Anantonese Journal of Economics and Theory

[Doc]

Welcome to the Anantonese Journal of Economics and Theory.  This Journal is a joint quarterly publication of the Kalistani Political Science Association (KPSA), The Anantonese Economic Studies Association (AESA), and the Kalistani Foreign Policy Association (KFPA).  The Journal is published in Kaliburg, Grand Duchy of Ananto, by Kalistan Imperial University Press.

All submissions are peer-reviewed for their content and contribution to the field of political economy, economic policy, and policy analysis.  The peer review process involves double blind submissions to an editorial board composed of fellow published scholars who may either accept, reject for revisions and resubmission, or reject outright.  The focus of this journal is Anantonese affairs, which includes all nations within the Anantonese Empire, as well as all nations in the Anantonese Ocean Region.

All submissions are welcomed.  

[Doc]

Anantonese Regional Economy:  The Political Economy of Proximity
Nadia K. Lowell, Ph. D. Kalistan Imperial University

November 5626

Synopsis

The Anantonese Empire represents many things for the Empire of Ananto and Kalistan.  It is the geographical righting of an historic wrong by Artanian and Majatran states from centuries ago.  It allows Kalistan the ability to project further than its own bases would to give not only Kalistan but the whole Anantonese Region peace, security and stability.  But most importantly, for the region, it presents an opportunity to establish and deepen one of the world's largest free commerce blocs that provides the nations in the region the potential for both unlimited growth, if that is what they choose for themselves, or a very high standard of living that allows nations to both take care of their people and live up to their values at the same time.  The Organization of the Anantonese Empire, and the diplomatic steps that Kaliburg has taken in recent decades to tie the region together internally, while still leaving them free to face outward, have led to prosperity and peace regionally, and it is believed that Kaliburg will do what they can to strengthen those ties.

Introduction
The Anantonese Empire was officially born on the morning of February 1, 5575, when The Kingdom of Gaduridos officially signed the Articles of Empire, uniting in a political union with the Empire of Ananto and Kalistan.  Lodamun would join 9 years later, and this political arrangement would hold through periods of development, prosperity, but mostly high tension coming from the west.  This agreement augments the economic integration accord from 5071 known as the Anantonese Economic Standardization Accord, which creates a regional customs union to eliminate all barriers to trade, free movement of people, including workers, and the treatment of all nations' goods and services as if they were locally produced.  It was additionally augmented by the Anantonese Security Community Treaty, that commits all parties to cooperate for regional security interests.

These agreements include all three Constituent Nations of the Anantonese Empire.  The AESA also includes what many argue still is the world's largest and most diverse economy in Lourenne, and the ASC treaty includes The Kingdom of Egelion.  All member states of these treaties are modern, diverse economies of scale, and between them all there is a diversity of production that ensures the entire region is largely self sufficient in all modern economic sectors.  Internal trade and commerce between regional nations is very high, and shipping costs are excessively low, ensuring that each has the potential to be the others' largest trading pattern.

This regional arrangement not only ensures that each nation has what it needs to provide its citizens a very high standard of living at a very inexpensive price, but also leaves those nations who are so inclined free to also increase their trade connections outside the region.  Egelion, while remaining outside the AESA, trades heavily with Kalistan and Lourenne, and serves as a major conduit for expansive trade networks into the region.  Lodamun is deeply linked in both Artania, Keris, Makon, and Majatra.  Gaduridos, the gateway to the Northern Anantonese, has connections with Aldegar, Southern Seleya and Majatra, trade from which must pass by Gaduridos on its way north.  And Kalistan serves not only as a great commerce hub in Sulari and Kaliburg, but also a shipping giant in the region, producing container ships that fill fleets.

These regional arrangements can provide a model for other regional arrangements as well, to generally lift the standards of living for the people of nations involved in them, while allowing nations which are so inclined, to trade far and abroad.  The ties that bind the region are internal, and are objective, rather than subjective:  In other words, they would likely remain regardless of who was in power in the Anantonese States, because of things like geography and historical patterns of investment that have led the nations of the region to be both economically compatible with one another, and reduce the pressure for rivalry or destructive competition.  

There is everything to gain through cooperation and nothing to gain through competition.  The Anantonese Empire can provide the Kerisian and Dovanian nations with things they need cheaper than they can get them from foreign producers.  They can provide them far quicker, and at a much lower (if any at all) cost for shipping, and they generally prefer to buy locally than abroad.  It creates a regional self-sufficiency that other regions of the world would do well to emulate.  It also adds to comity and cooperation, and therefore stability and security in the region.

Focus is at Home
The economic integration in the Anantonese Region varies from "close trading partner" to "full economic integration."  The only three Northern Anantonese Nations that stand outside of the integration are Baltusia, Kizenia and Statrica.  The Region is otherwise deeply tied together internally.  Each of the six nations we are referring to here are modern, differentiated, economies of scale, which have some specialization and some overlap in sectors.  Of the six nations we are considering here, Gaduridos happens to focus most on primary economic activity (farming, mining, refining, etc), and the others are some mix between primary and secondary (Kalistan, for example, which specializes more in construction, manufacturing and commerce) and tertiary (Lourenne for example, which is known for its luxury items, such as fashion and fine wines.)  

Between all six of these nations, there is a general consonance of production to ensure that the people of the region have what they need and want, even while extra regional imports are generally unnecessary.  It is true that each nation maintains its own trade network abroad.  The Kerisians tend to be more active looking for trade contacts far abroad, while the Seleyan Nations primarily focus on improving themselves.  Lourenne serves as a central trade hub for much of Northern and Western Dovani and it is via Lourenne that the region can easily trade with such far away places as Xsampa.  There has developed over the centuries, an attitude in Kalistan, for example, that we will seek to produce an item we do not have at home first, but if we can get it from Lodamun or Gaduridos as easily, we will get it from them, or if not we will look to Lourenne, Egelion or Dolgava.  Only if none of them produce it or can acquire it, then we will look abroad.  The Trans Seleyan Railroad greatly contributes to this proximity-mindedness.

The focus closer to home allows each of these states to meet demand of their own citizens, as well as count on closer markets for their products.  The default knowledge that if Kalistan, for example, needs something it can get it from its neighbors usually allows businesses to better plan production schedules.  The general understanding of regional demand helps businesses avoid over production, and thus price and wage fluctuations common to more uncertain market situations.  Keeping purchases close, especially in arrangements like the AESA, allows nations to minimize, or even erase, the cost of doing business, allowing capitalists to keep more of their money as profit, and allowing less liberal states like Kalistan, to ensure that items are sold as close to cost as they possibly can be, because they don't have a bunch of extra shipping costs added to them.

Externally-facing Economies
Nearly every nation in the region faces externally with is comes to trade.  Gaduridos assiduously cultivated trade networks abroad to facilitate its domestic development, and most of those contacts still remain.  Lodamun has trade deals in Artania and Majatra that allow it to expand the list of people it works with.  Both Kerisian states have expanded their trade networks abroad recently, into Artania and Majatra, where there are very eager nations looking to crack into the Anantonese Market, and Lourenne still faces east to Dovani and West and South, especially toward its own imperial partners in Southern Seleya.  Kalistan is the only nation that relies almost exclusively on its Anantonese partners for its trade, which is fine because it serves more as a trans-shipment point for trade than a major importer or exporter for foreign goods.  It also happens to be the only internal nations of the group.

The regional arrangements written about above do not hinder this external view on the part of the nations in the region.  In fact, they do not come with any obligations, even in the Imperial Constituent Nations, except what are specifically mentioned in the AESA and the Articles of Empire.  Those provisions mostly involve nations treating foreign nationals like domestic workers, and treating foreign goods as if they were domestically made.  They do not say who each state can trade with otherwise, or put any kind of hindrance on those states.

The result is, a wide variety of the world's commerce flowing into the region.  The Anantonese region has become Terra's Great Emporium, because the internal relationships, both formalized and not, have taken scarcity off the table, and created a situation where people are both able (in terms of having the resources, as well as having the options) to satisfy their tastes, and to do so at a relatively low cost to consumers while still ensuring profitability to producers and distributors.  You are likely to see Artanian cars on Kalistan roads, Dovani textiles on Lodamese workers, Majatran consumer electronics in the homes of Dolgavans, and Seleyan products in the hands of foreigners from all of these nations due to this reinforcing external face of nations in the Anantonese Region.  It is to the benefit of all those who live in the region that there is this dual action in play throughout the region.

Next Steps
We think that the next steps are clearly to increase economic integration.  There are reports that the Emperor of Ananto and Kalistan will invite both Egelion and Dolgava to join the AESA in the near future.  It is a fact that both would be welcomed to the accord:  there are many new forming ties between the Anantonese Empire and the two Kerisian states outside that agreement, and it would make perfect sense for these two Anantonese Nations to join at least that treaty, as there is almost no cost to doing so in terms of what these Kerisian Nations are already doing, and a general benefit for all.  Doing so will increase the action of the above for the Kerisian states, and will also further benefit from Seleyan and Dovani Nations.

The Economic accord can even be extended beyond Gaduridos and Lourenne to Seko and Indrala or theoretically Aldegar.  The Anantonese Region is already one of the largest trading blocs, and the addition of other states to the agreement would more greatly diversify the economic options within the region.

It is doubtful that there will be a currency Union.  Kalistan is far too jealous of the monetary controls it exerts over the Imperial Ruble to ever consider giving it up in favor of another currency, and several other nations in the region are as married to their local currencies to ever adopt the Ruble.  There is not even a requirement in the Articles of Empire that Constituent Nations adopt the Imperial Ruble as the sole currency of their nation.  Though there are some advantages of possessing a currency which neither inflates nor deflates, liberal economic beliefs of several regional nations consider a stable currency like Kalistan's to cause economic actors to miss out on economic opportunities, such as they are.  Consequently, prospects for a currency union are nil.

However, there are multitudes of prospects for technology sharing, construction sharing, cross investment, and development in the region.  Kalistan has put billions into Gaduridos that have greatly expanded several sectors during their period of rapid development, with the aim not only of helping the nation develop its own resources and expand its own infrastructure, but also to increase political relationships between the two constituent Nations.  There is ample opportunities for all nations in the region to invest in and develop various sectors for everyone's benefit.  Lowering barriers to capital movements facilitates this and leads to a general growth in the standard of living, and therefore deeper stabilization for the region than bi lateral trade arrangements with nations on the other side of the world may provide.

Conclusion
The Regional Economy does not compete ideologically with the liberal mindset preferred by Kerisian, or even Lodamese thinkers.  We have demonstrated here how it actually serves to enhance it, by not only protecting the basic necessities and standards of living of the people, but therefore also opening doors to new opportunities abroad.  The regional economy in the Anantonese Basin essentially serves to prevent a two front warfare on those who would like to promote good economic, and political, outcomes for their nations and their people.  It prevents a country from having to worry about how to feed their people while they seek to participate in overseas markets, and therefore solves the problem inherent in liberalism of "Who benefits?" and "Are some benefits for some worth the political tradeoffs for others."

If the goal is to be as self sufficient as possible, as it is in places like Kalistan, this sort of arrangement serves that goal by bringing the world's goods to Kalistan's doorstep, and making it as easy as possible to acquire them.  If the goal is to be as exposed to international trade as possible, as it may be in a nation like Dolgava or Lodamun, this type of arrangement ensures that they can focus on getting the best deals for their nation and penetrate global markets to their content, without exposing their people to suffering, starvation, and lack of care that you will find in any normal, "you're on your own" liberal nation.  It provides both security and opportunity.  And in this the Anantonese Regional Economy, such as it is, should be seen as a model for other nations globally to adopt as well.

