Governments...

[Foresight]

I think there should be more to simply picking your goverment. Here is what I mean...

Democracy: Right Wing/Left Wing
For both you would still be under Democracy, but depending on the wing you choose, you would be more in favor of war with less economic spending, and the opposite for the other.

Communism: Communist states are all different. From Communist Soviet Union to Old Communist China, each called themselves Communist worked differently much like Right Wing/Left wing democracy.

Fuedalism: Even though France and England both saw themselves under Fuedalism, each had variations of what it truly meant.

Same goes for all the other goverments. This would give a little more variety when choosing your government.

 

[Colonel]

um u should add an extra one for communism call it True communism seeing as all the countries u mentioned werent actual communist by the real defenition

 

[PeteAtoms]

Communism could be divided into Marxism (the idealistic version ol' Karl had in mind) and the real Communism...

As far as right-left wing democracy is concerned, i think you can make the difference yourself depending on how you micromanage your civ...

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Democracy: Right Wing/Left Wing
For both you would still be under Democracy, but depending on the wing you choose, you would be more in favor of war with less economic spending, and the opposite for the other.

You mean the US left/right wing I suppose. The problem with this idea is that there are many different forms of democracy, and I don't think that that many have that much knowledge about the different governmentforms outside their own country...

As for Marxism - I don't know how realistic it is to include it since no civ has reached it. It's kind of an utopian government, right?!

 

[Colonel]

I didnt think to point this but the US has both right wing and left wing form of goverment based on which party is in office and same goes for most western democracies.

 

[PeteAtoms]

I didnt think to point this but the US has both right wing and left wing form of goverment based on which party is in office and same goes for most western democracies.

Does it really? I wasnt aware of the anarchy between the government changes of clinton and bush, i dont think the US has two forms of governent, all of the books ive read tell me we have a Federal Republic, the policies and laws that get passed between the different cabinets change, but the system of three branches, checks and balances, etc remain the same.

 

[Shiny]

Well, the problem with having Communism as a form of government is that it isn't a form of government. What the USSR was and China is is a despotism. Communism was/is the form of economy in those nations. In fact, communism is the economic system used in Civ, if you think about it. The government has control over the whole budget, taxes, wages, worker employment, construction, etc., so what's really meant by Communism in Civ is a sort of modern despotism and a counter to Democracy.

Left/right wing Democracy is an interesting idea, but the same should go for any government, particularly ones with representative systems. There are liberals and conservatives in any country's politics.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Left/right wing Democracy is an interesting idea, but the same should go for any government, particularly ones with representative systems. There are liberals and conservatives in any country's politics.

Yes, there are probably liberals and conservatives, Left and Right wing in any democratic country's politics.
In US Left means liberals and Right means conservative, right!?

However here in Sweden we have the Socialist Democrats (34.6%), the Left (8.8%, Vänstern, earlier the Left party of the Communists), and the Enviromentalists (5.6%, Miljöpartiet) - these parties form the left bloc and have been in power since the middle '90:s.
The right block consists of Moderaterna (23.2%, Conservatives, furthest right), Christdemocrats(6.4%), the People:s Party (12.8%, Folkpartiet, liberals) and Centern(6.5%, middleparty), and these parties form the right bloc.
There's a 4% 'barrier' and the % given is the latest rating.

I don't know what the other democratic countries' blocs consists of, just wanted to show that Left-Right not always equal liberals-conservatives.

 

[Exel]

I didnt think to point this but the US has both right wing and left wing form of goverment based on which party is in office and same goes for most western democracies.

USA does not have a left wing form of government...

If you look at the whole range of political movements ever invented by man (extremes being nazis in the right, commies in the left), the both major parties in the US place somewhere right of the center.

Now I might add that USA very vaguely classifies as a true democracy, since there's really not much choice in the political arena (communist one-party system was seen as very anti-democratic, and yet there's only one more party in the American system...) but that's slightly off-topic so I wont.

 

[bob rulz]

There's a lot of other parties in America! Ever heard of third parties? It's just that they don't have a lot of influence. It has nothing to do with the fact that that's the way the government wants it, it is just the way that American Politics turned out, which is what Democracy is supposed to do. The people mostly decide how the government advances. In communism the government not only completely controls itself it completely controls the life of every one of it's systems, so I guess you could say that it is sort of a governmental/economic system. And Exel, you're right, the US isn't on the left, it's on the right. Conservatives (Republicans in the US) lean towards the right, but you're also correct in that the US doesn't have the extremes of most other countries.

@Loppan Torkel-Ha! So that's why I don't like environmentalists. They're on the left.

 

[Exel]

It has nothing to do with the fact that that's the way the government wants it, it is just the way that American Politics turned out, which is what Democracy is supposed to do. The people mostly decide how the government advances.

Quite wrong. It has turned out the way it has because of the voting system. Other parties may exist, but because of the system, people feel that their votes go in vain if they vote the "third" parties, and thus most end up giving their votes to either of the two most likely winners. The government knows this, but aren't willing to change it because it eliminates most competition. The Labour party in UK once promised that it will change the political system to really allow for multiple parties, but after their great victory in the following elections (because of the system they gained a larger share of the seats than of the votes), they suitable forgot about the promises, realizing they were better of with the current one. Imho that is intentional limiting of democracy. Communists claimed that they sported a democratic system, and in a way they did, but it was limited according to their needs.

