Mediaboss Marketing

Democracy is a government simulation game that was first developed by Positech Games in 2005, with a sequel released in December 2007 and a third game in 2013. The player plays as if they are the president or prime minister of a democratic government. The player must introduce and alter policies in seven areas tax, economy, welfare, foreign policy, transport, law and order and public services. Each policy has an effect on the happiness of various voter groups, as well as affecting factors such as crime and air quality. The player has to deal with "situations", which are typically problems such as petrol protests or homelessness, and also has to make decisions on dilemmas that arise each turn.

After deciding which nation to play as, the player must win the support of various factions which make up the electorate, including the religious, patriotic, parents, capitalists, socialists, liberals, conservatives and others, and thus win the ensuing elections that take place. The player introduces policies and uses sliders to change the amount of government funding, level of a tax or generally the law and regulations in that particular area. Of course, because each individual person belongs to several factions (e.g.: a Poor Conservative Smoker who is a Patriot or a Rich, Socialist person who is also a Drinker), it is practically impossible to control all the voters. Before each general election, two promises are made by the player to the electorate (e.g.: reduce unemployment by 10%). If the player has not kept these promises by the next election, the people become annoyed and cynicism increases.

To make policy changes, the player must spend political capital, which is generated by loyal ministers.

The player must also try to balance the budget and pay off the country's debts without losing votes and causing tax evasion due to very high taxes.

There are also many events, dilemmas and situations in the game which the player must deal with. An example of an event might be the curing of a disease, a dilemma may be who to appoint as a senior judge and a situation may be high levels of pollution. An event happens, sometimes due to policies however the player doesn't take part; they simply profit or suffer from it. A dilemma is an important decision which must be resolved for the turn to be ended and situations are ongoing conditions which must be dealt with or helped and enjoyed.

The games designer has described the code behind the game as being based on a neural network. This has allowed the game to be very easily modded, and most of the 'game logic' in it is openly editable in simple text CSV files, allowing players to change the way the core mechanics of the game operate. A number of mods have been released for both the first and second game in the series, and are generally released on the Positech forum. Mods have included new countries (and real countries for Democracy 2) and the addition of factors such as inflation, as well as enhancement of the voter cynicism factor in Democracy 2.

A sequel to the game was released in December 2007, which, while very similar to the original in terms of gameplay, differs in that it uses fictional nations (although modders have converted the real nations from the original for play on the new version), and has numerous new features, including party membership, terrorism and real world statistical data. Many of the previously existing features have been enhanced: for example, the amount of political capital needed to change a policy now differs depending on which policy one is changing, and whether one is introducing it, raising it, lowering it, or cancelling it. In December 2008, Democracy 2 won the Game Tunnel "Simulation game of the year" award, something the first game had already achieved. In October 2013, Democracy 3 was released.[1] In late 2015 Positech announced an 'expandalone' for the game set entirely in Africa, with a different simulation model, music and graphics entitled Democracy 3: Africa.

The original game was released in 2007 in the United States by Tri-Synergy, with added events and policies, and a special mode in which the player controls a fictional nation.[2] The game received "mixed" reviews, according to game aggregator Metacritic.[3] Website Game Tunnel scored the game 8/10 overall, stating "losing a game of Democracy is almost as rewarding as winning your next election" and "there is always the motivation to do better next time".[4] The website also awarded Democracy its own 2005 'Simulation Game of the Year' award.[5] About.com rated the game 3.5/5 and said "Democracy does exactly what it sets out to do - get you thinking about how even small changes effect [sic] different groups of people".[6]

Democracy 3 also received "mixed" reviews, according to Metacritic.[7] While Polish magazine CD-Action stated that the game "does much more for understanding democracy than any citizenship lesson,"[8] Daniel Schindel's critical review for Unwinnable noted several inaccuracies concerning the in-game effects of imposing death penalty, legalizing drugs, and strong labor laws.[9] A spin-off game, titled Democracy 3: Africa, was quietly released in early 2016. The game focused entirely on nations on the continent of Africa and added features to address the corruption, authoritarianism, military dictatorships, and female genital mutilation that is abundant on the continent. Players are tasked with fixing these issues, or regressing further into a dictatorship.[10][11]

In midsummer of 2018, Positech Games announced that it would release an updated version of the game, in the form of Democracy 4.[12][13] While a specific release date has not been presented, the official website declares that the game will be published in 2019. This title, as with the spin-off, Democracy: Africa, will be produced by a joint venture between Positech Games and Stargazy Studios. In addition to Democracy: Africa, Stargazy previously provided translation and localization services for Democracy 3. New features added to Democracy 4 will include simulated corruption, crackdowns on political freedoms and free speech, and even authoritarianism. Events and decisions in the game will be updated to reflect the passage of time between the release of Democracy 3 and Democracy 4.[14]

See original here:
Democracy (video game) - Wikipedia

The British National Party is proud to be in possession of some of the most modern and progressive concepts of democracy which are firmly at odds with the other parties increasing totalitarianism.

