Thought: Appointed cabinet?

Haor Chall

Haor Chall

The Power of the Dark Side
TNP Nation
Haor Chall
What do people think of having the PM appoint his own cabinet ministers rather than electing them directly?

It would go some way to solve some of the issues we have in government, in ensuring that there is a unified cabinet which will be more able to work together and to achieve the goals it sets out. I think this will really help the government to be able to move forward and work together. At the moment, Ministers tend to work pretty independently on their own little area, this would hopefully make people work together a little more, and sing from the same hymn sheet as if it were. It would also give some real reason for the existance of the PM, which there isn't really in the current system.

However, what I think should be done is to reduce the size of the cabinet drastically. To just the MoIIA, MoEA, MoD and possibly MoJ or something like that. There would also have to be a system of confirmation and votes of no confidence or something as well.

The MoAE, MoCE and MoC would be seperate positions outside of cabinet (possibly non-voting members like the Delegate is now), elected as they are now but not ministers, "directors" or something. This especially makes sense for the MoC as it would make the news, the wire, independent of the government which might be a better way of running it. Part of the reason for the split is that I don't think the PM should appoint everybody but also the MoAE and MoCE aren't essential parts of government (rather essential parts of the community) and I think they might be better served if they sat slightly outside the cabinet.

On a slightly related note, I think think we should either remove cabinet voting after the RA vote or stop members of the cabinet voting in the RA. It seems a bit daft that they get to vote twice and it also seems a little pointless.

I know its a bit sketchy, but what do people think?
 
If you can flesh this out a bit, I'll support it.

What about term limitations for the chosen ministers; would they remain the same? Would we be returning some powers back to the prime minister, or would they just exist as an overseer?

Would make an interesting move towards party politics.

[edit]

1: The Regional Delegate.

-- Head of state, but actual powers are limited. Non-elected and term limits removed in the interests of maintaining regional strength. Vice-delegate renamed to regent, and is the chosen successor of the Delegate.

Security council become the Cabinet's liaisons to the Delegate, and their powers are strictly concerned with the use of the regional controls. Delegates can be removed from power by a vote of no-confidence from the RA + Cabinet.

2: The Departments of State.

-- The Prime Minister of the North Pacific.

One of two elected political positions; term limits remain the same. May select his cabinet, and has full control over who serves where. Kept in check by the Regional Assembly who may remove him with a vote of no confidence which the cabinet may not vote in.

-- Ministry of External Affairs

Political representative of the external NPIA and Diplomatic corps. Represents the interests of the region abroad. Some power delegated to the non-elected position of Ambassador-General.

-- Ministry of Internal Affairs and Immigration.

Represents the citizens of TNP and the internal NPIA. Stays pretty much the same.

-- Ministry of Defence

Represents the political interests of the NPA. Some of current power delegated to the 'Field Marshall' of the NPA. Given power to field the NPA, on advice from the Field Marshall, MoEA and Prime Minister.

-- The Ministry of Justice
Remains the same.

3: Acting Bodies.

-- North Pacific Intelligence Agency.

Split into two sections to deal with internal and external matters. The MoIIA is political head of the internal branch, and the MoEA is political head of the external branch. The Prime minister has overarching control of the two branches.
Non-elected representatives: Two directors, selected internally and given the role until retirement when they must chose their representatives. Directors legally accountable for the operations they are undertaken should they violate the constitution.

-- Commrangers

Body controlled by the MoIIA politically, but actually run by a selected representative. Concerned with recruitment and spam-clearing.


-- Diplomatic Corps.

Representatives in foreign lands. Run by the Ambassador-General who reports directly to the MoEA. Permissions granted to negotiate the opening stages of treaties with support from the A-G and MoEA. Ambassador-General is a position for life.

-- North Pacific Army.
Pretty much as is, except operational commander is now the Field Marshall, who reports directly to the poltical head (the MOD).

-- North Pacific News (and other newspapers)
Free press, not controlled by government. Areas of forum granted at Administrators' will.

-- University of the North Pacific
Remains the same.

-- Regional Assembly.

The legislatory sector of the North Pacific. Remains the same. Speaker is second elected position.

