Ideas for major constitutional reform

[Monte Ozarka]

Currently, we have: 1) a rogue delegate, 2) scheduled elections, and 3) division and confusion.

What a perfect atmosphere to start thinking about massive constitutional change. And by "massive", I mean pretty much scrapping our current system and starting anew. However, I do hope that such reform could be realized via our current amendment process. Legitimacy in change is always nice, after all.

These are some early thoughts that I had in the shower (I always get my ideas in the shower) and are (obviously) nowhere close to final completion.

Executive

The leader of the executive arm of government is the Delegate. A term limit and prior service requirement will be imposed. The Delegate is elected by popular election in an Assembly referendum.

The Delegate will pick four people to be the Minister of Foreign Intelligence and MoIIA, MoEA, and MoD. The Cabinet members must be approved by popular vote in an Assembly referendum. These are the four Cabinet-level positions. They, plus the Delegate, may vote in whatever requires a Cabinet vote. These people are tasked to pretty much do what they do now--run their respective ministries. They also must be chosen from the ranks of these respective ministries. They answer to and are directed by the Delegate but can be summoned before the Assembly to answer its questions.

Legislative

The Assembly will be the main legislative body. It has an open membership, and anyone who wishes to join and is not deemed a threat can. There is an activity requirement so that the rolls can be kept decently clean.

The Assembly pretty much does what the RA does now--legislate, make amendments to the Constitution, and try to maintain some degree of oversight over the Executive. It also be the jury in high crimes trials like treason, espionage, and impeachment cases.

The Assembly is led by the Speaker, who organizes its activities much like one tries to herd cats. The Speaker is popularly elected and has no term limit.

Judicial

Three members of the Assembly elected by referendum. No term limits on them.

They preside over all other criminal and civil cases. These cases are decided by jury.

More importantly, they also are tasked with giving judicial review of legislation and executive action. Their decisions are binding upon the entire government.

Council of Lower Officers

As you may have noticed, there have been some positions that seem to be missing. This Council is a ragtag collection of some of them. The members of the Council are all popularly elected officers who are loosely under government jurisdiction but free from Executive control. Its members are:

• Director of Culture and Education
• Director of Regional Life (MoAE for all intents and purposes)
• Director of the CommRangers
• Speaker of the Assembly

When/If a financial system can be brought to fruition, a Director of Finance or something can be added.

This body is privy to Cabinet meetings and votes. They can participate in its discussions but not vote. They also basically serve as a more rapid checkpoint for executive action. If a 75% supermajority (or something just about as high) of the Council agrees to it, they can immediately put a halt to any Executive action for a short period of time. With a similarly high supermajority, they may also force the RA to call a referendum on any issue.


I'll maybe write more when I have more time. Tell me what you think or tell me to shut up.

EDIT: just added a tiny bit

 

[Eluvatar]

The basic idea is pretty good. I had some ideas of my own a while back and will be bringing them forth shortly I suppose.

 

[Poltsamaa]

The Executive section goes close to the system I proposed a while back with a Delegate running as a team with his selected cabinet!! The problem with the system you propose, as I see it, is that we could have endless votes if the Delegate's appointment for position(s) within the Cabinet do not get support from the Assembly!!

If the Delegate candidates (assuming we actually get multiple candidates) ran with their pre-selected cabinet named, then this could be overcome!! Obviously not every member of the pre-selected cabinet would be a voter's ideal choice for each portfolio but it would mean nations made a choice prior to voting as to which team they preferred and therefore cut out the avenues for bickering after the elections are completed!!

With the Assembly taking care of legislative process as you say, what role does the Executive actually have with regards to legislative changes?! You say they vote on things that require a cabinet vote but to be honest I don't see many, if any, situation whereby a cabinet vote would be required!! I'm concerned because the body of the region could in reality be doing the complete opposite of what the head wants it to do and there is no connection between the two!!

I like what you have mapped out here and I think with some fleshing out and tweaking of the levels of government this will provide a more dynamic and competitive political landscape for the region!!

Now, changing the Constitution we have now via Constitutional means for changes of this magnitude will be an interesting process, especially with some rabid guardians of our regional tome sure to throw a spanner in any works to amend it, let alone plans to scrap it entirely!!

 

[Monte Ozarka]

The Executive section goes close to the system I proposed a while back with a Delegate running as a team with his selected cabinet!! The problem with the system you propose, as I see it, is that we could have endless votes if the Delegate's appointment for position(s) within the Cabinet do not get support from the Assembly!!

Eh. Hypothetically. However, if we look in places like TWP, we don't exactly see problems with its implementation in practice. Also, having set running mates makes it far less flexible on the Delegate if they wish to change shuffle around Cabinet members later. In my mind, the Cabinet serves at the behest of the Delegate, with Assembly approval. If the Delegate wishes to replace someone, they would have to go before the Assembly, state their reasons for doing so, and offer a replacement. This way, we can cut the red tape a bit and decently ensure that no Cabinet positions will go unfilled for long.

But I digress. If those running mates were to become inactive for one reason or another and the Del were forced to replace them, some might see that as a betrayal of their campaign promises. Others may see it as a perversion of democracy. After all, if they voted for the set, why do they not get the whole set?

With the Assembly taking care of legislative process as you say, what role does the Executive actually have with regards to legislative changes?! You say they vote on things that require a cabinet vote but to be honest I don't see many, if any, situation whereby a cabinet vote would be required!! I'm concerned because the body of the region could in reality be doing the complete opposite of what the head wants it to do and there is no connection between the two!!

