Tim Blair

I've always wondered why we allowed despots to take advantage of a system they'd never allow in their own countries. Then again, this is the same organization that elected Sudan to a seat on the Human Rights Commission. One would think a liberal democratic society a prerequisite to gaining membership.

Table for democracies...

Table for the slowly improving...

Table for those not close but not yet totalitarian...

Table for the really bad guys...

Joint meetings at Matt's "one big table"...

Sounds like the Circles of Hell in Dante's Inferno. But why bother? The UN is already in Hell.

Rings of Hell. Dante-esque.
Oh, you just said that, Real JeffS.

Isn't the best part about this idea WHO determines the 'sin' level of each country? Devil's in the details---

C's right. Unless the Democratic League is set up by the democracies themselves, who then vet applicants, it'll end up like the current UN, with the Syrias and Libyas being elected to chair the Peace & Motherhood Commissions all over again.

Also there would be room for dispute, even among supporters of democracy, about some countries -- eg, Singapore, or pre-coup Fiji.

Its a great idea! The UN is currently only useful as a punching bag.

But everyone is right, the devil sure is in the detail.

Perhaps the inner circle should only contain representatives directly elected to their position via a free and fair election.

OK, then, Liberal Avenger. But who will decide that rule? A vote-at-large of all nations? And who certifies "free and fair" elections?

(Please no one suggest Jimmy Carter! He wouldn't have certified the US 2000 election---)

Does this sound ominously like the church of scientology?

Tom Cruise for Secretary General and John Travolta for chief weapons inspector!

Sorry, just read the heading, I guess Tim agrees!

"In democracy, the people elect the representatives for Government. In the UN, the government elects the representatives."

A small gem courtesy of Paddy McGuinness. I think Matt Welch has the right idea, though

Nice to see people talking UN reform, but having more countries with veto power is not the answer. Veto power has been a big part of the problem all along. Get rid of it entirely, or at least greatly reduce the conditions under which it can be used.

We should boot out every country from the UN as well as the buerocrats and let them in one by one if they can prove they are liberal democracy's.

Sure it would only be 20 strong but it would work dammit!.

CurrencyLad whats with the homoeroticism in the table for the slowly improving? All tough men in white singlets...

Hmmm...

The democratic table is serving a turkey.

Uh Oh.

*Cue Leftist meme*

c, certification of elections is easy, plenty of countries have years of experience doing it.

Boot strapping the new system will be more difficult: It will probably require a few courageous countries unilaterally - yes liberals may say this word! - deciding to elect their representatives. Then the new system could coalesce around this initial group, with representatives added as they to are elected by their countrymen.

Then we may start an eternal debate between country rights and planet rights!

Stewart -- I didn't mean to suggest an expansion of veto power, unless it led to more scenes like CurrencyLad's "not yet close" picture, which looks alarmingly similar to the sleeve art of Beggars Banquet. As for who gets to decide, I think I would be a pretty logical choice. As long as Tim gets to name the various Stages of the Thetan.

There's actually a fairly bipartisan & transatlantic push for something vaguely similar to all this, starting off with a League of Democracies, which is a 127-country body (or thereabouts) that was first formed in '98 or 2000. (The only democracy not to join was France; insert joke here.) Some people on the American right and left have tried to turn this into a disicplined Voting Bloc of sorts; and while that seems like a fantasy, there's a germ of a good idea somewhere in there. According to me.