Making democracy inconvenient again

[Mummiesforpeace]

I remember back of the glory days of Civ 2 when being a democracy had its drawbacks. If you started an unpopular war, Congress could end it, in spite of your objections!

There are no such issues for a warmongering President in Civ 6, but perhaps there should be.

 

[stinkubus]

Increasing war weariness for Democracies would be a good proxy.

 

[Phrozen]

Democracies aren't really peaceful, not any more so than any other government type.

 

[stinkubus]

Sure they are. Conflict between nation states is virtually non-existent compared to the period of time between when nations became a thing and the 20th century.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Democracies aren't really peaceful, not any more so than any other government type.

Sure they are. Conflict between nation states is virtually non-existent compared to the period of time between when nations became a thing and the 20th century.

You're both right, but the reasons aren't directly related to Democracy as a government type.
When 'Democracies' had a very limited franchise, as in the pre-20th century when in most states only 'property owners' and, basically, Upper Middle Class and Above could vote, Democracies went to war as often as anyone, because the chance of getting shot at was very low for those voting for the government that started the war. Once every male in the country could vote, the people who voted for war were the ones getting killed, and they became much, much less enthusiastic about it. Even in Nazi Germany, a warped Democracy if there ever was one, with all the totalitarian trappings of controlled press and relentless pro-war propaganda, the reaction to the start of a Major War in September 1939 was noticeably negative among the population.

Which brings up the other 'real' reason nation-states don't go to war much any more. The European nation-states, which still control a huge percentage of the war fighting industry, weapons, and skills, have had two really, really bad experiences in the twentieth century of what can happen in a war, and they have too many immediate reminders to want to repeat any of that experience.

The real drawback to Democracy is not from starting a war, but as the one poster commented, staying in the war for any length of time. Any major defeat will accelerate War Weariness in a Democracy dramatically, because, in the last 200 or so years, that defeat will reach the population almost immediately in newspapers and telegraph/radio communications. Any major victory, on the other hand, IF not accompanied by major casualty lists, will reduce War Weariness.
A Democracy at war, then, becomes very Risk-Adverse: look at the discussions before D-Day of the Political Risks to attempting a major amphibious landing and having it fail with thousands of casualties - it was assumed that they would not be able to make any second attempt, because the political costs would be just too high. They also didn't dare make an attempt in 1942 or 1943, when German defenses were much, much less ready, because they could not guarantee a success - risk aversion on a grand scale.

 

[Pythakoreas]

You're both right, but the reasons aren't directly related to Democracy as a government type.
When 'Democracies' had a very limited franchise, as in the pre-20th century when in most states only 'property owners' and, basically, Upper Middle Class and Above could vote, Democracies went to war as often as anyone, because the chance of getting shot at was very low for those voting for the government that started the war. Once every male in the country could vote, the people who voted for war were the ones getting killed, and they became much, much less enthusiastic about it. Even in Nazi Germany, a warped Democracy if there ever was one, with all the totalitarian trappings of controlled press and relentless pro-war propaganda, the reaction to the start of a Major War in September 1939 was noticeably negative among the population.

Which brings up the other 'real' reason nation-states don't go to war much any more. The European nation-states, which still control a huge percentage of the war fighting industry, weapons, and skills, have had two really, really bad experiences in the twentieth century of what can happen in a war, and they have too many immediate reminders to want to repeat any of that experience.

The real drawback to Democracy is not from starting a war, but as the one poster commented, staying in the war for any length of time. Any major defeat will accelerate War Weariness in a Democracy dramatically, because, in the last 200 or so years, that defeat will reach the population almost immediately in newspapers and telegraph/radio communications. Any major victory, on the other hand, IF not accompanied by major casualty lists, will reduce War Weariness.
A Democracy at war, then, becomes very Risk-Adverse: look at the discussions before D-Day of the Political Risks to attempting a major amphibious landing and having it fail with thousands of casualties - it was assumed that they would not be able to make any second attempt, because the political costs would be just too high. They also didn't dare make an attempt in 1942 or 1943, when German defenses were much, much less ready, because they could not guarantee a success - risk aversion on a grand scale.

