Rebuilding Democracy in Another world

[Guavaleiro]

Is there anyone who's interested in making story with this title ?

I've read some isekai stories and yet nobody is trying to transform the political state of the kingdoms from monarchy into democracy.

What do you think about it as an author ?

It is an interesting proposal,every kingdom building/nation management fiction I have seen here features either a Monarchy or a Dictatorship,and justifiably so,it is easier when you want your main character to be a ruler to implement those type of governmental systems where they are the head of state and government.

Republics exist within these stories,as do other types of more decentralized systems,however they are often portrayed as either corrupt oligarchies or simply something to differentiate from the MC's nation.

Establishing democracy would present a lot of challenges,not to mention that if the protagonist is a monarch,what would happen to them? Would they assume a ceremonial role in a Constituional Monarchy? Would they let the Monarchy be Abolished? Or would they maintain a half-measure and have the Monarchy be a sort of "Fourth Power" mediating between the other Three Traditional Powers?

Of course you could always tackle this in other ways like making the MC not be the ruler,and having their goal be overthrowing the Monarchy,making them a revolutionary figure. Not to say that simply abolishing the Monarchy would make that nation democratic,there other various steps to making it into one.

There are countless way this proposal could be explored,in a plethora of genres as well,and you should always remember that Monarchies and Dictatorships are not the only undemocratic systems,there are also Theocracies,Oligarchies,Corporatocracies,Kleptocracies,etc...

 

[prognastat]

As if monarchies have proven otherwise ...

Depends on how you look at it monarchy as a system versus other systems definitely if you just take one monarchy overtaking another as we would one party taking rule over from another under democracy. If you are looking at it as counting only when the same direct line of inheritence over the same plot of land counting as the success of that particular instance of monarchy even then multiple have lasted for around a millennium and the Japanese monarchy lasted over 2 millennia.

So as much as I love the many varieties of democracy we enjoy around the world yeah monarchies have survived a lot longer than most democracies have. Now this doesn't mean we don't know if democracies cn last longer, but so far none have and it will take another 800 or so years before we start being able to say so if some of the currently oldest democracies remain as such up to and past that point.

The longest a country has been democratic is actually the US currently at just over 200 years which is still a very long shot before it can match the longest lasting monarchy it just needs to remain as such for about 10x as long before it can be said that the most stable democracy was as stable as the most stable monarchy.

 

[Lloyd]

Remember to add this to the title!

He was so real for this.

 

[Redemit]

Skip democracy go straight to constitution Republics

 

[georgelee5786]

I wouldn't because democracy is a terrible system

 

[prognastat]

Skip democracy go straight to constitution Republics

I'm just going with the laymen's view of democracy where really any country where the population votes for who rules them or directly for the laws in a relatively direct manner. Whether that be a constitutional monarchy, republic, or democracy.

Because pure democracy itself for entire countries just isn't a very common thing.

 

[Lloyd]

Democracy is just oligarchy with extra steps.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Depends on how you look at it monarchy as a system versus other systems definitely if you just take one monarchy overtaking another as we would one party taking rule over from another under democracy. If you are looking at it as counting only when the same direct line of inheritence over the same plot of land counting as the success of that particular instance of monarchy even then multiple have lasted for around a millennium and the Japanese monarchy lasted over 2 millennia.

So as much as I love the many varieties of democracy we enjoy around the world yeah monarchies have survived a lot longer than most democracies have. Now this doesn't mean we don't know if democracies cn last longer, but so far none have and it will take another 800 or so years before we start being able to say so if some of the currently oldest democracies remain as such up to and past that point.

The longest a country has been democratic is actually the US currently at just over 200 years which is still a very long shot before it can match the longest lasting monarchy it just needs to remain as such for about 10x as long before it can be said that the most stable democracy was as stable as the most stable monarchy.

With Japan you cited literally the worst example possible. You seem to have forgotten why the Meji restoration was done to begin with.

Otherwise, list me these multiple lines that have lasted millennia. I am curious.

 

[Oreo]

Is there anyone who's interested in making story with this title ?

I've read some isekai stories and yet nobody is trying to transform the political state of the kingdoms from monarchy into democracy.

What do you think about it as an author ?

Rebuilding democracy implies that some form of democracy used to exist there in the past.

Now, let's take a moment to think why it ceased to exist on the first place.

What happened? What caused people to abandon the previous system?

 

[prognastat]

With Japan you cited literally the worst example possible. You seem to have forgotten why the Meji restoration was done to begin with.

