing incompetent officials than autocracies do. And, if the creator/leader of an autocratic alliance is incompetent then people can leave and join another alliance or start a new one. Members of alliances vote with their feet and that is a vote no one can ignore.

[Asriel Belacqua]

LSF has been in existence since May 1, 2006. They're three years and five months old.

That's right. I keep thinking they disappeared for a short while, but they never did (just shrank... a lot). I stand corrected, thanks mate.

[zimmerwald1915]

That's right. I keep thinking they disappeared for a short while, but they never did (just shrank... a lot). I stand corrected, thanks mate.

There was that incident where someone declared the LSF disbanded and nuked their forum...ah, memory.

[Delta1212]

Actually no. An autocracy such as the STA can remove people from roles as easily as they are appointed. I tend to find democracies have more red tape with regards to removing incompetent officials than autocracies do. And, if the creator/leader of an autocratic alliance is incompetent then people can leave and join another alliance or start a new one. Members of alliances vote with their feet and that is a vote no one can ignore.

I was talking about that leadership role, rather than lower appointed positions. And if the membership leaves the alliance en masse because the leadership is bad, then the alliance is dead and that is sort of my point. Democracies are less likely to suffer that fate because it's easier to remove the person in high office than it is in an autocracy.

[Tygaland]

I was talking about that leadership role, rather than lower appointed positions. And if the membership leaves the alliance en masse because the leadership is bad, then the alliance is dead and that is sort of my point. Democracies are less likely to suffer that fate because it's easier to remove the person in high office than it is in an autocracy.

The alliance is not necessarily dead, just smaller. The whole idea of an autocracy is the one person as leader model. I'm not sure how other alliances operate but the STA certainly makes that clear to anyone joining the alliance by way of our entrance exam. Making it easy to depose the leader in an autocracy is not really fitting with that government model and, as has been seen in CN quite often, autocracies with incompetent and/or inexperienced leaders rarely last long or grow large enough because no one wants to stick by such a leader.

With regards to other government officials, an elected Minister that was incompetent would either be left in place until the next election or some sort of impeachment process put into action followed by another election for a replacement which, in any reasonably sized alliance, would mean a department would be in limbo for weeks. Whereas an autocracy could fire the incompetent official immediately and appoint a new one in a matter of hours.

There are pros and cons to both systems but I think autocracies tend to be advertised as products of their leader so there is no real mystery to the direction and policy of an autocracy whereas a democracy can be less predictable. If you don;t like the leader or their policies then join another alliance. If not enough people want to live under that leader's policy then the alliance fails. Survival of the fittest.

[zimmerwald1915]

With regards to other government officials, an elected Minister that was incompetent would either be left in place until the next election or some sort of impeachment process put into action followed by another election for a replacement which, in any reasonably sized alliance, would mean a department would be in limbo for weeks. Whereas an autocracy could fire the incompetent official immediately and appoint a new one in a matter of hours.

Or, the people writing charters for democracies came to grips with this problem when they were writing said charters and devised a solution. Just using an example from my alliance, when someone is elected to gov, they appoint a deputy, who, legally speaking, shares that person's duties. In reality the situation's more complex: there's usually some sort of division of labor. However, the point is that when Gov Member A is removed by recall, grows inactive, or leaves, deputy a is right there, with a specific mandate to pick up the slack (he also gets the spiffy title and the bigger office). No week-long waits, no bringing of the alliance to a halt. Just simple contingency planning well in advance.

Again, that's just my alliance; others almost certainly do it differently (electing the deputy as well, for example, if their democratic scruples are greater, or possibly having a totally different line of succession). However, I would be very surprised, given the influence RL has on activity, if a democratic alliance with either a reasonable age or possessed of leaders with a reasonable amount of experience doesn't have some sort of contingency plan for when leaders go inactive or have to be replaced in the middle of terms.

After all, we're not all suicida folk who want to run our alliances into the ground.

Edited October 10, 2009 by zimmerwald1915

[Tygaland]

Or, the people writing charters for democracies came to grips with this problem when they were writing said charters and devised a solution. Just using an example from my alliance, when someone is elected to gov, they appoint a deputy, who, legally speaking, shares that person's duties. In reality the situation's more complex: there's usually some sort of division of labor. However, the point is that when Gov Member A is removed by recall, grows inactive, or leaves, deputy a is right there, with a specific mandate to pick up the slack (he also gets the spiffy title and the bigger office). No week-long waits, no bringing of the alliance to a halt. Just simple contingency planning well in advance.

Again, that's just my alliance; others almost certainly do it differently (electing the deputy as well, for example, if their democratic scruples are greater, or possibly having a totally different line of succession). However, I would be very surprised, given the influence RL has on activity, if a democratic alliance with either a reasonable age or possessed of leaders with a reasonable amount of experience doesn't have some sort of contingency plan for when leaders go inactive or have to be replaced in the middle of terms.

After all, we're not all suicida folk who want to run our alliances into the ground.

And if the deputy is also inactive or leaves too?

The point being, autocracies are better charged to handle the random things that can cause delays in a democratic system.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Tygaland

[zimmerwald1915]

And if the deputy is also inactive or leaves too?

