Legacy of The Tenth Crusade - A Divergences of Darkness Nation Quest [Finished]

Thoughts on the war itself.

The war's most striking features were the massive tank and aerial battles with hundreds of armored vehicles and aircraft fighting together. No doubt the militaries of the world will be pouring over the lessons of the war. The war confirmed speculation after the Sinai Crisis that tank vs. tank combat would become important. Militaries will be looking to see which designs did best in the war.

Although Egypt's celebrated bombers that shook the Crusaders were mauled in this war, the success of the Iranian bombing campaign in the Gulf will only further fuel the arguments of strategic bombing advocates. Aerial technology is at the point where multi-engine bomber aircraft outperforms the single-engine fighter aircraft that would have to intercept them and where "The bomber will always get through" seems reasonable to say. This gap could be further widened through the use of night bombing, which could make interception practically impossible for the moment. This state of affairs will not last forever but I expect the militaries of the world to build massive numbers of strategic bombers for the next war.

The Black Sea Pact's contribution to the socialist Arab cause was invaluable. Without their intervention, there would been a powerful Iraqi-Entente force threatening Syria and Palestine. This war was also a chance for the Black Sea Pact to test their reformed militaries against a modern European backed force and they did well despite their losses.

Neither the Iranian nor the Egyptian navies had the strength to interdict the Entente navies from resupplying their armies. There may be a surge in interest in torpedo bomber development so that countries without strong navies can have some anti-shipping capabilities.

In this turn on the Maghrebi front, the Italians attempted to breakout of their encircled cities. The Moroccan army's mechanized forces were seriously mauled in the Italian counterattacks but Moroccan resistance combined with an Egyptian attack against Carthage prevented a successful counterattack. If we had not sent the Egyptian army to the Maghrebi front, the Maghrebi royalists and the Italians might have been able to push back the Moroccan forces. Obviously without the support of the Comintern volunteers, we would not have been able to counter the hundreds of aircraft and tanks that the Entente sent to prop up the Arab monarchist bloc in this war.

I see that you know that it is actually quite hard for biplane fighters to shoot down 1910s airships without dedicated ammunition for the job contrary to common public perception. The resulting entry and exit holes of missiles and bullets are so tiny in relation to the sheer size of the craft, and the gas is under so little pressure, that it's almost negligible. Even hydrogen airships did not explode when shot with ordinary munitions, or even incendiary bullets — fire inside thousands of cubic feet of hydrogen, but without oxygen, is useless. Fighters equipped with special explosive-incendiary bullets to combat them had to concentrate on one spot and empty one or two drums of ammunition before enough hydrogen would leak out to mix with atmospheric oxygen and ignite.

I wonder what the political ramification of the war will be in the Comintern and Entente. There is the issue of the AWOL German volunteers. We could grant them asylum but that would really anger the German government which could be bad if we need German approval for full Comintern membership. There is a good chance that the German volunteers will willingly return home to Germany to face court martial and become political martyrs in the process which would really embarrass the German doves. The Entente powers, especially Italy, sank a lot of resources and soldiers into propping up the Arab monarchists only to return home defeated. Some Entente politicians will decry the whole war effort as a costly waste while others will argue that the Entente should have sent even more resources and to further escalate the war by directly sending in the fleets to shell Alexandria.
 
Last edited:
United Arab Republic, Summer 1919 - Constitution Convention
Well, here it is. I've tried to avoid getting too bogged down in pointless details while still allowing a variety of choice.

===
United Arab Republic, Summer 1919 - Constitution Convention
===

On paper the United Arab Republic is the largest continuous country in the world. It stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean, with a population of roughly 38 million people. Rivaling the Caliphates of old in size and power, the dream of Pan-Arabs across the breath of the Arab World had seemingly been achieved. The UAR was however undefined. It was a provisional government formed by an alliance of several states. Each still independent, in addition to several occupied states.

In Cairo the nature of the UAR was going to be defined. Delegates from across North Africa and the Middle East assembled in the city. It drew people from every stripe of life: politicians, officers, writers, peasants, unionists, workers, and more. They all gathered in Cairo to hammer out a constitution for the republic. The damage done by the Islamists was being repaired and not widespread. In the shadow of the pyramids and mosques, twenty centuries of history come together in a surreal, groundbreaking moment.

Hakim wondered if that was how the Vienna Assembly felt all those years ago. When the dreams of millions became a reality and a great, united republic forged in the fires of revolution forced the world to acknowledge its existence. It was a heady thought. The AENC was but one of many parties in attendance in Cairo. While it claimed many allies and imitators, factional lines had begun to show themselves. There was little risk of the whole thing coming apart, but disputes reared their heads.

===

Welcome to a lot of complex choices. There's a bit of synergize involved with decisions, so certain decisions put together may change how another choice works. Because of the plug and play nature of choice making, the wording might be a bit vague or seemingly contradictory for a few options. Don't worry, any choice combination can be made, unless specifically stated otherwise. The details in the government are filled in by all the options taken.

The overall consensus from all attendees involved is a socialist leaning democratic republic. There's many ideas on power sharing arrangements, checks and balances, and ways on achieving representation. There's a great deal of debate on how to achieve that. The options represent views of attendees at the conference, however that does not mean they're the majority view. If a member state dislikes a decision (or multiple decisions) enough, they may leave the UAR, unless they're provided with some way to circumnavigate or ignore it.

Voting will open in 3 days. Vote by plan. Please do not copy the option description when voting. It's messy.

===

Voting Rights

The voting rights in Egypt are quite lacking, legacies from the Mandate which were in the process of being discarded. They're however still on the books and many Egyptians wish to see that change. Maghreb is in a similar boat with restrictive and arbitrary electoral laws. Yemen and Morocco meanwhile expanded the right to vote to all men and women who are at least 21 years old. They do not want to see their rights rolled back.