Since the Cabinet is pretty much appointed by the Del, I don't really foresee Cabinet votes being anything of much substance. Maybe some housekeeping duties within the Cabinet itself. And I was thinking about how to integrate the Executive a bit into the Legislative. After all, if the Legislative were to have a few powers over the Executive, it's only fair... Perhaps the Del can have veto power if the vote does not reach a certain level of approval? Or perhaps the Del's vote in the Assembly can count more than once? (All members of all branches can vote.)

I like what you have mapped out here and I think with some fleshing out and tweaking of the levels of government this will provide a more dynamic and competitive political landscape for the region!!

Now, changing the Constitution we have now via Constitutional means for changes of this magnitude will be an interesting process, especially with some rabid guardians of our regional tome sure to throw a spanner in any works to amend it, let alone plans to scrap it entirely!!

Thank you! I was wondering if you have any comments regarding the Council? It's perhaps the biggest thing that sets it apart from a standard Delegate-as-executive, appointed-ministers system.

And yes, constitutional reform is a daunting task. And I don't pretend to really expect reform of this scale to pass under our current institutions. But still, it's high time to brainstorm, right?

 

[Poltsamaa]

Eh. Hypothetically. However, if we look in places like TWP, we don't exactly see problems with its implementation in practice. Also, having set running mates makes it far less flexible on the Delegate if they wish to change shuffle around Cabinet members later. In my mind, the Cabinet serves at the behest of the Delegate, with Assembly approval. If the Delegate wishes to replace someone, they would have to go before the Assembly, state their reasons for doing so, and offer a replacement. This way, we can cut the red tape a bit and decently ensure that no Cabinet positions will go unfilled for long.

Hmmm, I see your point, but either system can fall victim to the same problem with regards to changes within the cabinet due to inactivity!! With the system I proposed, reshuffles within the cabinet would not be an issue as the cabinet ran as a team!! With the system you proposed, any change of portfolio would require a referendum!! Either system is fine with me, I just like to avoid too many referendums if at all possible!!
In either case, there will be a referendum if a new nation is to be introduced to the cabinet to replace an inactive one!!

But I digress. If those running mates were to become inactive for one reason or another and the Del were forced to replace them, some might see that as a betrayal of their campaign promises. Others may see it as a perversion of democracy. After all, if they voted for the set, why do they not get the whole set?

No more so than an appointed cabinet minister approved by referendum!! Any replacement of a part of a running ticket elected by the citizens of The North Pacific would require approval by a referendum just as they would under your propose system!! Afterall, the team was voted in, any change to that team would require approval of the populace!! I would rather they could just be appointed but this region does have a fixation with referendum!!
It would also be something the Delegate candidate would look at when naming their team!! I wouldn't run for Delegate with a team that contained nations unlikely to be active or unlikely to be effective in their job!! The team reflects back on the Delegate and re-election is unlikely if your team screws the pooch!!

Since the Cabinet is pretty much appointed by the Del, I don't really foresee Cabinet votes being anything of much substance. Maybe some housekeeping duties within the Cabinet itself.

Yes, thats what worries me!! We are trying to work a system to prevent boredom with regards to the Delegate, but this really adds nothing to the Delegate's role nor the cabinet's!! Sitting around voting on housekeeping while unelected nations run the region via the Assembly isn't going to alleviate the problem!!

And I was thinking about how to integrate the Executive a bit into the Legislative. After all, if the Legislative were to have a few powers over the Executive, it's only fair... Perhaps the Del can have veto power if the vote does not reach a certain level of approval? Or perhaps the Del's vote in the Assembly can count more than once? (All members of all branches can vote.)

I was thinking more along the lines of the tiered government system being involved in the legislative process!! Amendments passed in the Assembly require a certain level of approval from the Executive before being enacted!! Say, if a bill is passed by the Assembly it is passed up to the Executive who vote on the bill!! If the executive votes greater than 60% in favour, the bill passes!! If less that 60% the bill is sent back to the Assembly for reworking or discarded by the Assembly as a dead bill!! The fine details can be worked out at a later date but we need a system whereby the elected representatives of the region actually have something to do other than menial housekeeping tasks while the rest of the region legislates around them!!

Thank you! I was wondering if you have any comments regarding the Council? It's perhaps the biggest thing that sets it apart from a standard Delegate-as-executive, appointed-ministers system.

You know, I don't know what to make of the Council!! They seem to have a foot in both the Assembly and the Cabinet!! I think giving them almost a veto power over the cabinet is too much, especially as you said the Cabinet has nothing to vote on anyway!! If the tiered system for legislative change I mentioned was in place then I'd be tempted to scrap some of those positions in the Council (probably only keep the Speaker of the Assembly and class them as part of the Assembly!!) and do away with the Council entirely, leaving a two-tiered system for legislative change!! What was it you hoped to create with the Council?! This is one aspect of what you proposed that I'm unsure about to be honest!!

And yes, constitutional reform is a daunting task. And I don't pretend to really expect reform of this scale to pass under our current institutions. But still, it's high time to brainstorm, right?

Absolutely, brainstorming is what I have tried to start up since the NPD stood down!! I'm sure you are aware of the paranoia in this region and the rabid defence of the Constitution by the ruling cliche in this region!! If you are willing to work this through and are prepared to read walls of text from Grosseschnauzer that question your intelligence for daring even think about changing a single word in the Constitution, then count me in to work with you on this!!

Something needs to change in TNP, the Constitution and the ruling cliche have strangled the life out of the region and it is time for some fresh air to be let into the region!!