Footnotes available upon request.

[Doc]

Why is Kalistan not a Democracy?
New Public Polls show antipathy toward popular government growing across Empire

Albert Powell, Ph.D. Vrassa Duchy University

Melissa George-Hendrickson, Ph. D. Suldanor Duchy University

Martin Weston, Ph.D. Candidate, Vrassa Duchy University

April 5628

Introduction
For a while late last century and earlier this century, there seemed to be a wave of Democracies selecting a Royal Family for themselves and throwing off popular selection of the Head of State, at the very least.  But more recently, there has followed a strong push toward increasing popular participation in several states, including many of those who had adopted monarchy.  We should note that Monarchy is not incompatible with democracy.  Having a single sovereign, and even a hereditary one, does not preclude participation of the public in government:  We can see such hybrid states in places like Luthori, who, in the past has proudly proclaimed themselves to be a Constitutional Monarchy and a Democracy.  In fact, even many of these states that have adopted Monarchy have maintained the trappings of popular government, such as vibrant and regular political contests for legislative seats between two or more political parties, some of whom may even hold anti-monarchist views at their center.

So it is surprising that there are also several states, Kalistan being one of them, who have actually been successful in not only fully separating political contestation from the function of government, but also have seen a decrease in support for democracy and republicanism, as the rest of the world shifts in the other direction, toward more popular participation.  While some nations have followed Kalistan down the path of absolutist Government, they have done so with more or less success.  However, Kalistan stands alone in its near complete abolition of democracy, not only in the functions of its government, but also in the hearts and minds of its people.  In fact, a recent poll conducted by the independent polling agency New Kalistan Project shows support for "democracy" like the kind that is practiced in republics across Terra to be at an all time low:  Only 17% report that they would like to have a measure more to say in the government, and only 6% said they would like Kalistan to become a Republic.  Meanwhile support for "the Monarchy" is at 89%, and support for Emperor Fredrick III Ananto hovers right around 84%. 

What has Kalistan done to accomplish this feat, where the people not only do not demand more political power for themselves, but actually oppose efforts to give it to them?  There are several features of Kalistani Society, including national history, existing attitudes of the political leadership of the nation, and existing examples from current democracies which militate against democracy in Kalistan, and ensure that Kalistan will remain among the most depoliticized nations in the world for the foreseeable future.

Kalistani History
Kalistan had a thoroughally institutionalized republic for the better part of 3000 years.  That period of time was far more vibrant and one might say vital, earlier in that period, but following the year 2900, one party primarily dominated the history of the Nation, and other parties, even if temporarily in power, rarely had much lasting effect on the nation's politics or regime structure.  That Party, the Socialist Party, dominated the politics of the nation for so long, that it eventually just acknowledged what it had become and formed the base of what we now refer to as the Institutional Party.

When other Parties launched in Kalistan, they usually launched as a protest to hegemonic Socialist Party rule.  Many often took advantage of the Socialist Party's occasional hiatuses to attempt serious change, but they would make radical changes only to see the Socialist Party return, re-establish itself, and rebuild the institutions that were damaged by these temporary Parties.  Non-Socialist Parties in Kalistan were eventually seen as Ephemeral, and measures were ultimately passed to protect Kalistan's institutions from the actions of these ephemeral Parties.  Despite these efforts, ephemeral Parties still formed and still served as a constant source of political turbulence.  The staunch defense of the Institutions by the Socialist Party guaranteed that every opposition Party was in essence committed to revolutionary change, without care for the role that the institutions they were seeking to alter played in the correct functioning of the society.  And it always led to political strife, disturbance and a low level disquiet across Kalistan that lasted the duration of the History of the Republic.

Kalistani Citizens have been free from the constant turmoil of political parties that only ever arrived with an agenda to change Kalistan's social and political arrangement since the end of plurality in Kalistan that followed the Single Party Act.  The Current Monarchical regime has been in place and has been regular for more than 150 years.  And the only examples of political conflict have come when groups demanding more political power have tried to force their way into a locked Kalistani Polity.  

The Institutional Party has had its share of corruption, but corrupt ministers and deputies have always been shown the door in a very transparent process.  Accountability strengthens the institutions of Kalistan's Polity.  And meanwhile, the people of Kalistan see clear lines across our society.  Some things the people completely control:  Kalistan has some of the strongest and most cherished civil liberties in Terra.  Though we are not a libertarian state as we may have been during the Republic, civil liberties and rights are enshrined in law and protected by an independent court structure that can hold even powerful state actors accountable for violating those rights.  They are generally happy not having to control things on the other side of the line, things like having to learn what every bill says, so they can responsibly and intelligently tell their legislators where they want them to vote regarding that bill.

We see that people have traded their desire to dominate others and to ruin society in the process through the political process for order.  Kalistanis are reminded daily of the benefits that order brings:  Trains run on time, people have a high and predictable standard of living with a robust social safety, civil liberties a strong economy, a strong national defense and a clean environment, all of which would be imperiled by a mere election, as it has consistently in the past.  Kalistani History, and especially political history is one of the most important subjects in Kalistani schools.  Kalistani citizens have a very complete knowledge of the dangers of opening this society up to democratic governance and pluralism:  We have historical examples of how democracy generates horrible results for the people of the nation.  

Three thousand years of bad example after bad example caused by the failures inherent in letting political novices who are more concerned with seizing and holding political power than actually governing justly for the good of all participate.  Said one poll respondent, "Democracy only promotes demagogues and inept government.  The law of central tendencies and median voter theorem are the inherent flaws of democracy, because these are easily exploited by people who are far more interested in obtaining power for themselves.  And when that happens, when the demagogue gets into power, the democracy is bent to legitimize them.  I'd rather not let majorities put a crook in charge, like I would rather deny them the chance to do that to me and my family and neighbors, just because that crook was particularly adept at saying the right things, even though he had no intention of doing them, and he brainwashed enough people into voting for him."  

As long as Kalistani History, which is littered with examples of the failure of democracy to produce good outcomes, continues to be taught in Kalistan, it is very unlikely that the people will ever support democracy.

Attitudes toward current Leadership
As mentioned above, the personalist and absolutist Ananto regime holds very high support within Kalistan.  Part of this is because there is a high level of trust that the Anantos have earned among the people.  Many respondents to the poll said they trust the Monarchy to do two main things:  Provide good government that generally advances the interests of the country and the people in it, and holding the government accountable, including accepting blame themselves when things don't turn out well.  Respondents reported that they were satisfied that the Monarchy does that, and are willing to overlook a lot of things that doesn't really affect the people anyway, such as Imperial Protocol and the massive amounts of wealth that House Ananto has accrued (especially since House Ananto accepts independent audits every year and published the audit report when it is completed.) 

Most people understand that the Legislature exists to bring constituent concerns to the attention of Government, rather than actually make any independent decisions themselves, and they seem fine with that as long as they know it provides them a regular voice in affairs of state.  Nearly all of those surveyed reported that they found their Deputies very approachable, and it is easy to vote them out when the Deputy stops representing the people of their constituency.  Deputies don't have to make a bunch of false promises to get elected:  Election cycles are very short and usually involve the population electing civic leaders who many of them know personally. 

And people in Kalistan generally think they themselves will get a fair trial if they find themselves in court, though there is still a significant amount of resentment over the trial of more than 1500 Likatonian War veterans for war crimes.  But even those who were strongly opposed to the trials admitted that, for the most part, they were fair and the defendants received due process.  And they believe that their representatives in the Legislature will generally support the interests of their constituents.

With this high level of trust in the activities and functions of the Government, Kalistanis would rather keep the generally good government that they have than swap it out for a system that they believe is far more likely to produce bad outcomes (because of the contested nature of politics) that only serve a small portion of the population.  Kalistanis not only have thousands of years of bad examples produced by democracy, but they also have their own, current lived experience under absolutist Government which has been generally good government that produces popular policy which is good for most of the society most of the time.  

Recent respondents to the poll demonstrated that its not just an instrumental appreciation for the benefits of the current regime.  People themselves actually report that they are proud of their government.  The institutions of the Kalistani Government are sources of pride for Kalistani Citizens, who repeatedly compare Kalistan favorably to even other absolutist nations.  "Our Government simply does what it is told to do," said one respondent.  "It gets stuff done.  If I need a pothole fixed, I know exactly who to call, and they have it repaired in an hour.  If the Emperor wants a new dam built, we have it done in two years.  I mean, why would I need to vote, and potentially lose a vote, in a democracy, and then have to put up with some stupid legislative fight over whether the pothole should be fixed or the dam be built or not?  Those things need to be done, and our government will do them:  there doesn't have to be a big debate about everything.  In this, Kalistan's system is obviously better, for us anyway, than a republic would be.  We get the things we need, like yesterday.  It's not a big deal.  But I am happy to talk it up to all these foreigners complaining about how they can't get good government under democracy."

Additionally, Kalistanis also trust that there is enough institutional protections against bad government.  "Ah, well, we might have good government now," said another respondent, who said she might be favorable toward some democracy.  "But they always ask what would happen if we had an Emperor who was totally incompetent or criminally minded.  Shouldn't we have some way of getting rid of him?  I mean, I like the idea of representing myself, but I think that if there is an incompetent one that person would have enough built around him or her so they could be essentially walled off until the next one came in.  But again:  I mean look at the system when we let just any idiot run for office?  Literally everyone we got was some idiot.  I'd take my chances with the Emperor before I take my chances with that kind of system.  Full democracies only produces idiots to be in control of the Government...  Like only..."

Examples of Current Democracies
In a fully digitized modern world, Kalistanis have access to news from around the world.  And they use those sources voraciously.  Most Kalistanis see The Republic, Kalistan's main news source, as somewhat biased toward the Government of Kalistan.  They do print some critical pieces, say most respondents, but tend to pull punches on negative stories, while leaning heavily into ones that put the State in a good light.  Hence more than 70% of them say they regularly read news from other nations, with Luthorian language sources being the plurality, but Egelion sources being a close second.  Others use the online translator to translate the articles into Vrassan.

And the news of the world more or less confirm the opinions of Kalistanis regarding democracy.  "Yeah, I mean, the fascists in Kundrati were elected in a 'fair' election," said one respondent, "and now look at them.  They don't even have elections anymore, and like the worst regime ever."  Even in instances where news about democracy is good, Kalistanis report largely waiting for "the other shoe" to drop:  "It's only a matter of time for a lot of these places," said one Kaliburg woman.

Furthermore, Kalistanis pay close attention to the dual effect of milquetoast state policy and popular democracy.  "Putting everything to a vote is such a waste of time," said one respondent.  "Oh, I'm the government of Baltusia.  I have decided to do something important that will benefit a lot of people.  Oh wait, here's an election.  Ok, now the other party won and we're gonna stop doing that thing immediately.  Not because it's not needed, but because the opposition party is now the government, and they were opposed to everything the outgoing party wanted to do."

Kalistanis see these democratic contests as clashes of visions.  "But you can't have two, polar opposite visions of the Good and they both be correct," said one respondent.  "Either one is good, or its opposite is good.  Both can't be good at the same time.  But these liberals talk all the time about letting them battle it out in the marketplace of ideas.  I say forget all that because you are more likely to get the one that is objectively bad in that situation than you should be, which is not at all.  The marketplace of ideas is a fraud anyway, because people don't have free choices in the marketplace of ideas:  they only get to consider the options presented to them, while pretending they actually control something."

