States of Glory

[PROPOSAL] Pride And Prejudice

5 posts in this topic

Quote

Pride And Prejudice

A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: Furtherment of Democracy

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: bears_armed_mission__0.jpgBears Armed Mission

It is a truth almost universally acknowledged that a government which has been firmly in control of its nation for quite a while is most in need of honest criticism, and of the humility with which to listen to this advice…

Therefore, the World Assembly,

Recognising that even in democracies the tenure of government or other public office, especially if prolonged and without credible opposition, may help lead national or sub-national leaders, government members, other politicians, and public officials, into a belief that they are naturally superior to their nations’ other inhabitants, and to think that their own views are not just the only ones they need to consider but the only ones that might even be worth considering at all,

Defining the term 'the relevant people', for the purposes of this resolution, as meaning 'national and sub-national leaders, government members, other politicians, and public officials, whose roles involve making, voting on, and/or advising on public policy in any WA member nation',

Recognising that some of the relevant people might sometimes allow belief in their own superiority to lead them into arrogant actions, or into the passage of badly-thought-out legislation, to the detriment of their nations’ other inhabitants,

Recognising also that some of the relevant people, especially if confident of retaining power, might allow their policies and actions to be influenced by prejudice either towards or against various elements of their nations’ populations,

Believing that if any of the relevant people give in to Pride and Prejudice in these ways then they are unlikely to govern those nations in the best interests of the overall populations therein;

Hereby,

1. STRONGLY URGES all of the relevant people to listen seriously to honest criticism and constructive advice, and to take this advice in the spirit in which it is meant, instead of just ignoring, belittling or even punishing, the sources of that criticism and advice;

2. STRONGLY URGES all of the relevant people to act consistently in the best interests of the people within their jurisdictions as a whole, without letting prejudice either towards or against any elements of those populations influence the ways in which they perform their official responsibilities;

3. DECLARES that if a member nation's government officially states that it will regard the result of a forthcoming referendum or plebiscite as binding and that vote is on a subject legal under WA law then, even if that nation's constitution itself does not state legally-binding referendums or plebiscites to be possible, that government must indeed consider itself bound by the results of that poll and act accordingly without undue delay;

4. REMINDS all of the relevant people that no matter how long and how firmly they may have held those positions, or for how much longer they might reasonably expect to retain them, it is highly unlikely (unless they have very unusual metabolisms indeed…) that the sun actually shines forth from any portions of their anatomies.

Co-author: St Edmund.

Despite all the flamboyant language and various references, the clause that's worth looking at is Clause Three. It basically says that if a government states that a referendum is binding, they must treat the referendum as actually being binding.

Now, I know what you're all thinking, but this surprisingly has nothing to do with Brexit. Clause Three wasn't originally part of this draft, but rather it was part of an older pre-Brexit proposal on referenda. However, in order to ensure that this proposal had at least one mandatory clause, the author decided to move the clause in question into this proposal.

As far as I'm concerned, Bears Armed is an accomplished author and a respected member of GenSec. That said, the proposal itself is nothing too special apart from all the literary references, though it is mostly harmless as well. Due to this, I will personally be voting in favour, but I'd advise the Delegate to cast his vote based on the consensus that is reached by TWP citizens.

Willania Imperium likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing I firmly disagree with? Check. Jane Austen reference? Check. Approved. :P

That was not my actual reasoning, but I also stand in support of this proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rather Utopian proposal written by a respected player that reads very well but which, in practical terms, will change nothing in the game.  Nations in regions generally get what and who they voted for and if they don't like the resulting debacle, if there is one, then they should rise up and revolt!  However, I guess it is likely to reach quorum (requires 31 more votes with just over 3 days to go) and that it will eventually pass thanks to soft, liberally-minded folks.

Guess what my vote will be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mediobogdum said:

Nations in regions generally get what and who they voted for and if they don't like the resulting debacle, if there is one, then they should rise up and revolt!

This affects individuals in nations, not nations in regions. The GA couldn't care less about regions. As far as they're concerned, regions don't exist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now