These are subject to modifications depending on other choices, such as party limitations. Can't vote for something that's outlawed.

Pick 1

[ ][VOT] Universal Voting Rights: Every citizen of the UAR, man or woman, may vote, if they are 21 years of age or older.

[ ][VOT] Male Voting Rights: Every male citizen of the UAR may vote, if they are 21 years of age or older. Women may not vote.

[ ][VOT] Government Voting Privileges: Every male citizen that has worked for the government for a period of 2 consecutive years or longer, holds a college and/or university degree, or served in the military for a period of 4 consecutive years may vote, if they are 25 years of age or older.

===

Centralization

Member states are willing to tolerate a high degree of centralization, provided the government is democratic and/or socialist in nature and does not neglect them in the post war years.

Pick 1.

[ ][CEN] Unitary: Cairo will become the capital of the UAR. All national borders will be dissolved then redrawn into governorates. The government of the governorates will either be elected or appointed, but are subordinate to Cairo.

[ ][CEN] Devolved: Similar to Unitary, but national borders are retained. The devolved governments maintain certain powers, but are otherwise subordinate to Cairo.

[ ][CEN] Federated State: Similar to Unitary, national borders will be dissolved then redrawn into provinces. The provinces will have their own rights and duties separate from the center.

[ ][CEN] Union of Arab Republics: The UAR will be a federation between multiple Arab Republics, leaving national borders intact as new provincial borders. The member states may govern their territory as mini-unitary states or federations.

[ ][CEN] Confederation: Members remain independent, but present a united diplomatic face. Members will use the same currency, integrate their militaries, harmonize their laws, and act like a singular bloc without giving up sovereignty. An UAR assembly will be created, though the reach of its powers will be limited.

[ ][CEN] Write In:

===

Economy

The economy will be socialist to some degree. That part isn't in question. It's the nature of who will be directing the economy and the role the market should play, if any, in the process. Nobody believes the UAR is ready to abolish money, not even close, so it's not on the table. All options will be as democratic as voting rights allow it to be.

Pick 1.

[ ][ECO] Centrally Planned: Every private enterprise is nationalized, collectivized, and turned into a cooperative that is either directly or indirectly employed by the government. Syndicates become organs of the state as elective and organizational bodies, ending their pseudo-independence from the ministries. Cairo will consult with syndicates and governorates to build five year plans, however it retains final say on decisions.

[ ][ECO] Leftist Decentrally Planned: Every private enterprise is nationalized and turned into a cooperatives organized by a syndicate. The syndicates, unions formed along industry lines, become the main driving body of the economy, rather than Cairo. Cairo is merely the facilitator for negotiations between the syndicates. Single proprietor and family cooperatives will be collectivized into larger cooperatives to prevent the emergence of petit bourgeois. That extends to farms as well, which will be incentivized to begin collectivizing.

[ ][ECO] Orthodox Ba'athism: The party line as set by Hakim and Nadir. It's similar to Decentrally Planned, except single proprietor and family cooperatives will be allowed to exist to encourage the small class of petit bourgeois to buy into the socialist system. The development of domestic industry will be paramount to economic growth.

[ ][ECO] Dirigisme: Private enterprises will exist as a pillar of the economy under the direction of the government. Major industries considered vital to the nation will be nationalized, placing them under government control. Extensive use of subsidies and price controls will keep the economy in line. Syndicates will be formally dissolved as pseudo-government bodies, instead they'll become large unions employed through contracts.

[ ][ECO] Write In:

===

Political Parties

There's a multitude of political parties in attendance at the convention, many falling under the label of Arab Socialism. The All Egyptian National Congress is one of many, true, but it is one of the leading parties there. Its star is rising, and fast, as Egypt unites the Arab world. It's joined by sister parties from allied countries and those that follow similar beliefs as it.

Pick 1.

[ ][POL] None: Political parties are dissolved in favour of informal political organizations, whether they be social clubs, syndicates, federations, etc. Politicians will lack a means of effectively disciplining allies and 'party' members without official enforcement methods. Political parties that are outlawed will remain outlawed no matter their attempts to circumnavigate it by technicalities.

[ ][POL] Multiple Parties: Multiple political parties will be allowed to exist. They will compete in elections for political power. There are no limits on what ideology they may have, save for outlawed ones. The AENC will retain popularity for its role in the Arab Brother's War, however it's expected that its wings will likely become their own parties.

[ ][POL] United Front: The All Egyptian National Congress will be renamed the Arab National Congress. Multiple political parties will be allowed to exist, however they'll be tightly bound together in a coalition under the umbrella of the ANC. Each party is expected to commit to basic principles of Arab Socialism, however outside of that policy is up to their discretion.

[ ][POL] Single Party: The All Egyptian National Congress will be renamed the Arab National Congress, merge with other Arab Socialist parties, and become the sole legal political party in the UAR. All other political parties will join it, barring outlawed parties. Membership in it is not required for government positions. Factions are allowed to exist in the ANC, provided they do not threaten to split the party.

[ ][POL] Party-State: The All Egyptian National Congress will be renamed the Arab National Congress, merge with other Arab Socialist parties, and become the sole legal political party in the UAR. Membership in it is required for all government positions, creating a parallel power structure to the state. Failure to adhere to the party line will likely see ejection from the party, and thus power.

===

Federal Assembly

How many houses will the UAR have? The nature of the houses will depend on other choices, if it's drawn from say party members, syndicates, or provinces. (Mostly fluff)

Pick 1.

[ ][FED] Unicameralism: A single federal body drawn from all constituent parts of the UAR. It'll be fairly large to represent the population of the UAR.

[ ][FED] Bicameralism: Two federal assemblies, a lower and an upper house.

===

Outlawed Parties

What parties should be outlawed, if any? The leadership of any outlawed party will be barred from running in elections, voting, or holding political office.

Pick as many as you'd like. None can not be taken with other options.