Most Kalistanis will point at negative examples like the former Kundrati as evidence of democracy functioning perfectly as intended.  "I don't think the Legion people told the people what plans they had in store for them when they were running for office," said one Sulari respondent.  "They lied, like most politicians do in democratic nations, and presented their program as just slightly right of center, and after getting elected, proceeded immediately to build death camps and chemical weaponry.  I don't think the people voted for that.  But those who didn't keep supporting the government quickly found themselves in the death camps on some crazy crime the government invented to swell their population of slaves.  Talk about leopards eating your face."

Kundrati Mainland is not the only example Kalistanis could cite of democracy giving birth to its antithesis.  "If that's what Democracy leads to, no thank you," said one resident of Eshar.

Conclusion
There is almost no support for democracy in Kalistan on any level.  Nearly all respondents to several recent polls express deep and abiding support for the current Kalistani system of Government, and even suggest it is better than other models, most especially democracies.  Historic and current examples of the inherent weaknesses and the tendency toward poor outcomes, as well as a nearly universal support for the monarchy as an institution, ensures that there will not be any organic pro-democracy movements any time in the near future.

One respondent summed up their feeling:  "You could tell me tomorrow that the Emperor and his wife bathed in the blood of infants daily, and I think I would still support him.  As grisly as that thought is, I would rather have an emperor who bathes in baby blood than a system that is ever capable of producing some fascist like that country in Artania does.  The Emperor on his worst day is far preferable to me, and you know, everyone I know too, than a democracy on its best day, because democracy comes with risk of getting bad government far more often than not, and as a citizen who benefits from social order, that's a risk I don't ever want to even think about taking.  I'd rather go about my life and leave the policy to the people who know what they are doing."

His answer was similar to most respondents, even those who supported a measure of democracy, mostly at the local level.

[Doc]

Reprinted with permission and full rights retained from University of Norterra Press

#enlightenedabsolutism #politics #democracy

[Doc]

Liberty without Liberalism
Negative Freedom is meaningless without Positive Freedom

Margaret Carolina Ananto-DeLaurentis
Junior, Kaliburg-Wilson Public Secondary School

June 5630

Editor's Note:  The following essay was submitted by High School Junior Margaret Ananto.  The readers will certainly recognize the name as the daughter of His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Fredrick III Ananto.  Her essay was selected as one of five winners of the May 5630 Excellence in Undergraduate Writing Contest sponsored by Kaliburg Imperial University and the Editorial Staff of the Anantonese Journal of Economics and Theory.  The Contest was open to all students at the secondary and post secondary level who were not involved in a graduate or research program at a major Kalistani University.  98% of all entries were from college undergraduates.  The winners were selected in a double-blind review process commonly known as "peer review" and was one of 45 finalists.  The author of the paper was not known until the paper was selected by the panel and the authors were notified.  -Ed

Kalistan as a society of Liberty without Liberalism
Kalistan has the interesting distinction of being an explicitly anti-liberal country that also happens to support a wide array of individual and social liberties.  One can go through the Kalistani Code of Laws and realize that there are whole sections and dozens of laws enshrining liberties for the people of Kalistan, both as individuals and as groups.  We have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and petition, freedom of conscience and religion.  People are free to start businesses and own property.  We have freedom from oppressive police force, freedom of contract, freedom of juries and procedural justice.  Kalistan has more of the trappings of what people would call "a liberal society."

And yet, Kalistan also prides itself on not being liberal.  It is famously, or notoriously--depending on who you ask--illiberal.  We do not allow property owners to exploit their labor or dispose of property freely.  We prevent individuals from owning huge tracts of land and break up farms.  We use state power to promote state run monopolies and disallow private firms from even attempting to compete with some of the most protected industries.  We have outlawed political competition, and the only reason that the Institutional Party exists is to organize the government for support of the Emperor.  There are many other points on which Kalistan can be considered one of the most illiberal nations in Terra that is not a brutal dictatorship.

How can these two facts co-exist within the same nation?  How can Kalistan have liberty without liberalism?  Isn't the later necessary for the former?  Doesn't the former tend to encourage the latter?  The answer to the question here has to do with the two conceptions of liberty and freedom:  One, the one preferred by liberals, is the negative conception of freedom, or "freedom from", while the other, employed by the Imperial Government, is the positive form, or "freedom to."  Not only does Kalistan favor the positive sense of Liberty over the negative, but negative liberty does not even make sense without positive liberty.  We have an abundance of positive liberty, but we are not fixated on negative liberty, and therefore, it is possible to have liberty without liberalism.

The Two Concepts of Liberty
Examining these concepts of liberty, I can use a basic analogy.  In the negative sense of liberty, I can say there is technically no law that prevents me from levitating.  If it was physically possible to do it, and I think some would say it is, there is nothing preventing me from learning to do that, and then disciplining my mind and body and doing that.  Its not against any laws, and therefore it could be said that I am at complete liberty to try.  In fact, it would be a little silly for the state to pass a law preventing me from levitating:  Most people would consider it amazing if I simply lifted off in front of them.  You could say, I am at maximum (negative) liberty.

But that negative liberty is utterly meaningless without the ability to actually do it.  Leaving aside the fact that defying the laws of gravity with the power of thinking is not possible, I literally cannot do it.  No matter how much I train, no matter how free I am to try, I simply cannot do something that is not possible.  My maximum negative liberty is meaningless without the ability to actually do anything with it.  In the case of levitation, minimum positive liberty, or the freedom to actually levitate, negates the value of maximum negative liberty and has the same effect of if I had minimum negative liberty and there was an oppressive state preventing me from levitating.  In other words, what difference does it make if I have freedom from someone stopping me from doing something I can't actually do?  In this sense, if I am oppressed completely or not oppressed at all, the result is still the same.

In the case of civil liberties, you could say the same thing:  What difference does freedom from oppressive state power make if you don't have the right to act out in society?  Or put another way, what good is individual liberty without social liberty?  Freedom from oppressive state power means nothing if you can't actually do things in the society.  Without positive freedom, negative freedom is utterly meaningless.

Liberals prefer Negative Liberty, and consider liberty a zero-sum
We can take this a step further as well.  Negative freedom talks about external constraints on an individual--who can stop you from doing the things you want.  It says nothing about whether you can actually do it.  Positive liberty talks about the internal motivations of individuals.  On the one hand, there is the clearing of obstacles out from in front of person that would stop a person from moving forward.  On the other hand, there is the motivation and ability to actually move forward.

Liberals tend to focus on the negative to the exclusion of the positive.  They talk about removing barriers to people without giving them any abilities to move forward.  For a liberal, you can't actually do both at the same time.  You can't have a limited role for the State, which protects unlimited individual liberty, while also having strong state able to provide supports for the people so they can make the most of that individual liberty.  For the liberal, the two are mutually exclusive, and in fact, it becomes a zero sum:  Any state role is considered anathema, but liberals are willing to concede a bare minimum role for the state, to protect property, enforce contracts, and serve as neutral judges, because the goal is maximization of individual, negative liberty.

To a liberal, they believe liberty only exists if people are unshackled from external constraints.  But if people don't do anything with that negative liberty, if they remain stationary or inert, that is completely their own doing.  They do not want to get into why someone might not be able to fully utilize their negative liberty--that, like everything, is an individual matter, and whether the individual succeeds or fails is their own concern.  To suggest that the state has a role in promotion of individual self realization is to suggest that the state should have a role larger than the tiny role liberals have prescribed for it.

But liberals don't even fully believe in negative liberty
It is clear that liberals see positive liberty as an unacceptable expansion for the role of the state, or community, or society, or whatever collective organization at the expense of the individual  But it is also clear that liberals don't even fully support the notion of negative liberty.  Promotion of the negative liberty means expansion of a society that removes barriers to free action.  In doing so, though, liberals do not want to acknowledge the constraints that poverty, social injustice, inequality, and environmental destruction places on people.  To address them would require a similarly unacceptable role for the State or the society.  All of these create constraints on individuals, but all are perfectly acceptable to the most ardent liberals.

So it is clear that liberals are not really interested in removing all constraints on people.  Only the constraints which require any sort of civil responsibility of individuals.  They want to free individuals to sink or swim on their own power, but do not care to fish them out of the ocean when they fall in.  In fact:  creating a collective obligation to help all parts of society to move ahead itself places an unacceptable obligation on individuals that doesn't permit them to only look to their own interests, at the expense of all others.  Therefore, social policy such as meaningful political elections and an active role of the state in promoting more equal economic outcomes, policies that promote positive freedom, is similarly rejected.

What is clear is that liberals place limiting constraints on the way people acquire and use property, in the economic sense, as the most important liberty.  The positive role of the state around property should be in its protection.  You will see liberal states employ police forces in the protection of property:  They will vigorously prosecute individuals who relieve others of their property, and will reject any form of nationalization, even if it is for the benefit of the society, and even if the property being seized belongs to an enemy.  They oppose it out of principle and will protect the "liberty" of even malevolent foreigners before they will ever consider doing anything to better the lives of their own people.

But can you have Liberty without Liberalism?
I am sure that liberals may read this and say, "The author is making far too strong a case.  It promotes gross generalizations to make the argument.  There are plenty of liberals who also promote social welfare policies."  This is true, and I acknowledge it.  But my goal is not to make the argument for positive as opposed to negative liberty.  That would be promoting a different zero sum, and in fact, opens me to the charges liberals make against those who support positive freedom.  The argument holds that zero sum pro-positive liberty is ultimately a justification for authoritarian rule.

The argument holds that a state, in the name of promoting "freedom to" ends up promoting a state which may begin well-meaning, but to carry out its well-meaning social policy, ends up creating new constraints on people and their ability to do as they please with their property.  I can no longer use my property to make myself infinitely wealthy, if I have to actually pay my workers something that will allow them to live well.  A government so empowered takes more power and more power until they start limiting more and more freedoms, until they forget all about the well-meaningness of their initial efforts and just become tyrants.

This is a fair restatement of the liberals' argument against empowering the society or the collective or any grouping to do things.  An increase in the power of the collective necessarily comes at the expense of the individual.  Empowering people denies them the ability to motivate themselves.  But I don't necessarily think so.  If the goal truly is liberty, one should want a measure of both freedom from and freedom to.  And you can have both.

At the core of the argument, the premise of negative and positive liberty being mututally exclusive is what is wrong in the liberal argument.  In liberalism, which is the ideology of liberty, the goal is maximum individual, negative freedom.  But Kalistanis have long practiced some negative liberty, which is guaranteed by our strong commitment to positive liberty.  We do not feel that negative liberty is even possible without strong promotion of positive liberty.  But to do so requires a large state apparatus and strident promotion the collective responsibility.  And those are anathema to liberals.

Consequently, Kalistan demonstrates that you can have liberty without liberalism, and that an ideological commitment to negative liberty is not at all necessary for a free society, or a society at liberty.  There are some legitimate constraints that can be and should be placed on individuals for the benefit of society.  In Kalistan, this means primarily a limitation on property rights and unnecessary political squabbling, both of which are easily dispensed with if the goal is social harmony and political and economic stability.

Conclusion
It is acceptable to place some constraints on society for the greater good.  Liberals will define governments as tyrannical to the degree that they limit negative freedom.  In this case, even liberal governments would fit their own definitions of tyrannical-- they have laws, for example that place restraints on the actions of the people. 

