Ironsides Family/Armstrong/Democratic Apology

From BattleMaster Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Democratic Apology Pamphlet

Context: Duke Niles wished to step down from his position as Duke of Karbala, while doing so, he wished to have Baron LionHeart of Evora succeed him, as well, the bureaucrat Sir Jon Paul was chosen to succeed to Baron of Evora. This brought forth many questions on the nature of Ducal powers, their privileges, their service to the realm, their acquisitions of land and title, and furthermore, the quality of Fontanese Democracy.

This pamphlet was written by Count Armstrong Ironsides, Hero of the Democracy, to persuade the nobility of Fontan to vote ‘No’ on a referendum that would determine the Law of Succession.

Democratic Apology

Nobles, we must take account of our Democracy by examining its qualities and functions. Doing this would secure it in any future contest against tyranny. While the matter this pamphlet is being written for is not full tyranny, it is considered, by this author, as privilege over the nobility, which in circumstances that can be helped, is undemocratic.

To be considered Democratic means that one would uphold the virtues and principles of this governing system. I will reaffirm my belief of what Democracy is, so that we may understand where I am finding the resource to make this apology.

Our democracy, as I present it, is this:

Every noble has a voice,

Every noble deserves a station without prejudice,

Every noble has freedom of mobility,

Every noble has the right to defend himself from any slanders or abuse,

Every noble chooses to serve and obey the order of our democracy, if they decide otherwise, Fontan no longer welcomes them.

This basic understanding of Democracy presents us with a way to operate in our realm ensuring we do not infringe on Democracy’s course. I will detail these tenants as follows. By these tenants, we can further operate our system without contention, and ensure all future laws and decisions are made by sound judgment and proven understanding of Democracy.

Voice of Democracy: Every noble may speak their opinions freely, to any other noble of any rank barring private and personal restrictions.

Democratic Stations: Every noble has the right to run for any position in the realm, of course subject to the natural restrictions of that office (30 days to join Assembly, must be Lord to become Chancellor etc.).

Democratic Mobility: Every noble has the right to travel where they please in our realm. Also, this applies to social mobility. Every noble has the right to run for a position, to retire from a position etc. without reprimand of the nobility, or restrictions unless democratically placed (Such as how the Confederate Registration bars them from participating in certain functions for a certain period etc.).

Democratic Protection: Every noble has the right to defend themselves from any slander or abuse from anyone. Be they Chancellor to knight, General to Troop Leader, all nobles of our Democracy are free from harassment and prejudice.

In Service of Democracy: Every noble chooses to serve our Democracy, whether that means they must obey a referendum marking their defeat, obeying the winning debate, or election etc. By disagreeing with these results is a disagreement with Democracy, and thereby counter to the realm. This is not to suggest there should be no post debate discussion, rather, it is implemented to dissuade sore losers from continuing with their agenda.

It is evident then, that supporting a referendum that would allow for a law creating the right for a Duke to select his successor runs counter to the important democratic principles of Station, Mobility and Service. Station above all, because creating a successor excludes all other nobles from ascending to the position through election. This will create privilege for both the Duke, and the selected Duke and negate the use of election, thereby disqualifying our claim to Democracy. Voting for all positions, in all circumstances, is the purest form of Democracy and should be defended from the encroachment of privilege, a lesser tyranny. This law would tread on Mobility, not in the sense that it prevents the Duke from stepping down, but by preventing a worthy elected candidate from rising up. Furthermore, this law treads on the principle of Service because it proves, perhaps unintentionally, that the function of elections is unimportant, impotent and therefore useless as a decision making component of this government, once again, disqualifying Democracy in its process.

This pamphlet’s goal was to open a discussion on the qualities of Democracy, to provide many undecided voters with the right course of action, and to prove the fallibility of this referendum in use in our Democracy. The author sorely hopes he has succeeded in his task.