Cambodia

Freedom Of Speech (Roger, Raphael, Jordan)


 * Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) - Roger**

The Alien and Sedition Act was considered unconstitutional by Thomas Jefferson as well as the Supreme Court for violating the right of the First Amendment of the right to free speech. The impact it had was that it prevented future attempts by the government to stifle criticism of the administration. The speech that was limited was that of the people, who could be deported by the president for being an “alien” but really for criticizing the administration


 * The Espionage Act (1917) - Raphael **

 Four laws were passed in an attempt to strengthen the Federal government. There were Alien and Sedition acts that stopped the political opposition from Republicans. The Sedition Act was intended to fine and arrest people that publish any false statements. The impact these laws had was the limits to false statements and oppositions.


 * Smith Act (1940) – Jordan **

 Passed in 1940, The Smith Act is one example of legislative action which resulted in a federal statue being passed making it a criminal offense to do three things. For one, you can not knowingly circulate, distribute, sell, display, etc. any printed or written material which encourages the overthrow of the government through force. Next, you can not organize any societies or groups which encouraged violence and force against the government. Finally, you can not knowingly join groups which had this purpose. The Smith Act had other components to it, such as the registration of all non-citizen adults, but the aforementioned parts are what relate to speech.

 The reason why this act so heavily relates to the suppression of speech is that it was used highly after the end of World War II during the Red Scare where many Americans became fearful of the communist threat in their own country. In an attempt to prevent any organized resistance against the government, the Smith Act was passed which made advocating the overthrow of the government by force prohibited. The Smith Act and the trials which came as a result of it serve as an example of the federal government suppressing speech in order to maintain national security.

 However, it is arguable that many of those arrested were truly to be taken as threats to the government who were advocating, teaching, and encouraging the destruction of it through force. Because of the mass hysteria throughout the country during this time and the fear it created, it seems to be that those who were teaching any communist values were to be taken as individuals trying to overthrow the government and spreading subversive teachings to be taken as threats.


 * Schenck v United States (1919) - Raphael **

 This was a court case decision that concluded that a defendant did not have the rights of the First Amendment to help them to go against the draft during WWI. Schenck sent leaflets to people that was against the draft. The case also included the controversy of yelling fire in public places.


 * Gitlow v New York (1925) - Raphael **

 The Supreme Court holds almost every provision of the Bill of Rights that applies to both the federal government and the states. It made it a crime of advocating the overthrowing the government with violence.


 * Brandenburg V. Ohio (1969) – Jordan **

 Brandenburg V. Ohio was a Supreme Court Case regarding a Ku Klux Klan rally which was filmed by a television station after being contacted by Clarence Brandenburg, a leader of the group. On the recording, members were seen burning crosses, carrying firearms, and making speeches where they threatened revenge against African Americans and Jewish people. Also, these speeches had members saying that the white race was suppressed by the government and that a march on Washington would be held. In response to all of this, Brandenburg was charged under an Ohio statute due to making a speech and advocating violence. Ohio charged Brandenburg with $1,000 as well as one to ten years in jail. Brandenburg appealed by arguing the Ohio statute violated his First Amendment right but this was dismissed by the Supreme Court Of Ohio.

 Despite the state courts refusing to accept the appeal, The Supreme Court of the United States reversed Brandenburg’s conviction. The Supreme Court ruled that the government isn’t able to punish individuals advocating force or violating the law in an abstract manner. At the same time, this did come with some limit; the Supreme Court ruled that speech could not be punished unless it would lead to imminent unlawful action so there are restrictions on the term “freedom of speech” under this.

 This case relates to the first amendment and to the issue of speech because the rulings from the Ohio courts serve examples of speech being limited over disagreeable or controversial opinions. Rather than allowing these opinions to be voiced, Ohio used their statute to punish Brandenburg. Whereas the state statute of Ohio suppresses some speech, the Supreme Court ruling makes it so that freedom of speech is extended to a reasonable extent. Though not completely protected, an individual’s right to freedom of speech is only not included when their speech would promote or directly lead to imminent danger and lawless action.


 * Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) – Jordan **

 Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District was a Supreme Court case regarding John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt wearing black armbands with peace symbols to their schools to pretest the Vietnam War. The schools responded with a policy which banned wearing armbands to school but the three continued in doing so and were suspended as a result. The parents of the children filed a suit in the United States District Court but it only maintained the decision of the Des Moines school board. After another failed appeal to the United States Court Of Appeals, the three appealed to the Supreme Court.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment applied to public schools and if administrators wanted to regulate speech in the classrooms, they needed valid constitutional reasons to back up their desire. The Court went on to say that neither teachers nor students abandon their constitutional rights by entering simply entering school and that the students wearing armbands in no way caused a major disruption and this was symbolic speech, completely protected by the Constitution.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Similar to the Brandenburg V. Ohio case, this case demonstrates the state suppressing speech, in this case symbolic speech, while the Supreme Court extended the individual’s freedom of speech in comparison. Whereas the states suspended the students for wearing armbands, an expression of symbolic speech, the Supreme Court was able to make it clear that a school cannot punish a student merely on the basis of expressing a viewpoint as long as it does not cause a major disruption or disturbance.


 * Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier (1988) - Roger**

This court decision held that public school newspapers that have not been established as public forums are subject to a lower level of protection through the First Amendment. The court decision upheld the authority of public school administrators to censor stories containing issues on pregnancy and the effects of divorce in school newspapers. The impact was that it set the stage for future cases similar in which authority of the administrator would be upheld. The speech that was limited was that of the teen publishers of the stories, who wanted to write about the problems of teen pregnancy as well as divorce.


 * R.A.V. v St. Paul (1992) - Roger**

This court decision overturned the conviction of a teenager who burned a cross on the lawn of an African American family. This court decision outlined the principles of free speech jurisprudence stating that the First Amendment prevented the government from forbidding speech or expressive conduct because of disapproval of the ideas expressed.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Slander Vs. Libel – Jordan **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Though slander and libel are both two forms of defamation, a false accusation against an individual which damages their reputation, there are differences between the two. Slander is a false accusation made verbally, or sometimes with body gestures, but basically a defamation which is transitory rather than something permanent. On the other hand, libel is a false accusation made in the form of a fixed media such as through written materials or through pictures. Libel certainly lasts longer, if not permanently, in comparison to slander and is therefore also easier to prove in a court of law.

Home of Team Cambodia (Roger; Jordan; Raphael)

GEOGRAPHY


 * //Area://**



Cambodia is located in Southeastern Asia around the countries of Thailand, Vietnam, and Laos. Cambodia has a total area of 181,035 square kilometers and is slightly smaller than the size of Oklahoma.


 * //Cities://** Some of the largest cities in Cambodia include Phnom Penh, the capital, Battambang, Siem Reap, Sihanoukville, Prey Veng, Ta Khmau, Pursat, Kampong Speu, and Takéo.


 * //Terrain://** The terrain of Cambodia features mostly low, flat plains but also includes mountains in the southwest and northern parts of the country.


 * //Climate://** The climate in Cambodia has little variation in seasonal temperature and is primarily a tropical climate. Throughout the year, the climate varies between a rainy monsoon season from May through November with a dry season from December through April.

PEOPLE


 * //Population (date of census being used)://** 14,494,293 (July, 2010). This further breaks down into ages 0-14 year-olds making up 32.6% of the population, 15-64 year-olds making up 63.8% of the population and 65 years-olds and over making up 3.6% of the population. One third of the population lives below the poverty line.


 * //Ethnic Groups://** Ethnic groups in Cambodia include Khmer, 90%, Vietnamese, 5%, Chinese, 1%, and other, 4%.


 * //Language(s)://** The official language of Cambodia is Khmer which is by 95% of the people along with French and English being the two other primary languages used.


 * //Religion(s)://** The religions of Cambodia break down into Buddhism, 96.4%, Islam, 2.1%, other, 1.3%, and unspecified, 0.2%.


 * //Education://** The other generations in Cambodia often lack higher level education and only a small percent of the population is enrolled in higher level education. The school life expectancy from primary to tertiary education is ten years while the literacy rate of the country is 73.6%.


