Democracy needs fixing!

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmmm, define 'useful output'? If you mean the amount of food/shields which actually go into RAW production (i.e. growing the population of a city and/or building units and improvements) then I agree with you 100%. Within more open and democratic societies-especially those with a free market economy-a greater proportion of their 'productive output' would need to go into supporting the consumer needs of its population, rather than directly into infrastructure and military use. The flip-side, though, is that such socieities are on average more happy, generate more income from consumerism and are less likely to suffer war weariness in defensive wars.
I guess the main point here is that its all about 'checks and balances'.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[slightlymarxist]

I think the trademark of Democracy is openness, representation and a flat rather than authoritarian power structure - the government is for the people and by the people, instead of the other way around. So what does openness mean in practice?

Upsides:
* People encouraged to speak their minds without fear of reprisal.
* Judicial power (court) independent of executive power (government).
* Legislative power (parlament) independent of executive power.
* Often many welfare programs to fight social problems.

Downsides:
* Easier to infiltrate and sabotage
* Probably a more heterogenous population, celebrating difference can breed dissidence.

So, less unified, harder to control and vulnerable to espionage and sabotage; Security, Law Enforcement and Stability suffers... but better living conditions; Health, Education and Happiness.

That's my take.

 

[dh_epic]

Hmm, I almost feel the exact opposite. That while dissent is more welcome in a democracy, it also takes a lot more for it to reach the point of disorder. Because it doesn't rely on one central figure to keep it organized, and because more than one viewpoint is usually out in the mainstream, there's less reason for violent uprising. And democracies are a good way to give multiple religions/races/cultures/ideologies a voice, thus preventing violent clashes.

All in all, democracies handle un-unified empires better. Although it still has a breaking point, it's much further out than that under a dictator.

But hey, that's assuming Civilization 4 models any sense of unity/seperatism, and so on. Right now, your population is basically a monolith.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think the issue, as has been stated previously, is that few democracies or republics actually look even remotely the same. The US and Germany, for example, are both defined as 'Democratic Republics', but the US has a lower Sufferage/Pluralism level than its German counterpart-placing it closer towards the Authoritarian end of the 'Democracy' axis (whether Pluralism and Sufferage should be two seperate civics settings IS open for debate). Also, the US could be said to have a higher Legalism level than Germany (the Death Penalty and Zero Tolerance in many states) and lower Libertarianism (especially in the aftermath of 9/11). The US has a higher level of Free-market and a lower level of Environmentalism. The US also has a higher degree of Devolution (States have more power, in many areas, than the Federal system).
My point is that these two nations, in spite of having almost identical political systems-at least in name-are as different as chalk and cheese, and I would like to see that fact accurately represented in Civ4, rather than the rather cookie-cutter style governments of Civ1-3!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Mewtarthio]

They really need to model the free speech thing a little better. That's the true difficulty of democracy: allowing the right amount of dissent. Too little, and people start getting suspicious and calling Amnesty International. Too much, and people start believing the dissendents and rebelling. I don't know how to do this; maybe a "dissent" slider?

Okay, all that was a joke. In all seriousness, I agree with those who think that the main opposition to large empires should be rebellion (though not necessarily on everything; only that one issue). Less centralized governments, like Democracy, should have fewer rebellions than, say, Despotism.

Governments should also be factored into your reaction to seperatists. In Democracy, the seperatists will try to leave peacefully, and your people will be horrified if you send in your tanks to punish them. (Bear in mind, this is modelling a people's desire for self-rule, not moral issues like the American Civil War. This would be more akin to Puerto Rico cutting its ties to America and Bush bombing the island the next day). In Despotism, the seperatists will generally march on your capitol. Your people won't like you very much when you are forced to re-annex the territories, but properly slaughtering the rebels will be a nice way to keep them in line (but be sure to thoroughly destroy them; guerrillas spread dissent). Under Fascism, a government whose central principle is, as an oversimplification, "WE ROCK!", your people will demand that you recapture the nation's territory and be severely displeased if you sign a peace treaty.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

(Bear in mind, this is modelling a people's desire for self-rule, not moral issues like the American Civil War. This would be more akin to Puerto Rico cutting its ties to America and Bush bombing the island the next day). In Despotism, the seperatists will generally march on your capitol. Your people won't like you very much when you are forced to re-annex the territories, but properly slaughtering the rebels will be a nice way to keep them in line (but be sure to thoroughly destroy them; guerrillas spread dissent). Under Fascism, a government whose central principle is, as an oversimplification, "WE ROCK!", your people will demand that you recapture the nation's territory and be severely displeased if you sign a peace treaty.

The civil war was an issue of self-rule.

Essentially if there is rebellious activity in your cities
1. Losing the cities will encourage other rebels so it is best to stop them unless your other cities are naturally loyal
2. Normal War Weariness type issues would apply (perhaps exaggerated) which means losing is worse than risking a unit

So a War Weary susceptible government with a rebellion is in a Real sticky position...usually it is just best to let them go if they are different enough that the rebellion would be unlikely to lead to long term peace (ie European old world colonies...even if they HAD given the locals the right to vote).. Just like the US and Britain didn't even bother 'keeping' Germany for more than 10 years or so.. they just tried to set up a friendly local government.

On the other hand if there is enough cultural similarity that they can be beaten back in without centuries of suppression (ie Civil War... 'rebel' activity in the South has been at 'acceptable' levels for a long time). In that case the government should use the war to discourage any further rebellions. (ie If the Union had immediately recognized the right of states to secede, it would never have retained territory past the Mississippi.)

This means that most governments that are highly susceptible to War Weariness should use some other method of reducing rebellious activity (diplomacy..ie allowing local rule or representation in the central government, culture...ie propaganda) if possible.

Whether or not a civ is 'allowed' to leave peacefully should definitely be part of the 'government agreement' between a Civ and a city. In that case the rebel activity would be minimized. (one could say the pre-Civil War US/state agreement was in the questionable level, ie leaving would provoke extreme 'Bad feelings')

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, my feelings are that nations with more Pluralist/open governments will tend to have-on average-a much happier populace, and will respond better to entertainers and consumer goods as a means of boosting happiness. In addition, the point at which unhappiness translates into disasterous consequences (like rebellions and civil wars) is much higher. The flip-side, though, is that they tend to become unhappier much easier (i.e. their standards are HIGHER) and they are almost impossible to 'placate' using troop garrisons-in fact, after a certain point, more units in a democratic city makes those people even MORE unhappy. Again, its all about 'swings and roundabouts'.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Jaybe]

My government changes to C3C:
Communism: Nuisance corruption/waste
Democracy: Communual corruption/waste

Makes democracy economically powerful, but with its high war weariness as a great counterbalance.

 

[Princeps]

My government changes to C3C:
Communism: Nuisance corruption/waste
Democracy: Communual corruption/waste

Makes democracy economically powerful, but with its high war weariness as a great counterbalance.

Yes but communism would become completely useless.

 

[mastertyguy]

Let Dem and com as it is, but add capitalism, at corporation maybe, with medium war wearines and more corruption than democracy. USA isn't represented in democracy, we have seen it in IRAK. And there may be a lot of corruption in western nations (thanks to JC Jean Chrétien and his sponsorship scandal).

 

[Princeps]

Let Dem and com as it is, but add capitalism, at corporation maybe, with medium war wearines and more corruption than democracy. USA isn't represented in democracy, we have seen it in IRAK. And there may be a lot of corruption in western nations (thanks to JC Jean Chrétien and his sponsorship scandal).

Yes there is corruption in the western countries, but does that really effect the production. Capitalism is a economic system, not a from of government.

 

[dh_epic]

So is Communism.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Which usually came with a particular governmental system attached. Usually.

 

[mastertyguy]

Yes there is corruption in the western countries, but does that really effect the production. Capitalism is a economic system, not a from of government.

When I say that there is a lot of corruption in democracy, I didn't mean that there is no production, but just more than there is in civ. Maybe corruption to need fixing. Good idea for a new thread

 

[covenant]

(Obviously green economy isn't a relevent idea until the modern age, let alone the question of a free market versus a planned market.)

I disagree here. There is nothing that says a country could not start out with a green economy and stay with it throughout history. What if France had adpoted a green economy when the industrial revolution happened? Heck, you could consider all the native american tribes to be green economies? If I can switch America to a facist society when it becomes available, why cant I switch someone to a green economy?

Of course when does "green" become available? This is a basic flaw in the Civ concept. GOVENRMENTS EVOLVE. They didnt just one day say we choose Democracy, now we choose Facism.

I proposed sometime ago that governments should evolve in the game based on desicions the player makes as new ideas are introduced, not just choosing from a dropdown list. Do you accept womens rights, murphys law, corporations, slavery, green economics, free-market economics? These each have benefits and consequences that affect your civ. The name given will just be a general indication. If you choose to create a senate, your govenment name would have republic in it, but the name is not important, for gameplay its you created a senate with its benefits and hinderances.

 

[dh_epic]

Fine, green economies aren't really that relevent until the industrial age.

But I think we're otherwise on the same page. Governments evolve. You don't have all the options right at the beginning, nor do you have complete freedom at all times. Certain options preclude other options, and some options become obsolete as new options become available, and so on.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I think a better system (for simplicity and balancing) might be to have all the 'government options' available to begin with. And techs just automatically change the effects of those government options. So discovering corporations would have an effect on those people who had chosen (back in the Ancient Age) the 'free economies' government option, the discovery of 'communism' would have an effect on those who had chosen the 'controlled economies'.

Of course you could switch at any time between the 'controlled', 'free', etc. options at any time (with the normal government switching penalties) but as options, technologies would merely make them more or less attractive rather than allowing them.

This means that instead of 'switching governments' you are setting the 'direction' of your social evolution so you may never actually change governments if your strategy works (so the player that normally went Despotism-Republic-Democracy would just set themselves as a representative/free/open government option to begin with and then various techs would impact those initial choices....of course if that wasn't working out, then they could switch to a centralized/militarized, etc. society, and the 'effect' of their new government would get would either be Despotism-Monarchy-or Fascism/Communism depending on what techs they had when they made the switch and they would then continue in that path.

That would allow some of the evolution without innumerable options.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

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...

This has always been a daft aspect of Civ.

Democracies/Republics do well at War, indeed, I can't think of many examples where a democracy (certainly in the modern World) has been beaten, especially as other democratic nations love to lend a hand. Another fact is democracies rarely if ever suffer famine as famine is rarely to do with lack of food, more the cost of food and distribution - in democracies the emphasis is upon looking after the people.

Civ1 had it right, in that democracies etc should find it hard to START wars, especially against other democratic countries...there has to be a significant cause of war e.g you are invaded, or a close ally is invaded.

CivI also shows us a way to have a tricky element to a democracy - stopping it from collapsing or simply that you can't always have your way.

 

[AndrewCree]

I quite like the idea of the traits - as in SMAC - for the behaviour of your government type, rather than the Anarchy/Despotism/Monarchy/Communism/Republic/Democracy system usually used.

They were fairly simple and easy to understand, and ultimately meant that there could be less similarity between nations, as there were 81 possible combinations (3 traits, each with 4 options), so Civ could easily get away with the same number.

Yes, I think that this would work better than the "America must be a Democracy" type thing at present.

 

[rhialto]

@AndrewCree

Actually, smac allowed for 4^3 = 64 options. And have you read and got answers for all the criticisms against the smac system?