by [Kyle Van Newkirk, Diplomat/UN Representative from Donethal]
Open letter to the The Orissian Constitution by Kyle Van Newkirk, Diplomat/UN Representative from Donethal
As this letter comes from a representative from Donethal, I do have questions regarding your regime structure. As a question that I have is this since the people of Orissian vote through an app on their phone to pass bills, elect leaders, etc. will there be any sort of ramifications in regards to policies that will hinder the public? As such, an example pertaining to a pure democracy can be seen in the “Beginning in Delaware, liquor dealers and their attorneys, drawing from James Madison and other political thinkers, argued that local option established a "pure democracy" that made for unstable policymaking and facilitated the oppression of local minorities by local majorities.” As such, my question is this, will the government have any sort of checks and balances that will be made aware within the people’s constitution that will secure the ideology of the people and the safety to progress within society? Since there are so many issues that can be countered with this statement that 75% of a majority vote will pass with certain laws, what checks, and balances will there be when only ten people vote on the matter and pass a law that is not beneficial to the people? As such, my main concern for this matter is that in the future of your society and the well-being of your people, is there a base requirement of how many votes are needed to consider passing a vote within your country? Since this can easily be turned into a major issue with stating that the society will either progress fast with the other states within the country, or will it fall behind with time to serve everybody’s needs. As such, since we are a neighboring country, it does give us a general concern to the wellbeing of our nation, and the ramifications of a possibility of future issues if humanitarian issues are applicable.
Volk, K.G. (2009). The Perils of "Pure Democracy": Minority Rights, Liquor Politics, and Popular Sovereignty in Antebellum America. Journal of the Early Republic 29(4), 641-679. doi:10.1353/jer.0.0113.
by [enter name of person writing 2nd commentary]
[insert Commentary2 text]
by [Sophia Campbell, Democratic Council Moderator]
Thankyou, Kyle Van Newkirk, Diplomat/UN Representative of Donetha for your question regarding the structure of our Pure Democracy in Orissa.
Our response starts with a reference to Article 3 in the Orissian Constitution, this article discusses our legislative process. Bills may only be passed by those who are Orissian Civil Citizens, these voters whose highest level of sovereignty may only pass bills by a 75% or above margin. Before these bills may pass in our yearly Vote, they are first proposed by a Orissian Civil Citizen, and then must pass in the pre-vote (a 3 month period before the Vote) by a ⅔ majority in order to enter into our yearly Vote. This is our system of checks and balances in our legislative process, to curate the bills before they may come into law.
In regards to your question on representation of Orissas populations and who votes, may be found in Article 2 of the Orissan Constitution. The voters and legislators in Orissa are that of our Orissan Civil Citizens, this status is available to all Orissans who so chose. In Orissa we value equal consent which is why we made voting status for each citizen choice. So citizens who wish to participate in the governmental process have the ability to influence their nation. As both a pure democracy and traditionally conserative state we seek our government to first and foremost give the people the power of governance, while our community bonds to one another serve as guidance to ensure the good will of Orissa. In our nation civil service is the highest level of honor and we deeply respect those who serve, this influences every Orissans vote. This combats your questioned concern of minority factions not being heard, as in Orissa we are all the nation. With that we understand the sovereignty of the people stands firm. Although, since our Vote is on the first of each year it allows the peoples voices to be continually heard, so their sovereignty may make necessary legal adjustments to any issues that may arise.
Thankyou for your question.
by Elijah Domine
Generally, it is recognized that pure/direct democracies separate themselves from representative democracies through greater principles of direct participation by citizens in their government. While this does not necessarily require absolutism in direct participation by citizens, it becomes hard to unblur the lines between representative democracy and direct democracy when direct participation is minimalized. In my opinion, when the differences between representativism and direct democracy are not clear-cut in practice (the challenges of balancing an ideologically pure, direct democracy with maintaining an operable state are understandable for any nation, particularly in modern times), the ideology of governance and/or social contract upheld by a given society serve to lend greater differentiation of ideology from merely what is done.
