Thought: Appointed cabinet?

I think an appointed cabinet would go a long way to the necissary reforms that should be made. Now as I'm sure my RA collegues are aware I would love to see a massive overhaul and this as part of it but as thats not going to happen right now let me put forward the following FOR arguements.


An appointed cabinet allows a united government that can move forward with one clear message and mission for a term

replacements for disappearence or downright incompetence are easy

As LV already assesed, this would be an interesting move toward party politics which could only be an interesting thing

We save much time and effort on votes that can end up farcical and still retain oversight.


One point I would like to see added would be for added oversight however would be the addition of a "Vote of No Confidence" in the cabinet or the elected officials. If the crap hits the fan that can give ultimate power in the voters hands.
 
Political parties have been suggested attempted, and there's nothing stopping someone from tryng that approach now. The point is that most of the region's participants do not believe there is a need for political parties, and do not want a political party system become a mandated part of government whether as a practicl result of a change in the system or by an express requirement.

The problem with inactivity has been dealt with. There is a procedure for the Cabinet to remove an inactive minister, and there is also the recall process on top of that. Since those remedies are now part of our system, that is not a meaningful justification to go to an appointive-type system.

The Ministry of justice is not the entire judicial system, it is just the prosecutorial functio. Can someone explain to me why that is so hard to understand? It's pretty clear in both the Constitution, and in the Law governing criminal procedure that the Attorney General is the chief prosecutr of the region. The Court is independent already so abolishing the Ministry ofJustice would simply deprive the executive of the ability to have a prosecutor who is accountable to the executive branch. And keep in mind that the Ministry of Justice is headed by the Attorny General, and not a "Minister of Justice," that change when this Constitution was adopted at the Constitutional Convention.
 
Haor Chall:
So I think you're overstating the issue on cabinet votes.
Click to expand...
You and I both have been members of Cabinet and the matters we discuss and the power we yield is equal to that of the RA, more so when it comes to access to information. Do you really think the RA should be privy to private cabinet discussions? And if not should it not be decided by ONLY publically elected officials.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The Ministry of justice is not the entire judicial system, it is just the prosecutorial functio. Can someone explain to me why that is so hard to understand? It's pretty clear in both the Constitution, and in the Law governing criminal procedure that the Attorney General is the chief prosecutr of the region. The Court is independent already so abolishing the Ministry ofJustice would simply deprive the executive of the ability to have a prosecutor who is accountable to the executive branch. And keep in mind that the Ministry of Justice is headed by the Attorny General, and not a "Minister of Justice," that change when this Constitution was adopted at the Constitutional Convention.
Click to expand...
I know that, which is why I left the MoJ in my original proposal. I suggested removing the ministry in answer to Mr Sniffle's concerns. Even then, I simply moved the attorney away from the cabinet.


Mr Sniffles, we can't be afraid of our cabinet all the time. They are already accountable to the RA and can be removed very easily. The prime minister would still need to be elected and would also have needed to be a minister in the past twelve months. It would still be a huge amount of work to take control of the cabinet and work behind doors to subject the citizenry to your will. How would you stop the RA from simply impeaching you and removing your whole cabinet?

If you want, we can introduce a law to stop a member of an impeached cabinet running for a Prime Ministerial election.
 
Gross every time you ask why something thats "clear in the constitution or in x y or z" isnt understood, its because nothing is clear in any of those places a we have repeatedly said! :pinch:

And just because their is a procedure there doesnt mean we should never look at changing or revising it does it?
 
Lord Valentine:
Mr Sniffles, we can't be afraid of our cabinet all the time.
Click to expand...
I'm not afraid of cabinet, I've been in the cabinet for the past 5 terms. I know the serious business and the battles that goes on. How can the RA hold the Cabinet accountable if every member of Cabinet is subservient and handpicked by the Prime Minister, even to the point where the discussions and scandals are kept from the RA hands. You must realize that the choice of revealing certain information of certain ministries is in the hands of the respective minister; all of which can be clearly denied for whatever self-serving purpose of the Prime Minister.
 
I should have also pointed out that yhe only issues that a Cabinet member votes on that also is voted on by the RA are (1) certain nominations and (2) constitutional amendments. As long as the Ministers themselves are elected ut is IMHO, a fair trade off. However, if one is going to make the Cabinet appointive, then some how we'll have to adjust both those procedures to make nominations and constitutional amendments more difficult to pass, in order to maintain and check and balance on the Prime Minister.