 

[Monte Ozarka]

Quoting is a pain, so I'll try to address your responses by topic (PREPARE FOR WALL O' TEXT AND TL;DR):

Cabinet Appointment
One problem I see with your proposal of having set running mates is that it will be hard to round up enough viable candidates. I mean, if someone is running as MoFI with someone, it would be hard for them to run in someone else's campaign, as well. Even if that person is the best person for the MoFI job, they are limited in how they can run and run the risk of not serving the region most effectively purely because of their running mates.

However, under my system, I think it would be more than valid to question Delegate-candidates about their potential Cabinet. Overall, I think my system offers the most flexibility in this regard. And it is only one additional referendum, at the beginning of the term. After the initial Cabinet is cemented, our systems of replacing Cabinet members are identical. I think that one extra vote in the beginning would be worth it, personally.

Cabinet Votes
I guess in order to address this, I must first talk about where Executive power is located. According to my proposal as written above, Executive power rests in the Delegate. The Cabinet officers simply have as much Executive power as the Delegate apportions to them. Under this mindset, I imagined the Delegate as the one who wields the power when interacting with other branches of the government.

For example, if the Assembly votes for a bill that the Executive doesn't agree with, it can strike it down with a veto. However, where does veto power lie? As my proposal stands, I think it would lie solely with the Delegate. The Cabinet may plead and moan as much as they wish, but it ultimately falls to how the Delegate feels. For you, this veto power rests in the Cabinet, as a whole, and must come to a Cabinet vote. Your proposal adds in an extra layer of voting but also gives the Cabinet (as a whole) a greater voice in legislative affairs. I think that both our systems are tenable, and I don't really mind which one is used.

Ministry Powers and Executive Freedom
You say that you worry about boredom among Cabinet officers. I think that that's a legitimate concern, although I hope that the degree of control they have over their ministries would help alleviate that.

Between the Ministers and the Delegate, they wholly control foreign, military, and intelligence policy for the region. They wholly control how each ministry operates, as well as the missions that they undertake. The main difference between these new ministries and our current ministries are that they are united by the higher control of the Delegate. (As it stands, no one really has to listen to the PM at all. On paper, the PM is one of the weakest positions there is in government.) These ministries already run fairly decently. The Ministers simply require a kick in the pants sometimes from the Delegate. And this is what my system allows for--an effective kick in the pants or kick out the door without lengthy, convoluted impeachment proceedings.

What this basically amounts to is that the Executive (whether the Delegate or a Minister) runs the NPA, DC, and intel agencies. Sure, their actions can be bounded by laws voted in by the Assembly, but the who, what, when, and where (and largely how) are regulated by the Executive.

A Comment on Executive Veto
I think that the Executive, being largely an appointed body, should not have too terribly broad veto powers. Personally, I find your suggestion a little too broad in this regard. How about something like this: If a bill attains 75% approval in the Assembly, it is unvetoable and automatically becomes law. If it attains a plurality but not 75% supermajority, it can be vetoed by the Executive (see the "Cabinet Votes" section). When a bill is vetoed, it is sent back to the Assembly for reworking and revote. If it fails to pass Executive veto again (and also fails to attain 75% approval in the Assembly), it is declared dead.

Council's Purpose
Let me flesh out the Council a little bit. First of all, because the Executive has such broad powers regarding force authorization and undertaking foreign and domestic initiatives (both public and covert), I figured that we need some sort of emergency stopgap. If TNP has taught us anything, it's that standard legislative procedure is painfully slow. The general legislative body cannot be expected to react in a decently timely manner. By the time the legislation and wording have been worked out, the matter may be wholly irrelevant already.

Therefore, we need some sort of small body of popularly trusted officials to place a brake on Executive action, if the circumstances require. In this way, the Council is similar to the SC, but its authority differs fundamentally from it. While the Delegate had to get SC approval for practically everything, under my proposed system, the Delegate can do practically anything without approval from anyone until the Council decides that the Executive has overstepped their bounds and puts a temporary halt to the offending activity. Of course, this is an incredible power that must not be abused. Therefore, it requires an extremely high degree of consensus from members of the Council.

But what can they do? Essentially, they can order a halt to any specific Executive action for a short period of time. Therefore, they can't tell the Executive to change policy but only to call off a specific mission or something of the sort. For example, the Council cannot tell the Executive to no longer attack invader regions, but they can order the Executive to call off or halt the attack against the region "DEN". This moratorium can last for a few days, hopefully giving the Assembly enough time to get their butts in gear and the Executive to explain themselves. The power to renew this moratorium would be even more powerful, and so, I'll just say that it can be renewed once, with unanimous approval in the Council (for when the Assembly needs a few more days to fully address it).

Since the Council is placed in this position of trust, I feel that its members should be members of the community and government who have already shown that they already have popular trust by being elected. Therefore, I gave this power to lower officers whose positions, I feel, should be elected but are not deserving of full Cabinet status and the advantages of Executive power. I have listed some agencies that I feel fit this criteria. I know that these offices may not seem to do much with the bread and butter of government, but I feel that because they are slightly separate from the military and political intrigues of regional politics, they can come at the issues with a somewhat cooler head. Being all publicly elected officers, they are all more independent than the Cabinet, and being few in number, they are more responsive than the Assembly. Furthermore, this gives a degree of limited but (potentially powerful) political strength to those who dedicate themselves to the less glamorous areas of government. After all, wasn't it Blue Wolf who said that he would have never run for MoCE if it had not had power within the Cabinet (i.e. an official vote in the Cabient)?

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I'd like to thank MO for opening this avenue of discussion. Well done.