The British people invented modern Parliamentary democracy. Yet in recent years the British people have been denied their democratic rights. On issue after issue, the views of the majority of British people have been ignored and overridden by a politically correct elite which thinks it knows best.

On immigration, on capital punishment, on the surrender of British sovereignty to the EU and in numerous other areas, democracy has been absent as Labour, Tories and LibDems conspire in election after election to offer the British people no real choice on such vital issues.

The BNP exists to give the British people that choice, and thus to restore and defend the basic democratic rights we have all been denied. We favour more democracy, not less, at national, regional and local levels.

Power should be devolved to the lowest level possible so that local communities can make decisions which affect them.

We will remove legal curbs on freedom of speech imposed by successive governments over the last 40 years.

We will implement a Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to the British people.

We will ensure that ordinary British people have real democratic power over their own lives and that Government, local and national, is truly accountable to the people who elect it.

In addition, the BNPs policy is to:

Abolish anti-discrimination laws which prevent people from making a free choice

Abolish the Human Rights Act which has been imposed on this country through the European Union, and which is nothing but an excuse to prevent British laws stopping the scroungers of the world parasiting off this nation

Abolish all restrictions on traditional free speech; common law provisions against incitement to violence are the only proper limits in a free society

Reject ID cards, intrusive surveillance and the retention of DNA samples of the innocent

Introduce an English parliament within the United Kingdom

Introduce citizen-initiated referenda whose outcome is binding on Parliament

The BNP Britains most democratic party.

comments

Here is the original post:
DEMOCRACY - British National Party

Overview

All around the world there has been a flurry of protest in the last couple of years as a new generation of activists challenge the transnational corporations and the governments that represent them. Why is there this backlash against globalization, which was supposed to generate peace and prosperity? Why is this happening in Canada, designated by the United Nations as the most desirable country in the world in which to live?

The real issue for most of us is the loss of security. Our jobs have been put at risk, and at the same time the social safety net in this country is being systematically shredded. Access to adequate unemployment insurance, welfare assistance, health care and old age security is rapidly becoming a luxury rather than a right of citizenship in this country. Citizens are feeling abandoned by their governments.

Previous generations of Canadians had struggled to extend their economic, social, and environmental rights. But their efforts to democratically regulate the economic sphere and redistribute national income encountered increasing resistance from corporations anxious to improve their profits.

Over the past thirty years, a power shift has been taking place--out of the hands of citizens and nation states and into the hands of transnational corporations (TNCs).

In this new climate of global competitiveness, governments compromise when corporations threaten to leave the country. They offering lower labour costs, lower environmental standards, lower corporate taxes, and lower social spending. The state is thus effectively re-tooled to serve the interests of big business. Increasingly, the prime role of governments today is to guarantee security for profitable transnational investment.

Giant corporations exercise more power than most nation states in the global economy.

Transnational corporations capture the public policy agenda and re-write the rules at local, national and international levels. People's values, attitudes and tastes are determined by a bombardment of corporate images and logos, beamed into their daily lives through satellite communications. Corporations trigger a sudden rise in stock prices by announcing a massive downsizing of their work-forces, paying lower corporate taxes while reaping the highest profit margins in history, and paying their chief executive officers 150 times more than what they pay their average worker.

Politicians are no longer the prime movers and shakers. Instead, those who own substantial assets are represented by a nexus of financial institutions the International Monetary Fund, bond rating agencies on Wall Street, the Bank of Canada, national banks on Bay Street, and financial investment houses. Investors and their agents dictate the priorities that govern our economic system.

It's not hard to identify the most powerful among them. The Business Council on National Issues is the senior voice in the business community - composed of 150 chief executive officers (CEO's) from the major, transnational corporations with over $1.6 trillion in assets, $500 billion in revenues, and 11/2 million employees. The leading business association in Canada, it orchestrates a consensus among other business organizations and brought untold rewards for themselves. They have orchestrated, among other things the Canada-US free trade agreement, and NAFTA, and the adoption of the Goods and Services tax, the fight for deficit reduction and increasingly the fight for tax cuts. These policies, and more, create more profits for corporations and effectively curb the role and size of the state.