Fulhead, guess what? You keep complaining that the Constitution doesn't work, but the facts show otherwise. IWe've had at least eight elections under the Constitution, there have been peaceful transitions of power in the Cabinet and in the Delegacy under this system, and about the only ones who seem to complain over the years seem to be those, who, in my opinion prefer an imperial dictatorship. I'm not one of them.

An appointive Cabinet system would concentrate too much power without adequate protections and safeguards. During my two terms as Prime Minister, I never felt I lacked adequate authority or power to do my job. But then, I'd rather have vigorous discussion within the Cabinet that a bunch of "yes men" who would lack the ability or skill to have their own opinions and viewpoints.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
An appointive Cabinet system would concentrate too much power without adequate protections and safeguards. During my two terms as Prime Minister, I never felt I lacked adequate authority or power to do my job. But then, I'd rather have vigorous discussion within the Cabinet that a bunch of "yes men" who would lack the ability or skill to have their own opinions and viewpoints.
Click to expand...

The idea that this system would lead to the cabinet being filled with "yes men" is a little off, obviously that would mean that the PM wasn't a very good PM and all I can say on that is that the RA would have voted them in. Furthermore, and perhaps slightly more relevant, TWP has a system of appointed Ministers which seems to have worked well and has not resulted in "yes men".

What this will lead to is a government with unity and consistancy. It will be more effective and more efficient. It will be a government better able to carry out its mandate, a government which will be more, not less, responsive to the RA, and a government that will be able to function as a team and work together to better the region.
 
Basically, if you appoint your own ministers as PM, you chose people you /can/ work with, but if you're a good PM you'll chose people who aren't "yes men".

And I believe the way that constituitonal amendments could then go is a 3/4 vote, or perhaps 2 3/4 votes separated by a period of time.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Holy crap. When did Sniffles get back?
Click to expand...
Sorry I missed this one, went through rehab and now the fires still raging.

(and not to stray off-topic)
To truly believe the RA can hold Cabinet responsible when the Prime Minister decides what vital information can be released and when the Prime Minister appoints the members of the Judiciary, is just plain naive. I've said all I've had to say and if this doesn't sound down right stupid already then we may as start asking the NPO on advice on governing.
 
How about allowing the RA to dismiss the Prime Minister by a simple vote of No Confidence, would that assuage your concerns a bit Mr Sniffles?
 
mr_sniffles:
Blue Wolf II:
Holy crap. When did Sniffles get back?
Click to expand...
Sorry I missed this one, went through rehab and now the fires still raging.

(and not to stray off-topic)
To truly believe the RA can hold Cabinet responsible when the Prime Minister decides what vital information can be released and when the Prime Minister appoints the members of the Judiciary, is just plain naive. I've said all I've had to say and if this doesn't sound down right stupid already then we may as start asking the NPO on advice on governing.
Click to expand...
Which is, once again, why we would make the judiciary independent of the cabinet. The PM would not be allowed to select them, and I suppose we could all still vote on them.

Keep the straw-men in your bag for a bit and consider:

The Prime Minister is elected and (in theory) has the choice of the entire RA to select the best people to run the ministries. Now, since the change the ministries have been given a larger amount of autonomy so they /can/ function regardless of the minister in charge, albeit at a very basic level. The Regional Assembly still exists in much the same way as it did before as the the legislatory body of the region. To keep a level of safety, we separate our powers.

The Cabinet, whilst technically still members of the RA, give up their powers to vote on legislature and amendments whilst retaining the ability to propose them; this means that members of the cabinet can still present ideas to the RA, but they lose their power to be both executor and legislator. We strengthen the conditions on amending the constitution, thus making it more likely that laws are passed (although, for this to happen, parts of the constitution should be come laws, IMO) and therefore overturned quickly if needs be. The RA can also impeach the Prime Minister, and if successful, throw him out of office and remove his whole cabinet too. We'd also ensure that no member of an impeached cabinet can run for the Prime Ministerial position for a certain amount of time (one/two terms?)

The Judiciary are kept separate from the cabinet, and if you want the judges to be voted on, then I see no reason why we can't do that. We remove the Ministry of Justice, and turn it purely into the regional attorney's office. It will act as prosecutor, but will not have sway over the judges.

Each area is kept separate: Cabinet =/= RA =/= Judge =/= Prosecutor =/= Forum Administrator. The people retain their voice and we gain a more streamlined approach to government. No member of the cabinet or judiciary can hold the forum administrators position, so there would always be an unbiased person with access to the same forum based information as the cabinet.

I believe this offers the same amount of protection as our current system.