May I suggest that we first articulate a vision for the region. Once we have a clarity of purpose, we can evaluate the form our government should take. Then we can address specific needs, while remaining mindful of the core values that we, as a community, espouse.

You can probably think of more, but here are some fundamental questions to consider:

What is our vision for this region?
What do we want our government to look like?
Do we want a democracy?
Do we want a monarchy?
Do we want anarchy?
Do we want an elected Delegate?
Do we want the Delegate to be the head of state?
Do we want to elect cabinet positions?
Do we want cabinet positions to be appointed?
Do we want a Regional Assembly?
Do we want a Senate or High Council?
Do we want a Justice system?
Do we want an army?
Do we want a Security Council?
Do we want a declaration of rights?


I'll start with my personal vision for TNP: We are a vibrant, diverse community. We are welcoming and helpful to newcomers. We offer things that will satisfy all sorts of interests, be they government, military, UN related, RP, RL politics, entertainment, etc. We have a wealth of opportunities for leadership. We are democratic. We view our leaders as public servants. We value free speech. We care about one another. We laugh a lot.



I hope once we begin to discuss the basics, we will find a great deal of common ground. I would also like to ask everyone to keep to the principles of brainstorming. Everyone's ideas have merit. This should be an opportunity to get those ideas out without fear of being criticized or shot down. Save the evaluations and critiques for the next phase.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Two point for now.

The Security Council ought to be retained as it currently funcions, as it serves as a check on the use of the Delegate's powers, and serves to protect the region in the deployment of regional military force through the NPA.

Under no circumstances will I support any change to the Declaration of Rights.

 

[New Kervoskia]

Two point for now.

The Security Council ought to be retained as it currently funcions, as it serves as a check on the use of the Delegate's powers, and serves to protect the region in the deployment of regional military force through the NPA.

Under no circumstances will I support any change to the Declaration of Rights.

Just put it all under a Ministry of Defence.

Less is more, Grosse.

 

[Monte Ozarka]

Do we want a democracy? Yes.
Do we want a monarchy? No.
Do we want anarchy? NO.
Do we want an elected Delegate? Yes.
Do we want the Delegate to be the head of state? I'm ambivalent, but sure.
Do we want to elect cabinet positions? No.
Do we want cabinet positions to be appointed? Yes.
Do we want a Regional Assembly? Yes, or something of the sort.
Do we want a Senate or High Council? Yes, or something of the sort.
Do we want a Justice system? Sorta.
Do we want an army? Yes.
Do we want a Security Council? As the SC stands? Lol, no.
Do we want a declaration of rights? Yes.

Basically, we have a great community. Our government is just admittedly a little bland. Okay, a lot bland. We have an inactivity problem among members of the government. We have inadequate progression through the ranks for new members. This has created what many call a ruling clique. We also have a somewhat disjointed Cabinet. Adding to that, we have a lot of Cabinet positions. We have disgruntled delegates and a lack of any real central executive. Our judicial system is painfully slow, and the RA is pretty decent, but legislative actions take time and cannot make up for everything else.

I want to see a unified executive in TNP. I want to see newbies who can find something they enjoy doing and actually rise through the ranks, with hopes for higher office one day. I want to see active ministries. I want to see lay citizens coming up with new ideas and being able to implement them. I want to see a government that can change and evolve with the times. And I want to see judicial proceedings that don't take forever and half to do anything.

 

[Joshua]

I suppose I will chime in. First, I would like to thank MO for taking the time to get this conversation going.

I largely agree with most of MO's outline for governmental reform. We should set the limit for ministries at four, but we could be ok with three ministries (MoD, MoIIA, and MoFA).

I would like to see the MoIIA deal mainly with the approval of new RA members and the welcoming of new members to the forum. Obviously the MoFA will deal with relations and making alliances with other regions. I would assume that the NPA would be under the supervision of the MoD?

I agree with having Foreign and Domestic, and Military affairs/policy under the control of the cabinet. I believe the NPIA should encompass both internal and external intelligence matters. There should be clear and specific guidelines as to what the NPIA can and cannot do so that we do not have another debacle like the one involving the NPO.

I assume the cabinet under this proposal will appoint a head for the NPIA?

I disagree with you Grosse on keeping the SC as a checks and balance on the delegates or the cabinets use of their power. Under MO's proposal the Council of Lower Officers can serve this purpose. As well as an independent judiciary body. The problem with the government now is that we have all these extra groups and positions that we do not need. We need to consolidate and streamline our method of governance.

Also, the TNP wire should no longer be under the control of a minister or the government. The press needs to be free to operate without governmental meddling. It also would be nice to see multiple newsgroups, rather then just one.

The OOC section of the forum should mainly be under the supervision of the forum mods and admins.

 

[Poltsamaa]

Quoting is a pain, so I'll try to address your responses by topic (PREPARE FOR WALL O' TEXT AND TL;DR):

Cabinet Appointment
One problem I see with your proposal of having set running mates is that it will be hard to round up enough viable candidates. I mean, if someone is running as MoFI with someone, it would be hard for them to run in someone else's campaign, as well. Even if that person is the best person for the MoFI job, they are limited in how they can run and run the risk of not serving the region most effectively purely because of their running mates.

However, under my system, I think it would be more than valid to question Delegate-candidates about their potential Cabinet. Overall, I think my system offers the most flexibility in this regard. And it is only one additional referendum, at the beginning of the term. After the initial Cabinet is cemented, our systems of replacing Cabinet members are identical. I think that one extra vote in the beginning would be worth it, personally.

