by JosephJ » Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:23 pm
Honestly? I'm inclined towards the country being a dictatorship, in practice if not in name.
Essentialy, 1-5-72 (or really just 1-5; the 72 part doesn't matter) means that there's a ridiculously restrictive political climate. A small group, that can't be removed from power, holds all the influence. Whether this is a single individual, a single party, or a group of parties (the idea of a 'political class' dictatorship that is often espoused IRL by those on the far-left and far-right alike as being in effect in whatever nation they happen to be in and which isn't furthering their view points at that time; although I think it's mostly bollocks, there's nothing to stop an elitist 'democracy' from happening. Italy post-1945 often came very close to this, and outright was that in some areas) is irrelevant; essentially, it's an oligarchy or dictatorship of some sort.
Now, I cited Italy. This shows that there's nothing to stop a nation CALLING itself democratic. To use a more extreme example, the German Democratic Republic. Regular elections in a multi-party 'democracy' - yet, the other parties weren't allowed essentially to pursue an independent course, and thus it was essentially a dictatorship/oligarchy. Similarly, Napoleonic France; there was the trappings of a democratic system, yet all legislative power was in Napoleon, or at best, the Senate that he appointed. The nation was technically democratic, but the 'democratic' lower two legislatures had no real power. One couldn't vote, and one couldn't debate; the political climate allowed for no strong dissent. You get the idea.
As for your other two points, I should note you can say ANYTHING IC, because there's no requirement for it to be TRUE. As for reality, essentially visibility and position is how your party is SEEN. Now, your party could say that they take an opposite standpoint, but that's still how it may be perceived (look at most communist states; they claim typically to be liberal on civil rights, but are seen as authoritarian). Specifically regarding your second point, I believe that you could say that they have no information; now, this could be true to an extent in reality, as you may never have informed them; the visibility may refer simply to a low-level feeling among the population that 'this is how the party leans'.
Remember, visibility is public perception, among the masses, essentially; not the position perhaps put forward by the party, or the media, or any other group for that matter. This is the key point.
I WAS A MODERATOR
I WAS NOT VERY GOOD