On the Construction of Civilisation, Nation Building, and the Golden States is a writing piece/essay written by Schintzengruber on January 16th, 2017 in response to the union of Corsica-Florence and the flaws that he saw within it. He believed that publishing the work would help others to see the flaws in certain nation states and help them build their own governments
On the Construction of Civilisation, Nation Building, and the Golden States[]
By Schnitzengruber[]
In all happenstances of history and future have shown the progression and declination of civilisation and government. To continue this is to express approval of the purpose of the purpose of the server, in forming social contracts among others to create unity and dichotomies within the cultures of the server. For the same reason that all people of all towns and nations have agreed upon the basic need for a governing body to act above the citizenship, the idea of governance must be extrapolated and examined in order to create a functional society for the populous of a nation state.
On Types of Government[]
The natural state of the server’s rules and laws directly show that the intended type of government for each nation state is to be a single-lead dictatorship where the mayor of the capital city holds power. This dictator is allowed to be influenced by others, but regarding foreign affairs, national status, and the civil liberties of each township and subprovince within the state, the dictator reigns alone and supreme. On the server, change can only come from the mayor of the capital city, which makes checks and balances difficult to work correctly or efficiently, as the mayor is able to veto anything whether people like it or not. This makes way for the first type of government the easiest to take hold,
Monocracy[]
Monocracy is the power of one, where one holds the true power of the nation alone and with unchecked power. This is natural for the server, as all pluggins and management systems have been fitted to accommodate this better than any other type of government. Dictators are almost always those who start a nation state, and therefore, it is generally difficult and unwieldy to pass power on to another player. These governments are efficient, as there is no need for bureaucracy or time-consuming voting to make official change. They are also generally unrepresentative of the people’s will, as the only one who is needed to make enact policy is the dictator. It can also be unstable if the dictator is not wise or competent in their decision making. They often create a more elitist class of their personal friends that can influence their policy.
Monocracies are suggested for nations that are small, warlike, are in need of great production, are in need of quick adaption, or reliant on the government.
Oligarchy[]
An Oligarchy is a form of government that is maintained by a council of non-elected members that decide on policy. A mix between Oligarchy and Monocracy is usually what most big governments are, as the capital mayor acts as the monocratic leader that is influenced by their unofficial inner circle of friends and trusted companions. Oligarchies make sense in the scope of server government, as they allow for opposing views to be held and influential to the capital mayor, while not relying on any code of honour or integrity. But Oligarchies are prone to being completely dismissed by the leader of the nation, which is more likely to happen if the Oligarchy is official and established
Oligarchies make sense for nations that have small populations, centralized power, or a leader that is open to discussion. Unofficial Oligarchies seem to be the natural state of the server because of these common traits.
This is what I, Schnitzengruber, suggest for Corsica-Florence, an Oligarchy lead by a Dictator.
True Democracy[]
In a true democracy, the people hold the power and are able to vote on any policy that is proposed. Every person gets one vote, and every vote counts equally. A problem arises in the voting process and the voting collection. It is likely that most people of a nation are not always active or aware governmental action, so for people to become well informed about the issues and voting time is a difficult obstacle to overcome. A good way to overcome this would be to use an outside form of media to let people know of the upcoming elections and issues. It is also likely that the people counting the votes are the leaders of the nation. The leaders are already in power, and therefore will be more likely to sway the votes in acting in the way they want. Another obstacle to overcome is having the mayor of the capital comply to the will of the people. If any of these challenges are not completely dealt with, the nation is either inactive or corrupt. But even then, if the integrity of the vote is upheld, then the leader is able to be much more mindful of the will of the people, although they may dismiss that for their own plans.
True Democracies may be able to work in nations that are politically stable, are not in need of swift change, have a dutiful capital mayor, and maybe have a close ally nation or person to tally and collect the votes fairly.