Prime Minister and Cabinet can be removed by a vote of no-confidence by quorum of the RA (excluding the cabinet themselves). If the prime minister is removed, then the cabinet must be re-selected.

The Cabinet can be chosen from anyone of the assembly who have served actively for 3 months; the Prime minister can change the cabinet as they see fit. The Prime minister must have served at least once as a minister in the last 12 months to be eligable for election.

None of the heads of these organizations may hold a cabinet position.

4) Former Ministry positions.

1) MOCE powers given to Board of the University

2) MoAE becomes team of spam moderators. Non-elected and controlled by the forum admins (most MoAE's I've seen have no interest in foreign politics anyway, but could hold another office if they wished).

3) MoC split into two roles:

1) Head of the Newspaper
2) Head of the anti-spam/comrangers teams. Could be selected by the commrangers themselves.
 
Being a voting member of the Cabinet gives me the motivation to do my job as MiniCult. Fact of the matter is, with the opening of the new University my job is more difficult than most of the "main ministries". If the position of MiniCult were to be performed by the board of the university I am quite sure you would find no progress would be made what-so-ever. I need only to point to that board's progress in the field of the University (by-the-by, they have made none other than pass a bunch of red tape laws) to support my claim.

However, I would love to watch the horror show unfurl if these changes are actually implemented. I like a good disaster.
 
I like this idea. It means that a PM can have a real vision to get something done, and not have it hampered by uncooperative ministers.

It would probably make elections more exciting!
 
First post edited to include full thoughts.

BW, the positions would still exist, but would be outside of the ministries. Since they are largely non-political roles anyway, this shouldn't change much. Would also solve the problem of under-manned elections :P
 
Vitrionia:
First post edited to include full thoughts.

BW, the positions would still exist, but would be outside of the ministries. Since they are largely non-political roles anyway, this shouldn't change much. Would also solve the problem of under-manned elections :P
Click to expand...
I may be incorrect, but I think that BW is saying that being a voting member of the Cabinet and having additional clout in the government is a large part of the motivation to take on some of the more ignored ministries, i.e. MoCE, MoAE, and MoC. They either need little to ungodly amounts of work, and not being able to have a greater degree of say in the government in exchange for putting in the ungodly amount of work needed to get the University going, for example, will be a turn-off.

I don't agree with BW wholly personally, but I can see how that might happen.
 
As for my own thoughts on the proposal, I have few problems with it, except that I worry that the MoEA position will now require its office-holder to be saavy in foreign intel. This is, theoretically, a good idea, but it may whittle down the number of people competent enough to do this.
 
I really should read more thoroughly before I post my thoughts.

-- North Pacific Intelligence Agency.

Split into two sections to deal with internal and external matters. The MoIIA is political head of the internal branch, and the MoEA is political head of the external branch. The Prime minister has overarching control of the two branches.
Non-elected representatives: Two directors, selected internally and given the role until retirement when they must chose their representatives. Directors legally accountable for the operations they are undertaken should they violate the constitution.
Click to expand...

Is not possible to make the NPIA a group that is under the MoD? I could see dividing the group into two sub sections under the command of one Director. I am not sure, but personally I feel a bit odd about the NPIA being two seperate groups, with two seperatedirectors, and being in two different ministries. I feel like this could lead to confusion and the NPIA being less efficient down the road.

I do feel that there should be more oversight and accountability for the Director of the NPIA.

-- Commrangers

Body controlled by the MoIIA politically, but actually run by a selected representative. Concerned with recruitment and spam-clearing.
Click to expand...

It seems more logical to have the CommRangers under the Minister of Communication and then have the MoC appoint a director of the CommRangers and have this director be responsible to the MoC.
 
Monte Ozarka:
As for my own thoughts on the proposal, I have few problems with it, except that I worry that the MoEA position will now require its office-holder to be saavy in foreign intel. This is, theoretically, a good idea, but it may whittle down the number of people competent enough to do this.
Click to expand...
Which is why we remove the term limits for cabinet members except the Prime Minister. There's nothing to stop us keeping an excellent diplomatic mind running the ministry for as long as they are able, and the up and comings can make their mark in the improved Diplomatic Corps.
 
I have altered my earlier post and hopefully the ideas presented there are a bit more useful then the ones stated before.
 
