Sign in to follow this  

[DEFEATED] Pride and Prejudice

Recommended Posts


General Assembly Proposal
ID: bears_armed_mission_1526055079

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,

Aware 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;


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. Suggests to all of the relevant people that listening to public opinion might improve their chances of remaining in office;

4. 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 both WA law and the nation’s own constitution, 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;

5. 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.

As the more literary-minded will already have deduced, this is partly based on a well-known novel. Why BA chose to omit the zombies and thus make it less funny is anyone's guess.

A little background: this proposal is ancient. It previously reached quorum and was defeated in 2010: In fact it is even older. The original author is St Edmund, one of BA's earlier nations before the WA, during UN times.

Now for the actual proposal - its strength is indeed very mild. Earlier versions didn't even have the binding clause under 4. The rest is mainly urging (i.e. nicely asking, but nonbinding) politicians to listen to the public. The binding part just states that a referendum or plebiscite are to be considered binding if the politicians initiating it advertise it as such beforehand.

While it is kind of humorous (especially the last sentence) it is still basically all flavourful fluff and I personally see no compelling reason to support it much. While it doesn't really hurt I'd cautiously recommend to vote against or go with the majority of the region.

discussion thread

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this