In other words, ideology is a social construct, and when the tangible, real actions of a state do not sufficiently paint the ideological orientation being pursued, the values and ideology of society can fill the gaps since ideology is a social construct in and of itself (for example, the USSR really was not much more than an economically interventionist dictatorship, but the deep-penetrating values of communism lent clarification to an ideology claimed to value workers’ emancipation, etc.).
The references to Orissian social values that serve to avoid the fatal weaknesses of direct democracy philosophies - namely supporting Aristotle’s sentiments on democracy eventually equating mob rule, and Edmund Burke’s denunciation of atomistic approaches to society - are not objectively bad values (and I personally agree that they would help uphold the government design in this instance), but I find them to be objectively anti-direct democracy values. Perhaps the answers to my next question can be found in the Regime design (which I intentionally did not review for this commentary), but what does Orissian society value in governance that significantly separates it from representative democracy?
The reason this is important is because the aforementioned references to Aristotlian and Burkean philosophies eat away at direct or collective democracy at their core and valuing equality, free society, and personal rights do not sufficiently make a democracy direct or pure, since the same can be accomplished under representative democracy.
Furthermore, the cited argument from Burke against a prevailing atomistic conception of society (valuing the smallest component of the individual) and preference for a societal view not only seem to support undermining the value of the personal liberties of the individual in a society for the benefit of society, but if intended to highlight the prioritization of a harmonious society, still inevitably justify the anti-democratic view of Aristotle’s eventual mob rule result. If allowing for an atomistic view detracts from accomplishing a harmonious, just, or equal society, then the perception of human nature here is more Hobbesian than Lockean.
Even valuing individuals as a sum of society’s parts while accepting some degree of personal liberty is an inherently socially democratic view, and not an inherently directly democratic view. With this being said, they are by no means mutually exclusive, so I return to my question of representative democracy versus pure democracy.
Rousseau was an outspoken proponent of direct democracy, and he also argued for the idea of a social contract derived out of unanimous consent for all participants in society - an idea contradicted by Burke’s characterization of society as an engine that should not necessarily necessitate valuing the individual. More importantly here is Rousseau’s idea that democracy, by definition, could not exist in a representative state. To Rousseau and his philosophy, democratic rule by the people was no longer democratic when poisoned by representation, and thus the only state in which democracy could exist was a direct one. This is not the only view on direct democracy, but a significant one on the purity of democracy.
Does Orissian ideology value the individual as a proponent of democratic participation, or is society prioritized more? If the latter is the case, reconsider the ideological alignment as it seems to lean more towards social democracy.
Does Orissian ideology use representative democracy as a pragmatic approach to making direct democratic ideas workable? Or does Orissa utilize representative measures because the philosophy here is that pure democracy doesn’t work? If so, reconsider the weight which is lent to representativeness as it seems philosophically opposed to the nature of direct democracy.
Commentary on Orissa Ideology
By Mike Chaney, Official Speaker of the Redento Separatists
On behalf of Leader Alexandra Nera, Leader of the Redento Separatists, I write to not only commend you on your pure democracy achieved through classical conservatism, but to also warn you of the dangers inherent in your focus on internal perfection. Redento continues our struggle against those who would inhibit our freedoms, particularly the authoritarian theocracy Donethal, with whom we both share a border, and we are concerned that your classical conservative leanings may blind you to the threat on your doorstep.
Traditional, or classical conservatives, have often eschewed international engagements in order to prioritize domestic concerns. In the United States, this was a pattern with regard to most conflicts abroad, with conservative resistance to engagements ranging from the Kyoto Treaty to the Balkans1. While your efforts to ensure peace and stability to the citizens of Orissa are laudable, your isolation from world affairs – evidenced by the significant absence of language describing your relation to the rest of Zemia – puts your people at risk.
You border a nation led by a sole authoritarian leader with no domestic constraints. These leaders have a higher tendency to initiate conflicts than those with domestic audiences who require appeasement2. Orissa’s financial institutions hold assets belonging to the wealthy from across Zemia, and those assets are used to fund a wide variety of enterprises across our lands. Your neutrality, while creating a financial haven that has enriched your people, also funds the attacks and destruction brought upon our people as we strive for the democratic values you hold so dear.