But that definition is only correct if you buy negative liberty as a zero sum game.  Liberals certainly do, Kalistan certainly does not.  You can use positive liberty to enhance negative freedom, to give it meaning, and to give it value, in and of itself, entirely separate from the individual and from economic property relations.  In doing so, you can have both positive and negative freedom. 

You could even make the argument that Kalistan, in promoting measures of both positive and negative freedom is far freer than those societies who only promote negative liberty alone.  We not only limit the role of government in several very important areas, but we also work to provide the people means to achieve higher amounts of self-actualization, because we work to actively fight poverty, inequality, political turbulence, social disorder, and environmental destruction that would serve as their own brakes on human actualization.  And we unabashedly use the instruments and the institutions of the state to do so.

Our Government in its wisdom is committed to social liberty, even if it means that some people can't exploit the rest of the society for their individual benefit.  The net result is both positive, and a much higher amount of overall social well being than you will find in capitalist countries and liberal democracies where people exist as prey of capitalists and property owners, and which are plagued by internecine political infighting that wasted most of the political energy of the society in meaningless elections which only exist to legitimize elite replacement. 

In this you certainly can have liberty without liberalism, and I think as the Empire of Ananto and Kalistan demonstrates, in fact, it is preferable to do so.

[Doc]

Hegemonic Stability in the Anantonese Ocean: How rising rivalry decreases Security
Alberto Montaña-Crespo, Ph.D. Kaliburg Imperial University
Linda Rodriguez-Blanco, Ph.D. Instituto de Teoretica Social, Ciudad de Gaduri, Gaduridos

Synopsis-
The rising rivalry between the Empire of Ananto and Kalistan and the Kingdom of Egelion in the Northern Anantonese Ocean is a robust case study in Hegemonic Stability Theory. The theory states that hegemons provide stability-- A system is most stable when a hegemon exists, because the hegemon provides order, continuity of policy, and security over a system. Instability increases as other states look jealously upon that hegemon and seek to undermine it for their own ends. War and chaos are the result of that instrumentalist policy practiced by other states directly against the hegemon. In this case, Ananto is the long standing hegemon, which has ensured peace, order and continuity in the Northern Anantonese Ocean for hundreds of years, while Egelion, a nation that was utterly irrelevant a mere 60 years ago, has become home to a cadet branch of the Lourennais Royal Family, who immediately began making strides to undermine that order for their own goals. As predicted by the theory, the upstart is attempting to undermine the stability of the regional hegemon, and the results will be instability and a return to disorder caused by the rising power's desire to replace the old hegemon in the region.

Introduction-- Historical Facts
First, a few historical facts. The Empire of Ananto and Kalistan was founded, as a matter of fact, with the coronation of the first Grand Duke of Ananto, Fredrick Guerra, who took the title and name Fredrick I Ananto in 5159. Several generations of direct descendants passed, and the Empire transitioned to a republic for 149 years and then the Empire was restored under the direct descendant of Fredrick, Nicolette I Ananto, also known as "The Great" in 5458. Kalistan has been an absolutist imperial state ever since making this particular regime 479 years old, 330 of those years which have been under the control of the House Ananto.

A cadet branch of the Orleans-Vassar ruling family of Lourenne was installed as king in Egelion in 5591. Before that, Egelion was notable for not being notable at all. It was controlled for a long time by a place holder government which the Orleans-Vassars easily replaced without a protest from the placeholder government. This makes the Egelian Crown 47 years old, 47 of which have been ruled by the House Orleans-Vassar-Montalivet-Sildavia.

The Theory-- Hegemonic Stability
The theory of Hegemonic Stability says that the existence of a hegemon is usually predictive of stability in a system. This stability is posited to be something that is positive: The Hegemon sort of keeps everyone in line. Major wars do not happen in a hegemonic stable system: The Hegemon can easily punish all those who attempt to defect within a system. A Hegemonic system is not free of wars: We just happen to see less war for a number of reasons:

1. Hegemonic power can easily defeat anyone who goes against the system. In terms of hard power, the hegemon possesses a predominance of it. Wars are easier for the hegemon to win. Peace terms can more easily be dictated to maintain the position of the hegemon. And the threat of hegemonic intervention makes war a much more costly policy option than some peaceful method of resolving disputes.
   
2. Regime consonance is a real thing within a hegemonic system. Nations often attempt to conform their regime types to mirror the successful hegemon. Consonant regime types can more easily communicate with one another, they can more easily conduct talks, they are more friendly with one another, and there is less conflict that we see among widely differing regime types.
   
3. Trade tends to be freer with a higher volume in a hegemonic system. Since it is understood that there is usually consonance on trade policy in a hegemonic system, the cost and uncertainty of trade is greatly reduced. This tends to tie nations closer together, as trade usually does, and tends to suppress the impulse for war.
   

Again: hegemonic systems are not free of wars, they simply tend to see less war and greater stability.

Conversely, as hegemons fall, you tend to see more war and more instability. For all of the above reasons, but inversely.

There are several ways for hegemons to fall. One is internal disputes, usually over power and resources, where the hegemon is undermined from the inside. Another way, and this is the method the Kingdom of Egelion is using against Ananto and Kalistan, is to undermine the hegemony, or straight up challenge it externally. Whether the hegemon is actually declining or not, it really doesn't matter, because an external challenge to the hegemon forces the hegemon to address it. For the rising power, any defection is just another step on their mission to replace the hegemon. If they don't gain an ally, it doesn't undermine their quest at all. But for a hegemon, any defection is an existential threat to the Hegemon. It weakens and undermines the hegemon, and this weakening and undermining is the direct cause of the instability that results in the hegemon no longer being able to hold the system together through its hegemony. Soon other break away, and eventually you either get a war, or a new hegemon.

Additionally we also know that to prevent this, Hegemons will often start wars to weaken their rivals. As the Hegemon is perceived to be weakened, it may lash out at its rival, take steps to stop its rival from rising at its expense, and regain its predominance in the system. The decision to do this is understandable, but it is a function of being undermined and the alteration of the status quo in a system. Stability begets stability, turbulence begets turbulence. Hence, Egelion's policy of challenging the Hegemon, for whatever reason, will be the source of any regional instability going forward. In structural realism terms, Egelion is opting to balance the hegemon, where most states who value hegemonic stability, will have opted to bandwagon with the hegemon. The choice to balance represents a change in the system's structure, and therefore causes insecurity and instability in that system which has, to this point, been governed by bandwagoning behavior.

And to be clear, this choice to balance is 100% Egelion's choice, and they could absolutely do something else if they wanted to. We say this because Kalistan would never do anything itself to encourage Egelion to attempt to balance power against Kalistan given that Kalistan is the hegemon.

Hegemonic Competition- The Junior can only win if it unseats the Senior
Empress Carolina I Ananto had been Empress of Ananto and Kalistan for 14 years already when King Amadeo I Montalivet was declared King. In fact the Empress attended his coronation, along with her Husband and Daughter, Princess Michelle Ananto-Sandoval, who is currently the head of House Ananto and the aunt of the Current Empress of Ananto and Kalistan, Empress Mary I Ananto. By all measures, the crown in Egelion is far younger than the crown in Kalistan.

When the Kingdom of Egelion was created, Kalistan was already involved in a long standing conflict in Kundrati, which was in fact that land of Empress Carolina's birth. Egelion sat that war out and contributed nothing to its prosecution or settlement. To this date, Egelion has contributed nothing to its prosecution or settlement. Which is fine, as this is Egelion's foreign policy, though Egelion is supposedly an avowed defender of democracy internationally, and even held a conference claiming to support democracy and oppose extremism, which the Empire of Ananto and Kalistan was regularly mentioned in the same breath as totalitarians in Artania. In other words, Kalistan was a power with a nearly global reach when the Kingdom of Egelion was in its infancy.

It is undisputed that within the Anantonese Ocean, Kalistan has maintained hegemony. Hegemony, for our purposes means military, economic, political, and cultural predominance. No other nation has come close to surpassing Kalistan in these categories over the past century. The sharp decline of Lourenne opened the door for Kalistan to move to center stage, and this is a position that Kalistan has jealously guarded, because, for better or worse, Kalistan is completely convinced that it is under threat at all times from external forces, and the further it can move the possible battle fronts from its home territory, the more secure it feels. This drive has been beneath most of Kalistan's foreign policy for more than a century, and has led to Kalistan seeking to build political, customs and security arrangements with neighboring nations that ensure that Kalistan can station naval forces well beyond its immediate borders, that they have access to trade from multiple sources to allow for a high degree of self sustainability, and that their neighbors can also withstand determined threats from beyond their borders.

This hegemony has led to widespread peace in the Anantonese Ocean region, even as wars occur in Artania, Majatra and Dovani. That widespread peace has in turn led to widespread prosperity, for not only Ananto and Kalistan, but also Lodamun, Gaduridos, Lourenne, Egelion, and Dolgava, with growing prosperity in Northern Seleya and Western Dovani, even in states which have chosen to remain outside the Empire. The only exception is Baltusia, which has deliberately chosen a monk's existence under aberrant syndicalist government. It was Kalistan and her allies' willingness to continue to fight not only to push Artanian imperial configurations out of Northern Seleya, but also satellite states of intolerant totalitarian regimes, that provided this stability in the region.

Now it would seem that a new power, which views itself as rising, feels the need to do so not only right on Ananto's Doorstep, but also at Kalistan's expense. This upstart rising power threatens the stability of Kalistani hegemony, though indirectly at this time. In charting a self-serving course that is independent of and in opposition to the hegemonic system that has kept the Ananontese Ocean basin quiet for centuries, the Kingdom of Egelion's aim is clear: It seeks to recreate the power and influence of the previous hegemon in the Anantonese Ocean, Canrille under Lourenne, which Ananto and Kalistan itself replaced following the sudden withdraw of Lourenne from world affairs. At that story, Kalistan was the upstart rival, and greatly profited from Lourenne's sudden abandonment of the role of regional hegemon: In fact, Kalistan got the role almost by default. But the failure of one hegemon in this sense did not lead to regional instability, but instead settled it.

In this system, hundreds of years later, Kalistan is being challenged for regional hegemony by in many ways the successor regime to Lourenne, the upstart Egelion. The difference this time is that Kalistan and Lourenne had been rivals for a long time, but then Lourenne suddenly dropped out. Kalistan is not interested in giving up the role of Hegemon in this region. And it will likely fight to keep what it has built, though the comparative newborn crown in Egelion would prefer to replace Kalistan. The attempt will certainly lead to instability in the region, just as Kalistan is withdrawing from its involvement in Artania.

Will this lead to instability? A timeline of a largely one sided relationship
There is the argument to be made that if someone can actually unseat a hegemon, is that hegemon really a hegemon? After all, a Hegemon is defined by a preponderance of power. In other words, several rivals together wouldn't be able to take down an actual hegemon, let alone one that is less than 6 decades old, who is a relative newcomer to the regional system.

So if Egelion could actually take Kalistan down by forming its self-serving alliances around Dovani, then perhaps Kalistan has already declined from Hegemonic Status. At this point, Egelion has merely not been enthusiastic about associating itself with Kalistan, and is seeking to do things that would allow it, with heavily blurred vision, to appear to have achieved something close to parity with Kalistan.

