Term Limitations! !

Poltsamaa

Poltsamaa

TNPer
I hereby propose the follwoing changes to the consttiution with regards to term limitations for government officials!!

ARTICLE III. Elections and Elected Offices.

Section 3: Term Limitations.

1) No person, through one or more Nations, who has acted in any Cabinet-level position as Delegate, as Prime Minister, or as a particular Cabinet Minister, for more than one half of a term to which some other person was originally elected, shall be subsequently elected to that elected office of the Cabinet more than once, pursuant to this section.
2 1) No person, through one or more Nations, may hold any Cabinet-level position for more than two consecutive terms.
3) No person, through one or more Nations, may hold any Cabinet-level position for more than two terms within a one year period.
4) No person, through one or more Nations, may hold any Cabinet-level position for more than four terms (consecutive or otherwise) over a two year period.
5) For purposes of this section, service by a person, through one or more Nations, in a Cabinet-level position for more than one half of a term to which some other person was originally elected or appointed, shall be treated as a complete term in that office.
6 2) For purposes of this Constitution, "Cabinet-level position" is construed to refer to the UN Delegate for the Region, any UN Vice Delegate who has acted as UN Delegate for the Region for more than half of an elected term of office, the Prime Minister, any Cabinet Minister of the Regional Government, any deputy Cabinet Minister who has acted as a Minister for more than half of an elected term of office, or the Attorney General.
Click to expand...

I believe a restriction on consecutive terms is fine, but the additional restrictions will limit the talent pool from which candidates will be elected!! A limit to 2 consecutive terms is enough to ensure otehrs have a chance to win election to office!! I also believe that deeming the promotion of a Deputy Minister to Minister for more than half a term as being in office for one of the possible consecutive terms to be detrimental to the process!! We need to encourage people to nominate for Deputy Minister positions with a view to them gaining experience in their role and I feel that the current law punishes them unnecessarily for taking on the role and stepping into the breach when their Minister is absent or removed from office!!

With these sections removed we strike a balance whereby people can maximise their contribution to the region and good ministers are able to serve as many terms as possible in a year outside of the consecutive term limitation!!

Ideally, I'd like to see the consecutive term limitation removed but I fear such a change at this stage of the region's development may be too much too soon!!

Anyway, I have opened this for informal discussion with a view to officially lodging the proposal with the Speaker in the next week or two!!
 
I would support this whole-heartedly and I'm glad we don't wait until election season to put this up here. I think this would do a good job of encouraging ambition and a strive toward success rather than view success as being something of suspicious nature. I agree with Polts, though, that we should eventually do away with this term limit all together or at least make it significantly longer. Perhaps at some point we could make it so that a person can serve for their term limit in a cabinet level position and then serve in a DIFFERENT cabinet level position the next time around.

Pardon me, I'm rambling.
 
Absolutely. I personally balked at the limitations myself and this seems to take care of that.
 
I am glad to see this proposal. It takes a realistic approach to the subject of term limits.

I would not support eliminating limits entirely, as one of our goals should be to encourage newer nations to take leadership positions. Real hard to do if you're up against a 4-term incumbant. A hot avatar will only get you so far.

As it stands, I think this is a good piece of compromise legislation. Nice job, Polts!!
 
Off-topic: I see Polts found a way around the anti-!! thing for the topics. I'll go turn that off.... sorry about that.

Anyway, the reason we initally had the restrictions was to prevent the "good 'ol boys club" from ever forming - the group of 7 or 8 people who always held a position in the government. This does prevent them from holding the same office time after time, but it does not necessarily prevent them from actually leaving. It's entirely possible that a group of people could get into office and shuffle their positions around every election - thus avoiding the hacked-up restriction you are proposing above. As this is, I'm not sure if I could support it.
 
