The Instigator
bubbatheclown
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jifpop09
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

This is the Best Way for a Government To Stay in Power

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Jifpop09
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 690 times Debate No: 45019
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

bubbatheclown

Pro

I call it the Arcane Regime System.
Imagine in the fictional nation of Kabyristan the government is overthrown by Islamic insurgent groups known as the "Mojhadin" (Kabyr language for "freedom fighters") and they take over the country.
In most scenarios the insurgents put their soldiers out in the open within every village and city, patrolling the streets in vehicles with machine guns in the back.

However, in my scenario, the people do not see the new regime. There might be an open police force or town militia, but other than that there's apparent government...on first glance, that its. The regime's soldiers are trained in hidden camps, and the soldiers live double lives in times of peace. Few people know the identities of these soldiers. However, if there is civil unrest, they'll put on ski masks and suppress the uprising. If an enemy invades, they'll fight the enemy in disguise and go back home later. The invaders won't know who the enemies are.
The government controlling the soldiers would be hidden as well. They'd be hidden in buildings, and few people would know who those buildings belonged to. They'd have an underground information network and that's how they'd pass information from one branch of the government to the other.
When the nation and the new regime is secure, the Mojhadin would bring their government out into the open and make their presence official. But not before then.

You're probably wondering what the purpose of this would be. Well, for starters it would provide security against new insurgent groups and against invading armies.
If an invading army came, the government would not be overthrown because the invaders wouldn't know where the government buildings were. At best the armies could occupy cities and villages, but the hidden government would still be within occupied territory, planning to drive out the invaders. Nor would there be any open army bases. The Mojhadin could instantly initiate guerrilla warfare and resistance tactics against the invaders.
And if another terrorist group tried to take power, there would be no way for the terrorists to take down the Mojhadin. They wouldn't know where the government buildings or army bases were, and the Mojhadin could spy on the terrorists without the terrorists knowing it. No one would know who was a soldier, so these soldiers could easily infiltrate the ranks of the terrorists.

If you don't think this is a good system, accept this debate. I await a response.
Jifpop09

Con

I have been having a lot of problems with the writing feature on this. Please visit these links.

https://docs.google.com...

(Normal Version)









Debate Round No. 1
bubbatheclown

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate, and I must say the way you posted your argument is unique.

1. This government would not function as the secret police in the sense of forcing the disappearance of people who speak against them. They wouldn't be any more brutal than a regular government. In fact, the less the people see them the better, so soldiers in this army would not get much of a chance to bully others. If he did, then it'd be as a civilian. This government, though hidden, would serve the country's needs in the same way a normal government would. They'd tax the populace, work on construction, enforce laws, etc. The only difference is the people don't know who's working for the government and who isn't. And though the government would be clandestine in nature, they would have one or two spokesmen who would openly announce their government status. These spokesmen would represent the government's agendas and plans to the people.

2. They would have a communications system, and they'd hide their faces when communicating with other government employees from other branches. Consider Al-Qaeda. Though clandestine, their organization is surprisingly efficient in nature. They would enforce laws by having hidden guards or security cameras watch areas and have their soldiers abduct lawbreakers. But then again, this does not ensure brutality. And this system does not mean that no one in the government knows who anybody else means. It simply means civilians don't know who's in the government. But still, information would be on a need-to-know basis for government employees and soldiers.
They would have buildings and army bases. However, the things is that civilians wouldn't know where these places were. Only government employees would know where these were.

3. This is true. However, when recruiting people to join their organization they find you, you don't find them. They check you out first before recruiting you. This way, they have much more control over who's in their groups.

4. Such an army being "cowardly" is irrelevant, provided this tactic works. When an army invades, this guerrilla group wouldn't have to start from scratch. They would start out well-organized, well-informed, and with enough manpower to engage in guerrilla warfare, giving them an edge that other guerrilla groups don't.

5. Actually, they could have a representative at the UN, a person who acknowledges his or her role in this government. But I do admit, trade would be difficult. Perhaps all traded goods would have to be confiscated and then returned to the traders after they've been inspected.
This government would officially exist. It's just that all information on it would be hidden from outsiders. And this representative could establish military alliances with other nations, so that invading them would be harder.
Debate Round No. 2
bubbatheclown

Pro

1. The secret police of Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan were intentionally brutal. They were made to be brutal. The secrecy of their police doesn't guarantee that they would be brutal. They can still have a constitution granting the people basic rights.

2. If the soldiers are secret, then they cannot interact with the civilians as soldiers, therefore they cannot act brutally.

3. Simple. The people would be left notices on their doors that they're to leave their taxes in a certain place, and the money is confiscated by two or three soldiers in ski masks. Also, they could enforce laws because they'd be watching everybody.

4. You are totally right about this point. The government is for the people, and the people should be able to trust the government. However, the people would know that this government existed, and the government would have a spokesman. And like I said, this government would be temporary, until they grow strong enough to come out of hiding. Not to mention it's in a Middle Eastern country, where the leaders are all dictators anyway.
As for the military abducting people, they would abduct lawbreakers and criminals, not political opponents or critics of the regime. That's what I originally meant.

5. Perhaps they couldn't hide their bases from drones, but civilians don't have drones, and the nations surrounding them wouldn't have advanced enough armies to do this.

6. The people could still have faith that the military could protect them. As for rebellions, they could be convinced that the military is weak, but one rebellion would show that it wasn't. Also, they'd know that they couldn't prove it was weak. And governments showing themselves doesn't guarantee "trust," proven by the instability of the Middle East. In the region like the Middle East, the people should be treated with respect yet at the same time the government should be able to control its people, because the people over there tend to sometimes act like savages, toppling regimes and massacring minority groups.

Yes, I know that my arguments were weak. If I am to be totally honest, I mostly advocated this system because it sounded cool. You'll probably win this one, considering your side of this debate is a lot easier to argue for, and I didn't do that great a job arguing my case.
Thank you for this debate, Jifpop09.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
I don't know. I did not write it.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
I used a Middle Eastern country in my illustration. Of course the insurgents were Muslim.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
It was kind of stereotypical.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
@Theta Pinch:
Mentioning Islamic insurgents did not make my conduct bad.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Uhrgghhh. There are so many things I feel are wrong with your stance, but I can't put them into words. I'll rest on it.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Alternative Bonus Text

https://docs.google.com...
Posted by cam13619 3 years ago
cam13619
Dont sweat it. Im interested in where this goes.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
Sorry about that.
Posted by cam13619 3 years ago
cam13619
I am like 4 seconds too late in responding to the challenge. :x
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
Sorry, I meant there's no apparent government.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
bubbatheclownJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets conduct for pro's islaamic insurgents. Con gets arguments for pointing out several major flaws in pro's plan.
Vote Placed by YewRose19298 3 years ago
YewRose19298
bubbatheclownJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This government is to frail to work in my opinion. Also con seems to have put more time in his arguments and didn't assume defeat at the end like pro did.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
bubbatheclownJifpop09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think either side is telling a very convincing story, and both need more warrants, but it seems like Con's argument is better thought-out. Pro, think about it this way: you have a government that's acting subversively by design, creating and enforcing laws they never have to actually follow (since no one will know if they're following them or not), abducting people who don't follow those "laws," and you're hoping that that government a) won't become despotic, b) won't use their powers to spy on people, c) will regularly poll the people to ensure that it is following their wills, d) will be regarded just well enough to receive a voice in the international community, e) won't incite a number of other rebellions that look just like it, and f) won't be uncovered in large part by any of its agents or facilities being in amongst the general public all the time. It just seems incredibly flimsy to me, and some of those points were made well by Con, so that's what I vote on.