 

[bob rulz]

Yes, but early on (like the 19th Century), the Third Parties formed from the fact that they were beaten down into the shadows and the Republicans and Democrats rose above this, and that's where the "if we vote for Third Parties it's meaningless" came from, because the Republicans and Democrats gained power and remained in that position of power, and because of the mindset of the people, the Third Parties were never able to rise to a position of prominence.

 

[Darksoul_CG]

US is going toward "corporate republic" doesn't it?

anyway,there are lots of sub-governments:

Absolute monarchy is different from constitutional Monarchy

there are some forms of government that have been only theorized,such es "enlighted despotism" in the age of reason;

the only thing that goes wrong in using-theorized forms of government is that they weren't put in history:i mean if we put "Marxism" in the game,basing only on the abstract philosopher's work,it should be a supreme form of government,because in abstract theory it was perfect.And anyway it's fallen...it's like the prehistoric tyranny...once it's superated...goodbye.

anyway it lacks also of futuristic forms.

 

[Elgalad]

Anyone who thinks third parties in the United States dont have power should tell that to George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, who lost the Presidential elections in 1992 and 1996 to William Clinton (who received 43 % of the popular vote in 1992 and 49.2 % in 1996, yet still won both elections). Al Gore would probably have a bone to pick with you as well regarding the 2000 election when he lost to George W. Bush who had 48% of the vote that year. In all three elections the elections could have been easily decided if there had been no third party candidates. If one assumes that liberals tend to vote democratic and conservatives republican, then in all three cases the results would have been reversed.

The United States has had many close national elections in its history. Even in those ones where restriction of the candidates to only major party ones would not have altered the outcome, the mere fact that there Are third parties out there garnering support have helped to shape our political debate. Although European and other Parliamentary systems have stronger third parties than the U.S., their governments have proved to be anything But more decisive. Perhaps this is because they do not Have any strong parties to provide that leadership, but instead must rely on forming a coalition that inevitably breaks down.

On another note, a pure 'Democracy' is even more impossible to achieve than a state of economic Communalism. When folks discover that they can vote themselves money directly from the treasury, the whole system collapses because noone will remain to support it. Communalism/Socialism is still flawed though, since it removes any positive motivations to excel and ascribes some unnatural altruism to all people which flies counter to human nature.

Pure Democracies are also dangerous since they promote the tyranny of the majority. Most people forget that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected Chancellor of the Weimar Republic in Germany. It was only after he was in office that he set about dissolving the republican systems that kept him in check. With his incredible oratory skill and insight into popular will, he was able to win total support from the German people before going on to become the most infamous dictator of all time.

The United States is a Federal Republic, not a Democracy. The Constitution clearly states, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of government." The real definition of a Republic and what separates it from a Democracy is that government is directed by the rule of Law, not the ever-changing whims of the people. It is interesting to note that nowhere in any of the American national documents is the word 'Democracy' even used. It cannot be found in the Constitution, nor in the Declaration of Independence, not even in the Bill of Rights. And yet the myth persists that America is a Democracy. The problem is likely that the word 'democracy' literally means 'rule by the people.' It is true that the average citizen in America Does have that power to choose their fate. But they do so through elected representatives, Not directly.

-Elgalad

 

[The homelessguy]

yeah, good thing EVERYTHING you read is absolute and true. For that matter, good thing EVERYTHING IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS MADE OUT TO BE.

 

[bob rulz]

Well then, are they any countries that are democracies?

 

[Mewtarthio]

Ancient Athens was pretty democratic. But that was just a single city (and the inherent flaws in Democracy were shown when the people voted Socrates to death for "corrupting the Athenian youth"). It's far too unweildy to have a democratic nation much larger than that (can you imagine: "Okay, some guy in Missouri thinks we should raise taxes on Ukranian bumper stickers sold through Liechtenstein by a dollar; everyone to the voting booths!).

 

[PeteAtoms]

Going back to the original thread topic, i think that governments should probably have a strong tie to the religion of your civ, or the main religion of your civ, A christian communist civ would probly rule differently than an atheist communist civ, or a jewish fascist civ and a buddhist one...

 

[Elgalad]

Valid points, Pete. When you say that governments should have a strong tie with religion, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean as a source of modifiers to the civilization on par with the modifiers the civ gets from the government? (like worker action rate, commerce income, corruption, etc?)

And before anyone starts the inevitable outcry of Communism and Religion are mutually exclusive, keep in mind that one of the first experiments with Communism were in 1616 in Jamestown, Virginia. 17th century Virginian colonists were anything But atheists.

-Elgalad

 

[Exel]

On another note, a pure 'Democracy' is even more impossible to achieve than a state of economic Communalism.

What about Switzerland? They have the purest form of democracy yet put to practice since the ancient Greece, and it seems to work fine.

Of course a 100% pure democracy is an impossibility, though it might be appealing in theory (like communism...). In the end it would be a too slow and cumbersome decision system, and the amount of bureaucracy needed to operate it would be staggering. Not to mention that the masses are ignorant if not plain stupid, like it or not.