I agree with you about the flexibility of the candidates for cabinet positions!! You are right, under my system nations would vote for the best team rather than the best candidate for each cabinet position!! As I said, I have no problem with your proposal but have an aversion to too many referendums!!

With your second point, it would be one extra referendum provided the appointed cabinet minister was approved by the Assembly!! If not, we get another appointment and then another referendum to confrm that appointment!! I just fear it could get to a point where a nation is elected to the cabinet by process of elimination rather than a direct election as we do now which will effectively override the appointment system!! Admittedly, my scenario is a extreme!!

Cabinet Votes
I guess in order to address this, I must first talk about where Executive power is located. According to my proposal as written above, Executive power rests in the Delegate. The Cabinet officers simply have as much Executive power as the Delegate apportions to them. Under this mindset, I imagined the Delegate as the one who wields the power when interacting with other branches of the government.

For example, if the Assembly votes for a bill that the Executive doesn't agree with, it can strike it down with a veto. However, where does veto power lie? As my proposal stands, I think it would lie solely with the Delegate. The Cabinet may plead and moan as much as they wish, but it ultimately falls to how the Delegate feels. For you, this veto power rests in the Cabinet, as a whole, and must come to a Cabinet vote. Your proposal adds in an extra layer of voting but also gives the Cabinet (as a whole) a greater voice in legislative affairs. I think that both our systems are tenable, and I don't really mind which one is used.

Ok, I understand this aspect of your propsal a little better now!! Either method is fine by me, although mine would give the Cabinet ministers a little more bite!! As long as the Exceutive have a final say or sorts in the legislative process, I'm happy!!

Ministry Powers and Executive Freedom
You say that you worry about boredom among Cabinet officers. I think that that's a legitimate concern, although I hope that the degree of control they have over their ministries would help alleviate that.

Between the Ministers and the Delegate, they wholly control foreign, military, and intelligence policy for the region. They wholly control how each ministry operates, as well as the missions that they undertake. The main difference between these new ministries and our current ministries are that they are united by the higher control of the Delegate. (As it stands, no one really has to listen to the PM at all. On paper, the PM is one of the weakest positions there is in government.) These ministries already run fairly decently. The Ministers simply require a kick in the pants sometimes from the Delegate. And this is what my system allows for--an effective kick in the pants or kick out the door without lengthy, convoluted impeachment proceedings.

What this basically amounts to is that the Executive (whether the Delegate or a Minister) runs the NPA, DC, and intel agencies. Sure, their actions can be bounded by laws voted in by the Assembly, but the who, what, when, and where (and largely how) are regulated by the Executive.

Again, this clarifies things I was not sure about with your proposal!! Even in your system I envision the Delegate would seek the advice of some or all of the cabinet when making decisions if they felt the need to do so. This would again give the cabinet a bit more to do and a bit more say in the region!!

A Comment on Executive Veto
I think that the Executive, being largely an appointed body, should not have too terribly broad veto powers. Personally, I find your suggestion a little too broad in this regard. How about something like this: If a bill attains 75% approval in the Assembly, it is unvetoable and automatically becomes law. If it attains a plurality but not 75% supermajority, it can be vetoed by the Executive (see the "Cabinet Votes" section). When a bill is vetoed, it is sent back to the Assembly for reworking and revote. If it fails to pass Executive veto again (and also fails to attain 75% approval in the Assembly), it is declared dead.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I like direct legislative change without executive input!! Not necessarily a veto but the executive should have a role in legislative process!! Your scenarios for rejection and reworking of bills is fine by me!!

Council's Purpose
Let me flesh out the Council a little bit. First of all, because the Executive has such broad powers regarding force authorization and undertaking foreign and domestic initiatives (both public and covert), I figured that we need some sort of emergency stopgap. If TNP has taught us anything, it's that standard legislative procedure is painfully slow. The general legislative body cannot be expected to react in a decently timely manner. By the time the legislation and wording have been worked out, the matter may be wholly irrelevant already.

Therefore, we need some sort of small body of popularly trusted officials to place a brake on Executive action, if the circumstances require. In this way, the Council is similar to the SC, but its authority differs fundamentally from it. While the Delegate had to get SC approval for practically everything, under my proposed system, the Delegate can do practically anything without approval from anyone until the Council decides that the Executive has overstepped their bounds and puts a temporary halt to the offending activity. Of course, this is an incredible power that must not be abused. Therefore, it requires an extremely high degree of consensus from members of the Council.

But what can they do? Essentially, they can order a halt to any specific Executive action for a short period of time. Therefore, they can't tell the Executive to change policy but only to call off a specific mission or something of the sort. For example, the Council cannot tell the Executive to no longer attack invader regions, but they can order the Executive to call off or halt the attack against the region "DEN". This moratorium can last for a few days, hopefully giving the Assembly enough time to get their butts in gear and the Executive to explain themselves. The power to renew this moratorium would be even more powerful, and so, I'll just say that it can be renewed once, with unanimous approval in the Council (for when the Assembly needs a few more days to fully address it).

Since the Council is placed in this position of trust, I feel that its members should be members of the community and government who have already shown that they already have popular trust by being elected. Therefore, I gave this power to lower officers whose positions, I feel, should be elected but are not deserving of full Cabinet status and the advantages of Executive power. I have listed some agencies that I feel fit this criteria. I know that these offices may not seem to do much with the bread and butter of government, but I feel that because they are slightly separate from the military and political intrigues of regional politics, they can come at the issues with a somewhat cooler head. Being all publicly elected officers, they are all more independent than the Cabinet, and being few in number, they are more responsive than the Assembly. Furthermore, this gives a degree of limited but (potentially powerful) political strength to those who dedicate themselves to the less glamorous areas of government. After all, wasn't it Blue Wolf who said that he would have never run for MoCE if it had not had power within the Cabinet (i.e. an official vote in the Cabient)?

