Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Tiennos wrote:
If Jesus had shown up in the XIVth century and unified the world in one big empire, do you think Switzerland would have fought for independence because no one elected that guy? Or would they have welcomed the rule of the guy that everyone thought was the one true god, whose return everyone has been waiting for since ages past? Would democracy suddenly stop existing because of that?

Switzerland attacked the pope and the Emperor of the HRE at their height.
Institutions and people with authorithy to act in the name of god.

Ask your question again.

The authority of the pope has been contested for thousands of years, that's definitely not exclusive to democracy.
Anyways, if we'd translate that into 40k, at some point planet Switzerworld would have to choose between "cut that out immediately" and "exterminatus". Holding the line until the Imperium negotiates peace is not a valid option considering how much power it can muster and its casual relationship with genocide. Maybe people would rather die than become subjects of such a tyrannical regime. Or maybe they'd agree that the Imperium's demands are something they can live with. That would make for an interesting referendum...

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
"You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy, in which the working classes.."

Welp.. this discussions over, it's now going to be nothing but Monty Python quotes.


HELP HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED!

BrianDavion wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
"You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy, in which the working classes.."

Welp.. this discussions over, it's now going to be nothing but Monty Python quotes.


HELP HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED!

Spam.
I tell you.
Spam all over the place!

Sorry about that but re-imaging that scene with big Bobby G rocking up to an agri-world makes me smirk

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The Imperium simply never made the progression to something better, but it also couldn't because of Chaos and Xenos. The Imperium is a consequence of its history and the way of the 40K Galaxy. People are wrong when they say "The Imperium has to be like that", but they're right when they say "The Imperium never had the chance to be different and/ because every peaceful or democratic way failed just as much."

I agree with this generally. The specifics of each world differ, they can be more or less democratic, but generally, the Imperium has settled into tyranny and oppression and dynastic regimes and all the bad stuff because that's the lowest effort way to prevent all the really bad stuff happening. 40k effectively works because there's a layer of supernatural bad stuff and horror that exists beyond the real-world consequences of brutal autocracies.

Necromunda is a fun example- where all the elites were killed by the Imperium on arrival, and then again during insurrection wars. A gang lord swore an oath to the Emperor (witnessed by the Imperial Fists) that he would unite the people- the ancestor of the current imperial ruling house. He did this through gang warfare. The ruling house (new elites) ruled through Machiavellian machinations (and gang warfare) since M34. Necromunda is a world where the solution applied is always gang warfare and assassination, and the government is always unaccountable elites. There is a democratic hive, but the elites are applying political shenanigans and gang warfare to sabotage it.

In medieval England mayors were elected but the government was a Monarchy Dictatorship. So having an elected Imperial Governors is possible in the Imperial Dictatorship.

If you look at history you will find that Democracy is extraordinarily rare. So most planets would have a hereditary ruler.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Tiennos wrote:
If Jesus had shown up in the XIVth century and unified the world in one big empire, do you think Switzerland would have fought for independence because no one elected that guy? Or would they have welcomed the rule of the guy that everyone thought was the one true god, whose return everyone has been waiting for since ages past? Would democracy suddenly stop existing because of that?

Switzerland attacked the pope and the Emperor of the HRE at their height.
Institutions and people with authorithy to act in the name of god.

Ask your question again.

Are you talking about the sack of Rome in 1527? Because if you are, you're wrong. Swiss landsknechts in the employ of France and Italy were defeated by the HRE, which resulted in the 1527 sack of Rome during the Valoi, Tudor, Habsburg wars.

If you're referencing another fight with the Pope, apologies in advance.

 Red Marine wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Tiennos wrote:
If Jesus had shown up in the XIVth century and unified the world in one big empire, do you think Switzerland would have fought for independence because no one elected that guy? Or would they have welcomed the rule of the guy that everyone thought was the one true god, whose return everyone has been waiting for since ages past? Would democracy suddenly stop existing because of that?

Switzerland attacked the pope and the Emperor of the HRE at their height.
Institutions and people with authorithy to act in the name of god.

Ask your question again.

Are you talking about the sack of Rome in 1527? Because if you are, you're wrong. Swiss landsknechts in the employ of France and Italy were defeated by the HRE, which resulted in the 1527 sack of Rome during the Valoi, Tudor, Habsburg wars.

If you're referencing another fight with the Pope, apologies in advance.

No i am not talking about Marignano.
I am talking about a series of wars of the early swiss confederacy against the Emperor and the church.

Not Online!!! wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Hellebore wrote:
It's impossible for real democracy to exist in the imperium because the imperial tithe is mandatory.

Democracy allows for the voting in of new laws and the consensus determination to act at war or other things.

Imperial rule prevents any true self determination.

As does the imperial inquisition

Except most democracies over the course of their life have had something similar to the tithe in the form of either a draft or military conscription.

Direct democracy pretty much doesn't work once you go beyond anything bigger than a county level and even your example excluded people based on age and sex (Your example, Landsgemeinde, apparently didn't give women a say till 1991 which is kinda mind boggling for a first world nation).