And in fact, other nations may be looking at Egelion as a pawn they could use to externally balance against--A prospect that Egelion at least appears interested in. Some such external rivals would be Dorvik, who has long yearned for a permanent position in the Anantonese Ocean, or Luthori who is obsessed with regaining its dominant position in Northern Seleya, if no place else in the world, or one of the many city states in Beiteynu or the Kingdom of Lourenne, both of whom would look to exploit Egelion rising power to regain their control of international finance and trade. In all these cases, the Empire of Ananto and Kalistan stands in the way, and has for a very long time. And Egelion may just see its interests met in allowing itself to be used like this--If successful that would mean Kalsitan has already declined.

But: Kalistan is almost forced to respond at any rate. It is clear from recent dustups that Kalistan at least no longer trusts Egelion and is increasingly concerned that indeed Egelion seeks to replace Kalistan. Whether Egelion actually wants to or not is anyone's guess: It would seem that a person who vocally claims that they don't want to replace the hegemon would be the first person a reasonable person would suspect of wanting to do just that. Recently, Egelion has stated that Kalistan's fears are "asinine" and utterly, and rather contemptuously dismissed them out of hand. But the Egelian foreign minister did say something in this same article that is very telling of Egelion's motives:

"We are not here to rival Kalistan, but to make a name for our country. If they cannot handle our foreign policy they have two options, accept it as it is, or get out of the way."

It is this very sentiment, which was so freely and candidly expressed by one of the more important people in Egelion, and which is assumed to be the actual position of the King of Egelion, which does indeed pose an existential situation for Her Imperial Majesty, Empress Mary I Ananto. Earlier in the article, the source stated that Egelion has only ever cooperated with Kalistan, but this is not really true. We found evidence that Egelion has only cooperated with Kalistan on one thing of Kalistan's doing. On the other hand, Kalsitan was one of the earliest and long standing supporter of things Egelion sought to do, including the early investments into the Egelian Banking system, the Altea Conference, which Kalistan attended despite being blasted for its non-democratic regime by several of the attendees, including Egelion, and various other projects that Kalsitan attempted to assist with but were ignored by Egelion.

(Continued Below)

[Doc]

(Continued from Above)

In fact, a summary of Kalistani news sources bears this fact out:

1. The first mention of Egelion in Kalistani papers is in 5589, where Empress Carolina stated that Egelion has not reached out to Kalistan for any reason at all despite Kalistan's support for the rising monarchy there.
   
2. The next article detailed Dana Ananto's investment of 50 Billion Imperial Rubles in Egelian bank Santomar.
   
3. The next mention was about Carolina and Dame Bolton's 5601 visit to Egelion to attempt to secure passage of AESA.
   
4. The first time the Egelian Monarch visited Kalsitan was 5603 as part of a multi-nation stop through tour, where there was some discussion around cultural exchange, though there is no evidence that anything on either side of the Anantonese ever came out of it. During the same visit, Egelion announced that they would join the Anantonese Security Community, though, like the AESA, there is no evidence that they actually did join it or contributed anything at all to either of those two treaty institutions, except statement in a newspaper claiming that they had been in these two treaty organizations all along.
   
5. Crown Prince Fredrick and new wife Monica honeymooned in Egelion in 5606.
   
6. In 5610, Kalsitan sent an envoy to Egelion begging for assistance in a war that was about to begin in the Artanian Sea: no assistance of any kind was forthcoming from Egelion, or any other state Kalistan sought help from at that time.
   
7. The Egelian Monarchs did return to Kalistan in 5611 for the Coronation of Fredrick III Ananto.
   
8. In 5614, Egelion was mentioned as a member of the ASC during a visit to Dolgava, though nothing further was said about their membership or participation on any substantial level, and certainly no help was forthcoming from Egelion as Kalistan fought its war against the totalitarians in Kundrati and Likatonia.
   
9. In 5618, the Kalistani Emperor and his spouse visited Egelion to pay respects to the late King of Egelion, and to invite the new king to visit Kalistan.
   
10. The disappointment of Egelion's failure to support Kalistan in any way at all in the Kundrati conflict simmered under the surface, but Emperor Fredrick III Ananto expressed concern at Egelion's courting of Dorvik by 5623. It seems that this willingness to publicly speak out against Egelion's growing distance from Kalistan was evidence of a much deeper separation which had already begun behind the scenes, that started when Egelion joined several nations in the world at the Altea Conference to condemn extremism and regularly and routinely placed the Empire in its lists of authoritarian states that the Conference was supposedly convened to oppose. By 5623, warm, albeit largely one sided relations between the two nations had deteriorated to the point where Kalistan felt the need to comment on them in public.
    
11. That same year, Nicole Ananto, the daughter of Lady Dana Ananto, who was Gaduri Viceroy, agreed to marry the new king, Romulo I following several visits to Egelion. The marriage was one that seemed a natural fit. But it papered over serious concerns in Kalistan at the time at what felt like a growing independence in foreign policy, but in retrospect, was not new, or minor in anyway on the part of Egelion.
    
12. In 5626, the couple was married and the royal family attended the wedding in Egelion, but warmer relations with Kalistan did not result.
    
13. In 5628, the Royal Family congratulated Romulo and Nicole on the birth of their twins.
    
14. In 5628, the Kalistani Foreign Minister was once again back in Egelion attempting to get Egelion to sign the AESA, a trip which would have been unnecessary had Egelion already signed it--In Egelion's newspaper, they claimed that they had been a part of the treaty regimes for "Decades", though the source they link was Egelion's account of the visit, dated 5629, which was in fact only 9 years previous to the writing of the Egelion paper, and is confirmed in Kalistan from the same period. Again, both papers tell of the visit in the attempt to secure Egelion accession to the treaty. Again, there is no evidence that the treaty was ever actually signed, nor is it listed on their FM's website.
    
15. Also in 5629, Kalistan invited Egelion to participate in Operation Northern Lights, the large scale naval exercise, and it is reported that Egelion did participate in that exercise later that year.
    
16. The King and Queen of Egelion finally visited Kalistan to attend the memorial service of late Kalistani Emperor Fredrick III Ananto in 5631.
    
17. In 5632, the Queen of Egelion attended the Coronation of Empress Mary I Ananto, but the King skipped the event, to personally oversee missions in New Englia.
    
18. In 5635, when Egelion had a bombing that wounded Queen Nicole and the Crown Prince, Kalistan offered assistance with intelligence to help hunt the terrorists. The offer was not remarked on outside of Kalistan or accepted, though Nicole did eventually convalesce at the Baronetcy in Eveari County.
    
19. In 5637, Egelion outbid Kalistan for infrastructure development assistance in Tukarali.
    
20. Also in 5637, the Egelion Government criticized Empress Mary Ananto as "inexperienced" which was an oblique criticism of Kalistani involvement in a war they had, to date, taken no interest, stance or comment on, nor did they critique anyone else involved in the ongoing conflict.
    
21. Later, despite growing tension, the King and Queen visited Gaduridos to attend the funeral of Dana Ananto, the Queen's mother. There was no report of any conversation between Empress Mary and King Romulo at the funeral.
    
22. The launching of the Institute of Egelian Diplomacy which is clearly aimed at advancing Egelion Policy independent of regional policy in Dovani, and the glaring omission of the two major agreements between Kalistan and Egelion in 5638 was reportedly the last straw in a long simmering conflict, prompting Lady Waltrip's 5638 speech and finally bringing it all out in the open.
    
23. Egelion's inflammatory, anti-conciliatory speech that responded confirmed for Kalistan that its long held suspicions were completely correct, and to date there has been no effort by either side to walk back the statements or seek reconciliation.
    

Since 5589, there are a total of 23 items listed here of interaction between Kalsitan and Egelion. Of this list, 13 items are positive, and 10 contain negative news. Kalistan visited Egelion 10 times over this period, Egelion visited Kalistan 5 times, and a full 40% of those 5 visits was just the Queen, who is the cousin of the Kalistani Royal Family. Also there are 4 stories of Kalistan helping Egelion somehow, and only 1 story, the account of Egelion Participation in Northern Lights, where Egelion helped Kalistan out with anything. This can easily be said to be a lopsided relationship at the very least, and more recently under Romulo I, it has been far more lopsided and negative than under Amadeo I. Therefore, the contentions of deteriorating relations seems to be supported by the data available.

Does it have to end up in conflict between the two states? Not necessarily. But a Kalistani monarch looking at the history of the decline of relations between Kalistan and Egelion, especially after 5612, will tell you that the conflict is already here, and the window to resolve it is likely almost closed entirely. This is the result of the regional hegemon reaching out time and again to try to integrate a rising power into the regional structure, and that rising power becoming more and more insistent not only on standing apart from the regional system, but actively challenging the Hegemon for dominance in the region. It tends to support the narrative offered by Hegemonic Stability Theory.

Conclusion-- Ways Forward
Looking at this list, Kalistan has reached out time and time again, to get Egelion to integrate into the regional system. Egelion's response has been cordial at best. When Kalistan was doing more than state visits, it was propping Egelion institutions up. Egelion in turn joined the world in criticizing Kalistan for standing up to Kundrati fascists, at the loss of going on more than 50,000 casualties over the entire Kundrati conflict, and meanwhile taking the opportunity to distance itself from Kalistan on several fronts. It maintains it is an active supporter of both the main treaties of regional integration, though the only person who seems to think so anymore is Egelion's High Councilor Formoselle, who stated emphatically something that his own Government does not even confirm on their website. Meanwhile, Egelion is creating its own completely independent integration treaties with Dovanian nations, while criticizing Kalistan for its imperialism.

The Councilor asked rhetorically in his speech against the Kalistani Monarch recently "Does Kalistan think the world revolves around them?" He quickly answered his own rhetorical question with an emphatic "No." But the fact is: As long as Kalistan remains the hegemon, the world kind of does revolve around it. Egelion may not like this fact, and the actions they are taking now demonstrates that they likely resent this fact, but none the less, it is a fact.

It is highly likely that Egelion's policy, if it is driven by a desire to supplant Kalistan as the regional leader, will drive reaction in Kalistan. That reaction will not be pretty or peaceful for anyone. Because whatever Egelion thinks it is doing, or says it is doing in public despite planning something completely different in private, the policy nonetheless has the effect of creating a security dilemma for Kalistan. Kalistan will not simply accept it or get out of the way. Those two choices are unacceptable in Kaliburg.

In short, if we could offer a word of advice to the Egelian Crown: Don't treat the Empress like she is a spoiled child and this is all just a temper tantrum on the Empress part. Empress Mary is responding exactly how political theorists would predict a threatened hegemon would respond given the long standing series of neglect and provocation her Government has received since before she became Empress. This isn't an insane or irrational response. Hegemonic Stability Theory can predict precisely how she will respond. It also will tell everyone what the outcome will be. Egelion will not be able to replace Kalistan in a friendly or passive way, the way they may have been trying to do so far.

Yes, the Councilor Mondragon was correct when they said this: "I, however, understand that Kalistan sees a threat in our rise as a power. This is not about alienation, it is about control. Kalistan feels threatened." Mary, as the Embodiment of the Hegemon absolutely does feel threatened. And she is absolutely governed by a desire to maintain Kalistani hegemony in the region. But the threat, whether the Egelian Government wants to acknowledge it, is coming completely from Altea.