Low and moderate-income people, our communities and our civic institutions have lost power to large corporations and asset-owners in the top 5 percent of households. At the root of the problem is an imbalance of power. Given how economic power and political power are linked, we need a two-part solution: reforming the democratic process to reduce concentrated power, and changing the rules governing our economy to increase equity and reduce concentrated wealth.

1. Expanded democracy We have to strengthen our democratic power in order tackle corporate power and reduce inequality. Or in simple terms, we need organized people power to counter the power of mega-corporations and their owners. This means:

2. Economic fairness We need to change the rules that govern our economy to reduce inequality and ensure that our prosperity is shared. This means:

The corporations are calling on us to sacrifice our power, our wages and our quality of life to help them lower their costs and increase their profits. We must cease putting their interests above those of the majority. Their policies do not bring enough jobs that provide living wages. Avenues to control them include solutions that level the playing field, reduce corporate power and profits, and break up concentrated wealth and power. Despite the opposition they will pose, we can and must make the case that we can have economic security and greater equality, individual liberty and stronger communities.

See original here:
Centre for Social Justice | Democracy & Corporate Power

DEMOCRACY ON DEADLINE: The Global Struggle for an Independent Press follows teams of journalists into some of the most dangerous and secretive corners of the world to show how they obtain their stories in the face of suppression, lies, imprisonment and threat of physical harm. To highlight the central role a free press plays in building and preserving democracy, Producer/Director Cal Skaggs and his team combed through two hundred hours of footage to create this dynamic portrayal of independent-minded journalists.

At their best, courageous journalists share a common mission worldwide: bearing witness to the truth as they see it in order to serve their fellow citizens, providing them accurate information, acting as their watchdog over those who hold power and speaking out in behalf of those who have none. Journalists inform; they warn; they analyze and interpret, all to help the public make sense of the world.

From Africa to Latin America, from the Middle East to Russia to the mainstream media in the United States, DEMOCRACY ON DEADLINE looks at how members of the news media fulfill their common mission.

Throughout, the film provides vivid reminders of how valuable serious journalism is, and how vigilantly it must be practiced to ensure the health of democracy. American viewers who see how valiantly journalists elsewhere must work to tell the truth may hold their own press corps responsible for a greater degree of truth-telling. Viewers get a comparative look at the state of the press around the world, and see that the walls of secrecy that stand in the way of press freedom can be toppled. DEMOCRACY ON DEADLINE sheds light on the pivotal role journalists must play around the globe.

Read about filmmaker Cal Skaggs's motivation for making this film >>

Learn about how technology has changed journalism >>

Find resources to further explore the state of independent media >>

Read more here:
Independent Lens . DEMOCRACY ON DEADLINE . The Film | PBS

A democracy is a form of government in which the leaders are chosen by the citizens votes, and in which the people have a say in decisions about the states affairs. The primary characteristics of democracy include political freedom, rule of law, and legal equality. In order for these principles to be authentic, every eligible citizen must have equal access to the legislative process, and the legal system. To explore this concept, consider the following democracy definition.

Noun

Origin

1525-1535 Middle French dmocratie

In the words of Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people. A democratic government contrasts with forms of government in which the power is wielded by a single individual, or a small number of privileged individuals, such as a monarchy, oligarchy, or dictatorship.

In modern times, the concept of democracy is often misunderstood. The terms freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but they do not mean the same thing at all. While democracy is a set of fundamental beliefs and principles of freedom, it differentiates from freedom, in that it involves the implementation of procedures and practices to ensure freedom. Most governments in todays world are a mixture of governmental methods.

While most Americans consider their nation to be ruled by a democratic government, the truth is, the U.S. operates as a Constitutional Federal Republic. This means that, while Americans embrace democracy, the actual operating of the country is complex. Because individual states retain a great deal of autonomy, a written constitution is necessary to define the authority, responsibilities, and limitations of the federal government, and its relationship with the states.

In the U.S., the power remains with the people, both on the state and federal levels, as they elect representatives through the voting process. While this is commonly thought of as a true democracy, that would require the people to have direct control over legislation. Instead, U.S. citizens participate in the legislative process only through their elected representatives. This is where the term representative democracy originates.