Generally speaking the IOM cares about three things, Pay your taxes (resources and people), vaguely worship some form of the Imperial cult, and don't get to friendly with aliens or anyone with spikes. Otherwise they don't care how you organize your local government.

1 Kanton/ state. out of 26.
And secondly democracy is a process mostly kicked off after WW1 due to people demanding self determination.
UNiversal sufferage was introduced to keep the women in line and to avoid further issues of strikes etc. As was the removal of census based voting rights.
and guess which country did not need the additional workforce to survive 2 world wars because the men weren't lost?

Also I will refer to initiative and Referendums right to counter your argumentation of only working in county levels.
There is a reason the system is called "Half-direct-democracy"



Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
The idea that you need democracy to give a government legitimacy suggests such a troubling ignorance of history it actually disturbs me. Mankind has been around a loong time, and democracy, especially modern representive is a fairly new thing. the modern USA is just under 2.5 centuries old. the house of commons first sat in the 1300s. Meanwhile Kingdoms and empires ruled by an Imperial Cult dates back to the dawn of civilization. the Imperium of man, is historicly speaking, the rule, and democracy is an exception.

as for definitions of democracy. umm actually it's a little more complex then that. there are NO pure democracies, EVER. never have been never will be. at most what's been acheived is Representive democracy

i am mostly argueing against that statement. because it is objectively wrong.

Ok I have a few issues with your response. "Keep women in line" that's troubling one it's face when referring to given half the population a voice. As for a direct democracy, even your own nation has either abandoned or curtailed it because it is an inefficient form of government. Putting every single change or bill up to a straight up or down vote would be an issue on many levels especially on complex issues.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Hellebore wrote:
It's impossible for real democracy to exist in the imperium because the imperial tithe is mandatory.

Democracy allows for the voting in of new laws and the consensus determination to act at war or other things.

Imperial rule prevents any true self determination.

As does the imperial inquisition

Except most democracies over the course of their life have had something similar to the tithe in the form of either a draft or military conscription.

Direct democracy pretty much doesn't work once you go beyond anything bigger than a county level and even your example excluded people based on age and sex (Your example, Landsgemeinde, apparently didn't give women a say till 1991 which is kinda mind boggling for a first world nation).

Generally speaking the IOM cares about three things, Pay your taxes (resources and people), vaguely worship some form of the Imperial cult, and don't get to friendly with aliens or anyone with spikes. Otherwise they don't care how you organize your local government.

1 Kanton/ state. out of 26.
And secondly democracy is a process mostly kicked off after WW1 due to people demanding self determination.
UNiversal sufferage was introduced to keep the women in line and to avoid further issues of strikes etc. As was the removal of census based voting rights.
and guess which country did not need the additional workforce to survive 2 world wars because the men weren't lost?

Also I will refer to initiative and Referendums right to counter your argumentation of only working in county levels.
There is a reason the system is called "Half-direct-democracy"



Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
The idea that you need democracy to give a government legitimacy suggests such a troubling ignorance of history it actually disturbs me. Mankind has been around a loong time, and democracy, especially modern representive is a fairly new thing. the modern USA is just under 2.5 centuries old. the house of commons first sat in the 1300s. Meanwhile Kingdoms and empires ruled by an Imperial Cult dates back to the dawn of civilization. the Imperium of man, is historicly speaking, the rule, and democracy is an exception.

as for definitions of democracy. umm actually it's a little more complex then that. there are NO pure democracies, EVER. never have been never will be. at most what's been acheived is Representive democracy

i am mostly argueing against that statement. because it is objectively wrong.

Ok I have a few issues with your response. "Keep women in line" that's troubling one it's face when referring to given half the population a voice. As for a direct democracy, even your own nation has either abandoned or curtailed it because it is an inefficient form of government. Putting every single change or bill up to a straight up or down vote would be an issue on many levels especially on complex issues.

Yes, keep in line, ever heard of monopoly of force?
And that was referring to other european states that only granted voting rights for women after or during WW1 in order to keep the lower classes from rebelling, as did the removal of census based voting rights. E.g. Uk, france, Weimar republic germany, etc. It is the sugarbread approach to the issue because the whipp didn't work anymore.
Switzerland had no such issues because the lower class wasn't needed to cooperate as much, however ww1 started other developments in regards to swiss democracy, F.e. The working fights and what would later lead to the konkordanz system and arbeitsfrieden , which deradicalised the political wings. (also the reason switzerland still has a socialisct party around)

But if you don't want to Research that fact not my problem.


As for the later part.
First: how is the complexity of a policy an issue? Also do you honestly think that the average Joe has less knowledge about such complex policy then a politician? Especially because the deliberative process now is lead across the whole society? Because that ain't the case. Infact empirically the swiss government wastes less money due to inclusion of citizens, has less issues with civil insubordination and other benefits, such as having the capability to use conscription and demanding social Labour of people without the instant threat of a mutiny . Empirically you can see that even in the differing Kantons. Kantons that demand obligatory referendums on fiscal policy have citizens with higher tax moral, less wasted ressources and more responsible behaviour overall in spending. And fiscal policy is one of the most complex matters a state has to decide on.