Tell me, how could an elected cabinet abuse this system?
 
Eluvatar:
How about allowing the RA to dismiss the Prime Minister by a simple vote of No Confidence, would that assuage your concerns a bit Mr Sniffles?
Click to expand...
Recall already does that except it needs to be signed off by a judge.

Issuing votes of non-confidence is nothing new to me, living in Canada. But I digress, I am completely against an appointed cabinet and nothing I can think of will change this. So you guys carry on and we'll meet again at the vote.
 
mr_sniffles:
Eluvatar:
How about allowing the RA to dismiss the Prime Minister by a simple vote of No Confidence, would that assuage your concerns a bit Mr Sniffles?
Click to expand...
Recall already does that except it needs to be signed off by a judge.

Issuing votes of non-confidence is nothing new to me, living in Canada. But I digress, I am completely against an appointed cabinet and nothing I can think of will change this. So you guys carry on and we'll meet again at the vote.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your candor.
 
I have no problem with it, as long as we have a healthy and tight set of checks and balances in place. As it is, whilst the PM appoints justices, they still have to be confirmed by the RA. The RA can impeach and remove Justices and Cabinet Member/PM, and the Justices can invalidate the actions of either body as unconstitutional. The most powerful body in the system is the RA, but that is as it should be.
 
You are forgetting that the Justices are nominated to full terms during the last month of a PM's term, and take office, essentially, at the beginning of the next PM's term for six months. (Even if the PM is reelected at that time, the econd half of a Justice's term would be under a different PM.) I don't understand why any more insulation would be needed, given that the elected Cabinet has to advise and consent to judicial nomnations even before the RA votes on them.

So the entire judicial appointment process has checks and balances as it is set up now. An appointive Cabinet would remove a very sound check-and-balance on the judiciary, and what I've heard described does sound to me to be sufficient and equitable.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
So the entire judicial appointment process has checks and balances as it is set up now. An appointive Cabinet would remove a very sound check-and-balance on the judiciary, and what I've heard described does sound to me to be sufficient and equitable.
Click to expand...
Why would it? Could you elucidate for those of us who don't follow you?

Also, hypothetically speaking, what sorts of regulations would need to be in place before you would be happy with such a proposal?
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I don't understand why any more insulation would be needed, given that the elected Cabinet has to advise and consent to judicial nomnations even before the RA votes on them.

So the entire judicial appointment process has checks and balances as it is set up now. An appointive Cabinet would remove a very sound check-and-balance on the judiciary, and what I've heard described does sound to me to be sufficient and equitable.
Click to expand...
LV, what part of that don't you understand?

The RA only gets to whimper consent and nothing else, compared to the usual trusted officials of widely differing views now muted to remain in the PM's favour.

(glad to see we're back on the same side again Grosse.)
 
mr_sniffles:
Grosseschnauzer:
I don't understand why any more insulation would be needed, given that the elected Cabinet has to advise and consent to judicial nomnations even before the RA votes on them.

So the entire judicial appointment process has checks and balances as it is set up now. An appointive Cabinet would remove a very sound check-and-balance on the judiciary, and what I've heard described does sound to me to be sufficient and equitable.
Click to expand...
LV, what part of that don't you understand?

The RA only gets to whimper consent and nothing else, compared to the usual trusted officials of widely differing views now muted to remain in the PM's favour.

(glad to see we're back on the same side again Grosse.)
Click to expand...
Then we change that system before we implement the new one. What part of that do you not understand?

In fact, if the RA are so weak then it is a fault of the current system. Don't tell me that this idea is useless because the RA are currently 'whimperers', that's a lazy attitude.

You've already stated your opinion of the matter, if you don't wish to discuss this further and only wish to criticise then would you do us the favour of waiting for an official discussion (if and when we get there) before doing so.
 
Lord Valentine:
Then we change that system before we implement the new one. What part of that do you not understand?

In fact, if the RA are so weak then it is a fault of the current system. Don't tell me that this idea is useless because the RA are currently 'whimperers', that's a lazy attitude.
Click to expand...
The current system works because the RA elects those of varied opinions to advise the PM on their judicial picks.

Final words, I apologize.
 
mr_sniffles:
Lord Valentine:
Then we change that system before we implement the new one. What part of that do you not understand?

In fact, if the RA are so weak then it is a fault of the current system. Don't tell me that this idea is useless because the RA are currently 'whimperers', that's a lazy attitude.
Click to expand...
The current system works because the RA elects those of varied opinions to advise the PM on their judicial picks.