[ ][OUT] Islamists: They proved themselves traitors during the war. They continue to make noise where possible, hoping that the wave of religious violence they preach will finally come for their enemies. They're gravely mistaken.

[ ][OUT] Royalists: Compradors intent on enslaving the Arab World for political power and wealth. Their properties will be forfeited and their supporters barred from office. They're consigned to the dustbin of history where they belong. No tears will be shed for them.

[ ][OUT] Liberals: The nationalists, middle class, and collaborators of colonial governments, represents many in the Christian Alliance Party and former Christian Syria. While a relative minority compared to other parties, they've consistently advocated for close trade ties with Europe and Arcadia, a privatized economy, and a liberal style democracy.

[ ][OUT] None: Those that fought against the UAR will still be outlawed as traitors, however those that profess support for their ideas but didn't participate in the fighting won't be punished. Leaves the door open for old enemies to rebuild political parties under new names.

[ ][OUT] Write In:

===

Women Rights

While many in attendance support equality between the sexes, there is an undeniable chauvinistic attitude among many men at the convention. Women served in the militias in combat and non-combat roles during the war and have been instrumental in the revolution. Morocco would not approve of anything less than full equality between men and women.

Pick 1.

[ ][WOM] Same as Men: Whatever a man can do legally, so can a woman. That includes divorce, military service, and many other things. Does not cover voting rights, which are separate.

[ ][WOM] Less than Equal: Women have rights nearly equal to men, however they can not divorce, change their name, adopt a child, or buy property (if applicable) without approval from a male relative. They can not serve in the military, except in non-combat roles in the reserves.

[ ][WOM] Economically Unequal: They can exist in public, go to school, have sports teams, but can't participate in the economy. Their place is in the home, putting their labour to use handling domestic affairs rather than take jobs from men.

===

Minority Rights

There are many people in the UAR that do not consider themselves Arabs, or wholly Arab. There are many ethnoreligious minorities in the UAR who's citizen is up in the air.

Pick 1.

[ ][MIN] Arabization: The nationalists are right. Those minorities are all Arabs, whether they realize it or not. They'll fall in line. Rescind previous agreements on minority rights and aggressively push for Arabic in schools and government services.

[ ][MIN] Red Tape: Minorities are just that; in the minority. It's not fair that they receive special treatment by the government disproportionate to the percentage of the population that they constitute. They can have their schools and services in their own language, on paper, but in reality budget cuts will hamstring their efforts.

[ ][MIN] Egyptian Model: Similar to the agreements reached with the Copts, recognized minorities will receive seats in government set aside for them and have their language rights guaranteed. The government will act in good faith in recognizing minorities.

[ ][MIN] Localization: Similar to the Egyptian Model, it goes a step further by providing affirmative action programs to help impoverished minorities receive opportunities for advancement they otherwise might not have had. It'll also grow Arab Socialist cadres among minorities by integrating them into the government.

===

Military

There are many reforms which Khouri would like to make to its organization. Its performance during the Sinai Crisis and Arab Brothers War exceeded expectations. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. He believes the reserve system isn't enough and proposes a move to conscription. Khouri believes 2 year conscription will be enough, with conscripts cycled into the reserves afterwards. They'd serve well in the Labour Reserve Army, allowing the military to both help rebuild the UAR and train hundreds of thousands of people in practical matters, like construction.

Pick 1.

[ ][MIL] Volunteer Only, Abolish Reserve: A large professional force created by integrating the member state's militaries together is more than enough to serve the UAR's needs. With a promise of a good job and training opportunities, the military will see a constant influx of recruits, if not in the amounts Khouri believes adequate. The reserves are unnecessary.

[ ][MIL] Maintain Reservist System: Physically capable men will continue to train a few weeks a year. The influx of new reservists will more than make up for the losses suffered in the wars. The variety of reservist options will provide the military adequate manpower for its projects.

[ ][MIL] 2 Year Conscription: Physically capable men will serve in the military for one whole year, with options for deferral. They may request a specific service, however they are not guaranteed to get it, unless they enlist. Once their time in the military is over they'll be cycled into the reserves, where they'll be expected to continue training for the next fifteen years.

===

Religion

The UAR has in its possession some of the holiest cities in the world: Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Najaf, Karbala, etc. They are important to not just Muslims, but Christians and Jews. Alongside them are the thousands of mosques, churches, and synagogues across the UAR. Many social services are run through religious organizations and until relatively recently, they've played a vital part in people's daily lives. The AENC has worked to build civic institutions to replace religious ones in Egypt. Similar efforts were taken in Yemen, Maghreb, and Morocco especially.

However, Muslims, Jews, and Christians of the UAR were until weeks ago under siege by Catholic Supremacists. The Crusaders declared war on Islam itself. It openly said it would raze Mecca and Medina like it had Jerusalem and sought to murder millions in the process. There's voices that feel that the UAR should temper any anti-clericism. Others however readily point to the Islamists to see where temperance got them. It is true that many imams and muftis fled the country during the war. There are also a number of pro-AENC imams and muftis in attendance at the convention.

The success of the UAR is not unrecognized by many religious institutions, some of which wish to preserve their privileges if possible. Failing that, seeking peace with whatever new government forms is preferable to the violent anti-clericism that Spain undertook during its revolution.

Pick 1.

[ ][REL] Hard State Atheism: The temporal power of religious institutions will be broken and replaced by civic ones, immediately. All property and assets owned by religious institutions are nationalized. Their schools are public schools, their services are now public services, and their staff are now government employees. Exceptions to this may be made for religious minorities (if applicable). The state will push atheism in education and hold that no divine exists as state policy.

[ ][REL] Soft State Atheism: Religious organizations may keep their places of worship and offer services. They will receive no funding from the government or tax breaks, legally operating as civic organizations of historic note. Exceptions to this may be made for religious minorities (if applicable). Religious schools will not be nationalized, but expected to follow national education criteria and staffing standards for public schools.

