01-16-2010, 07:48 PM
I originally drafted & [unsuccessfully] submitted this proposal a while back, using the nation of 'St Edmund'. That country left the WA "for good" just as the Bears were joining for the first time and, IC, sold us some of their drafts. As this one seems to fit the regional ethos I'll post it (in a WA-suitable version) here_
Quote: Aid In Democratic Elections
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Description: The World Assembly,
REALISING that multi-party, representative democracy is a good way of running nations, inasmuch as governments formed by this method are significantly less likely than those formed by various other methods either to oppress their peoples cruelly or to launch wars of aggression;
BELIEVING that this form of government, and democracy in general, should therefore be encouraged;
REALISING that some nations which attempt to change over from other forms of government to this one may find the process difficult, especially if they lack existing local traditions of democracy upon which to build, and that even nations that have already been run under this system for a while may sometimes experience difficulties in operating it properly;
1. URGES the governments of nations where any elections for public office and/or any referenda are held to ensure that these are conducted fairly;
2. URGES those same governments to allow the presence of neutral 'observers' during all stages of those events;
3. CREATES the ?World Assembly Democracy Advisory and Reporting Service? (or ?WADARS?) to provide national governments with assistance in these matters, and defines its roles as being _
a. To gather information about the existing and theoretical designs for democratic systems of government, electoral systems and voting methods;
b. To analyse this information, and then to draw up models of ?best practice? in such matters to take account of the differing circumstances in different countries;
c. To make all this information freely available to any legal governments and legal political parties who request it, and to send advisers on such matters to any legal governments that request this;
d. To provide whoever is now in effective control of any nations whose former regimes have either collapsed or been overthrown with advice on the creation of democratic governments there, if they request this;
e. To accredit suitable governments, political parties, religious organisations and other organisations, as appropriate sources of neutral observers for monitoring elections and/or referenda in order to see whether these are carried out fairly and efficiently;
f. To coordinate and facilitate the despatch of teams of observers, which may also include or even consist solely of WADARS personnel, to monitor elections and/or referenda in any nations whose legal governments officially request this and also in any nations whose governments publicly claim them to be multi-party democracies and in which any legal political parties request this, and to arrange for the publication and distribution of those missions? reports;
4. REQUIRES the governments of nations to which those observation missions are sent to refrain from harassing the observers or impeding their work, to provide them with adequate protection from any other sources of harassment and/or impediment if they so request, and to refrain from impeding the subsequent publication and distribution of their reports;
5. STIPULATES that, in order to prevent any possible conflict of interest, WADARS may not accept donations or gifts from the governments of ? or any other politicians, organisations, or private individuals from ? any nations to which it either has sent an observation mission during the past five standard years or currently seems likely to send such a mission.
Original author: St Edmund.[/quote]
(= 3?371 characters)
I intend to try improving the passages about accrediting suitable sources of monitors and on including WADARS' own personnel in monitoring missions, and I wouldn't mind a good alternative to "WADARS" either.
Do any of you have any suggestions or remarks to make about any other aspects of this draft?
___________________________________________
AIDE FAQ
1. Isn?t this trying to force Democracy on every nation?
No. It doesn?t force any nation to make any changes at all to its government, it simply provides a source of advice to help those nations that actually want to become more democratic with this process.
2. Why does this only provide advice on Democracy, and not on any of the other possible forms of government as well?
Because I was specifically trying to write a proposal that would fit into the ?Furtherment of Democracy? category, and fitting one that covered a much wider range of options into that category could be difficult. Also, a proposal with a much wider scope in that respect would presumably have to be longer than this one and I?ve only just managed to stay within the limited number of characters that's allowed anyway.
3. Okay, so why doesn?t it [at least] provide advice on ?direct? (or ?participatory?) systems of Democracy, as well as on ?representative? ones?
Mainly because of the limit on proposals? lengths, but also because I have doubts about how viable those systems would really be for populations as large as those of many WA member-nations.
4. Isn?t this trying to force all democratic nations into a single pattern?
No. See clause 3.b, which specifically says that WADARS should design ?models of ?best practice? in such matters to take account of the differing circumstances in different countries;?? and its advice isn?t binding, anyway.
5. Is this trying to turn all nations into republics?
No. See See clause 3.b, which specifically says that WADARS should design ?models of ?best practice? in such matters to take account of the differing circumstances in different countries;?: There are already plenty of quite democratic ?kingdoms?, ?queendoms?, ?empires? & so on ? such as St Edmund, for example ? around, so there?s no reason why it shouldn?t consider their systems as possible prototypes for any monarchical nations that want to become more democratic? and its advice isn?t binding, anyway.
6. Won?t this let rebels call for WA aid against my government?
No. Even if the WA as a whole could organise military aid, which the rules actually forbid it to do, the only people apart from your government whom this proposed resolution would let seek advice from WADARS are ?legal political parties? and presumably your laws would let you declare any parties involved in promoting rebellions to be illegal instead? and anyway, WADARS can only provide advice on the design & operation of democratic systems, not on how to impose them by rebellion against nations? existing governments?
7. Why should I tolerate neutral observers in my nation?s elections?
Because it will improve your image internationally? but if you still don?t want observers present then the proposal might actually include one or two subtle loopholes (although I'll leave finding these as an exercise for the reader...) to let you keep them from being invited in?
8. Won?t this make it impossible for me to keep on fixing the results of elections?
No. You?ll still be just about as able to fix elections as you were before this, it?s just that now you might find lying successfully about having done so rather more difficult. There?s a saying about how ?If you want to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk? that seems appropriate here?