This is probably the part I have most concern with!! The Council is made up of the most wishy-washy of the current ministries!! And to trust these Ministers with the ability to grind the region to a halt is a little off-putting to me!!
I understand what you are trying to do here and I would hope that the Council would rarely use this power!! I'm just not sure what other options there are!! I despise the Security Council and the way it works currently!! And I realise that with a more powerful executive we need some way of flagging when something the executive does is controversial or places the region in jeopardy!!
With the executive, in theory, being made up of experienced and knowledgeable members of the region, do we have nations outside of those 5 positions that are neutral and level-headed enough to exercise this power only when necessary?! This power in the wrong hands can bring the region to its knees!! If the council requires a unanimous vote to put a stay on a government project then thats probably fine!! It will prevent a small number of nations causing massive headaches for the government!!

tl;dr

I agree with everything you have proposed but think the Council role needs to be tightened up a bit!!

 

[Poltsamaa]

What is our vision for this region?

A region where ideas are discussed civilly and where nations are not intimidated in an attempt to browbeat them to fall into line with the ruling clique!! Where new nations with energy and new ideas progress and obtain roles int he region while those that are less active or jaded step aside!!

What do we want our government to look like?

Small, with known roles and boundaries and in which all levels of government are connected!! Members of the government should be given the scope and freedom to actually do the job they are charged with without having to ask permission of the assembly or security council!! If you elect people to do a job, let them do it!!

Do we want a democracy?

Representative democracy, yes!! Direct democracy, not so much!!

Do we want a monarchy?

A monarchy would not be a bad thing!! A constitutional monarchy, even better!!

Do we want anarchy?

No, anarchists are losers!!

Do we want an elected Delegate?

I'm not fussed either way!! If you are going to elect the Delegate, let them have some meaningful role in the region's government!!

Do we want the Delegate to be the head of state?

Yes!!

Do we want to elect cabinet positions?

No!!

Do we want cabinet positions to be appointed?

Yes!!

Do we want a Regional Assembly?

Yes!!

Do we want a Senate or High Council?

Yes!!

Do we want a Justice system?

A simple tribunal system would be sufficient!! And the tribunal not be intertwined with the government!!

Do we want an army?

I can take it or leave it!! Does a feeder really need an army to defend itself?!

Do we want a Security Council?

Not in its present form, no!!

Do we want a declaration of rights?

Yes!!

 

[Monte Ozarka]

This is probably the part I have most concern with!! The Council is made up of the most wishy-washy of the current ministries!! And to trust these Ministers with the ability to grind the region to a halt is a little off-putting to me!!

Yes, I have considered that. However, being elected for anything requires a higher degree of trust for that person. It is my hope that the members of the Council would be able to wield their power responsibly. (The greatest danger in a democracy is an inattentive public. The second greatest danger in a democracy is voting haphazardly. Be careful of who you vote for, kids.) Of course, these officers are all subject to possible removal via impeachment. If they show that they cannot handle the powers given them, then they will be replaced.

Furthermore, I hope that increased powers would help nurture a greater sense of responsibility in these officers. The departments in the Council are largely former ministries that have always been the less glamorous and more ignored ones. The potential to make something great is there, but the effort to do so and the recognition for doing so have been small in comparison to the MoD, MoEA, and the like. By giving these officers more powers, it ties them to an increased sense of civic duty instead of simply being relegated to being an puffed-up forum mod.

I understand what you are trying to do here and I would hope that the Council would rarely use this power!! I'm just not sure what other options there are!! I despise the Security Council and the way it works currently!! And I realise that with a more powerful executive we need some way of flagging when something the executive does is controversial or places the region in jeopardy!!

I'm glad that you can see where I'm coming from, Polts. I can't say that I'm exactly the biggest fan of the SC either, but the Council would operate in a highly different fashion than the SC, as I have explained earlier.

With the executive, in theory, being made up of experienced and knowledgeable members of the region, do we have nations outside of those 5 positions that are neutral and level-headed enough to exercise this power only when necessary?!

I hope so. After all, the Assembly (judging by the size of the RA) will be pretty large. If we can sustain greater activity with reform, I should hope that we'll be able to snag at least a few competent fish out of The North Pacific. Plus, I hope that service requirements for officers could be implemented in all governmental departments and ministries. This way, new recruits would have a real avenue of bureaucratic advancement, allowing newbies to learn a "trade" and get the skills necessary for higher command.

This power in the wrong hands can bring the region to its knees!! If the council requires a unanimous vote to put a stay on a government project then thats probably fine!! It will prevent a small number of nations causing massive headaches for the government!!

I agree. Such power should only be wielded with at least a large supermajority.

I know that I'm jumping the gun a bit, but I'll try to write up a working document sometime soon for general public reading, reviewing, and flamingcommenting.

 

[Poltsamaa]

I'll ready the fire extinguishers for the posting of your draft document!!

 

[Westwind]

What is our vision for this region?

A region that is open and inviting to new players, having clear opportunities for participation and advancement. A region that will interest the newest of players, bringing them more fully into the NS experience. A region with a flexible governing document, that serves the region and nations and can change to adjust with changing circumstances.

What do we want our government to look like?

An Executive that has the authority needed to carry out the duties of office. A legislative body of the nations of TNP. A Judiciary separated from the government.