Consider a future where your neighbors to the south have sucked dry the oil fields enabling a ruthless dictatorship. Imagine where they will look next as they seek more money, resources, and land to maintain their inequities and establish hegemony over Zemia. If Orissa continues to maintain its isolation today, rather than to help build the democracies of tomorrow, there will be far fewer allies to come to your aid. The best chance at security for all of us is to spread, not contain, our shared ideals, with the hope that more of our neighbors will see the security it brings.
1. Henrie, Mark C. “Chapter 1: Understanding Traditional Conservatism.” Varieties of Conservatism in America, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, CA, 2004, pp. 27.
2. Weeks, Jessica L.P. Dictators at War and Peace. Cornell University Press, 2014, pp. 171.
by [enter name of person writing 3rd commentary]
[insert Commentary3 text]
By [Reem Elsaad; Amuria Head of State]
[Orissa sounds like a wonderful place to live as it includes all people and has strong aspects of Classical Conservatism. I think it is very interesting that Classical Conservatism is used to balance and protect the weak points of pure democracy and how it relates to the people.
One question that arose while reading the Ideology explanation is what is the foreign policy for the state of Orissa? There is very little mention within the Regime section, but even then, it only refers to Foreign Nationals in regards to immigrants. There is no explanation about how Orissa will interact with neighboring countries and various interactions with states throughout Zemia. Within the brief explanation of the country, it explains Orissa as a neutral nation, and I would like to know how neutrality plays a role in the creation and implementation of foreign policy. No matter the state and its regime and ideology, there has to be some sort of interaction between them and other states as it creates relationships and provides opportunities.
A very similar example is Switzerland. They have a similar structure in which they are a semi-direct democracy, are a very neutral country, and their citizens have much more power than in other democracies. Switzerland also keeps friendly diplomatic relations with most countries and typically serves as a mediator in negotiations. Along with that, Switzerland also tends to host international treaty conferences and is home to many international organizations, such as the Universal Postal Union, International Olympic Committee, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Some of their foreign policy objectives includes promote respect for human rights and democracy, promote the peaceful coexistence of peoples, and promote preservation of natural resources, alleviation of need and poverty in the world (“Switzerland’s foreign policy”, 2017, para. 1). These are all foreign policy goals that may be beneficial when Orissa is interacting with other states in Zemia.
Switzerland's foreign policy. Eidgenössisches Departement für auswärtige Angelegenheiten EDA. (2017, November 27). Retrieved March 28, 2022, from https://www.eda.admin.ch/countries/usa/en/home/switzerland-and/swiss-foreign-policy.html]
by Jared Iverson, Chief Diplomat & UN Ambassador of Orissa
Thank you for both of your extensive and thorough commentaries. As there are several points I would like to address for each, I will do so in a systematic effort, identifying the point directly mentioned in each commentary, followed by my responses accordingly.
Regarding Elijah Domine’s Commentary:
1) You briefly mention that when direct participation is minimalized, the lines between direct democracy and representative democracy can become blurred. In what way would you say that direct participation in the political process of Orissa is being minimalized? Also, how would such “lines” between direct and representative democracy be blurred, exactly? There are definitive features and structures that set direct democracy apart from representative democracy, starting first and foremost with defining who constitutes as legitimate political actors and decision makers. On the former, individual citizens have the right and duty to participate directly in the governance of their society and execute all the powers commonly granted to them by said society. On the latter, representatives are either directly or proportionally elected to office, and they are expected to represent the interests of their constituencies as well as their own insights and opinions, and ultimately their votes. Therefore, even with whatever blurring of the lines between these two types of regimes might consist of (if possible), it cannot overcome the structural divisions between these regime types.
2) You write, “… ideology is a social construct, and when the tangible, real actions of a state do not sufficiently paint the ideological orientation being pursued, the values and ideology of society can fill the gaps since ideology is a social construct in and of itself…”. This statement seems to be a bit confused. While we agree that ideology is a social construct, the state and regime are also social constructs. If this is the case, then what relevance does ideology being a social construct in and of itself have on “filling in gaps” where states and regimes do not adequately convey the ideology being pursued, especially when states and regimes are also socially constructed?