Instead of calling her response asinine, or inconsistent, or making her out to be an irrational lunatic, as the Egelian Ministers certainly did in their article, perhaps take a look at the evidence provided here, understand this is what Her Imperial Majesty is seeing, and do something other than making vague threats and demands for capitulation from the Empire, whose regime is far older than Egelion's. We believe that the Empire has long demonstrated a desire to work WITH Egelion. We believe that the litany presented above demonstrates that. We believe that the Empire has overlooked a lot of incidents that could be considered at the very least turning Egelion's back on people they claim to be friends with, while Kalistan has gone out of its way to visit, to try to include Egelion in regional affairs, to participate in things that improve the economy and reputation of Egelion, and to ensure the security of Egelion.

In short, whatever the Empress thinks, we believe it is not too late to repair the relationship which is heavily damaged by carelessness, ambition, and maybe misperception, but more likely a full historical understanging from a perspective that you don't happen to care much about. This tension started in Altea, it can easily end there with a sincere attempt to simply reach out and discuss differences, and make an actual effort to work together rather than against the Hegemon.

It doesn't have to end the way that Hegemonic Stability Theory suggests it will. But it most certainly will if Egelion doesn't make an effort to pull back from doing the things that don't matter much at all to Egelion, but represent existential threats to Kalistan. It costs them nothing to be cordial to Kalistan. It will cost them a lot to continue to make an enemy of Kalistan, whether or not they believe that Kalistan is justified in its concerns. At the end of the day, until Kalistan is a third world nation with no government, no military, and no economy, Kalistan perceives what Egelion is doing to be hostile toward Kalistan directly, especially if Egelion makes no effort what so ever to offer their self proclaimed "friends" any kind of consideration or accommodation, and instead mock the Empress for feeling threatened.

Perception is reality.

[Doc]

Flexibility in Foreign Policy:
Constructivism and a way forward for Kalistan

Kenneth Jackson, Ph.D, Associate Professor, University of Ananto-Eveari
Michelle Reynolds, Ph.D, Associate Professor, University of Ananto-Eveari
June 15, 5642

Introduction

For years, Kalistani foreign policy has been dictated by the requirements and expectations of hard power politics. Since the reign of Pavlina I Ananto, Kalistani monarchs have found themselves at the center, sometimes unintentionally, of many international events, especially those in Artania. It may not seem intuitive, but most, if not all of these monarchs publicly expressed an unwillingness to take a lead role in the international system, despite being at the center of it.

As the focus shifts away from Artania, the descendants of the Black Empress have struggled with competing pressures: on one hand they have been obsessed with both security of the Anantonese Ocean, no longer having Lourenne to rely on, and on the other, they have wanted to, but have been unable to focus solely on the region due to their ongoing conflict with Artania. This dual pressure consumed the reign of Pavlina's daughter, Carolina I Ananto, and her son Fredrick III Ananto, half of the reign of Pavlina herself, and threatened to consume the reign of Her Imperial Majesty, Empress Mary I Ananto, until she began taking steps that seemed erratic to many foreign observers, first in unilaterally lifting sanctions against the fascist state of Kundrati, and then approving the use of the militia in the final battle to remove the fascist Legion from power in Kundrati.

This whiplash doesn't make sense from a hard realist perspective. The realists would say she is flailing. But perhaps a better theoretical perspective to consider her policy from is constructivism, which says that states jointly construct reality. The system may indeed be objectively anarchic, but state responses to that anarchy are not a priori determined, as they are in realism. A state doesn't need to respond to anarchy with obsession for security, an arms race or hegemonic war. A state can learn and a state can have more than one central interest, often at the same time.

Could Mary herself be a constructivist? It is hard to say that someone IS a constructivist or a realist, as these are more ideological paradigms that guide action and should not be seen even as mutually exclusive. But if Mary sees the world from that constructivist paradigm, and acts accordingly, her actions make a lot more sense than trying to shoehorn an explanation from a strict realist perspective.

Empress Mary, Herself

Of the Black Empress, Pavlina I Ananto, and her three descendants, Carolina, Fredrick and Mary, (Collectively known to historians as the Kundrati Dynasty) one of them was uniquely unprepared to become the monarch. Pavlina herself was a banker before becoming Empress. She had a scant two years of co-rule before her husband and the last member of the ancient Gaduri Dynasty, Fredrick II Ananto was assassinated in Kalistan. After that she faced civil war in Kalistan, reconstruction and then disintegration in her home country of Kundrati. She was never generally popular in Kalistan, and maintained her leadership by ensuring enough support from enough elites to keep dissent at a low simmer. But she also laid the foundation for Kalistan to become a truly imperial power in Seleya and in the world.

Her daughter, Carolina I Ananto, was trained at length for her role as Empress, at the knee of Pavlina, who doted upon her daughter and tried to provide her daughter with every advantage. In fact, one could say that Carolina, an only child began her Imperial training when he father died, before she was even 10 years old and barely spoke Vrassan. Carolina acted as Empress before she was crowned: She concluded a peace agreement with Luthori, and oversaw the accession of both Gaduridos and Lodamun to the Empire. She was perhaps the most imperial, and imperious of any monarch since Nicolette I Ananto, The Great. Carolina was also not her mother: Where Pavlina was unsure and often reactive, as a result of her being thrust into the role of monarch unexpectedly, Carolina embraced the office, and reigned with a confidence and arrogance that tended to alienate many internationally, and incidentally, also made Kalistan a global leader.

Fredrick III Ananto took power right as Kalistan was going to war for the first time in centuries. Fredrick always saw himself as an entertainer, not as an Emperor. He essentially maintained his mother's policies in tact as the Empire was strained both internally and externally by the prosecution of a very costly and ultimately only marginally successful war in the Artanian Sea and in Likatonia. But he also was Emperor when Kalistani regulars committed thousands of war crimes in Likatonia as Kalistan brutally swept through the that nation's eastern province. Though he himself endorsed war crimes tribunals, most of those who were accused of depredations escaped punishment following trials. He held the Empire together with an inflexible grip, even as he also saw Artania still committing crimes against its own people and being unable himself to rally much of the world to the cause. Fredrick died in a tragic plane crash while his daughter, Mary was still in National Service.

Her Imperial Majesty, Empress Mary I Ananto was made to take over soon after leaving the National Service Program. It was widely believed that her quick accession was due to a number of factors: Fredrick's sister, Michelle Ananto was not interested in governing, her main focus being on her charities and her operations of House Ananto's finances, but more importantly, members of the older Gaduri branch, who were concentrated in Suldanor, were making noise at various Ananto functions about the potential for the Gaduris to reclaim the throne if Mary was unwilling to serve. Mary entered service just after her 22nd Birthday, making her the youngest Ananto monarch to be crowned.

She was also one of the least prepared or interested. She, on multiple occasions stated that she would prefer to avoid people all together and remain in the woods well away from society. Mary is perhaps one of the least formally educated monarchs in Kalistani history: She never attended any post secondary education, and nearly dropped out of high school, showing no interest for traditional class learning or pedagogy. These two factors have strongly militated against any sort of continuity in ideological orientation between Mary and her predecessors. She neither possessed the basic skills necessary for successful political administration, nor the inclination to acquire them before she was crowned, and has spent more than a decade attempting to catch up.

In Kalistan, Mary leans very heavily upon the Imperial Protocol to govern by absolute fiat, completely disregarding political leaders and process as it is convenient, and replacing seasoned policy makers at will. She has not actively courted a base of strictly political support, but relies on her personal qualities to generate support, and still maintains a high popularity among the people: Many people see themselves in her, see her fight relentlessly for Kalistan's place in the world as something to be proud of, and feel a great personal awe and affinity for her as a person. They are therefore far more inclined to support the things she does than they were for past monarchs.

The very deep personal loyalty the people feel for the Empress gives her immense political capital, and politicians constantly hear from their constituents that their only job is to do whatever the Empress tells them to. In this way, the Empress has herself become synonymous with the Empire. She has surrounded herself with capable administrators, including most recently her sister, who is clearly the Empress' intellectual superior, and who has taken on the role of tutor for the Empress to teach her things she needs to know how to do to remain in office.

In this way, Mary, herself, rules by literal fiat, while she is heavily influenced by her sister, now the Director of Kalistan's spy agency IBSI, and whose foreign policy advice Mary seems to take invariably. It should therefore seem instructive to study the work of Margaret Ananto to learn about the foreign policy direction of the Empire. But the corpus of Margaret Ananto's political work tends to be more unmitigatedly hostile toward liberalism than supportive of any particular ideological perspective. She wrote a paper in High school on negative versus positive liberty, and has since published scholarly work on the failure of markets to adequately distribute social and public goods, critiques on selection of governments by voting, and the limits of international institutions to resolve international disputes. Her work certainly takes a bent that, while not necessarily realist, is certainly overwhelmingly hostile toward liberalism, which is to be expected from a member of the Ananto family.

So we are left with what Mary I Ananto has done to look for clues about her thinking on foreign policy. And we find that a surprisingly large amount of her decision making can be explained not in terms of realist theory, but in terms of constructivist theory.

Competing paradigms: Realist Expectation versus Constructivist Reality.

We can assume that readers of this work know at least something about both realist and constructivist IR theory. But just in case that is not a safe assumption here is a nutshell version

The International System has one overarching characteristic: anarchy or lack of a world government capable of punishing bad actors. States themselves exist in this structural reality: States find themselves with one of two choices: Dominate or Die. States are made of individuals, and so since individuals are rational (they seek to accomplish things efficiently) and egoistical (they seek to promote their interests over all other interests) anarchy dictates a system of self-help, where the only one we as a state can rely upon is ourselves. That leads to a host of implications and a host of adjectives to modify realism for scholars, but this is pretty much the jist of it.

Constructivism, on the other hand admits that the realists were right about anarchy being the defining characteristic of the international system. But they diverge here by stating that states do not have to resort to conflict and competition in that system. That response to anarchy is not only one of several choices, but is also not always the best one, but the reason we see it is because we have been taught through repeated example that this is the only way insecurity under anarchy can be mitigated.

If states, however, do not feel insecure, though they might not be objectively powerful, what does that mean for a theory that almost deterministically predicts conflict? A state, according to constructivists, can choose to address insecurity however they want, because after all, the insecurity is their perception: it is not real in and of itself. This is what is meant by socially constructed. We all decide how we want to shape our actions in response to external stimuli. And as we choose to do something different than what previous leaders have done, the "correct answer" so to speak to reiterated insecurity changes itself. If reality is constructed, in other words, it can be unconstructed.

Realist paradigms focus on material considerations: guns and bread are just two of them. They are focusing on what a state both has, and what a state can bring to a war should one break out. Constructivists on the other hand, focus more on what leaders think. Identity comes into play: Should a state feel insecurity when a long time friend develops, say a nuclear bomb? It is very possible that that event, which would instantly and most certainly create a security crisis for realists, may be seen very differently to a constructivist. If that nation is my enemy, I might respond with violence, but if that other state is seen as a friend, and a fraternal nation, I might see their nuclear bomb as something that will also protect my country, so I will certainly want them to have it and protect themselves, me included. That is the function of identity in constructivist thought. My fear response is limited to those I view to already be threats to me, while, when I see friends do that same thing, I tend to take heart and support the developments. In other words, I am contributing to the social construction of reality. And in my reality, that nuclear weapon poses no threat to me at all, because it is my brother in the other nation.

more-- Click Here

[Doc]

Continued from Above

Mary's Foreign Policy as a confusing failure to promote Kalistani security, interests and power

Quite frankly, from a power politics, real politik perspective, her reign has baffled those who see the world in realist terms. We look at three specific exampled: The dropping of Kundrati Sanctions, the pull back from Artania after the conclusion of the Kundrati War, and the separation of Lodamun from the Empire.