Then the alliance clearly doesn't have enough members to fill its gov. It is probably dead or dying

The point being, autocracies are better charged to handle the random things that can cause delays in a democratic system.

Whereas my point is this is not a hard and fast rule, but rather a tendency that doesn't necessarily apply in every given situation. Most inherent "problems" in any given government can be overcome with proper forethought and good preparation.

[Kzoppistan]

I guess it's easier to jump ship when things aren't going your way than do the real work that makes it function, huh?

Edited October 10, 2009 by Kzoppistan

[Haven for Peace]

I disagree with you because the system works for TYR.

The first was no accountability, or better yet no sense of responsibility or obligation...

Don't blame the system. It's the members.

The Second problem was that the spirit of a democratic society can not last.

I disagree because there will always be people who supports a democracy.

The next problem was corruption.

Again, it's the members, not the system.

Next was the constant change of government

Then change the length of terms?

Lastly, was that it would be very difficult to change once it had set down a certain course.

Perhaps so, but it wouldn't be democratic if you change without the majority approval of your members, no?

So you don't like democracies, but it doesn't mean it don't work. TYR is one of the living proofs in CN that democracies can work.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Star Gazing

[Ray Matveyev]

I disagree with you because the system works for TYR.

And it works for us. Democracies can work in peacetime, many people say "they fail in war", which many direct democracies that I know of have implemented safety systems for effecient government during wartime. This argument sounds like a lot of arguments to why people say that communism or socialism wouldn't work. Just because you had one bad experience in a direct democratic alliance doesn't mean that all alliances operating under that system end up working the same way. I've been in three alliances where they've operated by that system and I've liked it a lot more than authoritarian systems.

[Tygaland]

Then the alliance clearly doesn't have enough members to fill its gov. It is probably dead or dying

It must be a tiny alliance if 2 members leaving means they have not enough members to form a government!

Whereas my point is this is not a hard and fast rule, but rather a tendency that doesn't necessarily apply in every given situation. Most inherent "problems" in any given government can be overcome with proper forethought and good preparation.

Most, not all.

[Tygaland]

I guess it's easier to jump ship when things aren't going your way than do the real work that makes it function, huh?

Who are you directing this at?

[shahenshah]

I disagree here. Dictatorships tend to keep the same leader for a long time (Polar for over a year now, IRON for almost a year, NPO for almost 3 years, TOOL for its entire existence, MK for pretty much its entire existence, etc etc). This can be a good or bad thing, depending on the abilities of the leader in question.

Actually I challenge you to find an autocratic alliance that has had more than one leader per 8 months of its existence.

Just FYI, IRON President is not a dictator nor an autocrat.

[polisofboy]

but if democracy helped athens win the peloponnesian war, then democracy is work

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Any system is only as good as the people trying (or failing to try) to make it work.

You can have a good functioning democracy as long as the members overwhelmingly are and remain well-informed, competent, etc.

However in very few democracies is it possible to keep all the members well-informed. Most have fairly open recruiting, and are dependent on pacts for security, which requires keeping secrets, which means the members are not always well-informed. Some very stupid situations can come up regularly, electorates completely out of touch with reality, leaders selected by popularity rather than utility... spend enough time in a democracy and you may get very very sick of the BS if you are like me.

Aristocracy/monarchy isnt a magic bullet either, it has its own problems of course. On the balance I like it better, regardless of my position (and I've been from foot soldier to gov under several variations of each) but I dont want to say one is intrinsically better than the other. It really just depends on which set of problems you find most annoying I suppose.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Sigrun Vapneir

[WolfsPride]

Kamino,

Not sure where your Mind is but you were FAR from being Emperor. Your popularity was due to the fact that you were active on the forum. Not because of Knowledge. You were made MoHA because of someone stepping down and handing the reighns to you.

Although I agree that DOC will not last much longer, I won't sit here and talk trash about them. They have good ideals but don't know how to implement them. I left DOC for personal reasons that won't be mentioned here.

I personally wish them all the luck and prosperity to survive in this game though

[Ejayrazz]

Every government has it's flaws. Government can never be perfect because it is run by people, who are all imperfect.

Brilliant.

Democracies usually only work in invite-only alliances, or those with vigorous standards. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rules.

[Fronz]

I used to be a real fan of democracies, and even re-wrote and put forth many amendments for the USN's charter to play around and see what worked the best. the only plus they have imo is they give members something to do during peace time (run for elections, all that jazz). That really was it. the major down sides i noticed were If a majority of the government people become inactive the system essentially stops to a crawl, because of friendships or fear of that person leaving, people would not try to forcibly remove them, and we would have to wait until the next election to get active members in government. Another huge problem with elections was if a long time government member did not get re-elected, they would essentially leave the alliance and create a new one, or join another alliance. This usually created huge exoduses as members would usually follow these leaders. The third major flaw was If someone or a group of people did not get what they wanted in a vote they would leave the alliance, especially during times of looming war when decisions must me made, huge problems would arise when a minority vote could block the majority from doing anything. This too would create huge exoduses after massive amounts of drama which are just exhausting and tiresome.

From what I saw at the USN, Democracy did more to hurt the alliance then help it. Just look at the pre-karma war stats and post-karma war stats, not being able to reach a decision about the war hurt them more then the war would have. and that is why I am now a member of a democracy-free alliance now