Final words, I apologize.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't be too much of a step to make the judiciary independent of cabinet. Let the judges pick themselves and let the RA decide in an election. I hardly see how an appointed cabinet could affect that.

:) Thanks for your comments.
 
I don't see how electing the Cabinet in the current fashion brings more "varied opinion" than an appointed Cabinet approved of by the RA. It's the same body expressing their support of the would Ministers or denying it.
 
Well, I doubt that a Prime Minister would have appointed for example Mental Imagination to MoAE. I think that it would just lead to a continual status quo of Cabinet members rotating positions amongst themselves, our current system allows new, interesting and slightly quirky members of NationStates have a go at participating in feeder politics, something that I don't think any of the feeders except maybe the West have.
 
I hold a vision of TNP as a land of opportunity. I like to believe even a lowly Romanian immigrant can find fame and fortune here. Whenever changes to the political process are discussed, I always ask myself, "Will this make it easier or harder for newcomers to participate?"

Is it more likely or less likely for a newer nation to be appointed to a position of leadership? Currently, when someone asks me how to go about seeking a position, I take pride in being able to reply, "Just throw your hat in the ring!" It has a better feel to it than saying, "You have to cozy up to so-and-so."
 
Depends. My system provides the opportunity for members to prove themselves in other roles in the Ministries. People wouldn't be appointed to run Ministries if they suck at it. If the same people get appointed, then it should be because they are capable at their jobs, rather than popular. Also remember that the Prime Minister is an elected position and bound to the same restrictions as the cabinet would have now. Therefore, a new Prime Minister would have a chance to promote newer members if they are:

a) Good at the job
b) Active.

Any system has the chance of creating an inner circle/cabal. We just have to hope that our members are intelligent enough to avoid that situation.
 
Currently the taskforce system is being developed. Follow that to a logical conclusion and we get more task forces and groups in more ministries. Imagine it as a permenant Civil Service type deal. Gives people plenty of opportunities to learn a skill and to prove themselves. A clever PM will appint the experts the system creates
 
Fulhead Land:
Currently the taskforce system is being developed. Follow that to a logical conclusion and we get more task forces and groups in more ministries. Imagine it as a permenant Civil Service type deal. Gives people plenty of opportunities to learn a skill and to prove themselves. A clever PM will appint the experts the system creates
Click to expand...
Exactly what I had in mind, and if you look we already have this system — to a degree, anyway:
  • The Diplomatic Corps (Ministry of External Affairs)
  • The Commrangers (Ministry of Communications)
  • The North Pacific Army (Ministry of Defence/Armed Forces)
If we can expand these a bit, and delegate some of the ministers' powers to these organisations, we have a real chance at a workable bureaucracy for a change ;)
 
I have just appointed Lord Valentine as Ambassador General and am currently working on giving the DC some kind of permanent structure that will not change with elections. However, I do need help and more members to do this effectively.
 
Lord Valentine:
Fulhead Land:
Currently the taskforce system is being developed. Follow that to a logical conclusion and we get more task forces and groups in more ministries. Imagine it as a permenant Civil Service type deal. Gives people plenty of opportunities to learn a skill and to prove themselves. A clever PM will appint the experts the system creates
Click to expand...
Exactly what I had in mind, and if you look we already have this system — to a degree, anyway:
  • The Diplomatic Corps (Ministry of External Affairs)
  • The Commrangers (Ministry of Communications)
  • The North Pacific Army (Ministry of Defence/Armed Forces)
If we can expand these a bit, and delegate some of the ministers' powers to these organisations, we have a real chance at a workable bureaucracy for a change ;)
Click to expand...
We don't need a bureaucracy! I've worked in two different ministries and creating Bureaucracy only delegates important tasks that consitutionally, we voted officials to do. To narrow the ministers to political buddies only leaves the door open to incompetence (Good job, Brownie comes to mind) and also eliminates choice in the direction of each ministries.

Why should I settle for a PM and Cabinet who I agree with half of the time, or the guy with the appointed cabinet that I hate less than the other guy? When I can my true choice for the direction in every ministry.

It's Bureaucratic handing off jobs to others that led to this Intelligence debacle if you ask me.
 
Mr Sniffles, whether or not you like the concept of a bureaucracy, it is undeniable that we already have one in place. The DC, CR, and NPA are long-standing institutions under the long-standing oversight of long-standing ministries with long-standing powers. The de facto bureaucracy already exists.

Personally, I've always thought that Ministers should pretty much decide policy and the overall jist of things and leave the actual doing of things to others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top