Visibilities and Proposal Quotas: IC or OOC?

[Opakidabar]

As I do not want to pollute any other thread, nor I want to discuss that alone, I put it there.
So, is the visibility seen as OOC event, i.e. purely game mechanics without IC consequence OR is it seen as IC feature with direct IC consequences?

Why am I asking?
Reason 1. I want to know if nation that has 1-5-72 policy is
a) IC dictatorship
b) IC democracy
c) IC dictatorship that can IC declare itself democracy but still is dictatorship
d) 1-5-72 has nothing to do whether nation IC is or is not democratic

Reason 2. If my party has 'excellent' visibility in Foreing Relations then
a) may I say that party has well explained the Foreign Relations point of view to its voters?
b) would it be ok to say IC that my voters have no information on my party's stance on Foreign Relations? (and would that saying be only my propaganda or IC true saying)?

Reason 3. If my party is extreme small govt, can I say (and hold that IC true) that my party is Communist?

[Mr.Yankees]

I personally see the visibility as an OOC matter, a game mechanics issue. Political positions, I see it as strictly IC but does depend on game mechanics (you need to propose bills in order to attain a political position).

In the real world, if you propose a bill in your legislature, you automatically get a sense of political position with your voters and you do get visibility.

I think that bringing up the issue of visibility in IC as not proper (if the opposition is not persecuted and such). I can give you the example of Lodamun an we kind of discussed this earlier. I think that saying that I don't allow parties to gain visibility by proposing early elections, therefore they don't get any votes and I am a dictator is kind of wrong. Now, if you say that the opposition is not doing a good job in expressing its opinion due to a lack of funds or restrictions by the ruling party or persecution by the ruling party, then that's alright because it would apply in RP. I think this issue has several overlapping factors that could go either way.

Answering your questions:

Reason 1- Depends on the political condition of the nation. If they RP an iron fist control by having a police state, arresting political dissidents, and the like, then they would be a dictatorship. If the nation does not RP such things, they are probably considered democratic. Legislative terms are not a good indication of dictatorship/democracy.

Reason 2- I would go with #1 even though you can RP #2. I would say that excellent visibility would indicate that your party has thoroughly explained its position and shown it has taken action to go with that policy.

Reason 3- I don't know how your party can be small gov't and be communist. Though you can RP your own kind of communism. Remember that voters in each country are different. What they perceive as small govt in your country may be perceived as big govt in mine.

Hope that helps.

[Freelancer]

Since we are talking about Lodamun here so I would like to voice my concern as well.

I understand that using game mechanic to further your control is possible and is currently being done and while I admit that it is smart and cunning way to play the game; I really needs to question whether allowing one people to manipulate one nation into his playground should be allow? I know that particracy is not as crowded as it used to be and that there is many slot for new parties in many country, but to allow one party to explore the game mechanics to it's limit and also to disregard other players right to play the game as well is unacceptable in my opinion. (Their is still a couple of parties in the nation on the last time I check)

As for my view on whether the country can be RP as democratic or not then see answer number 1 for Opakidabar.

As for my opinion on the question by Opakidabar, here is it:

1. I believe it is up to international perspective, North Korea also have election, parliaments, and multiple parties that proposed bills to the parliament (Although they are usually agreed by all parties anyway) but I doubt anyone here would considered them a democratic nation.

So Answer C.

2. I will go with answer A. but like what Yank said it could also be RP as B.

3. Small government usually means centralized decision so it could be communist.

[JosephJ]

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.

[Emunim]

Reason 1- Depends on the political condition of the nation. If they RP an iron fist control by having a police state, arresting political dissidents, and the like, then they would be a dictatorship. If the nation does not RP such things, they are probably considered democratic. Legislative terms are not a good indication of dictatorship/democracy.

I'm not really sure that that matters though. If one party can keep power without having to resort to arresting dissidents and outlawing opponents, but by being able to restrict the political system so that opponent parties are unable to put their platform before the electorate (which is basically what any 1-5-72 nation is doing) then it doesn't make it any less of a dictatorship. If anything it makes it a better one.

As for the other two questions, I tend to think of everything RP'd in the game as just a claim, and that sometimes it's just unhelpful to get too concerned with what would be true (though obviously there are exceptions to this). So, for example, if you were to claim you have a comprehensive foreign policy plan while the opposition claimed you have no plans whatsoever, it really makes no difference to the claims what your foreign policy plans are.

[Molotov]

1. Don't really know. I'd say that, if the state is one party with no chance of becoming more than a one party state in the short to long term because of the actions of the ruling party, it is a dictatorship, de facto if not de jure. So other countries and the citizens would understand that it's a dictatorship, even if it called itself a democracy and held fair elections (with only one party) or whatever regularly. Treaty locking and whatnot essentially means that the one party has made it legally impossible for other parties to gain prominence, even if they are legally allowed to exist.

2.
a) Yes

b) If you said this, it would be a lie in my view, but it's perfectly fine to RP that you're lying.


3. Small government is not communist, quite the opposite. The big/small government thing is sort of a false dichotomy/not very useful I know, but generally what is meant by the term is that a 'big government' has a large bureaucracy, interferes in markets and all sorts of things (the biggest government would then be a state socialist country, like the U.S.S.R. or China) - a 'small government' is classically liberal, the smallest government of all would deal with nothing but those matters which cannot be dealt with by anything but the state, like defence of the realm and foreign relations, and leave everything else to private citizens or private enterprise.

If you were a small government party, though, you could say you were communist - you could want a small state with lots of communist style, worker-owned corporations running things. It's all up to how you RP it really, I don't think it matters. I usually just RP whatever the heck I like, don't even take any notice of my party's stances.

[Jacobin]

1. Don't really know. I'd say that, if the state is one party with no chance of becoming more than a one party state in the short to long term because of the actions of the ruling party, it is a dictatorship, de facto if not de jure. So other countries and the citizens would understand that it's a dictatorship, even if it called itself a democracy and held fair elections (with only one party) or whatever regularly. Treaty locking and whatnot essentially means that the one party has made it legally impossible for other parties to gain prominence, even if they are legally allowed to exist.

A nation with a whose main party is guaranteed victory is not a dictatorship, it is a dominant party system.

Would you call South Africa a dictatorship even though they have regular elections just because the vast majority of citizens prefer the ANC? What about Mexico from c.1940 until 2000 when PRI was the primary system? What about your nation, the UK, from 1997 until 2005, when the Labour Party was essentially guaranteed victory?

You are essentially saying if a political party has too much support, they are running a dictatorship. I find that concept preposterous.

[Molotov]

No, if it happened to be a one party state but the constitution (i.e., no treatylocking, proposal quota etc. and other exploits) allow other parties to form and gain seats reasonably it's not a dictatorship. It's just a country with a popular dominant party, like Japan for much of the post-war period. What I mean is, if the game mechanics are used to lock a single party in power by a single party, then we can reasonably say that it's a dictatorship regardless of whether or not the single party pretends it isn't a dictatorship.

[Jacobin]

No, if it happened to be a one party state but the constitution (i.e., no treatylocking, proposal quota etc. and other exploits) allow other parties to form and gain seats reasonably it's not a dictatorship. It's just a country with a popular dominant party, like Japan for much of the post-war period. What I mean is, if the game mechanics are used to lock a single party in power by a single party, then we can reasonably say that it's a dictatorship regardless of whether or not the single party pretends it isn't a dictatorship.

Molotov,

Now that you have explained further, I must state that I agree with you.

Thanks for the clarification!

[JosephJ]

1. Don't really know. I'd say that, if the state is one party with no chance of becoming more than a one party state in the short to long term because of the actions of the ruling party, it is a dictatorship, de facto if not de jure. So other countries and the citizens would understand that it's a dictatorship, even if it called itself a democracy and held fair elections (with only one party) or whatever regularly. Treaty locking and whatnot essentially means that the one party has made it legally impossible for other parties to gain prominence, even if they are legally allowed to exist.

A nation with a whose main party is guaranteed victory is not a dictatorship, it is a dominant party system.

Would you call South Africa a dictatorship even though they have regular elections just because the vast majority of citizens prefer the ANC? What about Mexico from c.1940 until 2000 when PRI was the primary system? What about your nation, the UK, from 1997 until 2005, when the Labour Party was essentially guaranteed victory?

You are essentially saying if a political party has too much support, they are running a dictatorship. I find that concept preposterous.

Veeeeeeeeeeery big difference between one party taking, say, two thirds of support with several opposition factions (to use South Africa), and one party being the only absolute power.