Representative Republic[]
Republics are governments that are made up of councils of people that the populous votes into office to represent them. Policy and issues are voted on by these representatives and are taken into account when change is made. This form of government is highly inefficient and often is not compatible with the model that the server creates for government. The reason why republics are not likely to work here is for many reasons, the first being a lack in total population. For a republic to work, there must equal representation for all people while at the same time, having total support of each issue being representative of the proportions that the public poses. Nation states of the server do not usually have that many active and participating members in them, which makes it hard to create a council that can satisfy and represent the republic, as the council may be likely to make up a large percentage of the population of the active nation itself. Republics also have the downfall of every single problem that weighs the True Democracy down, excluding the likelihood of those voting on policy not being educated on the topic. Republics also have to worry about a fair vote casting and collection system, all while having faith that the capital mayor will continue to willingly listen to this council. Even before then, the integrity of the vote is jeopardized during the election for the representatives. It is likely that in the multiple instances of voting during each election or enactment, the votes will not be honoured and the integrity of the republic compromised.
If all of these obstacles can be avoided, republics work well for nations that require efficient governments that also wish to have citizen participation.
Democratic Monocracy[]
A Democratic Monocracy is a form of government where one person is put into absolute and supreme power by being voted in by the masses. This form of government has the strengths of a regular Monocracy mixed with the weaknesses of a True Democracy. For a Democratic Monocracy to be successfully created, the previous dictator must be willing to concede power over to the new leader, which is very often going to be a problem. For an elected dictator to have supreme power, they must become the capital mayor, which can only happen if the previous capital mayor is willing to depart with their power.
Note on the Idealistic Democratic Forms of Government[]
If one calls their government a republic, it is most likely that they are lying. It may be because “___ republic” is a cool name for a nation, or that they want to be able to say they have the support of their people and that they are not doing wrong themselves. It does not matter why, just be aware that many republics and democratic governments are false and corrupt, due to the faults inherent in a democratic government. Not every democratic government is totally false, though, there have been a few examples of nations that enacted policy truly representative of their active populations. Nonetheless, this is most often not the case.
On Checks and Balances[]
The point of Checks and Balances is to ensure that one part of the government does not obtain too much power over the government’s policy creation. This can be done by setting up multiple councils that can veto and oppose the other branches of the government. This is an idealism that is difficult to achieve because of one thing- actual leverage. The capital mayor is still the only one with complete power. If the different branches of government can check each other, they still have no way of checking the capital mayor. But checks and balances can work if there is true leverage against a capital mayor, specifically the loss of population and influence. This is why this system works well for confederate unions of multiple types of cultures and people that would be willing to leave the union if the capital mayor does not comply. For this to happen, though, the capital mayor must not be part of the branches of government that can check each other. This is because the branch that has the capital mayor in it will be inherently more powerful than the others and would be less susceptible from being hindered by the others.
The best form of checks and balances would come from having different councils of each town or sub-culture within the union that can check each other. If the integrity of these checks and balances is not maintained by the capital mayor, whom must not be a part of one of these councils and must only act as either a listener of the branches or as a single-manned council, the sub-culture councils would be able to leave the union. This gives the capital mayor a reason to listen to the other government branches, but this leverage depends on how much they desire for the union to stay intact.
On Unanimity[]
A government, no matter what type, that requires a unanimous vote among more than two people will not function efficiently or properly. This only invites the undermining of the governmental process by the capital mayor and whomever has majoritarian support on the issue at hand. Unanimous votes create a government that cannot act or adapt quickly, which eventually leads to the downfall of the government and the need for reformation.
On the Act of Unity[]
Unity can only be achieved between or among two or more nation states if there is little culture divide among them. The best way to ensure that this is not the case is to establish the nation as a new name with shared powers among each of the nations, unless each nation can largely agree on an existing name or leader. Naturally, players will pledge their allegiance to their towns and friends before all else, but they will be loyal next to their nations of similar culture. This is why having multiple different cultures within a union is dangerous, because it increases the likelihood of people being dissatisfied with their government, banding together, and leaving. To build an effective union, a leader must try to emulate the Romans, and attempt to wipe out all sense of lesser identity before that of the new confederate nation. If the confederate nation is seen as a nation made up of smaller ones, and people are more loyal to the lesser states than the union, the stability and competence of this union breaks down.