3) You claim that the values of Orissian classical conservatism seem to be objectively anti-direct democracy, or rather, that they seem to be contrary to the fundamental underpinnings of direct democracy. It seems unclear as to how this could be, though, as you do not explain this point further. How do Orissian classical conservative values of security, order, stability, and harmony necessarily contradict the fundamental values of freedom, independence, and equal consent as they are so defined in the ideology? Also, following this point, you ask, “What does Orissian society value in governance that significantly separates it from representative democracy?” Again, the Orissian regime suggests that individual citizens bring
4) You write, “… Aristotlian [sic] and Burkean philosophies eat away at direct or collective democracy at their core and valuing equality, free society, and personal rights do not sufficiently make a democracy direct or pure, since the same can be accomplished under representative democracy.” I agree that valuing equality, free society, and personal rights are not what comprise direct democracy. As previously stated, direct democracy is merely a political system in which individual citizens have the right and duty to participate directly in the governance of their society and execute all the powers commonly granted to them, collectively, by said society. It need not be necessarily liberal, conservative, or socialist by virtue of its regime structure alone.
5) You argue that Burke’s organic conception of society seems to support undermining the value of the personal liberties of the individual in a society for the benefit of society. If the intention behind this is to prioritize a harmonious society, then it still inevitably justifies Aristotle’s view that democracy eventually results in mob rule. I would agree with this conclusion if there were no other mechanisms in place to ward against the passions of the people unbridled. However, Orissian society has mechanisms such as the mandatory civil service to help reinforce a sense of solidarity and collective moral responsibility. Moreover, this is just further support for why Orissian classical conservatism is needed to provide a strong normative framework for Orissians to behave in a way that is aligned with the values explicated therein and prescribe which aims Orissians ought to pursue accordingly.
6) “Even valuing individuals as a sum of society’s parts while accepting some degree of personal liberty is an inherently socially democratic view, and not an inherently directly democratic view.” How is it inherently socially democratic? This statement seems to suggest that social democracy has a monopoly on this kind of framework. However, consider the conservative constitutional monarchy of England during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, where traditional conservatism often dominated the political landscape and yet individual liberties and rights were still granted to its citizenry according to the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689, etc. If this is the case, then social democracy cannot have exclusive claim to this framework. Additionally, it seems unclear as to why the framework would be precluded by direct democracy as well.
7) You write, “Rousseau was an outspoken proponent of direct democracy, and he also argued for the idea of a social contract derived out of unanimous consent for all participants in society – an idea contradicted by Burke’s characterization of society as an engine that should not necessarily necessitate valuing the individual.” There are two points that I’d like to address. First, in respect to one of the fundamental Orissian values – equal consent – our ideology explicitly states that any presumption that this value necessitates unanimity as a required condition of our political process is in fact misguided and misunderstands this value. Instead, equal consent merely refers to the political equality established through our one citizen-one vote system and the right and responsibility to use that vote to help shape the governance of Orissa directly, constrained or guided by our other ideological values. Second, it is doubly false, and inconsistent with Burke’s works, to say that he characterized “society as an engine that should not necessarily necessitate valuing the individual”. On the contrary, in Burke’s view, “… government is not a machine that can be taken apart and reassembled whenever and however people want. It is a complex and delicate organism that must be rooted in the customs and traditions of the people…” (Ball et al., 2017, p. 114). Furthermore, on the individual and their personal liberty, he also argued that liberty is worthwhile only when it is properly ordered. He wrote, “The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations, which may be soon turned into complaints” (Ball et al., 2017, p. 115).
8) You write, “Does Orissian ideology value the individual as a proponent of democratic participation, or is society prioritized more?” This is a false dichotomy as society is comprised by multiple individuals, all of whom are products of values, customs, norms, shared knowledge and wisdom, and that it is through democratic participation that individuals may collectively determine the governance of their society.
9) Lastly, you write, “Or does Orissa utilize representative measures because the philosophy here is that pure democracy doesn’t work? If so, reconsider the weight which is lent to representativeness as it seems philosophically opposed to the nature of direct democracy.” Again, Orissa is a direct democracy, meaning that its citizens participate directly in government. There are no measures of representative democracy being utilized in our regime structure, which then renders this point as irrelevant.