Do we want a democracy?

Depends on how you define it.

Do we want a monarchy?

I have no problem either way. A Monarchy has certain advantages in NS. Or any strong Executive.

Do we want anarchy?

Absolutely not.

Do we want an elected Delegate?

Yes, I prefer an elected Delegate. The ingame authority of the Delegate must be recognized and reflected in the government.

Do we want the Delegate to be the head of state?

Yes. There can be a separate Head of Government if it's desired.

Do we want to elect cabinet positions?

No.

Do we want cabinet positions to be appointed?

Yes. The elected executive can appoint the best candidates for the cabinet. A legislative body can have oversight through recall.

Do we want a Regional Assembly?

In some form or other, yes.

Do we want a Senate or High Council?

Sure.

Do we want a Justice system?

Any Judiary must be independent of government influence.

Do we want an army?

Yes. It is one of the opportunities we provide for new players, to gain their interest.

Do we want a Security Council?

No.

Do we want a declaration of rights?

Yes. And perhaps a declaration of obligations as well.

 

[Joshua]

What is our vision for this region?

Ultimately I would like TNP to be an appealing and dynamic region. A region that is open to new players, allows for advancement and has an effective system of management. TNP needs to break free from the chains of bureaucracy. Excessive bureaucracy has effectively neutered the current government.

What do we want our government to look like?

A flexible and efficient government that has been cut back in scale and has shed any excess baggage. For example, getting rid of the Ministry of Communication and making the TNP wire independent of the government. Same for the judicial system.

The constitution and legal code need to be toned to allow for greater efficiency and flexibility. The government is only as good as the document that governs it.

Do we want a democracy?

Depends on how we use the ideals of democracy.

Do we want a monarchy?

I would be okay with a constitutional monarchy.

Do we want anarchy?

Only if I can be one of the warlords of TNP. Of course not, anarchy would not be good for TNP.

Do we want an elected Delegate?

It would be preferential.

Do we want the Delegate to be the head of state?

Yes, he should be the head of the region and of the executive branch. We should scrap the PM position.

Do we want to elect cabinet positions?

No, they should be appointed by the UN Delegate.

Do we want cabinet positions to be appointed?

Yes!

Do we want a Regional Assembly?

Yes, we should keep the RA as the legislative body of the region.

Do we want a Senate or High Council?

The RA currently serves as the senate. I like the idea of a Council of Lower Officers that would have oversight on the executive branch of the government.

Do we want a Justice system?

Of course! But, it must exist independently from the governmental apparatus.

Do we want an army?

Yes, it serves several functions. It allows us to protect our region, to protect our allies and to give new players more chances for regional involvement.

Do we want a Security Council?

No!

Do we want a declaration of rights?

Of course!

 

[Monte Ozarka]

Bump for ideas. I think GBM's questionnaire would be especially helpful in figuring out what type of reform we'd like to see implemented.

What is our vision for this region?
What do we want our government to look like?
Do we want a democracy?
Do we want a monarchy?
Do we want anarchy?
Do we want an elected Delegate?
Do we want the Delegate to be the head of state?
Do we want to elect cabinet positions?
Do we want cabinet positions to be appointed?
Do we want a Regional Assembly?
Do we want a Senate or High Council?
Do we want a Justice system?
Do we want an army?
Do we want a Security Council?
Do we want a declaration of rights?

 

[Emperor Matthuis]

What is our vision for this region?

A region that attracts new nations and more experienced ones to its forums and region through its pride in itself, strong Cabinet government, openess to all through the Regional Assembly, security and stability and general friendliness where free speech is held dear.

What do we want our government to look like?

Strong Cabinet government led by a Prime Minister with a Delegate as a voting cabinet position.

Do we want a democracy?

Certainly.

Do we want a monarchy?

If implemented correctly.

Do we want anarchy?

Anarchies are fun certainly but those days are gone in NationStates feeders sadly.

Do we want an elected Delegate?

Certainly.

Do we want the Delegate to be the head of state?

Yes and a voting cabinet member.

Do we want to elect cabinet positions?

Certainly, strong cabinet government is the best in my opinion.

Do we want cabinet positions to be appointed?

Some of them should be, yes.

Do we want a Regional Assembly?

Of course.

Do we want a Senate or High Council?

I think that will either make our region too divided and elitist or we will have a Senate that is far too large to function correctly.

Do we want a Justice system?

Yes, perhaps elected directly by the Regional Assembly.

Do we want an army?

Yes.

Do we want a Security Council?

Many people criticize the Security Council for various reasons, but I assure you we act in the best interests of the region and we have acted numerous times to deal with threats to the region from endotarters and others.

Do we want a declaration of rights?

Yes.

Like Polts, I found the bit about having the Council being able to overrule the Cabinet a bit fishy and something that would seem a strange measure to put in. For example, the Director of the CommRangers (something I'm not sure why they are even on it) and the present MoAE and whoever else could derail important matters from those senior to them.

 

[Romanoffia (Guest)]

I say before we deal with changes to the constitution, we deal with the rogue delegate.

 

[Poltsamaa]

Constitutional change may solve the rogue Delegate situation now and in the future!!

 

[Apollo-Industria]

What is our vision for this region?

We are the first region new nations see. We should be an example for them. If they stay, it is because they are happy with the example we have given. If they leave, they will be prepared because of the example we have given.

What do we want our government to look like?