[ ][REL] Secularism: Religious institutions may continue operating their schools and providing services like before. The government does not recognize any religion as correct or empower any institution over another. They will receive tax breaks for their charity work and limited government funding. The office of caliph will exist, once a politically suitable relative of the current one is found.

[ ][REL] Pluralistic Islam: Islam is the majority religion of the UAR. There's no shame in admitting that. The UAR openly embraces that fact. It therefore makes sense to offer it some special recognition and funding to Muslim institutions. Other religions have their place of course, they aren't lesser. They're just in the minority.

===

Status of Holy Cities

The nature of the administration is dependent on other options, such as religious and voting laws.

Pick 1.

[ ][HOL] Create Special Administration Zones: The Holy Cities require special attention, giving them their own administration above the governorate or provincial level. They'll receive extra funding from the government in recognition of their status.

[ ][HOL] Fold Them into Governorates: Holy Cities will not receive administrative status. They'll be under the administration of governorates or provinces. Municipal governments will still exist. They just won't receive special attention.

===

Comintern Status

The Comintern had come to the UAR's aid without hesitation during the war. Morocco was already a full member of it while Egypt and Yemen were observers. The offer to join as a full member was on the table, should Cairo decide to pursue it. Paris doesn't want to leave the UAR out to dry, not matter how much Vienna might protest it.

Pick 1.

[ ][COM] Full Membership: The UAR will join the Comintern, its military alliance, and numerous organizations under its umbrella, including freedom of movement. The UAR may vote on Comintern matters.

[ ][COM] Associate: The UAR joins the Comintern and its numerous organizations, but not the military alliance. The UAR may vote on Comintern matters and enjoy freedom of travel to other member states.

[ ][COM] Observer: Egypt's role as a passive bystander in the Communist International will continue into the UAR. There's no need to get involved in its affairs or let it get involved in the UAR's. It's better to keep them an arms length away. The UAR may not vote on Comintern matters.

[ ][COM] Economic Aid Only: All that the UAR needs from Europe is reparations in the form of economic aid. The relationship between Cairo and Paris will become more transactional in nature.

===

Voting will open in 3 days. Vote by plan.
 
Last edited:
[ ] Plan Dictatorship of the Proletariat
-[ ][VOT] Universal Voting Rights
-[ ][CEN] Unitary
-[ ][ECO] Leftist Decentrally Planned
-[ ][POL] United Front
-[ ][FED] Unicameralism
-[ ][OUT] Islamists
-[ ][OUT] Royalists
-[ ][WOM] Same as Men
-[ ][MIN] Egyptian Model
-[ ][MIL] Maintain Reservist System
-[ ][REL] Soft State Atheism
-[ ][HOL] Fold Them into Governorates
-[ ][COM] Full Membership

Tried to create sensibly radical preliminary plan for strong, centralised, and communist UAR. Not sure on every point.
 
Last edited:
Alright, new update!

Now, I'm personally in favor of these two policies that are important to stabilize UAR;

[ ][POL] United Front: The All Egyptian National Congress will be renamed the Arab National Congress. Multiple political parties will be allowed to exist, however they'll be tightly bound together in a coalition under the umbrella of the ANC. Each party is expected to commit to basic principles of Arab Socialism, however outside of that policy is up to their discretion.

This will undercut a lot of the opposition that will crop up once the honeymoon period is over. Because you just know that if you don't give others a voice in Congress then they'll start voicing their opinions with guns.

[ ][HOL] Create Special Administration Zones: The Holy Cities require special attention, giving them their own administration above the governorate or provincial level. They'll receive extra funding from the government in recognition of their status.

This one is important because I'm expecting a backlash from the Muslim community. The Islamists might have been quashed but treating the Holy Cities like any other city would give more chances for dissent to crop up.

As for the rest, well, still kinda conflicted about all of them.
 
It's to late for me to think to hard on this right now but I would caution against combining anti clerical actions with minority rights actions. If we do both we will be guaranteeing minority religions rights that we are denying to Islam. That seems a great way to revitalize Islamic sentiment as most of the population is still Muslim even if they are also socialist and will likely not like being told that their religious orginisations are being given greater oversight and pressure then the local church or synagauge.

Secularism might not be as radical am many like but will avoide the problem of discriminating against the majority religion.
 
[ ] Plan Dictatorship of the Proletariat
-[ ][VOT] Universal Voting Rights
-[ ][CEN] Unitary
-[ ][ECO] Leftist Decentrally Planned
-[ ][POL] United Front
-[ ][FED] Unicameralism
-[ ][OUT] Islamists
-[ ][OUT] Royalists
-[ ][WOM] Same as Men
-[ ][MIN] Egyptian Model
-[ ][MIL] Maintain Reservist System
-[ ][REL] Soft State Atheism
-[ ][HOL] Fold Them into Governorates
-[ ][COM] Full Membership

Tried to create sensibly radical preliminary plan for strong, centralised, and communist UAR. Not sure on every point.
I think this is a good plan on the whole but I would rather take No Political Parties than United Front. Also I am a little iffy on not creating special administration zones for the Holy Cities. Not sure what the best option is for that yet.
 
I feel like unitary might be a trap option, we'll need something that allows the members states to practice some local autonomy apart from anything Egypt does so as to avoid the otl situation from happening.
 
Ok thoughts on choices and such

[ ][VOT] Universal Voting Rights: Every citizen of the UAR, man or woman, may vote, if they are 21 years of age or older.

This is because I want to make the Republic part of United Arab Republic not a joke.

[ ][CEN] Federated State: Similar to Unitary, national borders will be dissolved then redrawn into provinces. The provinces will have their own rights and duties separate from the center.

I have concerns about the feasibility of administering the whole Middle East - North Africa region in one city. And remembering that part of the reason why OTL Arab Unification attempts failed was due to the Egyptian Government at the time treating Syria like a colony, I hope this would help mitigate things.