Hersfold:
Anyway, the reason we initally had the restrictions was to prevent the "good 'ol boys club" from ever forming - the group of 7 or 8 people who always held a position in the government. This does prevent them from holding the same office time after time, but it does not necessarily prevent them from actually leaving. It's entirely possible that a group of people could get into office and shuffle their positions around every election - thus avoiding the hacked-up restriction you are proposing above. As this is, I'm not sure if I could support it.
Click to expand...
Term limits should be in place to ensure that one person cannot shape an office to the extent that they are crucial to its running, not to prevent people from running for positions.

I think that is where the original limits fell down. Rather than looking at how we could keep the offices from becoming biased or dependant, we looked at how we could avoid people from running. This came and kicked us in the backside at the last elections and will continue to do so.
 
Indeed, this change means that every third election the incumbent cannot run for that office!! What is easily forgotten is that people still have to win the election to retain office and secondly, want to run for that office again!!

The third term gives another person the opportunity to show what they can do and could quite possibly serve the consecutive term also!! If someone is good enough to serve a consecutive term, sit out the next term and win two more consecutive terms after that then they must be doing something right and have the time to do the job!!

We have a lot of new players in the region now, so the "old boys club" will hopefully be a thing of the past!! Therefore, I think we need to encourage people to work hard in their elected and positions and equally if they are a Deputy by providing incentive for success rather than punishment!!

If someone who serves two consecutive terms as PM wants to run MoIIA or some other office, then that should be their right!! Most times you will find people are really only interested ina certain job that suits their interests and aptitude so it probably will not be a problem!!

I am pleassantly surprised by the reaction to this propsal, I had braced myself for some strong objection!! :w00t:
 
in ns we will have many periods of limited activity, holidays etc. we cant really be too limiting on offices. i think the pm as it nailed
 
I love the !!, polts.

Now...we all know that NS is heading to its dark days. If we want activity, we simply MUST allow for more freedom for elections.

reduce the restrictions!
 
I agree on the elimitation of term limitations but with the caveat that terms limitations should only apply to specific offices and that it be a limit of two consecutive terms in one given office.

In practical terms, that would mean if one was minister of whatever, you can serve two consecutive terms in that particular office. For example, if you are elected PM, you can have a second consecutive term, sit out one, and serve another term, and if you serve two terms as PM you are allowed to serve in another ministerial position.

Essentially, two consecutive terms in one particular cabinet position but no restriction on a third term in another cabinet position.

We need to rotate who occupies varios positions, but we need to also make sure that qualified individuals are not excluded from serving in other cabinet positions because of term limitations.

I think that there is no reason why someone who is minister of "X" for two terms should not be able to serve as minister of "Y" for two consecutive terms. Presently, with existing term limitations, it is concievable that we might run into the situation that we might run out of peopel elegible for ministerial positions.

IOW, a two consecutive term limit for each cabinet position (and this give the opportunity for people to serve in each ministry over time) would create a core of highly qualified individuals who become familair with each ministry.

By the same token, we need to encourage new blood and encourage newcomers to occupy deputy ministerial positions at every opportunity.

Essentially it boils down to what Polsty is pointing to - we need to make sure that the there are enough qualified people to run the government in the event of 'slack' times of inactivity.



R
 
The only problem with that approach is, according to some critics, is that such a minimal limit may give rise to a clique that gains permanent control of the offices of the region.
(That is not my criticism, but rather a criticism that was raised by others as a justification when the term limitations were first proposed during the drafting phase of the April revision last winter.

At the time my position was the same as Roman's, with the addition that service for more than half of an elected Minister's term by a deputy who succeeded to that office counted as one of the terms.

In other words, I would favor retention of clauses 1, 2, and 6 in any and all circumstances.
The other clauses was intended as a compromise between my original position and the position of others at that time that favored a lifetime two term limit in any elected Cabinet office.

The compromise language was drafted to find an intermediate position. I would point out that those three clauses (3, 4, and 5) were modified at the constitutional convention to shorten the limitation cycle to its current length.

As I said however, I could live with a proposal that retains clauses 1, 2, and 6 of the current section as they currently exist. I would not support an amendment that does not retain clause 2 as part of the term limitation provisions, in part because it would amount to a means by which the two term limitation could be effectively avoided.
 