A realist would certainly expect Mary to continue punishing Kundrati for not doing what an obviously superior force in Kalistan wants them. If Kalsitan ever was a hegemon with more than regional reach, it was in the period of time between 5610 and 5635. That quarter century saw Kalistani forces in prolonged military engagements in two continents and in two oceans. Kalistan was at that point the only nation operating on that level in any realistic sense. Kalistan had decisively defeated the Kundrati Navy at sea, albeit at a steep cost, paving the way for the liberation of Etxea by local forces, and had brutally invaded eastern Likatonia, threatening to completely over run the entire nation, except for a Lodamese ceasefire that ended the conflict.

So why would Mary then turn around after taking office in 5632 and unilaterally conclude a deal to end the sanctions against an entirely unreformed Kundrati, obtaining almost nothing meaningful in exchange from the fascists? A realist shouldn't have done that: it was perceived by a world conditioned to realist terms, as capitulation. Mary's stated aim was to buy Kalistan out of the conflict and she believed, at the time, that she had obtained guarantees to also reduce the security dilemma for the newly independent government of Etxea. She did not say that Kalistan's security was in a better position: instead, she cited humanitarian concerns for the people of Kundrati, to whom at least she, her sister, her aunt and her grandmother were related. A realist would not care: they would see an enemy and consider only the threat to Kalistan's interests.

In fact, Mary's withdrawal from the sanctions regime seemed instead to create a new security dilemma for other states who were concerned about Kundrati, and within two years, there was an international coalition formed to invade Kundrati and ultimately throw off the fascists. Kalistan played a role in that conflict, albeit a minor role, and as soon as it was settled, Kalistan once more withdrew from the region. The Empress played no part in the post war discussions or any of the post war investment which, to date is still only forthcoming.

If the realist is concerned about relative power, as realists are, in a world of anarchy and uncertainty, we'd expect Mary to stay in Kundrati and work to ensure that they have a government which will never threaten Kalistan again. Kalistan was arguably at the absolute zenith of their hard military power at this point, and yet they opted to not use it, for anything. For this action, Kalistan got quiet but more than a little annoyed acquiescence from their allies, while both new and old rivals treated this as evidence of Kalistan's long sought for decline among rising powers.

Finally, more recently, the Commonwealth of Lodamun exercised its option to seek to split from the Anantonese Empire. This particular union was nearly sixty years ago, and understood that according to the treaty of the Articles of Empire, Kalistan would ultimately declare war. A realist in this case would expect that Kalistan would see this as a decrease in relative power, especially in the face of a rapidly rising Egelion: to lose one of three constituent nations, and the one that is arguably on par with Kalistan was a great loss for the Empire, and Kalistan should fight to keep the nation.

But Mary opted not to do that. Instead, she technically fullfilled her part of the treaty, declared a pro forma war on Lodamun that took longer to write about in the Kalistani newspaper than it did to resolve on the ground. The Foreign Minister was instructed, in fact to formally surrender to Lodamun at the completion of the war, and grant Lodamun's terms, which were simple and non punative: Lodamun wanted their sovereignty back, and Kalistan's FM was instructed to agree that they had won it back.

A realist would argue, as many realists did argue within the halls of government, that this was a severe setback for Kalistani security and sealed Kalistan's precipitous decline. But the Empress, who most certainly was advised of that viewpoint, instead chose to go ahead with it anyway causing security hawks to be furious, all off the record of course, while handing a cake walk victory to the Anantos' real nemesis, the liberals, who openly, though perhaps prematurely celebrated the Empire's imminent demise.

From the realist perspective, all of these moves are suicidal for a state plagued by insecurity in a hostile world where Kalistan can only rely on itself for help. A realist would say Mary is bent on destroying the Kalistani state, or more charitably, leaving it open for conquest by one of the many nations who are standing by for Kalistan to collapse so they can part the corpse out for themselves.

The Constructivist Response: Mary sees the world differently

Her policy is only confusing if you consider it from a realist perspective. Of course, there are a priori assumptions built into realism, as into every theory perspective. These assumption naturally point to predictable outcomes if they are met. But what if Mary's actions were evaluated instead from a different perspective, with different opening assumptions?

Let's take the dropping of sanctions. The realists say she should have kept them up, to protect Kalistan's position, their reputation and their power projection in the region. Mary did indeed forego those things upon eliminating the sanctions. She even acknowledged herself that she had been duped by the Legion, which always acted in bad faith, and proceeded to take Kalistani aid and horde it for themselves while lying about dismantling their weapons of mass destruction and not being forthcoming about disclosures of their human rights violations (they still have not to this date, by the way). Nor did they come to a negotiating table with Etxea in good faith. They bargained from a take it or leave it position, and Etxea left it, so the Legion began launching missiles at the island for years. It was only ended when the nation was invaded and the totalitarian government was overthrown, to be replaced by a nominally democratic regime made up of nearly all of the same people who ran the place before the war.

Kalistan got nothing from the deal except condemnation from nations all over the world. But: What if Mary didn't really care what Kundrati did, because he aim was to try to prevent famine in Kundrati and help the suffering people there. Yes, Kalistan was indeed tricked into providing food and basic medical aid, and did so in excess of 1.4 Billion rubles before the program was suspended. And Mary even sought to have a third party administer it to try to ensure the aid went to the people, and not to the Government. Her aim was to promote her interest in humanitarian relief, not Kalistani power. For her the humanitarianism was more important.

Circumstantial evidence for that statement comes when comparing the conduct of the irregulars during the actual invasion to the conduct of regulars in Likatonia. Mary flew to Etxea on the eve of the coalition invasion. Sources in the know said she specifically informed the Irregular general that Kalsitani forces were not to commit depredations. But irregulars were sent, and irregulars are not subject to either domestic or foreign laws of war. Her orders and her commissioning General Martinez to a brevet regular commission underscored that she wanted him to follow her orders, not some other governments.

Then when the war ended, Kalistan exited the conflict rather than leaving Kalistani forces in country to continue occupation. A constructivist might understand this not as a tactical withdrawal, but with Mary being concerned with keeping her word and returning Kalistani citizens home once the job is done. Mary gained tremendous respect from both veterans and militia members for her handling of Kalistan's withdraw, at a time when there was maximum coalition forces still in country, and Kalistan could depart safely and securely.

The Constructivist narrative was that Kalistan doesn't gain anything by doing what they were expected to do, which is occupy the nation, perhaps indefinitely. Instead, the Empress who is on record of being committed to peace, pulled her troops out of the country the moment she could, once the war was over. She is concerned about keeping her word, and doing her part not to prolong the suffering of either Kalistani soldiers or the people of her ancestral homeland. These values do not have a material or monetary value. They contribute to security by establishing that Kalistan is a state that honors its commitments, both to its friends abroad and to its own people. The realist doesn't know what to do with this, except to say reputation is a form of soft power. The constructivist will counter and say, true, but focus on reputation doesn't contribute to Kalistani security, but in this instance, security wasn't the only consideration for the Empress.

Finally, if we consider the departure of Lodamun as a failure on the Empress' part, we will be confused as to why she did that, and call her a bad leader because we don't understand it. But shining a different, constructivist light on the departure allows us to make perfect sense of it after all.

To Mary, it was more important to have Lodamun as a friend and a state with whom we can cooperate than it is to force it to stay with Kalistan, where all the benefits were to Kalistan. Had Mary truly attempted to enforce the Articles of Empire, Lodamun would have fought back, and in this case, Lodamun would have at least even odds of winning, and more than zero odds of winning decisively, damaging our relationship permanently.

Instead, Mary considered that Lodamun and Kalistan share such a close identity, Empire or none, that sometimes the two nations are indistinguishable from one another. More than 100 years of near complete integration tends to do that. There is a larger, and growing Northern Seleyan identity that to some degree both states can point to as a grounds for cooperation. If Mary should be taken at her word, she sees Lodamun as a fraternal nation. So much more can be gained from the relationship if Mary DIDN'T act as realists would predict, and instead act as if Kalistan and Lodamun want to be together in trade, culture, and security, and that relationship can be further enhanced if Lodamun knows it is free to do as it pleases, and is given the choice to associate with Kalsitan rather than being made to by an imperial relationship that no longer had any reason to be maintained.

Insecurity, at this moment, doesn't exist between Kalistan and Lodamun. Kalistan is not at all concerned about developments in Lodamun around aircraft, around missile technology, and around naval deployment. One could say that the two nations had, at least between socially constructed a new form of reality where things that Lodamun or Kalistan build that would be seen as threats to other nations, are instead seen locally as enhancements to regional security.

Conclusion

Can we definitively say that Mary operates from a constructivist view point?

Certainly not. We only have about ten years of data, and she has certainly done a lot that makes a lot of sense from various realist perspectives. Taken as a whole, her foreign policy is still in large part dictated by Kalistani insecurity in a world of other nations seeking to rise and create their own international orders at the Pirate Empire's expense and to the Empress' detriment.

But we can also say that Mary's apparent flexibility in her foreign policy, and her proclivity to do unexpected things could be constructivist, or it could just be that she truly doesn't have a paradigm in mind, because she doesn't understand IR theory, having never had the opportunity to study it. But even that "not having a paradigm" sort of fits the Constructivist narrative. She could be said to be creating her policy organically, learning as she goes on, but nonetheless, perhaps she doesn't have any paradigm in mind, but simply lets her responses be governed by the events themselves.

That learning, and that accepting events that happen and taking them and changing is evidence of constructivism at work. Her actions, including in incredibly monumental decision inflection points, is governed by her values, and what she knows of the other nation, rather than some hard and fast calculus of relative power and zero sum gains and losses. Not only do she create her own reality, but then that reality turns around and informs her on how to act. Its a mutual feedback loop between the constructed reality and the constructing individual actor. If Mary remains ignorant to IR theory, she could just be accidentally and habitually acting from a constructivist perspective.

[Doc]

Morality as Order: A Comparative Systems look at Illiberal Regimes

Written by Dr. Constance Bauer
Dept. Of Political Science
Duchy of Vrassa University, Vrassa Free City, Kalistan

originally published in Hoy Gazette of Theory, April 30, 5664

Acknowledgements
This article is written in direct response to the article titled "Against the concept of 'democracy': An article regarding our notion of democracy and why it is not the 'highest morality'" in Gazeta Socjalistyczna (April 5664). In this article, Chancellor Iwan Nowik makes the case for communism and communist ideals as a more important, and more moral force in Valruzian politics contra liberal democracy. The thesis of the Chancellor was that democracy is routinely labeled as the ideal, but it is communism, and in fact communist morality that is actually a far better for the people. We have been tasked with writing an article to conclude that the Chancellor is correct, but at the same time, the focus on communism is limiting, because it doesn't preserve order in society.

While not aiming to fully contradict the conclusions of the Chancellor, we simply wish to respond that using a revolutionary ideal that focuses on material considerations rather than moral ones as a guiding and organizing principle for the society is perhaps not itself ideal. What is placed by a revolution can be unplaced by a revolution. It is far more important to institutionalize and preserve the changes that have been made to the betterment of the lives of individuals, and that mindset necessarily runs counter to the revolutionary imperatives of the communist ideology. We thank the Chancellor for the inspiration to write this piece reflecting the Imperial perspective. --CB

Introduction: Kalistan's Flirtation with Democracy
The argument has been proposed that democracy, while universally lauded as "the best system", is in fact, not even close to the ideal system, if your goal is to do more than simply enabling elites by cloaking their actions in the legitimizing fabric of a popular election. Elections do not determine good leaders, but merely popular leaders. And it is no surprise that the same elites who represent the people in a democracy happen to be the ones who the Parties, and the TV stations, and the paid advertisements tell you to vote for.