[ ][ECO] Orthodox Ba'athism: The party line as set by Hakim and Nadir. It's similar to Decentrally Planned, except single proprietor and family cooperatives will be allowed to exist to encourage the small class of petit bourgeois to buy into the socialist system. The development of domestic industry will be paramount to economic growth.

This helps buy-in to the system which I feel is necessary.

[ ][POL] Multiple Parties: Multiple political parties will be allowed to exist. They will compete in elections for political power. There are no limits on what ideology they may have, save for outlawed ones. The AENC will retain popularity for its role in the Arab Brother's War, however it's expected that its wings will likely become their own parties.

This helps make parties ideologically coherent instead of broad tent things. The problem with bourgeois democracy is the bourgeois part not the democracy and I feel that this helps with the democracy.

[ ][FED] Unicameralism: A single federal body drawn from all constituent parts of the UAR. It'll be fairly large to represent the population of the UAR

Mostly interested to see how such a system would work

[ ][OUT] Royalists: Compradors intent on enslaving the Arab World for political power and wealth. Their properties will be forfeited and their supporters barred from office. They're consigned to the dustbin of history where they belong. No tears will be shed for them.

Willing to let the others have an out so that they will try to change stuff via democracy and not terrorism. No royalists though.

[ ][WOM] Same as Men: Whatever a man can do legally, so can a woman. That includes divorce, military service, and many other things. Does not cover voting rights, which are separate.

Part of the whole "Let's not make the Republic part of the country's name a joke" thing, although somewhat willing to but it at less than equal to mitigate the backlash from the more conservative parts.

[ ][MIN] Localization: Similar to the Egyptian Model, it goes a step further by providing affirmative action programs to help impoverished minorities receive opportunities for advancement they otherwise might not have had. It'll also grow Arab Socialist cadres among minorities by integrating them into the government.

Buy-in would be useful and it would discourage them from doing separatist shenanigans

[ ][MIL] Maintain Reservist System: Physically capable men will continue to train a few weeks a year. The influx of new reservists will more than make up for the losses suffered in the wars. The variety of reservist options will provide the military adequate manpower for its projects.

No idea about what I want to use the Military for aside from Self-Defense and making people think twice about invading us. Somewhat want a more professionalized military though but not too set on it. So status-quo

[ ][REL] Secularism: Religious institutions may continue operating their schools and providing services like before. The government does not recognize any religion as correct or empower any institution over another. They will receive tax breaks for their charity work and limited government funding. The office of caliph will exist, once a politically suitable relative of the current one is found.

Let's not abolish the office of the caliph that sounds like a good way to anger a lot of Muslims. Anything more hard line is going to leave a backlash that I don't want to deal with. We are a socialist nation therefore we are not going to have a state religion.

[ ][HOL] Fold Them into Governorates: Holy Cities will not receive administrative status. They'll be under the administration of governorates or provinces. Municipal governments will still exist. They just won't receive special attention.

Sort-of torn with this to be honest. I feel that if we go the Secularism route we should just fold the the administration to the Governorates because that would be giving them too much stuff. Especially if we don't ban the Islamists.

[ ][COM] Associate: The UAR joins the Comintern and its numerous organizations, but not the military alliance. The UAR may vote on Comintern matters.

Willing to go for full membership but not entirely sure about he Military Alliance thing and the Freedom of Movement thing.
 
[ ] Planning for the future
-[ ][VOT] Universal Voting Rights:
-[ ][CEN] Federated State:
-[ ][ECO] Leftist Decentrally Planned:
-[ ][POL] None:
-[ ][FED] Unicameralism:
-[ ][OUT] Islamists:
-[ ][OUT] Royalists:
-[ ][WOM] Same as Men:
-[ ][MIN] Localization:
-[ ][MIL] Maintain Reservist System:
-[ ][REL] Soft State Atheism:
-[ ][HOL] Create Special Administration Zones:
-[ ][COM] Full Membership:

Reasoning:

I don't think that Universal Voting Rights or Same as Men need to be explained so I will be skipping those, instaed I will start explaining why I support a Federated State and go down the list from there.

I am choosing a Federated Stated because of how diverse the UAR is. The citizens of the UAR are not all arabs nor do they have the same concerns as such we must be both flexible enough to accomodate said particularities without compromising the central government (a key part of stopping this from happening is dissolving the national borders so that patriotism for a country can not continue existing as patriotism for a region).

The main reason why I don't support Central Planning is because it integrates the syndicates into the state. Syndicates represent the collective interests of the workers and, as such, should exclusively answer to the workers that integrate it, otherwise, we have a vertical syndicate (a syndicate that is only useful as a collaborationist tool).

I want to abolish political parties in an attempt to abolish party discipline. Party discipline is anti-democratic because it destroys the loyalty the representative has towards the represented and substitutes it for loyalty towards the party. The party's main goal is to achieve, maintain and expand their power, as such, all opinions that they should be representing can be ignored in favour of said goal.

Since the decision between unicameralism and bicameralism seems to be mostly fluff, I just chose to vote for the system that I was most interested in reading about.

On outlawing both islamists and royalists, the reason is that they are traitors though I have my doubts. They are traitors but I am not sure if they would be easier to control if we were to allow them to exist within the system or if their opinions would proliferate too much by allowing them to publicly support them.

The Localization choice is quite clear when you take into account that the minorities we are talking about have been (in most cases) sistematically discriminated, as such, we must act sistematically to solve the issue. Without positive action to correct the issues this minorities will not be properly integrated into society thus creating future social tensions.

The reservist system is something that I want to abolish but we still have to deal with World War 2, so until things stabilize we must either choose the reservist option or conscription because we simply can't lower our army preparedness when a war is about to happen.