Otherwise, list me these multiple lines that have lasted millennia. I am curious.

Cambodia 68 - 1993 = 1925 years
Sultanate of Oman 751 - 1749 = 998 years
Morocco 788 - 2011 = 1223 years
Britain 871 - 1832 = 961 years
Sweden 970 - 1921 = 951 years
Norway 885 - 1814 = 929 years
Denmark 935 - 1849 = 914 years

This is of course ignoring that most of these have become constitutional monarchies so by technicality you could also continue counting them as monarchies until the current day which would add like 200 years to multiple of them, but that feels kind of like a cop out since we generally consider them more democratic than we consider them monarchies since in most the monarchy isn't an acting one and it's more symbolic than anything else.

Of course you can also ask about when we actually consider a country democratic enough. Do we consider the US(ignoring that it isn't really a democracy, but again laymen's consideration) to truly be democratic when the only ones eligible to vote were a very small minority of land owners? Do we consider it truly democratic when all men got the vote? Or not until women got the vote too? Or I'm sure some still don't consider it truly democratic due to things like various forms of voter suppression etc.

 

[Zakuro]

Of course you can also ask about when we actually consider a country democratic enough.

When the country call itself a democratic republic like Kongo, they aren't usually a democratic country.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Cambodia 68 - 1993 = 1925 years
Sultanate of Oman 751 - 1749 = 998 years
Morocco 788 - 2011 = 1223 years
Britain 871 - 1832 = 961 years
Sweden 970 - 1921 = 951 years
Norway 885 - 1814 = 929 years
Denmark 935 - 1849 = 914 years

This is of course ignoring that most of these have become constitutional monarchies so by technicality you could also continue counting them as monarchies until the current day which would add like 200 years to multiple of them, but that feels kind of like a cop out since we generally consider them more democratic than we consider them monarchies since in most the monarchy isn't an acting one and it's more symbolic than anything else.

Of course you can also ask about when we actually consider a country democratic enough. Do we consider the US(ignoring that it isn't really a democracy, but again laymen's consideration) to truly be a democratic when the only ones eligible to vote were a very small minority of land owners? Do we consider it truly democratic when all men got the vote? Or not until women got the vote too? Or I'm sure some still don't consider it truly democratic due to things like various forms of voter suppression etc.

Denmark, Norway, Sweden. Kalmar Union. Their line is not continuous and thus disqualified.

Britain. Same. William the Conqueror. English Civil War. Glorious Revolution. Not continuous line. Disqualified.

Morocco. The current dynasty ascended 1631. Disqualified.

Oman. Current dynasty ascended 1746. Disqualified.

Cambodia. The Red Khmer?

"If you are looking at it as counting only when the same direct line of inheritence over the same plot of land counting as the success of that particular instance of monarchy even then multiple have lasted for around a millennium and the Japanese monarchy lasted over 2 millennia."

 

[ElijahRyne]

Is there anyone who's interested in making story with this title ?

I've read some isekai stories and yet nobody is trying to transform the political state of the kingdoms from monarchy into democracy.

What do you think about it as an author ?

You would have to write about the development of capitalism and the growing strength of the bourgeois class. That class would eventually have enough power to create a bourgeois dictatorship/democracy. Where the power of the state is controlled by rich business owners and landlords. It takes a democratic flavor, because the bourgeois class is made up of both rich monopolists and small businesses owners, so to alleviate any internal contradiction, the bourgeois class will allow the people, to some extent, choose which individual rich person they want in power.

Eventually the start of the industrial revolution would flip the old class structure on its head, that being a type monarchical imperialism. There will be many more bourgeois revolutions in monarchies, but eventually those revolutions would slow when the growing working class comes together to fight for their interests, with things like unions, strikes, and protests. Scared the foreign bourgeois class will ally with the the old ruling class. Eventually, inspired by the bourgeois revolutions, the working class will create their own. A state/territory where each worker has an equal say in their workplace and government. Where democracy is truly upheld. One that will quickly fall apart due to an outside reactionary force and some internal contradictions with the petty bourgeoisie. It is here where the workers around the world will analyze their losses and create a scientific approach to their democracy, the so called scientific socialism. Eventually the contradictions between the old ruling class and the bourgeois class will become to much, and they will reform/revolt until they have the same power. The workers in the meantime will creat political parties that focus on educating and organizing the working class. Eventually however the political opportunists and the bourgeois class will interfere in these parties. This will lead to the growing movement of reformists and economists in the worker parties, who wish to have the bourgeois state willingly give up its power to create a worker one or to help the working class. Yadayadayada, a successful worker revolution, yadayadayada, bourgeois press starts calling worker democracies dictatorships, as well as any former or current colonies who ally with it, to demoralize their working class. At the same time a growing movement of abandoning bourgeois democracy and democratic norms inside the bourgeois class, will develop to fascism. Yadayadayada. The fascists fail at destroying the new worker state, and eventually loses to a combination of liberal and socialist countries defeating it. The liberal countries, however, only go on the attack because they are afraid of the socialist countries taking over. Yadayadayad… I think you know how it goes from here.