 * //Health://** The infant mortality rate and the under-five mortality rate have decreased in Cambodia, but Cambodia is still a country at very high risk for both HIV and AIDS. Also, in Ratanakiri, a province in Cambodia, various diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and measles are extremely common around the people. This province also has the worst under-five and infant mortality rate with 22.9% of children dying before age five.


 * //Work Force (occupations)://** The labor force of Cambodia includes eight million people which breaks down into 67.% of these people working in agriculture, 12.7% working in industry, and 19.5% working in services. Some primary agriculture products include rice, rubber, corn, and vegetables while some industries include tourism, garments, construction, rice milling, and fishing.

FEATURES OF GOVERNMENT


 * // T ype://** Cambodia is a multiparty parliamentary representative democracy which is under a constitutional monarchy.


 * //Constitution://** Cambodia is under a written constitution which was put into effect on September 21st, 1993. The constitution makes the point of defining the King as being simply a symbol of unity and eternity for the country. The King is the Head Of State and does reign, but he does not govern.


 * //Executive Power://** The executive power of Cambodia is exercised by the government, primarily by the Prime Minister, Hun Sen, who serves as the Head Of Government. The Prime Minister appoints a Council of Ministers, which is the Cambodian version of a Cabinet, and has the primary task of appointing and leading a government.


 * //Legislative Power://** The legislative power of Cambodia is in the form of a bicameral parliament which is broken into The National Assembly Of Cambodia and The Senate. Along with power in the law-making process, The National Assembly has powers in regards to the budget, taxes, international treaties, and declarations of war among other things. The Senate is made up of 61 members while The National Assembly is made up of 123.


 * //Judicial Power://** Many courts exist in the Cambodia Judicial Branch with the Supreme Council Of The Magistracy being the highest court with several lower courts also existing. The primary jobs of the judiciary are to prosecute criminals, to settle lawsuits, and to protect the freedoms and the rights of citizens of Cambodia.


 * //Citizen Participation://** In Cambodia, a person must be at least eighteen years of age to vote in legislative elections and they must be at least twenty-five years of age to be elected to the Legislature.


 * //Strengths And Weaknesses Of The Government://** One weakness of the Cambodian government is that it is said that the Judicial Branch has become corrupt and simply serves as a tool for the Executive Power. Another weakness of the government is its failure to satisfactorily regulate the economy as one third of the population lives under the poverty line. However, one strength of the Cambodian government is that it has been making some diplomatic relations with foreign powers which has benefited its economic situation to some degree, although it is still lower in comparison to other surrounding countries.


 * //Significant Political History Notes://** During the nineteenth century, Thailand and Vietnam threatened the authority of Cambodia and in response, the country became a protectorate under France. This led to ninety years of French rule until the country regained independence in 1953. After this, Cambodia went through four styles of government: a constitutional monarchy, a military-dominated republic, a communist regime, and a socialist republic. The constitution of Cambodia was put into effect during September of 1993 which laid out the framework of the country as being a constitution monarchy which is basically where the country currently stands.

Preliminary Recommendations -

Constitution:

1. Should it be written or unwritten?

Reason: Yes, Xlandia should have a written constitution which clearly defines the laws and rules of the country along with how the government is to be set up. By having this written constitution, it prevents people from coming up with laws arbitrarily and it leads to a more consistent society which is clearly-defined rather than ambiguous and lacking structure. A written constitution would also prevent the leader in power, whether it be the Prime Minister or the President, to come up with laws as they so please so there would be a limit in their power. In terms of the set-up of the government, a written constitution would also made it clear how the government was initially meant to be put structured and ideally keep it close to this manner so that no unwanted changes take place.

Task force nations that have this feature: United States, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cambodia, Philippines, Turkey, Ukraine, and Uruguay.

2. Should it establish a federalist system or a unitary system?

Reason: We believe that for a period of time Xlandia should initially be under a unitary system of government and then gradually transition into a federal system. Our reasoning for this is we believe a strong central government would be more beneficial in the beginning to the country because it would be able to offer greater stability then a federal system. However, a democratic election is absolutely necessary to elect those who will make up this central government so the people don’t fall into the impression that they’re under another dictatorship.