I chose the Soft Atheism over Secularism because Secularism doesn't nationalize religious schools and I chose it over Hard Atheism because I don't think that the state should destroy religion when it is already dieing a slow death. With equal rights, nationalization of religious schools and protection of minorities (including religious minorities) we are breaking their ´"traditional society" (thus individuals will adopt new ideas to adapt to the new society), stopping them from normalizing religion (if you are educated in a relligious school then you eventually internalize that relligion is the natural state of society) and breaking the islamist monopoly on normative relligion (now they are on a legal equal footing with all relligions and must compete for believers).

The creation of Special Administrative Zones is mostly due to the fact that all this cities are historically relevant. Even if our citizneship is not formed by zealots, this cities still are relevant to them because most of their myths ocurred in this cities as such we must acknowledge this and act accordingly.

It is also important to note that the story has informed us that the religious cities are internationally important on multiple times. For example, Burgundy didn't support the crusaders because their muslim subjects would have rebelled and one of the key objectives of the crusaders was to destroy Mecca and Medina. I can imagine much the same happening with the other abrahamic relligions if we decided to neglect their holy sites thus neglecting the cities would be counter-productive for our international standing.

Edit: Added full membership vote. The way I see it, we can hang separately or together.
 
Last edited:
[ ] Plan Pan-African Arab Socialism
-[ ][VOT] Universal Voting Rights
-[ ][CEN] Unitary
-[ ][ECO] Leftist Decentrally Planned
-[ ][POL] None
-[ ][FED] Unicameralism
-[ ][OUT] Islamists
-[ ][OUT] Royalists
-[ ][WOM] Same as Men
-[ ][MIN] Localization
-[ ][MIL] Maintain Reservist System
-[ ][REL] Soft State Atheism
-[ ][HOL] Create Special Administration Zones
-[ ][COM] Full Membership

I lean more towards this one because borders are pretty awful and we want people to move free across the UAR.
 
[ ] Plan: A United Front Does Not Include Liberals
-[ ][VOT] Universal Voting Rights:
-[ ][CEN] Unitary:
-[ ][ECO] Leftist Decentrally Planned:
-[ ][POL] United Front:
-[ ][FED] Unicameralism:
-[ ][OUT] Islamists:
-[ ][OUT] Royalists:
-[ ][OUT] Liberals:
-[ ][WOM] Same as Men:
-[ ][MIN] Localization:
-[ ][MIL] 2 Year Conscription:
-[ ][REL] Soft State Atheism:
-[ ][HOL] Create Special Administration Zones:
-[ ][COM] Full Membership:

I need to catch a train/eat breakfast so I'll edit in my reasoning for each point later. But I'll leave you revisionists with this: Why do you want to break bread with the liberal bourgeoisie and the reactionary petit-bourgeois running dogs of the Entente? The people who don't exist in appreciable numbers anymore in the UAR after the Arab Brothers War? :V

Also did you forget that WWII is approaching? We'll need an army to fight it, so might as well get started on it now.

Edit: Alright I have a moment to explain myself now.

On the base political structure/the centralization debate: While the points raised about the IRL UAR's mistakes and failures are valid, we must remember that we are in a very different situation than the one Nasser faced. We won our equivalent of the Six-Day War, our primary internal political/cultural opponents just tried to sell everyone out to the imperialists in the Entente, and we are about to fully join a economically/militarily strong Comintern as full and equal members. We have greater public support, less opposition, and a peer power to hold us accountable as well as assist us through the teething process.

With all of that in mind, we are uniquely positioned to take a sledgehammer to the forces of nationalism that are used to divide the proletariat. After all, the borders of the nations that now make up the UAR were drawn up by imperialists with no regard to the local populations or conditions on the ground, so why should we assign some special value to them? There is no value in national-self determination when there is universal suffrage, local government, and education taught in both the local languages as well as the standardized language (either Egyptian Arabic or some Arabic Esperanto equivalent) used by the overarching government. All of which are policies we can instate here in this vote, and when combined with Leftist Decentralized Planning and United Front of Arab Socialist Parties, should easily reassure the UAR member states that the UAR won't just be a vehicle of Egyptian Expansionism.

But that is dependent on everyone acting in good faith towards the same general goals within that system, something that the Islamists, Royalists, and Liberals will not do.
What parties should be outlawed, if any? The leadership of any outlawed party will be barred from running in elections, voting, or holding political office.

[ ][OUT] Liberals: The nationalists, middle class, and collaborators of colonial governments, represents many in the Christian Alliance Party and former Christian Syria. While a relative minority compared to other parties, they've consistently advocated for close trade ties with Europe and Arcadia, a privatized economy, and a liberal style democracy.

[ ][OUT] None: Those that fought against the UAR will still be outlawed as traitors, however those that profess support for their ideas but didn't participate in the fighting won't be punished. Leaves the door open for old enemies to rebuild political parties under new names.
(Emphasis mine)
I refuse to leave the Entente and Christian League openings to drive wedges into the UAR without a fight. There is no place for a Liberal political party in the UAR, just as there is no place for an Islamist/Muslim Brotherhood or Christian Alliance Party either. Despite all their claims to the contrary, they have only acted in their own interests, eagerly selling out the people they supposedly represent to the imperialist powers that would enslave them once more.

Finally, WWII is inevitable, and by becoming a full member of the Comintern we are guaranteed to be militarily involved in it. There is no reason for us not to start preparing for it as best as we can while we have the time to do so. Khouri has been the most reliable cabinet member we've had both politically and objectively, so if he says that a UAR-wide 2 Year Conscription system is what we need, I believe him and support him wholeheartedly. Giving him his full military reform/modernization plan is the reason why we were able to win two wars back to back after all. The fact that conscription will also greatly expand the Labor Reserve Army and speed up the reconstruction process of the UAR is just icing on the cake.
 
Last edited:
I lean more towards this one because borders are pretty awful and we want people to move free across the UAR.