We have tried spreading democracy to other parts of our own world? What's our success rate there? Keep in mind that's when an entire nation's efforts are behind it or in some cases multiple nations. When you get Isekai'd you'd be all alone or maybe with a handful of other people from your world who might not want to spread democracy like MC does.

Now imagine doing it in a different world with completely different cultures and if it is anything like most isekai imagine the added inequality magic generally brings to those types of worlds.

You also are an outsider to them and have no knowledge of their culture that you can build off to nudge their culture in the direction of democracy delicately without just causing backlash.

Now you say ok, but my MC got an OP golden finger in his Isekai package so he is stronger than the residents of the world he was moved to so he isn't so easily dismissed by them. Now that isn't sounding very democratic anymore.

Quite Bonaparte like…

America became powerful because the land has a lot of resources and room for growth.

And slaves…

 

[Lloyd]

And slaves…

Lol no
Slavery only helped the plantation owners, and was a net negative for everyone else. Especially the poor southern farmers who had to compete with giant plantations. The fact that all the countries who relied on slaves and plantations are total shit holes today supports this fact.

 

[beast_regards]

Aren't all Japanese isekai stories about expansionist absolute monarchies relying on slave labour?

 

[ElijahRyne]

Lol no
Slavery only helped the plantation owners, and was a net negative for everyone else. Especially the poor southern farmers who had to compete with giant plantations. The fact that all the countries who relied on slaves and plantations are total shit holes today supports this fact.

Before the industrial revolution what fueled the economy, particularly the southern one, was slaves. The north industrialized quickly compared to the south, which allowed them to move away from chattel slavery, meanwhile it was cheaper for the southern ruling class to keep the slaves to work the fields. The southern economy was built on the use of slaves, this fact can not be denied. The fact that the southern peasantry had to compete with the southern ruling class, does not mean that the economy of the south was not run by slaves. Especially when said peasants tended to have slaves of their own.

Nevertheless the first couple of years of the US, especially under the articles, economy was built to a large extent on the backs of slaves, whom were first phased out when using the growing working class became more popular and safer for the northern ruling class. As well as due to religious conflicts with the concept of slavery. This, however, frightened the southern ruling class, whose power came from a primarily agrarian economy, because it was cheaper to have slaves work the fields and their current profits would be unsustainable without said slavery. The development of new technologies made it even more profitable to keep said slaves in the south, but the northern ruling and working class was growing more and more appalled at the institution.

Eventually, about two or three decades before the civil war, the fact that the southern ruling class still used slavery and were trying to grow their power in the union caused conflicts such as bleeding Kansas to erupt between the Northern and Southern states. Which eventually erupted in civil war. Which eliminated chattel slavery in the US.

As for the final statement of countries who used slavery being horrible today, that is because they missed the industrial revolution because their ruling class saw slavery as more profitable for themselves. However it must also be stated that most of these countries were former colonies where slavery was forced upon the population from a collaboration and conquest by a foreign ruling class and/with a local ruling class, such as the Congo under Belgium or French Indochina. The goal of these colonies was not to better the conquered populations life, but instead the lives of in this case the ruling class, and to a way lesser extent, the common folk of Belgium and France. Who to today still benefit from the wealth extracted through the use of slavery…

Aren't all Japanese isekai stories about expansionist absolute monarchies relying on slave labour?

Most are, yeah…

 

[Lloyd]

Before the industrial revolution what fueled the economy, particularly the southern one, was slaves. The north industrialized quickly compared to the south, which allowed them to move away from chattel slavery, meanwhile it was cheaper for the southern ruling class to keep the slaves to work the fields. The southern economy was built on the use of slaves, this fact can not be denied. The fact that the southern peasantry had to compete with the southern ruling class, does not mean that the economy of the south was not run by slaves. Especially when said peasants tended to have slaves of their own.

