An Attempt at Realistic Idealism
•
by Sophia Forrester
It's been a while since many people in eJapan have talked about the Righteous Nation philosophy. I am as guilty as anyone. So I thought I'd write an article to discuss that philosophy, and my own thoughts on how its ideals would best be translated into reality.
To explain the ideals, let's go into history. In July of 2009, Congressman Reiji Mitsurugi proposed the Righteous Nation philosophy, which was soon adopted as the foreign-policy platform of the Imperial Sun Party. That party soon became the largest in the land, surpassing the old National Alliance Party. In September, we adopted an Imperial Constitution recognizing the Righteous Nation as our "national ideology." So agree or disagree with these principles, they are a part of our historical tradition at the very least.
– The Righteous Nation is not a conqueror.
– The Righteous Nation is a guardian.
– The Righteous Nation maintains a strong military.
– The Righteous Nation maintains a proud culture.
– The Righteous Nation respects foreign culture.
These precepts charted an idealistic course -- a course that Japan, at the time, was uniquely placed to pursue. We were a member of an alliance, PEACE GC, that at least in theory required support only on defensive matters, not in offensive wars. We had been isolated and peaceful for long, but were only then rearming. We had historical ties with many allies, but none that tied our hands.
Although it would take a while to cover all the history, suffice it to say that our first attempts to implement this policy -- first in the aid of Germany, then later of South Korea -- were unsuccessful. Germany was conquered and later liberated by Hungary and Serbia, the same rogue states that would form the nucleus of Phoenix later. South Korea remained under the thumb of the Theocrat dictatorship. Our third try -- aiding China to take back its home regions -- was an eventual success, returning them Heilongjiang and Liaoning. However, this victory came through the efforts of many nations; Japan played an important, but lesser part than larger nations such as the USA and China itself.
Japan wanted to prove itself, and how else better than by war? So we invaded South Korea, she who had been our ally in the past, and for whose freedom we fought but failed. They had regained independence when their oppressors got bored and left -- they too hoped to prove themselves. And so, the most recent of the wars of the Great Japanese Empire left us on the side of the aggressors.
It was disputed that this was aggression. I make no claim that I am unbiased on the matter, because I was one of the first and strongest to denounce it. Yet what is done is done, and many Japanese questioned whether we needed a Righteous Nation Philosophy at all. Wouldn't we be better off if we only fought for our interests, without paying the costs of righteousness?
I still believe that this is a short-sighted view. I do not say this because I hold a personal attachment to its ideals. Although I have often supported the policy, I was one of only seven to vote against making it our "national ideology" those fourteen months ago. But to dismiss it offhand is to miss seeing the rational reasons that it makes sense to pursue such an "idealistic" policy.
The New World is not a safe place. War is the goal of most states -- perhaps the pinnacle toward which a state strives. It is often seen as the way by which a nation proves itself worthy of fame and glory. In such a world, conquerors will always arise.
The United States, when it launched her pro-Asian crusade, took the role of guardian eagerly. America had just recovered from a long and debilitating war, during which it lost every state but Florida. It was ready for a new crusade, but citizens still remembered how their past expansionism had made them a target. So America resolved -- they would not be conquerors, but liberators. They would work with India and China to win back their home regions. They would strive to be respected in the world, and so make the world respect them, whether friend or foe.
In a game like eRepublik, when commitment -- and the ability to pay for it -- can make such a difference in wars, believing in the justice of ones cause is one of the surest routes to victory. Just as well, citizens who doubt the justice of their country's cause may fight on its side, but they will not sacrifice personal money to "go the extra mile" in that fight. Nationalism wins wars, and what is needed for nationalism is a strong national spirit. Wars that are whimsical, or threaten peace, will erode that national spirit and put the nations borders at risk.