(And the WA is already defining your nation?s level of ?Political Freedoms? and placing it in a ?WA Category?, both of which give people strong clues about just how ?democratic? your government really is [or isn?t], so how does this added detail really change anything along those lines anyway?)
Quote: Aid In Democratic Elections
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild
Description: The World Assembly,
REALISING that multi-party, representative democracy is a good way of running nations, inasmuch as governments formed by this method are significantly less likely than those formed by various other methods either to oppress their peoples cruelly or to launch wars of aggression;
BELIEVING that this form of government, and democracy in general, should therefore be encouraged;
REALISING that some nations which attempt to change over from other forms of government to this one may find the process difficult, especially if they lack existing local traditions of democracy upon which to build, and that even nations that have already been run under this system for a while may sometimes experience difficulties in operating it properly;
1. URGES the governments of nations where any elections for public office and/or any referenda are held to ensure that these are conducted fairly;
2. URGES those same governments to allow the presence of neutral 'observers' during all stages of those events;
3. CREATES the ?World Assembly Democracy Advisory and Reporting Service? (or ?WADARS?) to provide national governments with assistance in these matters, and defines its roles as being _
a. To gather information about the existing and theoretical designs for democratic systems of government, electoral systems and voting methods;
b. To analyse this information, and then to draw up models of ?best practice? in such matters to take account of the differing circumstances in different countries;
c. To make all this information freely available to any legal governments and legal political parties who request it, and to send advisers on such matters to any legal governments that request this;
d. To provide whoever is now in effective control of any nations whose former regimes have either collapsed or been overthrown with advice on the creation of democratic governments there, if they request this;
e. To accredit suitable governments, political parties, religious organisations and other organisations, as appropriate sources of neutral observers for monitoring elections and/or referenda in order to see whether these are carried out fairly and efficiently;
f. To coordinate and facilitate the despatch of teams of observers, which may also include or even consist solely of WADARS personnel, to monitor elections and/or referenda in any nations whose legal governments officially request this and also in any nations whose governments publicly claim them to be multi-party democracies and in which any legal political parties request this, and to arrange for the publication and distribution of those missions? reports;
4. REQUIRES the governments of nations to which those observation missions are sent to refrain from harassing the observers or impeding their work, to provide them with adequate protection from any other sources of harassment and/or impediment if they so request, and to refrain from impeding the subsequent publication and distribution of their reports;
5. STIPULATES that, in order to prevent any possible conflict of interest, WADARS may not accept donations or gifts from the governments of ? or any other politicians, organisations, or private individuals from ? any nations to which it either has sent an observation mission during the past five standard years or currently seems likely to send such a mission.
Original author: St Edmund.[/quote]
(= 3?371 characters)
I intend to try improving the passages about accrediting suitable sources of monitors and on including WADARS' own personnel in monitoring missions, and I wouldn't mind a good alternative to "WADARS" either.
Do any of you have any suggestions or remarks to make about any other aspects of this draft?
___________________________________________
AIDE FAQ
1. Isn?t this trying to force Democracy on every nation?
No. It doesn?t force any nation to make any changes at all to its government, it simply provides a source of advice to help those nations that actually want to become more democratic with this process.
2. Why does this only provide advice on Democracy, and not on any of the other possible forms of government as well?
Because I was specifically trying to write a proposal that would fit into the ?Furtherment of Democracy? category, and fitting one that covered a much wider range of options into that category could be difficult. Also, a proposal with a much wider scope in that respect would presumably have to be longer than this one and I?ve only just managed to stay within the limited number of characters that's allowed anyway.
3. Okay, so why doesn?t it [at least] provide advice on ?direct? (or ?participatory?) systems of Democracy, as well as on ?representative? ones?
Mainly because of the limit on proposals? lengths, but also because I have doubts about how viable those systems would really be for populations as large as those of many WA member-nations.
4. Isn?t this trying to force all democratic nations into a single pattern?
No. See clause 3.b, which specifically says that WADARS should design ?models of ?best practice? in such matters to take account of the differing circumstances in different countries;?? and its advice isn?t binding, anyway.
5. Is this trying to turn all nations into republics?
No. See See clause 3.b, which specifically says that WADARS should design ?models of ?best practice? in such matters to take account of the differing circumstances in different countries;?: There are already plenty of quite democratic ?kingdoms?, ?queendoms?, ?empires? & so on ? such as St Edmund, for example ? around, so there?s no reason why it shouldn?t consider their systems as possible prototypes for any monarchical nations that want to become more democratic? and its advice isn?t binding, anyway.
6. Won?t this let rebels call for WA aid against my government?
No. Even if the WA as a whole could organise military aid, which the rules actually forbid it to do, the only people apart from your government whom this proposed resolution would let seek advice from WADARS are ?legal political parties? and presumably your laws would let you declare any parties involved in promoting rebellions to be illegal instead? and anyway, WADARS can only provide advice on the design & operation of democratic systems, not on how to impose them by rebellion against nations? existing governments?
7. Why should I tolerate neutral observers in my nation?s elections?
Because it will improve your image internationally? but if you still don?t want observers present then the proposal might actually include one or two subtle loopholes (although I'll leave finding these as an exercise for the reader...) to let you keep them from being invited in?
8. Won?t this make it impossible for me to keep on fixing the results of elections?
No. You?ll still be just about as able to fix elections as you were before this, it?s just that now you might find lying successfully about having done so rather more difficult. There?s a saying about how ?If you want to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk? that seems appropriate here?
(And the WA is already defining your nation?s level of ?Political Freedoms? and placing it in a ?WA Category?, both of which give people strong clues about just how ?democratic? your government really is [or isn?t], so how does this added detail really change anything along those lines anyway?)