Joshua:
Is not possible to make the NPIA a group that is under the MoD? I could see dividing the group into two sub sections under the command of one Director. I am not sure, but personally I feel a bit odd about the NPIA being two seperate groups, with two seperatedirectors, and being in two different ministries. I feel like this could lead to confusion and the NPIA being less efficient down the road.

I do feel that there should be more oversight and accountability for the Director of the NPIA.
Click to expand...
Most IRL agencies are seperated between the secret services (MI6, CIA etc) and internal services (MI5, ATF, FBI etc) since the two roles have very seperate purposes. The internal department would be concerned with helping the MoIIA ensure internal security and the integrity of the Regional Assembly, Cabinet and Delegate, whilst the external department would be reponsible for our more shady interests abroad.

It seems more logical to have the CommRangers under the Minister of Communication and then have the MoC appoint a director of the CommRangers and have this director be responsible to the MoC.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you'd read both mine and Haor Chall's posts, you'd realise we were talking about removing the Ministry of Communications altogether and placing its responsibilities in the hands of the Commrangers and a free press.
 
Lord Valentine:
Joshua:
Is not possible to make the NPIA a group that is under the MoD? I could see dividing the group into two sub sections under the command of one Director. I am not sure, but personally I feel a bit odd about the NPIA being two seperate groups, with two seperatedirectors, and being in two different ministries. I feel like this could lead to confusion and the NPIA being less efficient down the road.

I do feel that there should be more oversight and accountability for the Director of the NPIA.
Click to expand...
Most IRL agencies are seperated between the secret services (MI6, CIA etc) and internal services (MI5, ATF, FBI etc) since the two roles have very seperate purposes. The internal department would be concerned with helping the MoIIA ensure internal security and the integrity of the Regional Assembly, Cabinet and Delegate, whilst the external department would be reponsible for our more shady interests abroad.

It seems more logical to have the CommRangers under the Minister of Communication and then have the MoC appoint a director of the CommRangers and have this director be responsible to the MoC.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you'd read both mine and Haor Chall's posts, you'd realise we were talking about removing the Ministry of Communications altogether and placing its responsibilities in the hands of the Commrangers and a free press.
Click to expand...

Valid point on the NPIA issue. I had not thought about that. Though the seperation of intel agencies for the USA has not exactly in IMHO led to things being more effective in regards to the internal/external security of the US of A.

And I should have read your post in response to HC's intial post more carefully. After reading back it seems like a perfectly reasonable idea to dissolve the MoC and leave it as two seperate groups. In retrospect I support this idea.

Security council become the Cabinet's liaisons to the Delegate, and their powers are strictly concerned with the use of the regional controls. Delegates can be removed from power by a vote of no-confidence from the RA + Cabinet.
Click to expand...

I can understand wanting to ensure further that the UN Delegate cannot take any action that might harm TNP. Is having the SC's sole purpose be to monitor regional controls necessary? Aren't there already an appropriate set of checks and balances to the UN Delegates power?

The Cabinet can be chosen from anyone of the assembly who have served actively for 3 months; the Prime minister can change the cabinet as they see fit. The Prime minister must have served at least once as a minister in the last 12 months to be eligable for election.
Click to expand...

This seems to differ from Haor Chall's initial proposal of having the cabinet solely consist of the MoAE, MOIIA, MoD, and possibly the MoJ. I personally liked this better and makes sense to me to have these ministers alone serve as the cabinet.
 
Joshua:
Security council become the Cabinet's liaisons to the Delegate, and their powers are strictly concerned with the use of the regional controls. Delegates can be removed from power by a vote of no-confidence from the RA + Cabinet.
Click to expand...

I can understand wanting to ensure further that the UN Delegate cannot take any action that might harm TNP. Is having the SC's sole purpose be to monitor regional controls necessary? Aren't there already an appropriate set of checks and balances to the UN Delegates power?
Click to expand...
The security council was originally created to be the checks and balances for the Delegate, but their role has grown to something more. All I am talking about is ensuring the security council is strictly related to the Delegate, and not some quango with more power than the actual cabinet.

This seems to differ from Haor Chall's initial proposal of having the cabinet solely consist of the MoAE, MOIIA, MoD, and possibly the MoJ. I personally liked this better and makes sense to me to have these ministers alone serve as the cabinet.
Click to expand...
It doesn't differ all that much, actually.
 