Nevertheless the first couple of years of the US, especially under the articles, economy was built to a large extent on the backs of slaves, whom were first phased out when using the growing working class became more popular and safer for the northern ruling class. As well as due to religious conflicts with the concept of slavery. This, however, frightened the southern ruling class, whose power came from a primarily agrarian economy, because it was cheaper to have slaves work the fields and their current profits would be unsustainable without said slavery. The development of new technologies made it even more profitable to keep said slaves in the south, but the northern ruling and working class was growing more and more appalled at the institution.

Eventually, about two or three decades before the civil war, the fact that the southern ruling class still used slavery and were trying to grow their power in the union caused conflicts such as bleeding Kansas to erupt between the Northern and Southern states. Which eventually erupted in civil war. Which eliminated chattel slavery in the US.

As for the final statement of countries who used slavery being horrible today, that is because they missed the industrial revolution because their ruling class saw slavery as more profitable for themselves. However it must also be stated that most of these countries were former colonies where slavery was forced upon the population from a collaboration and conquest by a foreign ruling class and/with a local ruling class, such as the Congo under Belgium or French Indochina. The goal of these colonies was not to better the conquered populations life, but instead the lives of in this case the ruling class, and to a way lesser extent, the common folk of Belgium and France. Who to today still benefit from the wealth extracted through the use of slavery…

Most are, yeah…

Okay this is just asinine. The idea that a tiny fraction of the population fueled the economy with fucking cash crops is retarded. Cash crops just get exported and don't actually create anything.

 

[Cortavar]

That's an interesting idea.

If you go the traditional medieval route of Isekai, and the also often seen "asskicking = authority" trope, you're going to find many issues to deal with.

The most glaring issue of the standard medieval setting will be literacy and information. Unless you can keep your population somewhat informed, democracy won't work. You don't need to look very far to see how misinformation, hoaxes and blatant lies are taken for granted by a population that lacks the reflexes to deal with online content.

Compound that with literal magic (hello, mind-control, illusions and curses!), intelligent monsters (goblins overbreeding everyone and storming the polls, or elves getting voted out to misery for not being enough in numbers) and a huge discrepancy in personal power (all men are created equal? I've got a hundred time your stats, please!) and you've got quite an uphill battle.

If you go Sci-Fi, though, it becomes much more doable. Restricting the power of Megacorps and fighting corruption in a cyberpunk setting? Yeah, that's hard, but on the table! Ending the Imperial rule in a space opera setting? Well, half of them are about that! Time-travelling to fight for the people's right to choose? You could do it too!

 

[nemonusquam_]

Plato dislikes this. *Proceeds to box the living lights out of Democracy*

 

[ElijahRyne]

Okay this is just asinine. The idea that a tiny fraction of the population fueled the economy with fucking cash crops is retarded. Cash crops just get exported and don't actually create anything.

? It is still undeniable that at through the beginning stages of the US, that slavery was a major component for the future wealth and power of the American state… Without slavery a lot of the trade that pulled the US out from the slump after the revolution would not have happened. Cash crops have cash in their name for a reason, and it was through the inhuman treatment of slaves and black folk in the US that the south got its capital, at least until the end of the civil war and share cropping.

If the Confederacy had been a separate nation, it would have ranked as the fourth richest in the world at the start of the Civil War. (https://www.history.com/news/slavery-profitable-southern-economy)

But while the southern states produced two-thirds of the world's supply of cotton, the South had little manufacturing capability… (https://www.nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm)

In the South, after the Civil War, many black families rented land from white owners and raised cash crops such as cotton, tobacco, and rice. (https://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/sharecropping/)

Therefore it can be seen that slavery was a large part of the wealth of the pre-civil war US. And exploitation that stemmed from that era lasted long after, in practices such as sharecropping. If the southern states were comparable to the 4th richest nation by themselves before the civil war, and if the majority of that wealth came from cash crops such as cotton, and most if not all cash crops were tended by slaves. It is undeniable that a vast amount of American economic power came from slavery. Before the civil war the contenintal US pretty much already had its modern borders.

Spoiler: Map

It is pretty undeniable that a good portion of the capital that allowed the US to push west came from the southern economy, and if a lot of the US’s power came from the resources found in its borders, as the original comment said, it is undeniable that slavery played a big role in gaining those resources. I hardly find having a territory reach such wealth be asinine in the history of the power of the USA. I hardly find cotton to not make anything important, especially at this time period. And I believe that trade is a substantial way to diversify wealth in a nation. Therefore it can be seen that the cash crops in the south did fundamentally build wealth in those states, and wealth is a power in its own. I don’t believe I have to explain any further on how chattel slavery helped build the power of the modern US.