In fact, during Kalistan's recent flirtation with liberalization of the political system--A mistake on a number of fronts-- Kalistan saw direct mailing volume increase by 2350%. This stat from the National Mail Service is not inflated: in fact during campaign season you can see the number of items mailed jump from an an average of 230,000 items in a day to several dozens of millions of items in a day as politicians from all stripes attempted to hit ever house with junk political mail, all either slandering their opponent, or promising voters something that it was not within their power to grant, or both. The goal was not to suggest a positive vision for the nation, but to keep a person's name and image top of mind when voters went to the polls.

And who paid for those ads? Certainly not the person receiving them in the mail: In fact, we know who paid for them because campaign contributions are a matter of public record. Many times it was industry organizations, or long standing interest groups who paid for them, but often is was shadowy political action committees with names like "Kalistanis for Choice" (which is an industry organization made up of groups promoting free trade and preferential taxes for investors), "Libertad Suldanor" (a staunchly anti-monarchist group), of "The Kalistani Fun Association" (a group that sought to turn publicly funded schools into private, for profit institutions). These groups dumped tons of money into the campaigns, and most Kalistanis didn't even know it.

What that system would offer Kalistan is government of interest groups and aligned, self interested blocs. That is what democracy is in our world today. It is a political system that tricks people into voting for things that they don't know they are voting for. It doesn't provide them with good government, only self-interested government. When I use the term "good" I don't mean efficient. I mean it in a moral sense: as in Well Ordered Government. A government that legitimately does the business of the people, without regard to internal struggling and jostling for an iota more power than your opponents, a system that is not limited in its focus to just the next election, but to seven generations down the line, and a system which can think with a unified concept and strategic vision for where the society is headed. Democracy does not provide a competent pilot for the ship of state. It only provides the person who can trick the plurality of people who neither know how to sail the ship themselves nor care, into selecting them.

Though it is a fact that democracy provides bad government far more often than good government, what we wish to focus on here is specifically illiberal systems and the term "well ordered". While communist systems can also provide leadership with a clear and unified vision for the society, they are necessarily a revolutionary ideology focused on parochial interests of only a segment of society. Without disparaging the communists, in this way they are also the same thing as the Fascists. And I suppose the Absolutists as well. All have a guiding principle. Communism is proletarian revolution, fascism is enforced unity of race, of thought, and of deed. But Absolutism, such as exists in Kalistan, unites people under the concept of good order. And I believe it is this good order which is the more morally preferable principle to the others. Without good order, there is no society. Without a well-ordered polity, there can be no liberty. In this sense, therefore, the well-ordered society is the more moral state.

Order as Morality
From a morally objective point of view, there is a Capital G Good. The degree to which moral behavior conforms to that Capital G good is the degree to which it is considered ethical. This is Ethics 101. There are some that will take a more situationalist approach, but the one thing which is clear is there is a moral standard which is external to all which determines right action.

Another thing we know is that morality is not determined by a majority. Majorities across history have determined that slavery was good. They were wrong--Slavery is always immoral. Majorities support war routinely. They are wrong--Killing people to promote geopolitical interest is immoral, whatever moral accoutrement its hawks want to attach to it to justify their cynicism. There are some things that are good and some things that are bad, but the goodness and the badness of something is not set by a popular vote. It is not determined by the market. Liberalism that proports to apply market principles to public policy guarantees at best mediocrity, and at worst, outright wickedness because egoist people learn how to game the system for their own advantage, but it only ever accidentally produces good government.

Inherent in the ethical standard of aligning with the Capital G Good, or the external standard by which actions can be judged to be ethical or not, is the concept of order. Society can and should be ordered in a way where alignement with that standard can even be possible. Imagine if you lived in a society which was addicted to the concept of people getting to choose what they thought the government should be doing. You have one part of the society pulling this way, another pulling that way, and another pulling some other way. How does this provide good government? It only provides stagnant government. A well ordered society, on the other hand, has every part of society doing their part for the maintenance of the social order, that is the source of their liberty. A society at war or in fear of repression is not a society at liberty. The only way to preserve the liberty people seek is one that is by design, tranquil and well ordered. Chaos and self-interest shows itself therefore to be the enemy of liberty, not absolutism.

The Kalistani system is superior in these provisions above all. The monarch has one job, and it is not to aggrandize herself or her power. Her job is to ensure tranquility and good order within the Empire. Her only focus in her capacity of absolute monarch is to consider justice as an imperative, and justice in Kalistan is determined to be correct order. It is therefore her single solitary task to do what is absolutely necessary to ensure that the people are at max liberty, bound only by the moral imperative that they are prevented from infringing upon the liberty of their neighbors or reducing their neighbors for their own benefit. In short, the Sovereign's job is to ensure that the society is a moral one, committed to correct action in accord with the Capital G Good. For one and for all. A democracy can not, on its best day get anywhere close, when it cannot not see beyond a debate and a contest of ideas, and get to the actually truth of some matter.

Comparison to other Illiberal Systems
While morality through correct order is the driving force of the Absolutist system we see in Kalistan, communism and fascism, both totalist, as opposed to absolutist, fall short. We can take the easier one: Fascism is an immoderate totalist ideology aimed at giving the state all power to think for the citizens. It posits that the state, and only the state, and in fact, the leader of the state and the apparatus of sycophants around the leader, maintain uniformity in thought and deed. It demands conformism, not order, as its moral imperative. Taking the fascist argument seriously for a moment, the thought is any deviation is weakness, and any weakness creates an existential threat for the society. This is fascism at its core.

Therefore, who is to ensure conformity? The voters? That is obviously ridiculous. It must be the state, and overseeing the state, it must be the leader. Therefore, it is imperative for the leader to enforce complete uniformity. This in and of itself might be a type of order, but not one that ensures liberty for the people or peace and tranquility for the society. Instead, it requires upheaval and war. It requires aberrant people, or aberrant ideas to be removed, often permanently from the society. It sees any difference or distinction as a threat. And it requires maximum force to achieve. Because liberty, even in thought, is an existential threat, it guarantees max surveillance upon the society and expulsion or extermination of difference. It turns the society into a prison. That's order of a kind, but at the expense of liberty and freedom, and therefore can be considered slavery.

Nor should we assume that the state will keep institutions that do not allow it carte blanche in its dealings with the population. It twists and perverts all institutions it keeps and wipes out the rest, without regard to the pain and suffering that that action causes the people. This is a fundamentally revolutionary ideology that ends up only destroying for the single solitary imperative of God, Leader, State. With no regard whatsoever for the people. Except that the people are needed to supply food for the Leader, the ideal fascist society would be one man, and the rest merely resources for that one man to consume.

Communism is better, but only slightly, in that it also serves an ideal, but that ideal is a humanistic focus rather than a metaphysical one. It is explicitly a revolutionary ideology, in that it wants to erase the institutions of the past and replace them with a dictatorship of the proletariat. Two things about this present an issue: First, what of all those who are not members of the proletariat, and second, who is to say that the proletariat are not just as self interested as the capitalists who used to exploit them for their own personal gain.

While not as dire as the fascist model, in that it doesn't seek to eliminate differences among people, it still only promotes the interests of a class. While Kalistan says that the Capital G Good is what the government should be focused on, and ordering society to conform to that, the Communist says that the material interests of the ruling class, whom ever that happens to be at the moment, is what drives the state. They seek to make the proletariat the new rulers, to replace the bourgeoisie, to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. But that arrangement is focused on material interest of a material class. It is not focused on correct order. It is democracy in another form: The thinking is, the working class is the majority, so they should be able to outvote the bourgeois, who are the minority, and our society needs revolution because that is not the case.

In fact, democracy and rule of the majority is at the core of the Communist organizing principle. When we demonstrate above that majorities cannot be relied upon to vote morally. Let's suppose the proletariat get into power and vote, as a bloc to execute all those bourgeoisie who don't agree with communism. At that point, in moralist terms, how different are they from the fascist who demands conformity of thought and world view? How does that ensure the liberty of all parts of society? It cannot, nor can we say that even if 99% of the society turns against the last remaining members of the old ruling class, that the majority acts morally. Who cares if everyone supports slavery, if you are the slave?

Conclusion: Absolutism as an Alternative
A well ordered and tranquil society being absolutely necessary for both ethical behavior and maximum liberty for the people, I can say that Kalistan above all states, democratic states, republics, fascistic abominations or valiant experiments in varying kinds of communism, provides the necessary ingredients for those necessary characteristics. The people get the opportunity to have some say in the administrative operations of our society through free city Councils, but meanwhile, an aristocracy oversees and coordinates the actions of the multiple municipalities under it, while a sovereign, whose only job is the consideration of Justice and the Capital G Good sits above it all.

Our Empress does not require conformity of thought, word and deed as a fascist states does. And our Empress does not look only to the material interests of one group within our society above all other things, even to the detriment of all else. In fact, our Empress focuses her sight on the Good and orders the society in accord with that. And somehow, miraculously, people from all walks of life live a better life as a result.

Its not miraculous, actually: it is what one would expect with just government and well ordered society. This is the outcomes we should expect in this situation. Sure people don't get to vote for the Empress. But really: If we did vote for the Empress, we would have the very real chance of electing a fascist, which would be the opposite of moral, the opposite of just, and the opposite of Good. Because fascists have demonstrated that their revolutions come AFTER they have fully infiltrated and perverted democracy. They are always the first to scream that they came to power as a result of an election, and so therefore what they are doing as a result of the election is legitimate.

We could also end up with a communist in power, who will focus the entire power of the state toward uplifting a portion of the society at the expense of everyone else, based on a material relationship to the means of production, rather than anything that is morally and ethically correct. Either way, the society is not at liberty. It is at war with itself, and eventually, is at war with the world, as they will eventually need their totalist ideology to spread internationally.

The Absolutist model, untainted by republican notions, or liberal market ideology, but one which focuses on the public order and domestic tranquility, is the model which can maximize liberty for all in society, that can most easily generate general prosperity and happiness, and can leave the people free to pursue their own individual dreams, whether it be to be an artist, a machinist, or a member of the Institutional Party in the National Assembly. There is no other system that can even come close. A well-ordered society and peaceful society is one which can guarantee liberty for all, justice for all and the pursuit of happiness for all.

So ironically, Kalistan comes far closer to the so-called "ideals of liberalism" than even liberal nations in the world, who may fail, either deliberately to hold to their own ideals, or simply cannot reach them because they give people who are, by definition, ignorant of public policy (hence their only passing interest once every two, four or six years with the government) the right to weigh in on who should be President. Seriously: Would we ask a random selection of people at the mall to weigh in with an opinion on how a neurosurgeon performs his task? Do we really care about the myriad opinion of the majority when it comes to how a football team should run its offense? Do we ask a group of businessmen how a mechanic should fix a car?

If we are not willing to submit the correct way to do something as mundane as brain surgery, or football, or auto mechanics which only affect the lives of one or a handful of people, to the vote of the mob, why would we tolerate it in something like public policy that affects us all? It is important to have that guiding sense of order and correctness for liberty and justice in our society, and Kalistan's system, alone among the illiberal governments of the world, can provide that, more than communism, and certainly more than fascism. Because our goal is correct order and domestic tranquility--Liberty and Justice spring from those two conditions.