Regarding Both Mike Chaney’s and Reem Elsaad's Commentaries:
It does not necessarily follow from Orissian classical conservatism that isolationism and protectionism are the only paths regarding international relations, and it is important not to confuse neutrality with isolationism as well. On the contrary, Orissian classical conservatism implies considerable engagement in international affairs in order to pursue its values of security, order, stability, and harmony. To this end, we adopt more of a principled realist approach to international affairs. To clarify, “Fundamentally, principled realism integrates political morality with the responsible use of power. Like realism, this tradition regards the world as an anarchic community where power is necessary to secure and protect vital interests… Unlike realism, however, this perspective assumes that the quality of domestic politics will shape global order. More specifically, it assumes that domestic institutions like the rule of law, constitutional government and human rights will influence not only foreign policy but also the nature of global politics. Moreover, principled realists believe that foreign policy decisions necessarily entail moral values both in defining interests and in devising strategies to pursue them… principled realists recognize that other moral values, including liberty, human rights, and protection of the global commons, must… have priority in public affairs” (Amstutz, 2013, p.60). Indeed, as our ideology explicitly states, we believe that interconnectivity and interdependence necessitate collective moral responsibility. This principle applies both domestically and internationally. We also acknowledge, however, the quintessential role that power plays in global politics as well. With that said, we strive to establish peace, order, stability, justice, and security for Orissians as well as for the rest of humanity.
Thank you for your questions and expressed concerns.
Ball, T., Dagger, R., & O’Neill, Daniel. (Ed.). (2017). Political ideologies and the democratic ideal. (10th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Amstutz, M.R. (Ed.). (2013). International ethics: Concepts, theories, and cases in global politics. (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
by [enter name of person writing 1st commentary]
[insert Commentary1 text]
by [enter name of person writing 2nd commentary]
[insert Commentary2 text]
by [author of Immigration Policy]
by [Matthew Wheeler Khulna head of council of the people]
Greetings John Shiver, it was a pleasure to learn and hear from your energy policy behind Orissa's success. I find it to be an interesting concept in using permits as a way to limit and slowly phase out the use of co2 emissions. However, I do have some questions as to the logistics of the policy. The first is the sheer price of said permits. According to the researchers at MIT, it is important that the cost of a permit is equal to the damage that the waste causes. Now with your particular policy, the cost will rise each year to decrease the amount, but the starting price is where I believe more consideration should take place. The estimated social cost of one ton of Co2 is about 50$. Now at this price clearly any large company would not really care for limiting co2 emissions as that price is too low, but it shows that your proposed 2 million dollars is quite high for four tons. Another thing to consider with setting large prices is that it could lead to smaller companies getting run out of business. Large companies could buy up all of the permits set at any given price, and this problem would just be escalated in the case of an auction system like you mentioned. I did not see any mention of a limit to how many permits could be bought, so this is assumed to be a problem you will face with this policy.
A potential revision of your policy could be that you could give smaller companies a defaulted amount of permits based on the size of their company. Many smaller companies will simply be unable to compete if they are forced to use more expensive forms of energy. Since large polluters account for a majority of Co2 emissions, hitting them harder would help the problem more than running the smaller companies out of business.
Despite that potential problem you may face, I do like how you plan to slowly phase Co2 emissions out of your country by slowly raising prices and limiting the amount of permits each year. However, one question I have is how the event of war or another economically ruining event could affect this policy. In the event of war, would you still stick to this policy, effectively limiting your production capabilities? Would you still decrease the amount and increase the price of permits, or would you temporarily suspend this policy for war essential production?
Despite these concerns, I believe you have a very promising energy policy laid out for Orissa and its future. I do agree that keeping power plants away from fishing and residential areas is also very important for the well being and health of Orissans. It is good to see that countries have their own roadmaps for the future of the world we all share and how to protect it.
“Carbon Pricing.” MIT Climate Portal, https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/carbon-pricing.
