Orbis Times®

 

Make ministerial positions elected positions, instead of appointed

Ministers are supposed to be specialists. They are supposed to be experts in their field, so to speak. You don't get that when you elect them. They have to be appointed.

 

 

Have a council

For what purpose? If the council's approval is required to do anything (especially treaties or war declarations,) then you might as well not even bother. It will be a disaster. I can guarantee that.  If the council has no actual power, then fine, but don't pretend that it serves a purpose.

 

Everything else here seems pretty obvious, and won't really make or break a democratic alliance.

Can democracy work in P&W alliances?

yes,in theory.

Does democracy work in P&W alliances?

Not that I've witnessed to date.

 

I suggest collecting data on the top 20 AAs starting with their form of government and their length of existence. Then look at how long those have had a working democracy for during their existence.

• Set strict deadline for action, applying it to the council and ministers (so as not to impede progress)

This is a terrible idea,it forces something to happen just to pretend there is a process in place. It will cause more problems than it solves if strictly enforced.

• Make it clear that government will stay function, while awaiting decisions.

As opposed to what? Anarchy?  Brilliant point there.

 

Democracy isn't waiting around all day before taking action. I think this is the impression all of you are getting. Democracy can function. Democracy can function even with deadlines and acting while awaiting final decisions. I think I should have made it clear that I'm not advocating for direct democracy - that is just a horrible idea. What I'm advocating for is representative democracy and with this function, you can set rules and regulation, and democracy will still exist. ELPINCHAZo, I will do your suggestion of collecting data.

 

The United States form of government is representative democracy. Recently Obama and Iran made some nuclear deal. By rules governing the United States, the Senate has 60 days to review it. That's a deadline. Same for the budgets. The House of Representatives have certain day to pass a budget, or the government shutdown (unlikely in P&W or real life). The president has certain days to sign a bill before it automatically becomes a law. The government is based on deadline, yet it is still a form of democracy, because they are elected and the citizens have a say in the political process, and appointed people are part of the decision making. So I do not see how having a "strict deadline" is a terrible idea, ELPINCHAZO. Yes it does force something to happen, and it is likely to solves problems than cause problems. Whereas, if no deadlines is enforced, ministers and council will sit around all day and do nothing.

 

One of the fears that people get for which they do not want democracy is that government will not function, because they will wait all day before decisions are made. I can tell you right now it is based on how you craft your constitution. Will the alliance leader need approval before declaring alliance wide war or await approval? Can the alliance leader vetoes be override or is his/her decision final? Even if his or her decisions are final, there is still democracy. In a democracy, you can make it clear that government will stay function, while awaiting decisions. To make sure you get those decisions made, you rely on the deadline as I said. Government will function until a decision is made and see how to incorporate the decisions. Example, ministers will continue to work while a new election is in place. Once the election is over, they are replaced. Same with the council. And this wouldn't be a problem, because if you set the deadline to vote (despite how many people vote), you will have your result and get your government going. Another example, the Finance Minister could hand out massive grants and loans, until at a certain point that the council brings up a bill to limit how much is given. The minister will continue to give out massive grants and loans; should the new bill become a law, the minister can now see how to incorporate it. Likewise, the Internal Affairs Minister can recruit as many people. He/she will continue to recruit as many until a bill becomes a law that limits how many people can be recruited. How all those play out will depend on your constitution and the leader. If you leader vetoes it, can it be overridden? If the leader likes it, he can sign it. If he/she feels like it, at a certain point, he/she can call for a new law or ask the current ones be revised.

 

Most alliances are perfect without democracy, I for one am just asking a question and trying to provide answers. This shouldn't be taken as asking alliances to start replacing their government with democracy (not that I can do that anyway). I should say that although a alliance is healthy, without council or some sort of say in the decision making, or members being able to move up the ranks and play as decision makers, we will continue to have new alliances emerging, only because those who created it want to exercise power. If not create an alliance of their own, they will likely go to an alliance where there is a chance to be part of the process. 

Yes it does force something to happen, and it is likely to solves problems than cause problems. Whereas, if no deadlines is enforced, ministers and council will sit around all day and do nothing.

Better to have done nothing in a data poor environment than to do anything just because of a time limit. 

 

Forcing decisions to just to have made decisions leads to poor decisions.

 

Placing a limit on things only works if you under the assumption that all the relevant information has been obtained and distributed to those entrusted to come to a decision. Your suggestion does not account for that.