I think we need the freedom this gives us. if we dont ammend now we will almost certainly have to in the future :2cents:
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The only problem with that approach is, according to some critics, is that such a minimal limit may give rise to a clique that gains permanent control of the offices of the region.
(That is not my criticism, but rather a criticism that was raised by others as a justification when the term limitations were first proposed during the drafting phase of the April revision last winter.
Click to expand...
I also thought about that situation arising. The problem is that in all political systems, there will always arise a 'class' of people who will inevitably tend to rise to the top and stay there, for the most part. The trick is to allow for those with the experience to continue to serve without it turning into a defacto 'runling class' (as this would result in elitism that may not be beneficial to the region).

Even with the term limitations in place for cabinet level positions, cliques of certain people would still exist who would be capable of exerting influence. It's the nature of the beast.

Suppose you have a cabinet of entirely new individuals who have no prior governmental experience - who do they look to for advice? The very same group that preceded them. This is a natural consequence of term limitations.

Now supplant the word 'clique' for 'political parties' - there is nothing to prevent the new members from acting out the agenda of any given 'clique'.

If you want real rotation of governmental authority, then why not have a term limitation in the form of no consecutive cabinet level terms? Alas, even that won't prevent 'cliques'.

Generally, as a rule, those who tend to be the most active in government will tend to stay active. It's a fact of life.

But, as a general rule, elections can prevent the existance of a continuous ruling 'clique', but only if people get involved and vote.

What I fear is a period of general apathy and lethargy in which large numbers of people just don't get or stay involved. Given the current term limitation system, it is a distinct possibility that we may one day see not enough people to fill all the cabinet positions as a result of term limitations? What do you do should that occur? Let the PM appoint people to the empty seats regardless of term limitations?

Term limitations or not, there should be a proviso that term limitations should not get in the way of filling all cabinet positions. I'm in favor of having a two consecutive term limitation, but applied to each specific office (thus permitting someone to serve in a different ministry).

R
 
I tend to agree.. On one hand, it is true that lack of term limitations may result in people serving over and over.

On the other hand, it could be argued that the same people would serve over and over again ANYWAY, purely because of lack of participation.
 
I would like my initial proposal presented formally to the Regional Assembly as there seems to be a general consensus that the proposal as is, is suitable for presentation to the RA and Cabinet!!
 
wizardofoz01:
I tend to agree.. On one hand, it is true that lack of term limitations may result in people serving over and over.

On the other hand, it could be argued that the same people would serve over and over again ANYWAY, purely because of lack of participation.
Click to expand...
That's why I would favor a two consecutive term limit for a specific cabinet position. This would permit individuals to serve two consecutive terms in one cabinet position and not be disqualified from serving a term in another cabinet position, or sitting out one term (after serving two) before running for the same office again.

While I agree with Polt's on the issue as a whole, I tend to worry about having the potential for one person to serve 3,4,5,6, etc., consecutive terms. Such a situation would tend to promote a potential de facto 'monarchy' or worse. Having the same people serve to many consecutive terms in any given position would lead to stagnation and worse yet, complacency an/or fossilized power structure.

Also, the lack of some kind of total consecutive term limitations could be exploited by a small number of people who could then cement power and athority for an indefinite period of time. Such a perpetual arrangement and concentratopm of authority in the same hands for too long would inevitably lead to the development of an authoritarian government and/or revolution should that power structure become perpetual, elections notwithstanding.

I support the idea of not having term limitations for cabinet postitions provided that it only pertain to consecutive terms in a specific position. I cannot support the possibility of individuals having three or more consecutive terms.


Romanoffia
 
Poltsamaa:
I would like my initial proposal presented formally to the Regional Assembly as there seems to be a general consensus that the proposal as is, is suitable for presentation to the RA and Cabinet!!
Click to expand...
Your wish shall be granted -- formal discussion topic will be started.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top