“The True Cost of Carbon Pollution.” Environmental Defense Fund, 22 July 2020, https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution.
by [Cody Doyle]
Good Evening Mr. Shiver,
While I am happy to say I agree with many aspects of your nation’s energy plans, I am left with a few questions. I agree with your plan to price fossil fuels out the market rather than setting caps which seemed to punish organizations leaving them to find solutions rather than incentivizing companies to slowly identify government supported ways to operate more greenly. This is where the purchase of permits allowing for a certain level of emissions comes into play.
From my understanding, a company purchases a permit or multiple permits (dependent upon the type) from the government allowing that company to produce so many tons of CO2 that year. Am I correct that these companies are paying the government an additional fee measured in the millions of dollars in order to operate at a more restrictive level than they currently were? As well, only 20% of the total value of permits sold per year is being reintroduced as subsidies to promote the development of green energy alternatives. This means a company which uses 4 tons of CO2 who purchases a single C-permit for 2,000,000 dollars will at most see 400,000 dollars in subsidies. This 400,000 dollars isn’t even guaranteed as it doesn’t state the subsidies will go to each company.
From my point of view, these organizations are then forced to use additional funds to conduct research and development of green energies while attempting to limit their current energy usage by 10% the following year, all while paying the government off the top in order to function in the first place and adding things like solar panels to their roofs if not already installed. It seems as though the corporations are being forced by the government to spend large amounts of capital on these changes while receiving little help from the government. A major question is what is the other 80% of funds from the purchase of permits being allocated to? Green energy? Why can’t more of these funds be used to assist these corporations in moving through the process? If the government wants to move towards clean energy practices, why not use all the funds for that.
While I agree with your policy overall, I believe many aspects of my questions could be solved by allocating the funds received for permits differently or explaining how they are being allocated if going into green energy.
by John Shiver, Environmental Science Officer/Joint Chief Economist
Greetings Matthew Wheeler,
I appreciate your concerns, but I believe they are misguided. Within my policy there is a system that allows smaller companies a chance to buy permits. The vast majority of the initial permits are one per interested party, those interested parties being companies and people. While I do think it would be prudent to outline more specifically what an interested party is to prevent companies using their employees to buy multiple permits, there is a system in place to attempt a more even distribution already in place.
The MIT source you quote does not seem to mention your specific pricing of CO2 nor how it was calculated. What it does say is that the price is difficult to determine, and most costs are based on meeting emission or temperature targets. I believe my price point meets the former goal of meeting emission targets. If this is incorrect, please inform me otherwise.
Further 4 tons of CO2 is more than most individual companies emit in a year and most emissions are from oil and gas companies (EPA), which we are trying to phase out. The larger polluters are hit harder under this policy because they must compete with each other for the more expensive, less limited G-Permits.
I do see the problem with a potential war breaking out however, in those instances, I believe my government will react appropriately and consider an alternative solution that accounts for war, such as a suspension of the emissions policy.
EPA. (n.d.). Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). EPA. Retrieved April 13, 2022, from https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/key-facts-and-figures
Greetings Cody Doyle,
Thank you for your questions.
The permits themselves are designed to restrict emissions more, yes. The cost associated with the permits is designed to make a company consider how much they are polluting.
The subsidies themselves do not go directly back to any company; they are allocated where research into green technology is being done. If a company purchases a C-permit for $2m and gets a grant in the amount of $2m for green energy research, they will effectively have paid $0 for emissions for the year due to their contribution to reducing CO2 and their focus on green energy. The subsidizes are designed to promote the research of green energy, not to offset the cost of emissions for each company.
They are only forced to use additional funds if they emit more CO2 in a year than they attempt conversion/research for green energy. If a company only emits 2 tons of CO2 and does $8m in green energy research, they are actually paid by the government for their contributions. Those other funds go towards necessary government expenditures such as education, social services, etc. but I do think it is possible to allocate more to green energy and subsidies with more of a breakdown overall where the money from permits goes.
by [enter name of person writing 1st commentary]
[insert Commentary1 text]
by [enter name of person writing 2nd commentary]
[insert Commentary2 text]
by [author of Immigration Policy]