Democracy needs fixing!

[Lockesdonkey]

Drawing inspiration from the "facism needs fixing!" thread...

Democracy needs to be truly unbeatable at sheer economic might. It should suck at war--relatively--but if you are committed to peaceful victory, it should be so good that it is the only real option.

With that broad mandate, I leave suggestions for fulfilling this idea to the community...

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I agree. Having just read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich I find it odd that Communism should have such low corruption. That should be Democracy.

 

[Darwin420]

Low corruption in democracy?? Have you been paying attention to America for the last 5 years?

So much corruption and nothing being done about it.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

It's not the kind of large-scale corruption that threatens to destroy the nation; as far as that kind of corruption goes, it does do alot better than other governments, particularly Communism.

What I meant, though, that it should get economic advantages-more sheilds, a larger tile bonus, maybe happier citizens, and more science (free society protects academic freedom and encourages research)- intended to be just short of overpowering.

 

[Bianezzi]

Well Civilization's Democracy is really a "Liberal Representative American 'Democracy'" not a plain-democracy they want to show.

AND there isn't really a historical reason for Democratic governments be better at economy and worse at war.

You should point out some reasons for this, then.

 

[Bianezzi]

1. Democracies doesn't make citizens happier.
(The '64 coup in Brazil that destroyed "democracy" was largely supported by the people)
2. Democracies aren't more peaceful.
(USA-Afghanistan, USA-Korea, USA-Vietnam, USA-Iraq, India-Pakistan, etc.)
3. Democracies aren't necessarily prosperous.
(Namibia, Ivory Coast and Nigeria are democracies. Hooray for economy.)
4. Democracies aren't necessarily more scientific.
(Free education doesn't have anything to do with the way you choose you representatives, and many scientific advances were made under Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia)

The only thing "Democracy" should change is corruption and shield rate.

 

[Darwin420]

America isn't even a true Democracy.. depending on your viewpoint, we're either a Representative Democracy (my view) or a Democratic Republic. True Democracy, just like True Communism and/or Marxism, simply is not feasible on large scales, and even on smaller scales you still have the overwhelming human urge to CONTROL manifesting in individuals.

There should be some way to reflect that - if a SMAC-style government isn't done, then at least give me a choice between a Representative Democracy (more war weariness, economic & scientific boost, higher corruption), and Democratic Republic (less war weariness-or none at all, lower corruption, but science ain't that great and the economy ain't that great) <--just examples.

 

[Bianezzi]

Yea a Government bar would be great.

From Left to Right, from Democratic to Fascist, from Centralized to Confederalistic.

 

[Nate128]

America is a republic. The end.

 

[searcheagle]

America is a republic. The end.

Yes, thats true. However most people, don't know the difference.

de•moc•ra•cy \di-"ma-kre-se\ n, pl -cies [MF democratie, fr. LL democratia, fr. Gk demokratia, fr. demos people + kratos strength, power] 1 : government by the people; esp : rule of the majority 2 : a government in which the supreme power is held by the people 3 : a political unit that has a democratic government 4 cap : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S. 5 : the common people esp. when constituting the source of political authority 6 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved

re•pub•lic \ri-"pe-blik\ n [F republique, fr. MF republique, fr. L respublica, fr. res thing, wealth + publica, fem. of publicus public] 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usu. a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government 2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government
(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved

In a democracy, everyone votes on everything. For this reason, it is only practical in a small area. A republic picks the representatives who then make the decisons for a country.

Since the people pick the representatives, the United States is called either a Democratic Republic or a Representative Republic.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

One point, Democracies (in terms of representative governments) Are statistically more peaceful (towards each other). (This relationship exists even when the tendency for democracies to be rich or allies of the US has been excluded)

And in any case, Democracy in the game is an idealized 'peace government' as opposed to Fascism the 'small scale war' government and Communism the 'large scale war' government.

This is useful because we need to remember whatever government goes in the game, there will have to be a reason for the players to Use it. (ie it must be better than all other governments at that time in Some situations)

 

[rhialto]

This war-gov / peace-gov dichotomy in civ1/2/3 is one of the big weaknesses in the civ franchise. Governments should be optimisable in many different ways, not just war-peace. It reduces the governmenst to 2D Hollywood cut out characters.

This is one area where CTP1/2 shone. Each government was optimised, not merely on a war-peace axis, but on many others. Communism, for example, was the industrial powerhouse, but with monstrous pollution. It wasn't particularly good (or bad) at war. Democracy was good for science but bad for war. Theocracy sucked generally but had virtually unlimited resistance against corruption.