Task force nations that have this feature: Federal – United States, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, and Ukraine. Unitary – United Kingdom, Uruguay.

3. Should it establish a parliamentary system or a presidential system?

Reason: We believe that Xlandia should establish a parliamentary system because it seems like a this system has a closer connection in the government because of how close the legislative and executive branch are, there’s really no separation actually because of how the Prime Minister is from the legislative branch, or Parliament. Also, because Xlandia has been under the rule of a dictatorship, many of the citizens will not have much experience with voting so it may be a wiser choice to simply have them elect Parliament and then allow Parliament to handle it from there.

Task force nations that have this feature: Australia, Belgium, Cambodia, Turkey, Ukraine, and The United Kingdom.

4. How should it protect the rights of minorities and individuals?

Reason: The main thing here is that the constitution must clearly lay out the laws of society so that there is no ambiguity or needed discussion over the interpretation of what it is meant to mean. The rights of minorities and individuals must not only be written out, which is important, but also clearly defined. This leads to the question of how to enforce the constitution so a police force will also be necessary along with the judicial branch being clear in the interpretation of the constitution.

Task force nations that have this feature: United States, Brazil, Cambodia, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.

5. What should be the relationship between the military and civilian leadership?

Reason: We believe that civilian leaders should ultimately have control over the military and that the Prime Minister is made the Commander In Chief. By having the military under the control of the government, it will ideally be restrained to the democratic values established

Task force nations that have this feature: United States, Brazil, and Cambodia.

6. Other features we recommend:

Reasons: The constitution should clearly have a limit on the extent of the power of the leader. We think it should be like this so it prevents the possibility of the leader getting out of hand and the country regressing back into a dictatorship due to the leader taking too much control.

Executive Power:

1. Should the chief executive be selected by direct popular vote, appointed by a monarch, or appointed by the legislative branch?

Reason: As we stated in the question about Presidential or Parliamentary System, because the people of Xlandia do not have a history of voting and most likely lack knowledge in the subject, we feel it may be better that they simply handle electing Parliament, the legislative branch, and then allowing those elected to then voted on the chief executive. Therefore, we think the chief executive should be appointed by the legislative branch.

Task force nations that have this feature: Australia, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.

2. What should the executive’s role be? Should one person play that role, or should it be shared by more than one?

Reason: We believe that the main roles of the executive are to deal with foreign relations and also enforcing the laws regarding domestic issues according to how they are defined in the constitution. We think that one person should play this role because having multiple people would most likely not be as efficient because ideologies may end up conflicting and the issues would get nowhere.

Task force nations that have this feature: United States, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Philippines, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

3. Other features we recommend:

Reason: We think that the constitution must clearly limit the powers of the Prime Minister because Xlandia will most likely have a reasonable fear of regressing back into a dictatorship so steps have to be taken to make sure that one person doesn’t accumulate too much power.

Legislative Power:

1. Should the legislature be bicameral or unicameral?

Similar to how we would like to start with a unitary system and then transition into a federal system, we think that Xlandia should start out with a unicameral legislature to match the unitary branch because having two branches with a unitary form of government seems unnecessary. However, once Xlandia transitions into a federal form of government, having a bicameral legislature may make more sense as now the local governments will have more power and should be better represented.

Task force nations that have this feature: Bicameral – United States, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cambodia, United Kingdom, Uruguay. Unicameral – Turkey and Ukraine.

2. Should the members of the legislature be elected by popular vote, by appointment, or in some combination. Should any special guarantees be given for minority group representation?

Reason: We believe that the members of the legislature should be elected by popular vote because this gives the people an opportunity to participate in their government. Although we think it may be smarter to allow Parliament to elect the Prime Minister, at least for a while, we do think that because of the fairly high literacy rate in Xlandia, of 75%, they would be capable of making informed decisions about electing members for the legislative branch. Yes, some form of special guarantees should be given for minority group representation so that all groups in Xlandia are somewhat represented.

Task force nations that have this feature: United States, Brazil, Cambodia, Philippines, Turkey, Ukraine, and Uruguay.