It might poetically said that fighting unjust wars will sacrifice a country's soul. I am a mere woman, unknowing of the ways of the kami, and so I do not know if this is true. However, I do know that injustice threatens the morale that binds our country together in hardship, and keeps us united in times of plenty too. That injustice caused us to lose faith in PEACE GC when its members attacked America. That injustice, we opposed when the Theocrats' takeover threatened South Korea. And we would be wise now to look to ourselves, and ask -- can we look at what we think now to do, and say that "justice" is its right name?
I know only what I feel. I can speak only what I feel. To each who reads, blessings on your own path
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Once again, the links don't work... I will delete them for now and see if there's a way I can get them to work tomorrow.
Well said.
Sophia, use url tags in [] brackets.
Righteous Nation principle was a fail to begin with. Those who can't even take care of its own domestic problem are likely to fail in international scale also.
I was thinking about starting eJapan from scratch, instead of dragging on the dead horse.
+Vote
As I was reading the article I thought to myself, "Aogo will really like this one."
Well said, Sophia.
But the GAME mechanism is war-based. An eNation can not progress without war.
The issue it seems to me is that the admins have destroyed most of the key domestic institutions. The economics module has been boiled down to a single skill (which hurts any concept of dynamic comparative advantage that eJapan could develop), there are no bilateral trade agreements (which would be especially useful for small countries), and there has never been a sensible raw material design.
The admins have focused on war because it's a huge gold sink. Without war the game loses much of its meaning. It's hard to get excited about getting up each day to two-click and read the one or two daily articles. I didn't like the execution of v2 but simplifying the game to this extent has gone too far.
I think the success of the South Korean war (not on moral grounds but on pragmatic grounds) was hard to assess because so many people who joined eJapan and eSK left when v2 launched. I think that Sophia is right that Japan is uniquely suited to avoid war because of our unique geographic position, but in avoiding war we must find a compelling reason for our citizens to log in each day.
i still remember the days when we didnt care about war and we were more worried in trying to keep our country alive and in working order but that was a long time ago
It's nice to see the old philosophy kicking back up again.
SagaWF: I agree with your point, but I also think that there are more than enough e-countries fighting for conquest. We used to intend to be different, fighting for honor's sake and to protect those weaker than we. Maybe that's an idea of the past and not where we want to be now, but if so, we should at least know what we're forsaking.
The idea is not simple pacifism but rather honorable combat. If the world were short on war, then "war for war's sake" might make sense. It has been a while since anyone can say that there was a shortage, though. (Are we still on the fourth "World War" or did they increment the number again?)
Perhaps not this, but something -- some ideal -- would go a long way to unite our nation and imbue new interest in the game. I support these principles because they are noble goals which I hope will be realized in practice. If they are not the goals for today -- then we need to find those goals.
Shusui Kotoku: I understand where you are coming from. I also think that we've lost a huge amount of complexity and economic diversity. However, I still think there is room within the present game mechanics for a country to grow and thrive. Furthermore, I doubt these mechanics will be permanent any more than V1's were. The game may not change again in the near future, but it will change sometime.
Geno: Many thanks for the advice. I will fix those when I have time.
😁 we were a "Peace Lovin' nation"
It is good to see Sophia-san again. Voted!
Righteous Nation Philosophy was an interesting aspect of eJapanese government as it set up a unique framework for our citizens. We would help those countries apparently oppressed through colonials, but generally oppose entangling alliances, since there is little real in-game oppression besides the use of multis and "PTO," meaning that the "great alliances" like Bro/Eden and Phoenix were very nearly the same in their structures and activities.
Akki may consider it a "fail," but it was actually an interesting roleplaying tool that could provide for a common rally point that crossed political party lines. But like all documents, it is subject to various interpretations and those politicians who would bend its meaning for their own purposes.
All true points!
It made eJapan different to other nations. Acted as a point of debate, a spur to activity and gave everyone a rallying point to unify around.
It did fail tho' precisly because it was subject to various interpretations by those politicians who would bend its meaning for their own purposes certainly did so for their own 'statistical' benifit.
Now that the war has passed eJapan by and even your PTOers have given up on bothering you, what is Japans future and how will you keep your citizens engaged?