Yes, some of these don't reflect reality (non-corrupt theocracy?) But the point is the characterisation allowed for more distinct play styles and knowing the government allowed you to see a little into the prioorities that AI was placing.

 

[Commissar_Yari]

I disagree that democracy should be such a way. Democracy and capitalism are NOT synonymous, and in fact western society is not truly democratic, as representative democracy is an oxymoron.

 

[REX GRACCHVS]

i agree, and unless it is because modern western style democracy is so unorganised and self opposed, i dont see why it should be unbribable

 

[Commander Bello]

Drawing inspiration from the "facism needs fixing!" thread...

Democracy needs to be truly unbeatable at sheer economic might. It should suck at war--relatively--but if you are committed to peaceful victory, it should be so good that it is the only real option.

With that broad mandate, I leave suggestions for fulfilling this idea to the community...

a) Why should democracy be unbeatable in economic aspect?
b) Why should it suck at war?

ad a) Economic libaralism does not depend on a certain type of government. You may find it in democracies more likely, but there is no natural law that a democracy has to be more liberal than any other type of government

ad b) You're right. The fascist USA have beaten the weak democratic Germans in WW2
Especially the orientation of the in-game governments towards whether you may be able to fight a long-going war or not, is one of the worst mis-conceptions of Civ in general.
In this point I absolutely agree with Rhialto (see above)

 

[dh_epic]

The problem is that an FDR Democracy is no different from a GWB Democracy, not to mention no different from a Greek Democracy or Scandinavian Democracy.

Hopefully civics will resolve some of that.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Exactly, DH_Epic. What ultimately defines a nations government is not so much its NAME-but the Laws, Statutes and economic principles which underpin that government.
For instance, is the government elected on the principle of 'Proportional Representation', or 'Two Party Preferred'? Is the Economy Free Market, State Managed, or somewhere in between? Do governments create ALL legislation, or is there a lot of grassroots 'Citizen Initiated Referenda'? Is the Government pacifistic or militaristic? Multicultural or Nationalistic? Truth is that a country could have ANY combination of the features I mentioned above, and yet STILL be called a Democracy OR a Republic. Also, I think that many-if not all-of the above questions could be broadly answered with a good civic/social engineering system.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Agreed. They obviously designed Democracy in a time when it was necessary to be abstract, back in the early 90s, because the forces they could model are relatively simple. But in keeping it abstract, they were actually quite vague.

By Democracy, do they mean capitalism? Do they mean multiple political parties? Do they mean proportional representation? Do they mean free health care, or privatized health care? Are the elderly expected to live in poverty? Is there a certain sect or class of people that are denied civil rights and freedoms? Are there rules for the economy?

Obviously only so much detail is feasible. But right now, they're way too vague.

 

[cfacosta]

I think the real problem is that the inherent utility, to bring in Bentham, of a government form for the population needs to be considered. In civ, you chose a gov based on economic, scientific, military pros and cons. In real life, a government develops based on a myriad of considerations....all relating to the positioning of power and the consistency of its use over the governed. A dictator can be the best economic administrator ever, while a Democracy can have an extremely efficient and effective military. The difference between Demo and Total. comes in the limitation on the power of the leader and on the level of consistency from leading group to leading group. Demo trades absolute power for consistency of rule and peaceful transition between regimes. As Voltaire posited, a dictatorship can be extremely beneficial, if the right person is in charge. The down side is the uncertainty of what occurs after the leader expires. The possibility of extreme violence or change from norms is a penalty that people pay under this system. Additionally, as we generally see, the system is entirely dependent on the leader and makes no gaurantees to the governed on quality of rule.

Since, in civ, we are gauranteed a position of ultimate power (with only truly trivial limitations on us), the real difference between governments evaporate. The artificial differences are put in for gameplay. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with this, and think it would be truly difficult to make the system truly realistic.

 

[dh_epic]

I think your assessment is fair, cfacosta. The benefits do have to do with "limitation of powers" and "peaceful transfer of power". In a game where power is constant, and is always invested in one person, these factors become less meaningful.

Still, I don't think you have to simulate elections, leader death, or "you have to do whatever the voters tell you to do" ... I don't think these are necessary to make democracy better.

(Although they might make it more realistic. But at the expense of destroying the fabric of a game that's based around a 6000 year reign over an empire.)

The game could use a bit more sensitivity in dividing the economic attitudes -- from no rules, to free market, to planned, to green -- from the representation -- from one person, to one party, to multiple parties, to grassroots -- and so on. That could be interesting.

And making unhappiness a bit more of a factor could be interesting, especially if dictators can apply tools to quell dissent more liberally than a president or prime minister.