I think what's meant by "borders" is not "you need a passport", but "the new administrative units of the UAR will be more or less contiguous with the old nations". So there'd be an Egypt province, a Maghreb province, a Morocco province. "Unitary" means that the existing countries would be abolished entirely and New boundaries drawn, along with direct rule from Cairo.

Don't think we want that - it's one of several things that screwed the original UAR, because it basically meant that all prospective members were kinda subordinated to Egypt. What's true for just Egypt and Syria is truer for almost all of the Arab world in one state.
 
Once again, I advise us to not go unitary if only because we are governing a state large enough to be classified as a sub-continent. It would be a hassle to have all political decisions be done by Cairo due to logistic concerns and the fact that there may be things on the ground that can't be seen by the state. There is also the concern that it would be seen as Egyptian Imperialism, even if there are concessions to the minorities and such.

Honestly a concern of mine is the fact that we are going to be integrating a lot of religious people so giving them a way to voice their concerns democratically would be a good option. So I am bit wary of banning the Islamists. Regarding the Liberals, a part of me wants them to stay so that people of that predisposition would also be given a voice but unlike the Islamists I don't care enough about them to not have them be banned.

Also, is the office of the Caliph abolished at Soft State Atheism? Because that is something of a concern for me.
 
I mean, do we even have power to abolish the Caliphate? The previous owner (ie. Hejaz) still exist as government in exile. Whatever we do be it appointing the new Caliph or declare the office defunct is going to be viewed as illegitimate by the previous one and the Islamist remnant anyway.
 
I'm gonna throw in my support for United Front and outlawing the royalists and islamists. Both groups actively fought against our movement so don't trust em, while United would allow disagreement and choice but hopefully prevent any toxic ideologies from gaining ground.
 
I mean, do we even have power to abolish the Caliphate? The previous owner (ie. Hejaz) still exist as government in exile. Whatever we do be it appointing the new Caliph or declare the office defunct is going to be viewed as illegitimate by the previous one and the Islamist remnant anyway.

The question - and this goes for the Holy Cities and the secularism question too - is who gets to define Islam going forward. Is it going to be a pack of reactionary exiles, or is it going to be us? If the clergy is looking for new leadership and a new model, now is the time to provide it. Even soft state atheism is going to be unproductive, especially if combined with a strong regime of minority rights. But integrating Islam into the state and society is now very much on the table. Huge opportunity. It'd be a shame to waste it.

I'm gonna throw in my support for United Front and outlawing the royalists and islamists. Both groups actively fought against our movement so don't trust em, while United would allow disagreement and choice but hopefully prevent any toxic ideologies from gaining ground.

The "ban nobody" option makes it clear that we're still going to aggressively persecute people who fought against is. This isn't a question of whether we crack down on the Islamists who chose Islamism over pan-Arabism. That's a no brainer. The question is if we're cracking down on any form of Islamism whatsoever and making an idea illegal.

That I'm uncomfortable with, because any Islamist not covered by the existing purge is one that already chose pan-Arabism. We know how well bans worked for Nasser and Assad Senior - even killing Qutb didn't slow the growth of countersystemic Islamism down. And would we be interested in banning people like Ali Shariati or Mir-Sultan Galiev?

My hope in having a united front without bans, along with a secularist attitude, would that we'd be able to cultivate a set of "loyal oppositions" attached to our institutions, taming potential enemies and turning them into subordinate partners whose disagreements are increasingly cosmetic. When being an Islamist means that you're a pan-Arab socialist who wants a bigger budget for the Holy Cities and a foreign policy focused on Central Asian liberation, and when being a liberal means dialing back minimum standards for United Front membership and lower trade barriers, that means we've won. We've just gotta PASOKify them.


And of course, it doesn't change the fact that advocating for anything beyond that - dissolution of the UAR or total opposition - would still get you a visit from the friendly fellows in the sunglasses.

If your ideas are hegemonic and broad enough, and if your laws to protect the fundamentals of the state are clear enough, you don't actually need to ban any ideas. You just make them toothless.
 
Last edited:
I really don't think soft atheism is a good idea because it could easily be abused and turned into a sort of double standard where minority religions get cracked down harder than regular islam.
 
I really don't think soft atheism is a good idea because it could easily be abused and turned into a sort of double standard where minority religions get cracked down harder than regular islam.

Fully agreed. It's the worst of all worlds - probably racially discriminatory but also resented by devout Muslims and not far enough for hardliners. If we can't answer the key question of "who is this policy actually for", there's no point in adopting it.
 
[ ][REL] Soft State Atheism: Religious organizations may keep their places of worship and offer services. They will receive no funding from the government or tax breaks, legally operating as civic organizations of historic note. Exceptions to this may be made for religious minorities (if applicable). Religious schools will not be nationalized, but expected to follow national education criteria and staffing standards for public schools.
Where in here does it say anything that suggests discrimination? Soft Atheism is total abstention from relligious matters. On the other hand, Hard Atheism is about actively destroying the influence relligion has in society and Secularism is the basic idea of supporting all faiths through an special regime without intervening in relligious affairs (the state doesn't choose the imam but it gives him money so that he can maintain his mosque). Hard Atheism is negative discrimination while Secularism is positive discrimination.
 
Last edited:
I really don't think soft atheism is a good idea because it could easily be abused and turned into a sort of double standard where minority religions get cracked down harder than regular islam.
Soft State Atheism specifically says that exceptions to its policies could be made for religious minorities if it was applicable/necessary. Considering that the policies are "receive no funding from the government or tax breaks, legally operating as civic organizations of historic note." I imagine that in practice minority religions would receive government funding/tax breaks to restore holy sites and the like that were destroyed/damaged by the war(s) and the Crusader's occupation (in the case of the Levant), but otherwise not be treated differently than the majority religions.