3. Other features we recommend:

Reasons: We think that the legislative branch should be kept in a system of checks and balances so unjust laws may be kept from passing and forcing the country into a bad situation.

Judicial Power

1. How should the members of the Supreme Court be selected?

Reason: We believe that the members of the Supreme Court should be selected by the Prime Minister, or head of the executive office, and then be approved by the legislative branch, similar to how it is in The United States. By doing this, a balance of power is shared between the legislative and executive branch in forming the judicial branch.

Task force nations that have this feature: United States, Brazil, and Uruguay.

2. Should the Supreme Court be independent and have the power of judicial review?

Reason: Yes we believe that the Supreme Court should be independent from the other branches and have the power of judicial review so that this will help with the balance of power. One fear of using a unitary system as well as a parliamentary system is the possibility of corruption in the central government, but by allowing the Supreme Court the power of judicial review, this may help in keeping the government as the constitution writes it should be.

Task force nations that have this feature: United States, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Turkey, Ukraine, and Uruguay.

3. Other features we recommend:

Reasons: Like the legislative branch, we think that the judicial branch should also be placed under a system of checks and balances so that it also does not become too powerful than either the executive or the legislative branch.

Citizen Participation:

1. Though difficult to plan for or write into a constitution, should the political party system ideally be a multiple-party, one-party, or two-party system?

Reason: We believe that Xlandia should have multiple-parties because we would imagine that since the country was previously under a dictatorship, many different ideologies are going to come up when political parties are being formed. By limiting the political parties to one or even two, this may feel restricting to the citizens which is certainly not something we want. Task force nations that have this feature: Belgium, Brazil, Cambodia, Philippines, Turkey, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

2. How often should elections be held, and should voting be compulsory or voluntary?

Reason: We believe that the elections for head of the executive branch should be held every four years and although we would prefer it to be voluntary, it may be necessary to making voting compulsory, at least for the first few elections because if it were voluntary, we don’t particularly believe many people would show up for the elections due to lack of knowledge.

Task force nations that have this feature: Compulsory – Australia, Brazil, Ukraine, and Uruguay.

3. Other features we recommend:

Reason: One thing we think that should be required, particularly in the first few years of the country is that education in government should be taught which would help to encourage more people to vote and hence we could lift the compulsory voting and change it to voluntary.

= WHITE PAPER (Final Report) =

I. First part should be a review of the basic function of a constitution in a democracy, including the essential characteristics of limited vs. unlimited governments.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The two primary roles of a constitution in a democracy are to clearly lay out written rules for society and also to specify the rules for setting up the government. The inclusion of a constitution helps in defining a democracy as being limited compared to unlimited and also in keeping society consistent with itself. The features of a limited democracy are that the leader does not have the ability to do whatever they chose because they are limited through a written constitution which defines what they can and cannot do. Features of an unlimited government are that the government are not restricted in power and they can do as they wish which often develops into a totalitarian state.

II. Final recommendation for Xlandia's government with at least the following addressed:

A. What type of system would your constitution establish? What is your reasoning (include what makes this better than the other options)?

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Our constitution would establish Xlandia as being a representative democracy with a parliamentary system. We also feel that as Xlandia is beginning to start, it should be a unitary country and then gradually transition into a federal one (Along with this transition will come the unicameral legislature transitioning into a bicameral). Our reasoning for choosing a republic is that a representative democracy allows people to have a say in their government by electing representatives, members of Parliament, who will represent them on political issues and make it so the citizens themselves, who have no real history or knowledge with the democratic voting process, do not have to directly vote on everything. With qualified representatives, we feel that this form of democracy would be the most efficient method.We chose a parliamentary system because we felt that allowing the members of parliament to elect the Prime Minister would be far more efficient than allowing a popular vote from the citizens as this is a major decision for the country and requires informed and knowledgeable votes. Finally, we chose to start with a unitary system because as the country is beginning to start out, it will need strong stability which a strong central government can supply, but then as the country progresses it will transition into a federal system.