DELEGATE
The Delegate should be the Chief of State, and this position should not be involved in Regional Assembly affairs. The Delegate should be elected by another branch of legislature made up of all of the UN Nations of the region called the "UN Congress of Nations" (or CN). The elections should occur every three months. Should an issue come up in the Regional Assembly that deals with the Regional Message Board or UN Affairs, the Delegate is allowed to veto the resolution if it is voted to pass.

PRIME MINISTER
The Prime Minister should be the head of government, elected every three months. The Prime Minister should appoint all ministers. The Prime Minister should have the basic powers of the modern-day British Prime Minister.

MINISTERS
The only minister change I would have is Minister of Regional Affairs. The Minister of Internal Affairs should be a merged government position between the Arts & Entertainment Ministry, the Immigration and Internal Affairs Ministry, and the Communications Ministry. However, to help the Minister of Internal Affairs with these affairs should be three specialists: Immigration Specialist, Recreation Specialist, and Media Specialist.

REGIONAL ASSEMBLY

The Speaker of the Regional Assembly should be the Prime Minister. Other than that, we keep this system the same.

UN CONGRESS OF NATIONS (abbreviation: CN)

The CN should be consisted of only the UN Nations of the region, and be headed by the UN Delegate. This part of the legislative branch should only have jurisdiction over UN resolutions and proposals.

Do we want a democracy? yes
Do we want a monarchy? no
Do we want anarchy? NO
Do we want an elected Delegate? yes
Do we want the Delegate to be the head of state? yes
Do we want to elect cabinet positions? no
Do we want cabinet positions to be appointed? yes
Do we want a Regional Assembly? yes
Do we want a Senate or High Council? I would say that my proposal of CN is sufficient for this area.
Do we want a Justice system? Yes, but we only need one judge.
Do we want an army? I don't care.
Do we want a Security Council? The CN will act as this.
Do we want a declaration of rights? yes

 

[Emperor Matthuis]

I'd just like to give my thoughts on A-I's ideas.

DELEGATE
The Delegate should be the Chief of State, and this position should not be involved in Regional Assembly affairs. The Delegate should be elected by another branch of legislature made up of all of the UN Nations of the region called the "UN Congress of Nations" (or CN). The elections should occur every three months. Should an issue come up in the Regional Assembly that deals with the Regional Message Board or UN Affairs, the Delegate is allowed to veto the resolution if it is voted to pass.

UN CONGRESS OF NATIONS (abbreviation: CN)

The CN should be consisted of only the UN Nations of the region, and be headed by the UN Delegate. This part of the legislative branch should only have jurisdiction over UN resolutions and proposals.

Firstly you change its jurisdiction, not mentioning its powers over the RMB in the second bit. But honestly, we're not a big, UN region and whenever Dali put votes up (rarely) there was little activity. So effectively you're creating a huge UN Affairs ministry that has the extra function of electing the Delegate, which seems rather strange in my view. Also, could you be a member of both the CN and RA?

PRIME MINISTER
The Prime Minister should be the head of government, elected every three months. The Prime Minister should appoint all ministers. The Prime Minister should have the basic powers of the modern-day British Prime Minister.

The Speaker of the Regional Assembly should be the Prime Minister. Other than that, we keep this system the same.

You seem to be mixing the executive with the legislation way too much here, the British Prime Minister is not the Speaker of the House of Commons, an independent MP is.

MINISTERS
The only minister change I would have is Minister of Regional Affairs. The Minister of Internal Affairs should be a merged government position between the Arts & Entertainment Ministry, the Immigration and Internal Affairs Ministry, and the Communications Ministry. However, to help the Minister of Internal Affairs with these affairs should be three specialists: Immigration Specialist, Recreation Specialist, and Media Specialist.

Firstly you're merging a load of ministries together and then splitting them up again, which seems rather pointless. You have also left the Ministry of Culture & Education functioning, which would seem strange considering the size of the other ministries.

Thoughts?

 

[Romanoffia (Guest)]

It still resembles a constitutional monarchy, IMHO.

Handing the Delegate the authority to apoint the cabinet is giving the delegate a tad bit much authority. I would rather see A Prime Minister do that and give the authority of appointing a MoD from the NPA to the Delegate. Regional defense is germain to the authority of the Delegate.

Either way, the size of the government does need to be trimmed.

If we move more towards a Westminster legislative model, I would suggest an upper and lower house, upper house being limited in number of members; and the PM being elected by and from the RA.

The only other practical alternative that could be implemented (and radically simple in nature) is a Roman (don't even say it) style Senate with the Delegate given ultimate executive veto authority with a 60% over-ride by the senate on vetos. The Delegate would be given the authority to handle regional defense.

The Delegate would have the authority to appoint the various ministers as needed from the Senate with Senate confirmation and with appropriate prior Senate legislation for establishing those ministries or abolishing them as seen fit.

The Senate would be an open body to all citizens of the region based upon the current definition of citizen in the current Constitution.

Thus, in technical terms, the elected Delegate has the 'Imperium' within a very specific set of guide lines as to term limitations and term lengths.

The judiciary would remain the same as per the existing Constitution.

An appropriate "Bill of Rights" to be added onto (not amended, per se) as needed with an assurance that rights are derived from the people and not granted nor enumerated by the government - and the guarantee that the government will preserve these rights and preserve democracy and government by the people.

The civil legal system needs to be codified and simplified and naming specific penalties at the descretion of the judge and/or jury. Existing legal codes would remain in place until replace or found to be in conflict or obsolete.


It's quick, it's simple and it can be implimented in short order. And, if we need a quick, simple, small government that can act instantaneously *and* that can be quickly modified, we may have to choose this course for the time being.






R