A direct democracy is a form of government in which all laws are created or abolished by a direct vote of the citizens. This would mean that everything from a change in speed limit on the state highways, to the guilt or innocence of someone being tried for a crime, would be put to a direct vote by the people, rather than their representatives.

Many Americans dont give a lot of thought to the large number of representatives at various levels of government who make decisions on their behalf every single day. From state and federal senators and representatives, who make laws for their constituents, to elected judges and other government officials, the great wheel of the nation runs by the actions of these representatives.

Imagine what todays society would look like if the United States operated as a true democracy, requiring the people to take time out on a regular basis to vote on every important decision to be made. It is likely that todays complex society could never have evolved had this time commitment be required of the nations citizens.

In ancient Athens (about 508-322 B.C.), all citizens voted on all major issues. Athenian citizens were actively involved in all aspects of political life, from voting on the operation of the city, to the trying of all crimes. In fact, in every court case, the assembled citizens voted to determine the outcome. In this example of democracy, it may be true that a direct democracy breeds more political participation. However, the reality of the commitment involved in such an undertaking may deter a great many people in modern times.

Direct Democracy Now! is not a reference to democracy in todays world, but a grass roots organization of ordinary Greek citizens who were actively involved in Greek protests over the organization of their government, in 2011. Direct Democracy Now! Found they could no longer support any of Greeces traditional political parties. The movement is not a political party, but operates as a forum for members to exchange ideas on the political situation in Greece.

A system that works for many nations is the representative democracy, which allows the nations citizens to be involved in the workings of government, without the heavy burden of needing to make daily decisions in its operations. In a representative democracy, all eligible citizens of the nation elect representatives to enact laws, create legislation, and judge legal complaints.

Also known as indirect democracy, or representative republic, many consider the representative democracy to have been born of the French and American revolutions, in the 18th century. As chaos and brutality flowed from the lack of a central government in medieval times, the people sought refuge from pervasive death and destruction. The stronger people provided such protection for the weaker people, in exchange for their labor and allegiance. This was the rise of the kings.

As time went by, the people began to feel oppressed, as many were kept in squalor, with little food or other necessities of life. Poor housing and filthy conditions bred disease and death. The people questioned the kings right to rule them, especially in such a manner. In the 18th century, English philosopher John Locke held that a kings right to rule came only from the consent of the governed.

French political philosopher Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron Montesquieu, commonly known simply as Montesquieu, was the first to describe a system in which three separate branches of government executive, legislative, and judicial kept one another in check. In his example of democracy and freedom, Montesquieu wrote:

When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor. There would be an end to every thing, were the same man, or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and that of judging the crimes or differences of individuals

By this notion, both communities and nations would be most honorably governed by the majority will of the people. This advanced the idea that, while rule of law is imperative to a peaceful and harmonious society, individual freedoms should not be sacrificed to a monarch.

A parliamentary democracy is a form of government in which citizens elect the ruling body, referred as a parliament, by popular vote in a democratic election. The members of parliament then appoint a leader, known as a prime minister, who then chooses members of parliament for his cabinet. Parliament, and the prime minister, remain answerable to the people.

Because the prime minister remains a member of parliament, even while he serves in this elevated role, he is able to draft legislation himself, submitting it to parliament for approval. This further differentiates parliamentary democracy from the representative democracy used in the U.S., as the President is no longer part of the legislative body, but is set apart in the executive branch of government. Parliamentary democracy has its origins in Britain, where it is still in effect today. Many of Britains former colonies have adopted some form of parliamentary democracy.

In May, 2016, Arizona voters approved Proposition 123, by the skin of their teeth. With 51 percent voting yes, and 49 percent voting no, the state was set to infuse an additional $3.5 billion into Arizonas K-12 public schools over the next 10 years. Opponents of Prop 123 didnt give up when the people exercised their democratic right to have the final say on issues put up for popular vote.

Raising concerns over the source of the additional funding for the school systems, the states land trust fund, Arizona resident Michael Pierce filed a federal lawsuit, claiming that the funding plan violates the states Enabling Act. Pierce claims that the state needs congressional approval in order to increase the amount of monies paid out of the land trust.

Many citizens of the state are concerned about the legitimacy of the lawsuit, pointing out that having the people vote on an issue is supposed to be giving them the final say. In this example of democracy, to ask the courts to intervene when one is unhappy with the outcome of any election is seen by many to be a slap in the face of democracy.

See the rest here:
Democracy - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes