A Treatise on the Democratic State

[Narthok 10416]

A Treatise on the Democratic State

 

Circumstances Leading to the Composition of this Treatise
    Of late I have been made aware of the popularization of the repugnant concept of “democracy” as the ideal method of government. Whilst I rested in a tavern with a friend I overhead an elf espouse the superiority of democratic states over monarchic states. The claims of this odd fellow perplexed me, so I have been driven to compose a small treatise on the subject to address his claims.

 

Introduction to the Issues of a Democratic State

   The exercise of democracy has proven to be a failure with the various factions that practice this form of governance being weak and fractured entities of relatively minimal influence. There are several innate problems that render democratic governance inept. Firstly democracies promote the opinion of the unwashed masses as the enlightened opinion, to take the opinion of wheat farmers when it comes to matters of state and diplomacy is assuredly a foolhardy practice as their proficiencies are limited to agriculture. Secondly democratic states often display a lack of cohesive military force owing to their reliance on the fickle desires of the masses, who are unlikely to endorse any action that would induce risk to their own lives. Thirdly the democratic process results in internal divisions of the democratic state as various factions form and compete with one another to gain the favour of the voting base. Finally, there is the assumption that an election bestows legitimacy which leads to more efficient governance, this is completely and utterly false. Ultimately the assumption the democratic states are superior in governance to the governing capability of a monarchic state is false as will be demonstrated in the following passages.

 

Addressing the Problem of Decisions Made by the Masses.
    From what I have observed of democratic states, they are typically representative in nature. With the voting base electing a representative to handle their affairs in a particular area or to voice their concerns on some form of a council. The primary issue I take with this form of governance is that it assumes that the interests of the majority of the population are in line with the true interests of the state. Assuming the masses are filled with the unskilled labourers that comprise the majority of the population, their interests will be in line with their immediate gratification. Namely lower taxes, free bread, ‘peace’ they fail to account for the necessary evils of operating a state. It is in this way that popular rule fails to properly govern a state effectively as its view is rendered to the immediate and the micro. Democraticstatesfails to account for the long-term interests of the state as the elected representatives are too busy appeasing the immediate interests of their voting base.

 

Addressing the Passive Nature of Democratic States
    Democratic states are by nature passive entities. This is due to the fact that decisions made by the citizenry will avoid conflict at all costs. Because they will be serving as the main body of whatever force a democratic state manages to field it is in the best interests of the individual citizen to avoid conflict. This desire will then be reflected in the decision-making process of said state. This ultimately serves as a severe crutch to any nation, as the ability to field disciplined, professional, well equipped and sizeable forces is necessary for the existence of any nation. Typically democratic states will have nothing more than a rudimentary town guard or militia force that spends the majority of its time swaggering behind large walls or exchanging insults with orcs. This is evidenced in the passivity of theelven states and the merchant state of Salvus (prior to its collapse). These states are often driven to vassalization or very punitive treaties in order to maintain their existence. Hence, the Democratic State’s obsession with the placation of the voting base once again proves to be ultimately damaging to the health of the state. As in being unable to defend itself it suffers more than it would were the state be capable of warding off raiders and establishing itself beyond its own walls. 

 

Addressing the Divisive Nature of a Democratic State
    One of the greatest issues with operating a sizeable state is the internal conflicts that arise from within as various factions arise and struggle for control. In a monarchic state such as Oren the leading figure is typically authoritative enough to suppress internal fighting and in certain cases is even able to redirect the vigour of his nation to an external campaign. However as is showcased by the numerous dwarven elections their pseudo monarchic system is undermined by internal divisions. The internal divisions of this nation are likely responsible for the recent series of losses in the 18-year campaign that concluded recently with the Peace of Avar. However, this phenomenon is not exclusive to the Dwarves it can be perceived in all democratic states. As they are unable to exert large amounts of external influence due to their focus on internal power struggles. This prevents the elite of a democratic nation from using their talents to serve and strengthen the nation, as instead they simply use it to further their own sub-faction.

 

Addressing the Erroneous Assumption that Monarchic Entities Lack Legitimacy
    The argument that Democratic states possess legitimacy to rule because the people have participated in an election is utterly false. The monarchic titans of Oren and to a lesser extent ofUruguan have all secured legitimacy through a combination of hereditary authority combined with the support of the nobility. This combination allowed monarchs to rule with relatively minimal fear of internal conflicts whilst being able to operate with extreme executive authority in pursuing their agenda of expansion. The imperial powers of the realm have been able to operate in external theatres precisely due to the legitimacy exercised by their leaders. This legitimacy grants monarchic figures the ability to focus on external affairs enabling for efficient expansion. 

 

Conclusion
    To conclude the follies of democratic states all stem from the root of collective rule. As this collective rule promotes short-sightedness, passiveness, divisiveness and a very short lived legitimate period of rule that completely prevents maims democratic states. In this maimed state, they are unable to exercise influence externally and are thusly weakened as monarchic states expand. Ultimately leading to vassalization, dissolution or punitive treaties. This evidence taken into account clearly demonstrates the superiority of the monarchic state as the ideal type of governance in contrast to the foolishly idealistic democratic form.

 

Signed
~ Thomas of Felsen
 

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

Enepay, Lord of House Yar, Sovereign God-Emperor of the Independent Grand Enclave of Enepaycia and Lord-Chancellor of Vandoria has a smart person read this out for him. "Yeah! You tell 'em!"

[KarmaDelta 969]

Durack would read this over and simply say,

"Teh Dwed jus' vo'e fur ou'a Kings.... 'erediteh means nae a fing. Ot'a dan da', es alroigh' ah guess..."

[AGP 3169]

7 minutes ago, KarmaDelta said:

Durack would read this over and simply say,

"Teh Dwed jus' vo'e fur ou'a Kings.... 'erediteh means nae a fing. Ot'a dan da', es alroigh' ah guess..."

"Only the Elder Clans have any real say, though, so the government is semi-hereditary," comments Bertrand.

[CheekyNolan 5420]

Moved to the Archive. It shall be sorted into the appropriate category shortly.