Excellent Youtube video on this topic:

And another thing I would add: "Democracy" as in Civilization 6's late-game government unlocks with the Suffrage civic, which represents the women's suffrage movements of the 1910's, from the same period in history which saw the rise of the first Communist state and the earliest versions of totalitarianism, represented by Class Struggle and Totalitarianism respectively. "Democratic" government in a Civ6 context implies a 20th Century-ish government. Older governments such as the United States at its independence keeping off the politics people who couldn't pay taxes are more like "Merchant Republic" in this game.

Civilization 5's "Freedom" Ideology was available at Industrial Era, and if my memories don't deceive me it was actually available at Renaissance Era before Gods and Kings. Your comment's first paragraph makes a lot more sense in this context.

 

[Mummiesforpeace]

These comments are informative, but my real point was that the game would be more interesting if democracies were more of a pain.

 

[Pythakoreas]

Or even before "democracies" (Modern Era) governments have to appease some groups at the cost of others. Like something along the lines of Clergy vs. Nobility vs. Bourgeoisie which would be Renaissance Era in this game. I thought of this looking at the three mid-game governments available and it would be interesting if Nobility pushed for Monarchy government, Clergy pushed for Theocracy government, and Bourgeoisie pushed for Merchant Republic government (regardless of your plan! against your will sometimes!)

Even Total War games have these small quests given by the ruling class that you fulfill for bonuses. Older classics like Rome 1 and Medieval 2 have these really interesting Senate and College of Cardinals standing system which can drastically reshape your campaign map. Civilization games can do much more sophisticated stuff with how to represent our society, especially with the Government and Policy Cards introduced, we're looking at a Parliament system here in the next expansions.

EDIT: removed a word and reworded a word to clarify

 

[Pythakoreas]

Someone can mod this in, or if ever Firaxis reads this they can put it in the next expansion.

Council of Lords (Available at Political Philosophy)
Three groups:
Bureaucrats (preferred government: Autocracy)
Priesthood (preferred government: Oligarchy)
Commoners (preferred government: Classical Republic)

These three groups will come with their different demands on you, you can fulfill their quests for bonuses or ditch them and lose your "standing" with them.
A "standing" scale from 1 to 10 represents your popularity within the social class
A poor standing with one social class leads to rebels appearing in your cities until you regain your standing by fulfilling quests or adopting their preferred government
If a social class is pleased to see their preferred government the minimum cap for standing is 4
Bureaucrats will ask for Military Units, Envoys or War and territory
Priesthood asks for Faith, Culture, or Science and Wonders
Commoners ask for Food and Production or Gold and Amenities (therefore less War Weariness) forcing you to make peace
Some people want to make democracy inconvenient again, and some want to make their country great again, both represented into one system.

Three groups get upgraded to ask for more sophisticated quests and greater rewards
Priesthood -> Clergy (at Theology, late Classical)
Bureaucrats -> Nobility (at Feudalism, early Medieval)
Commoners -> Bourgeoisie (at Mercantilism, early Renaissance)

Clergy (preferred government: Theocracy)
Nobility (preferred government: Monarchy)
Bourgeoisie (preferred government: Merchant Republic)

The quests might be stuff like "Please use this Policy Card" or "Please don't use this Policy Card anymore"
For example I use Conscription card a lot to cut down or army maintenance but I see how commoners (or bourgeois lawyers/doctors who believe in human rights) might react to a situation where people are forced to do military service... in times of war.
There's also the suggestion on this forum to make certain Policy Cards unique to some government. This system could take care of that.

At Nationalism (early Industrial) we could upgrade the Council of Lords to represent the complex political scenarios that arose with the national identities and industrialization of the 19th Century.
Council of Lords -> National Congress

At Ideology (Modern) we could have three drastically different groups who give you very complex quests and game-changing rewards
Left (preferred government: Communism)
Center (preferred government: Democracy)
Right (preferred government: Fascism)

I leave the rest to your imagination...