Secondly: the Referendum and Initiative rights are developments thanks to a liberal and liberal - conservative( yes that existed, no i will not go and explain to you why 1848 introduced a whole slew of issues all of it's own especially in local swiss political landscape.) and socialisct fraction called the Demokraten ( nothing to do with the US democrats party btw) which managed to force it through in the mid to late 19th century. Because the parlamentarian system was deemed corrupt (gerrymandering says hello) and clientel like (party Polarisation and two party system which do only represent themselves and not the will of the people governed by them) . So no infact the direct democratic rights have been Expanded, especially on the (con -) federal level.

ya know dude, chest thumping about how great your country is, isn't any more classy just because you're not an American.

First: how is the complexity of a policy an issue? Also do you honestly think that the average Joe has less knowledge about such complex policy then a politician?

Complex issues require research into the subject matter. Not everyone wants to/has time to, engage in deep research about an issue that might not be important to them after they come home from a day at work, cook dinner, wash their dishes, take their kids to their sporting events/hobby events whatever, get the kids home cleaned up, and in bed..

Representives in government however make that their JOB. researching the issues, being informed eneugh to make an informed decision, god knows we pay them well eneugh to do that. Now of course this system isn't without flaws, as the people need to be a gatekeeper to get these kinds of informed intellectuals into the job, and keep out narcisistic ignoramus' who are utterly unqualified for the job, and sometimes the public isn't up to the task.

But we're moving on from the inital discussion and into politics. the fact is there isn't a perfect political system and there's nothing inheriantly special about democracy or whatever your current favorite type of government is. ultimately the IoM doesn't care what the system is they care that the system works

BrianDavion wrote:
ya know dude, chest thumping about how great your country is, isn't any more classy just because you're not an American.

First: how is the complexity of a policy an issue? Also do you honestly think that the average Joe has less knowledge about such complex policy then a politician?

Complex issues require research into the subject matter. Not everyone wants to/has time to, engage in deep research about an issue that might not be important to them after they come home from a day at work, cook dinner, wash their dishes, take their kids to their sporting events/hobby events whatever, get the kids home cleaned up, and in bed..

Excactly how am i chesthumping?

Also the later part. You can also allways decide that you don't want to vote on policy xyz because you are not wishing too or deem yourself too uninformed, or deem yourself not hit in regards to the law in question.
Especially the later two are big groups in non voters here.

Representives in government however make that their JOB. researching the issues, being informed eneugh to make an informed decision, god knows we pay them well eneugh to do that. Now of course this system isn't without flaws, as the people need to be a gatekeeper to get these kinds of informed intellectuals into the job, and keep out narcisistic ignoramus' who are utterly unqualified for the job, and sometimes the public isn't up to the task.

Ehhhhh, debatable. Interestgroups have it more difficult to influence the overall population compared to party members.

But we're moving on from the inital discussion and into politics. the fact is there isn't a perfect political system and there's nothing inheriantly special about democracy or whatever your current favorite type of government is. ultimately the IoM doesn't care what the system is they care that the system works

That i agree on, to some extent.

chimera0205 wrote:
So each imperial world is largely left to govern themselves how they see fit as long as they pay there tithes and worship the Emperor in some way shape or form. Given the sheer number of planets in the Imperium its all but guranteed at least a couple pf them are some for or another of democracy but are there any specific examples of such demcoracys in the lore?

Doubt it.

Its much easier to control 1 hereditary overlord/prince/governor then dealing with whoever would be elected.

Modern democracy as we know it has little to no chance thriving in the 40 K world

At best you may have a group of noble who "elect" a governor from Imperial approved candidates

 Tiennos wrote:
If Jesus had shown up in the XIVth century and unified the world in one big empire, do you think Switzerland would have fought for independence because no one elected that guy? Or would they have welcomed the rule of the guy that everyone thought was the one true god, whose return everyone has been waiting for since ages past? Would democracy suddenly stop existing because of that?

Interesting post, interesting thought.

In this instance you have to look at the Bible for the answer. In the Garden of Gethsemane, when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, he said 'If it were my time to rule, don't you think that I could call forth a legion of angels? (paraphrased)

How much damage can one angel do? When Israel was being threatened by Syria (?) During King Hezekiah's reign, God sent one angel against the enemy camp, killing 186,000 troops in one night. That was probably a slow night for that angel, too.

Also looking at the Bible record, it is doubtful that Jesus would use the Pope to accomplish any of his aims, he seemed to have a real issue with the religious leaders of his time and Christendom has done a fairly poor job of living up to Jesus' example.

He would probably use his army of angels to destroy governments that would try to stand up to him, and eschew religion as a whole, setting forth his commands in place of those organizations.

This isn't a religious discussion or post, but I think it shows the parallel between that and the Emperor of Mankind'so approach to gaining compliance and what the Imperial expectation would be after he leavea.

Think we are done here.