B. How would you protect the rights of minorities and individuals?

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The way that Xlandia would protect the rights of minorities is by allowing minority groups the right to form political parties and then elect representatives for them who will be given a percentage of the seats in Parliament. By allowing this, ideally no group will be unfairly represented and the majority will not be able to oppress the minorities. Ideally, in our legislative branch, Parliament, groups in society will be fairly and proportionally represented where no single group will control so much power that only their interests are heard, but rather the interests of the country as a whole.

C. What would be the relationship between the military and the civilian leadership?

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In regards to the relationship between the military and civilian leadership, the military would be kept under the control of the Prime Minister. The military is to have no leaders in political office so that it does not end up turning against its own citizens.

D. The Executive Branch

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The executive branch will be headed by a Prime Minister who is appointed by the legislative branch. As stated previously, because the people of Xlandia have no history of democratic elections, we feel that allowing members of Parliament, who are qualified for their position and more knowledgeable regarding the democratic process, would be the wiser choice in electing the Prime Minister rather than utilizing a direct popular vote. The primary role of the executive branch shall be to oversee and enforce the laws of Xlandia. The executive branch shall be kept in a system of checks and balances with the other two branches through powers including the Prime Minister having the right to appoint members to the Supreme Court, a balance with the judicial branch, and the powers to propose laws and veto bills, a balance with the legislative branch.

E. The Legislative Branch

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Because we are using a parliamentary system for Xlandia, Parliament will be the legislative branch and the members of Parliament will be elected by popular vote. Although we feel it would be more efficient to allow members of parliament to stand in for citizens on most political issues, we do feel that the 75% literacy rate of Xlandia would make it so that the people of the country would be able to make informed votes about who is to be a representative and a member of parliament. To parallel the transition from unitary to federal system, the legislative branch will start out as unicameral and then as the country develops further and maintains higher stability will shift into a bicameral system. We chose to go in this fashion because with a unitary system, the central government will have the majority of the power so a bicameral system will not yet be needed as better representation won't yet be needed. Also, having a unicameral system would avoid gridlocks easier than a bicameral system in terms of passing laws so the country would be able to run smoother which is crucial in the early years. The legislative branch will be kept in a system of checks and balances by having powers such as being able to override vetoes from the Prime Minister, a balance with the legislative branch, and being able to rewrite laws, a balance with the judicial branch.

F. The Judicial Branch

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The judicial branch will feature a Supreme Court who has the primary task of judicial review to work to check and balance the power of the other two branches mentioned thus far. This is a system of checks and balances because it gives the judicial branch the ability to declare either an action by the Prime Minister or a law from the legislative branch as being unconstitutional. Members of this court will be selected by the Prime Minister and then approved by the legislative branch.

G. Citizen Participation - who gets the right to vote? What would your voting requirements be?

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">We believe that Xlandia should not be limited to either a one or two-party political system structure and that multiple parties should be allowed in the country because as Xlandia is first starting out, various political ideologies are going to form and each deserve some chance at representation and recognition. Because of this, we support the idea of proportional representation where the percentage of votes received determines how many legislative seats that particular party will hold. In terms of who can vote, we feel that voting should be made voluntary for citizens of the country eighteen years old and over but the people of the country must receive some education in government to ideally encourage and get people interested in what’s happening.

III. What is needed to keep a democracy strong? Which ones are present in Xlandia? Which ones are not? A. What advice would you give the leaders of Xlandia to help them develop these conditions as they move from an authoritarian past to a democratic future?

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Out of the eight factors listed, the only ones Xlandia has are a professional military and to some extent, a strong middle class. We say to some extent because in the memo for Xlandia, it states that many of the middle-class educated citizens are underemployed, so a middle class does exist, but it arguably isn’t very strong. To help with this issue, as well as the issue of a developing economy, more jobs need to be established in agriculture so that the middle class and the economy is able to develop. As far as a relatively classless education as well as political consensus, we feel that by allowing minority groups to form their own political parties and have the opportunity to have a percentage of representation in parliament cover these factors. Our idea about educating people about government before the first elections covers factor three about an understanding of democratic principles. A free press may be established in the constitution while support from other nations can come through the form of more UN advisors and possibly forming some alliances with surrounding countries who are in a similar situation of trying to develop a democratic nation out of a dictatorship.