Importantly, and the reason why Secularism is unacceptable to me:"Religious institutions may continue operating their schools and providing services like before." One of the most important votes we had right before the Crusader War was on education. We voted on Marxist Internationalism with Arab Characteristics, which was faced with massive opposition by the conservative/reactionary Islamists who ran their private religious schools.
Imams and Islamists protested the curriculum and regulations. Corporal punishment was use extremely frequently against girls that attended Islamist private schools, until their parents were coerced into withdrawing their daughters from school. The Islamist teachers often singled out the children of people they disliked and made a point to publicly beat them in front of their classmates on a daily basis. The small tyranny of the classroom run by the dictatorship of the teacher who exercised total control over a single space in the whole world. In there they felt like they were god and that their word law. Their favourite victims were children of peasant militia supporters and members. The organization was a vocal supporter of the Marxist programs.

Altercations happened during the summer months. The militia took it upon themselves to correct an abusive teacher's behaviour, and if persuasion did not work then giving them a taste of their own medicine was the common recourse. Islamists beaten by parents of teachers they beat and imams threatened into closing their schools. That was perhaps the one saving grace. The Islamists' reach was short and the Marxists' reach was far. The ministry had given one domain over education and it was not the Islamists.

It would take years for the fruits of the programs to bear their fruit but the seeds had been planted. The islands of tyranny existed though they were not the majority. They could not halt the march of the revolution in the classrooms.
I refuse to walk back on the gains that we made there by allowing the Religious Schools to have full control over their classrooms again. If we really want to change what it means to be "Islamist", we must ensure that the reactionary Islamists are not allowed to teach their rhetoric to the next generation. Which is what Soft State Atheism does: "Religious schools will not be nationalized, but expected to follow national education criteria and staffing standards for public schools."
 
Last edited:
It's a weird dichotomy - you'd think that it'd be possible to tie state funding to standards governing curriculum and staffing, which is the model adopted everywhere from the USSR's Muslim-majority provinces in the 20s (IIRC) to Catholic schools and religious hospitals in Canada, or that you could keep the tax breaks and the opportunity to support the establishment of a new caliphate without giving the most reactionary Islamism a free hand. Even in the most reactionary jurisdictions, private schools still have to submit curriculums for review.

"Secularism" as neutrality shouldn't mean a free hand or exemptions from ideological and cultural standards. I don't know why it would. This might merit clarification or, if it really is a hard dichotomy, a request for a write-in with a clearer policy.
 
[] Plan United Front of Liberated Peoples
-[ ][VOT] Universal Voting Rights
Reason: non-negotiable pillar for any type of democracy to actually be democratic

-[ ][CEN] Federated State
Reason: Anything less than "Devolved" is a mistake due to how vast the prospective UAR territory is. Anything edit: more than this would be a massive obstacle to a true Union identity by retaining pre-unification national borders in a provincial context.

-[ ][ECO] Leftist Decentrally Planned
Reason: Centrally planned is too unwieldy & reinforces the state we seek to eventually transcend into statelessness/communism. Retaining any sort of unequal ownership enterprise like single proprietors & family coops - inherently biased to, well, familial seniority & relations - will just make us edit: repeat the mistake of pre-Stalin USSR that allowed the birth of "NEPmen"

-[ ][POL] Multiple Parties
Reason: Mandatory coalition is still too restrictive even if it still allows intra coalition disputes.

-[ ][FED] Unicameralism
Reason: I'd rather avoid inadvertently reinforcing local elites thru bicameralism & implicitly violating the 1 person=1 vote impact on national politics.

-[ ][OUT] Islamists:
-[ ][OUT] Royalists:
-[ ][OUT] Liberals:
Reason: Royalists were our foes during the War against Crusaders/Egyptian Independence War, Islamists backstabbed us - as expected - during the Arab Brothers War. The banning of Liberals is due ti the reality that we *will* get sucked in into WW1 whether we like it or not, and our general ideological disposition makes which side would be hostile to us clear. We just fought em after all!

-[ ][WOM] Same as Men:
-[ ][MIN] Localization
Reason: Non negotiable for a functioning democracy that isn't just a democracy for Arab men

[ ][MIL] 2 Year Conscription
in normal conditions, I would've preferred the reservist system due to the economic implications this rate of conscription brings. Now, South Korea does something like this and their econ is fine tbh. Alas, countries are heading into a world war, so this becmes mandatory.

[ ][REL] Soft State Atheism
Reason: Might not seem like it, but allowing religious schools to keep existing while mandating them to adhere to national, socialist standards is for me a surefire way for
r e l i g i o u s
s o c i a l i s m
As a left-wing Muslim myself, I want it so much folks.

-[ ][HOL] Create Special Administration Zones:
Reason: Sentimental but also diplomatically-motivated. Jerusalem, Makkah, & Madinah al-Munawwarah are all cities of global importance.

-[ ][COM] Full Membership:
Reason: War is coming, and if we let Comintern fall we would have ensured ourselves a horrible siege state existence that the IRL Soviets & PRC could only imagine.
 
Last edited:
@Fission Battery I do not think that State Atheism is the right term for what is described in the hard and soft state atheism options. None of the options are establishing state policy to try to destroy all religions in the UAR or to convince the population of the UAR to reject their current religions and belief systems in favor of becoming atheists like the state atheism of the OTL USSR. Using the term state atheism is misleading in this case and may cause some voters to reject certain options out of hand.

I suggest renaming the hard state atheism option to Laïcité. Laïcité is a secularist framework developed and used in OTL France and Turkey. Under this system, the state has legal supremacy over religion and enforces the restriction of religion in the public sphere.

The soft state atheism option should be renamed to Separationist secularism which is defined as the state not supporting any religious group and does not enforce religious laws.

The secularism option should be renamed to Accommodationism or Accommodationist secularism which is defined as the state actively supporting religion in general without favouring a specific religious sect. Under this system, the state applies few restrictions to religion and often provides religious organisations with financial support.
 
Back
Top