Haor Chall's proposal was for decreasing the size of the cabinet because it is a bit bloated currently.

This was what you said:

The Cabinet can be chosen from anyone of the assembly who have served actively for 3 months; the Prime minister can change the cabinet as they see fit. The Prime minister must have served at least once as a minister in the last 12 months to be eligable for election.
Click to expand...

Not only would we have the MoIIA, MoD, MoEA, and MoJ serving on the cabinet, but we then open it to RA members who qualify as well. Which means we are no longer cutting down the size of the cabinet and making it a more efficient advisory body.

Overall I support the proposal. I am against allowing RA members serve on the cabinet. The whole intent behind this proposal is to streamline our government.
 
I think LV means that the Cabinet members must be part of the RA (as they are currently) rather than being some random people from elsewhere.
 
I've always supported this idea. It just makes so much sense. rather than have lots of little empires it alows everyone to be on the same page
 
Joshua:
The Cabinet can be chosen from anyone of the assembly who have served actively for 3 months; the Prime minister can change the cabinet as they see fit. The Prime minister must have served at least once as a minister in the last 12 months to be eligable for election.
Click to expand...

Not only would we have the MoIIA, MoD, MoEA, and MoJ serving on the cabinet, but we then open it to RA members who qualify as well. Which means we are no longer cutting down the size of the cabinet and making it a more efficient advisory body.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should make what I said a little clearer for you, as you seem to have missed the mark by quite some way.

'The Cabinet can be chosen from anyone of the assembly who have served actively for 3 months'

The reformed cabinet (consisting of the Minister of Defence, Minister of External Affairs, Minister of Justice and Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs) can be chosen by the prime minister from any eligable member of the Regional Assembly. This means he has a nice wide range of people to pick from, and a proven method of ensuring citizenship to assure us of their competency and ability.


'the Prime minister can change the cabinet as they see fit.'

The ministers hold their positions at the whim of the Prime Minister. This means that inactive or badly performing ministers can be replaced by somebody more able.


'The Prime minister must have served at least once as a minister in the last 12 months to be eligable for election.'

The Prime Minister must have held a cabinet place at least once in the last year.
 
This proposal looks so much like GM's proposal, with different labels. Polts tried this as well.

The problem is that it removes any direct accountability of Mini9sters to the region, and not just the Prime Minister.

The Prime Miister has plenty to do without having to spend precious time appointing Ministers. Thae task of filling Ministerial positions is a problem, because the people who "volunteer" might not be the best choices.

I also think the concept of appointive ministers is disrepectful to the members of the Regional Assembly and their right to be fully participating in the government of the region.

As to the composition of the Ministries, I attempted to find a middle of the road approach, and the efforts were rejected by the Regional Assembly. And it was more modest than this position.

If a moderate proposal to eliminate one Cabinet position failed, I doubt an extremely ambititous propsal will do any better.
 
'The Cabinet can be chosen from anyone of the assembly who have served actively for 3 months'

The reformed cabinet (consisting of the Minister of Defence, Minister of External Affairs, Minister of Justice and Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs) can be chosen by the prime minister from any eligable member of the Regional Assembly. This means he has a nice wide range of people to pick from, and a proven method of ensuring citizenship to assure us of their competency and ability.
Click to expand...

Thank you for educating me. Your wording could lead folks to believe that you were proposing that cabinet members could be selected from the RA as well. I feel like you are talking down to me and I do not appreciate that. The wording was misleading.
 
I for one am fond of the idea of an appointed cabinet rather than an elected one. An elected one is just as far as I am concerned absolutely silly. It provides no consistancy or unity of government and creates a system wherein the ministers are in no way beholden to the central executive power, which stymies their ability to run an effective and coherent government. That's not to say give the Prime Minister the absolute and only say; confirmations of appointments and the ability of the Regional Assembly to remove those ministers whom they feel are performing poorly or have committed serious crimes should also be involved in the process. But as stated before, there has to be some degree of coherence and organization that electing all of the separate ministers individually cannot afford.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The problem is that it removes any direct accountability of Ministers to the region, and not just the Prime Minister.
Click to expand...

I don't really see that. There would have to be a system of confirmation votes for the PM's choice and perhaps some option for Votes of No Confidence (or just the current impeachment options). Not only that this makes it easier for Ministers not doing their jobs to be replaced, meaning better government and probably more accountability- to the PM who is responsible to the region for the government.

The Prime Miister has plenty to do without having to spend precious time appointing Ministers. Thae task of filling Ministerial positions is a problem, because the people who "volunteer" might not be the best choices.
Click to expand...

The people who "volunteer" as you put it might not be the best choice, but the people who run in an uncontested election at the moment might not be the best choice either.


I also think the concept of appointive ministers is disrepectful to the members of the Regional Assembly and their right to be fully participating in the government of the region.
Click to expand...

With the greatest of respect, that is a little daft. They are still participating, they are electing the PM and also, the PM may well run with some/all of his cabinet announced- so that when people vote for someone as PM they may also know who is MoEA, etc are. It should be up to candiates whether they list their potential cabinet as part of their campaign, but whether they do or not that also provides the electorate with the opperunity to vote based not just on the PM but also his potential cabinet. There would also be a system of confirmation votes (as mentioned above and in the first post), so I don't really see it as "disrespectful" at all. In fact, I think it is far more respectful to be able to have a functioning and effective government rather than a bunch of Ministers who do very little.

As to the composition of the Ministries, I attempted to find a middle of the road approach, and the efforts were rejected by the Regional Assembly.  And it was more modest than this position.

If a moderate proposal to eliminate one Cabinet position failed, I doubt an extremely ambititous propsal will do any better.
Click to expand...

That kind of attitude isn't ever going to achieve anything. You may well be right, but I still believe that this would benefit the region and as such will try to get it passed.
 
Joshua:
Thank you for educating me. Your wording could lead folks to believe that you were proposing that cabinet members could be selected from the RA as well. I feel like you are talking down to me and I do not appreciate that. The wording was misleading.
Click to expand...
Cabinet members can be selected from the RA, that's exactly what I meant. I wasn't attempting to be condescending, but I am really having trouble following your train of thought with this. The major difference between our current system and the one I'm proposing is that the Prime Minister selects his cabinet (the heads of the ministries) rather than them being elected every three months.

Grosse:
This proposal looks so much like GM's proposal, with different labels. Polts tried this as well.
Click to expand...

I couldn't comment on proposals that preceed me, I'm afraid.

The problem is that it removes any direct accountability of Mini9sters to the region, and not just the Prime Minister.
Click to expand...

Any minister can be removed by a vote from the RA, in fact under my system, the vote would exclude the cabinet completely as to prevent the insinuation of leading votes or the cabinet circling their wagons. I'm sure we could hash something out so that the judiciary would lead such an impeachment. There are plenty of real world examples to back up the idea of a selected cabinet; the Westminster system popular in the Anglosphere is probably the biggest of them.

The Prime Miister has plenty to do without having to spend precious time appointing Ministers. Thae task of filling Ministerial positions is a problem, because the people who "volunteer" might not be the best choices.
Click to expand...

If we find people willing to be elected then I'm sure we can find people able to fill the roles if picked. I don't believe the task of selecting a cabinet would be so much of a burden to the Prime Minister; perhaps if you could give at least some anecdotal evidence to back up your suggestion?



I also think the concept of appointive ministers is disrepectful to the members of the Regional Assembly and their right to be fully participating in the government of the region.
Click to expand...
How so? The RA still plays a major role as the legislative body of the region; the way the executors are chosen (so long as it is fair and secure) IMO makes little difference.

As to the composition of the Ministries, I attempted to find a middle of the road approach, and the efforts were rejected by the Regional Assembly. And it was more modest than this position.

If a moderate proposal to eliminate one Cabinet position failed, I doubt an extremely ambititous propsal will do any better.
Click to expand...

Well, I this is just an informal discussion; I hope we can garner a larger discussion of the pros and cons. Who knows? We may end up with a completely different bill presented to the RA for a vote.


@Pragmia
That was my thinking also.
 
Personally, I find the fact that the NPIA /has/ to work around the constitution and government awful. I also think that divided the whole shebang up would allow us better communication. The secret service is always going to be shadowy, but there's no reason why details of operations can't be given to the Prime Minister.
 
I like this discussion and, personally, I also favor an appointed cabinet (with RA confirmation).

However in your current proposal Lord Valentine I dislike the requirement that the Prime Minister have been in the Cabinet previously-- it is exceptionally easy then to have an 'elite club' of a few who switch Prime Ministership between them.

I would prefer other requirements, but haven't quite decided what I'd prefer.

This topic is one that I will be setting up a poll on shortly.
 
However in your current proposal Lord Valentine I dislike the requirement that the Prime Minister have been in the Cabinet previously-- it is exceptionally easy then to have an 'elite club' of a few who switch Prime Ministership between them.
Click to expand...

The requirement could that any potential PM have served in the RA for so long as one requirement. I had not thought of that before, but having an 'elite club of TNPers' does not serve the interest of this region.

I realize this is not necessarily relevant to this topic. At some point, very soon, we need to incorporate the guidelines and protocaol for teh NPIA into the constitution and/or TNP legal code.

How would dividing up the NPIA and putting the two sections under two different ministeries enhance communication?
 
So, to summerise:

The Cabinet is appointed and confirmed by a RA vote rather than elected directly.

The Cabinet is reduced in size to consist of the PM, MoIIA, MoEA, MoD and MoJ.

What is currently the MoAE, MoCE and MoC will still exist but not as voting members of the cabinet. They will be elected directly, as they are now.


To respond to a few other points:

BW, the MoAE and MoCE have long been seen as the least demanding of the cabinet posts and the MoC - whilst having a lot of potential- also has tended to be one of the Ministries which has done the least. Now I can see with the Uni that there might be more for the MoCE to do, and I appreciate where you're coming from, but the inital reasoning was that I didn't want the PM appointing what is currently all of the cabinet as that is a lot of people. The idea was that those positions would be like the Delegate and the Speaker in that they would be able to post in the cabinet but would not be voting members.

I also think that the requirement for the PM to have served as a Minister is unnecessary, I'd be quite happy with the current requirements staying in place.
 
This would centralize too much power within the PM Office, to have an appointed MoJ police the cabinet is just Alberto Gonzales all over again, and to have the elected ministers to be a counterweight, NOT be able to dissent and vote on Cabinet matters is just downright authoritarian.

Less Ministries I would agree with it, especially merging MoCE and the MoC but to not have an independent MoJ; the sole person allowed to press charges be a mere puppet of the PMO spits in the face of democracy and accountability.

Soundly AGAINST.
 
mr_sniffles:
This would centralize too much power within the PM Office, to have an appointed MoJ police the cabinet is just Alberto Gonzales all over again, and to have the elected ministers to be a counterweight, NOT be able to dissent and vote on Cabinet matters is just downright authoritarian.

Less Ministries I would agree with it, especially merging MoCE and the MoC but to not have an independent MoJ; the sole person allowed to press charges be a mere puppet of the PMO spits in the face of democracy and accountability.

Soundly AGAINST.
Click to expand...
Ah, my old enemy returns.

That's why one would suggest keeping the judicary independant of the Cabinet. Perhaps even doing away with the Ministry of Justice all together and having a group of judges and a sanctioned Attorny's office (where the 'DA' so to speak can be elected, if you so choose).

What are the chances of an elected prime minister having enough loyal people to actually sway the cabinet in a way that would harm the region? What makes you think that the Legislatory and Judicial bodies of this region are so sheep-like that they would just follow along with that anyway?

The RA holds a lot of power over the Cabinet, and my suggestions do not lessen that.
 
mr_sniffles:
This would centralize too much power within the PM Office, to have an appointed MoJ police the cabinet is just Alberto Gonzales all over again, and to have the elected ministers to be a counterweight, NOT be able to dissent and vote on Cabinet matters is just downright authoritarian.
Click to expand...

Well the MoJ could be removed. I was just balancing the cabinet.

In terms of cabinet votes; IMO if the cabinet votes in the RA they should not vote again in cabinet. That's if we want a UK-style parlimentary system, if we were going US-style with a seperate executive than you could have cabinet votes but the cabinet shouldn't vote in the RA. So I think you're overstating the issue on cabinet votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top