Should the Security Council be an elected body?

Question: Should the Security Council be an elected body that the RA elects (with staggered terms and consecutive term limits) in keeping with democratic principles rather than an body that determines its own constituency in perpetuity?

I agree that the Security Council should be an elected body, rather than being chosen amongst its own members. It would give it more of a legitimate authority as well. Its clear from my readings of the "progressive parties" recent congress, that the security council has little confidence placed in it by members of the TNP. Elections would hopefully restore public trust in the institution, and get rid of the 'elitism' factor that people dislike.

I selected Other as, as a member of the Security Council, I feel I should abstain.

That said I am not sure where Romanoffia's going with this. If it is elected, does it still have the strict eligibility requirements we have today?

Neary everyone who meets the requirements who is willing to serve currently serves.

Thats a point.

I think more information about what you have in mind on the Security Council is needed before I can cast my vote.

Although, I think it is worth noting that the principle of the Security Council is to ensure the security of the region and to enforce the recall. I'm not quiet certain that applying the idea that every body of the government must be democratic is a good idea here.

I have thought about this extensively, and I have decided to change my vote to a negative. Here is why:

• The way I see it, the Security Council sort of serves as 'Head of State' of The North Pacific. It is guardian of the peace, and protector of the consitution. It does not need to be elected to carry out this role. Out of the top ten most democratic countries in the REAL world to live in, I think its 6 or 7 of these are Constitutional Monarchies, the head of state is not elected, but it does not mean it is ineffective.
• It can recommend changes to the democratically elected delegate as it sees fit. It cannot and should not, force these changes to the law/policy as they are unelected. But it can exercise its right as an advisory body.
• As guardians of the peace and protectors of the consitution, it makes much more sense for them to be unelected. This is because they can take decisions in an impartial manner. They can take decisions on matters that require it, when other political leaders cannot or are unable to. Elections would complicate matters, it would essentially give them a mandate to enforce things that are perhaps beyond the scope of their ability. The only mandate they should have, is what is explicitly written in the constitution.
• It cannot be denied that changes are needed, and that many people have lost faith in this institution. I have changed my view, and now believe Elections are not the answer to this
• I think the Security Council needs to become less politicised. I think if you are a member of the security council, you should be unable to hold other political office (attorney general, minister etc), excluding the Vice Delegate who serves as chairperson. This would ensure that the Council was above the political fray, and prevents hidden agendas being carried out by ambitious people etc. I am not sure, how, erm, 'possible' this would be, with the activity levels currently.
• The security council needs to become more open and transparent. It needs to be willing to accept new members, even if they have had disagreements with them in the past. It is essential that the security council is seen to not be 'elitist' in nature. Otherwise, how can it possibly expect to be able to enforce anything, whether that be a 'recall' or unseating an undemocratic delegate. The residents would not respect the security council, and would be less inclined to follow their lead.

This is just my personal view, and I don't expect this to be held against me at any time in the future. It probably seems like quite an extreme change of opinion, but I am 'open minded' to ideas, and support the reform process.

A problem is that uniquely in TNP (except for Forum admins) the Security council are self-governing and self-selecting. This is largely to do with trust. Even should you meet the selection criteria, you will only be admitted into the SC if your face fits... and they decide whose face fits.

So in effect there is already an election - but the electorate are the current SC.

Now the RA may decide that this is perfectly OK. But it is also legitimate to decide that this creates a star chamber that could easily come into conflict with the region as a whole .... and since the SC has the endorsements and the influence, there is no way that would end well for the Regional ASsembly.

Let me give you a worked example. Supposing the Flemingovian constitution had passed, and replaced the current one. By the will of the RA I would be God-delegate for life. Yet many of the SC were quite vocal in opposition. Do you think they would have let me take the delegacy?

No. I don't know either. And that is the risk we run with when we have a self-selecting Security Council.

When the admins goes Rogue, we can simply move forums (as we did once before). If the SC goes Rogue, there is little we can do.

I trust the RA to select the SC more than I do any body to be self-selecting. That is why I voted "aye"

role of TNP SC can be compared to united nations security council .with nations that have high influence in TNP and their WA nations resides in TNP can become members and can use their influence to secure TNP if needed .SC serves to secure TNP through coordination with Vice Delegate and Delegate .Influence is very important factor in becoming members of SC.Regional Assembly is a forever changing body of TNP nations and even their WA nations do not have to reside in TNP to be members.but SC by being almost constant is a secure and constant force for regional stability.so even if we agree to give RA the power to vote for SC members SC should be like house of lords or US supreme court judges and once elected should remain members until they have the conditions set by to be a member or removed by RA.unfortunately they are not many high influence nations who are active in the forums and members of SC and electing people who are not long time residents of TNP or lack the High influence to protect TNP in case of security threat is unwise .recent elections have shown that RA does not always elect committed members and this is the main problem of giving RA the power to elect SC members.and we don't need to fix something that is not broken and is functioning well .
just imagine if SC members just disappear or resign or lost interest and vanished like recently elected nations in the last delegate,speaker and judiciary elections.
how are you going to replace TNP nations with high influence who are willing to be active every election cycle?
unlike endorsement getting influence in TNP takes many years. i also purpose if SC membership is to be voted only TNP nations who are members of RA and their WA nations reside in TNP and their influence level is higher than vassal should elect SC members by some kind of TNP senate body.

I think the role of the SC is pretty clear. The question here is whether the RA as a whole should have a say in who sits on the SC. At the moment the SC is self-selecting. I think this is bad for democracy.

Eluvatar:

I selected Other as, as a member of the Security Council, I feel I should abstain.

That said I am not sure where Romanoffia's going with this. If it is elected, does it still have the strict eligibility requirements we have today?

Neary everyone who meets the requirements who is willing to serve currently serves.

Click to expand...

Exactly the way I wanted someone to rephrase or think about this issue!

I think that elected members should be required to have the same requirements in terms of 'influence' for them most part. I also conclude that there should be a couple of slots for nations that, other than having the influence requirements, are just there for the deliberative process.

The specific idea I have is that you have staggered terms - members are elected in such a way that only two or three members are up for election or replacement at a time.

For instance, we elect 6 or so, only two of them are up for election at a given time (say every two or three months) so that there cannot be a wholesale replacement in one fell swoop - this preserves a certain level of stability. By the same token, the Delegate should have the ability to appoint one of those elected SC members as a 'cabinet' member or personal representative for administrative purposes. Permit a maximum of two consecutive terms before an SC has to sit out for one term before running again (with the exception of the case where no qualified replacements choose to run for election or meet the requirements for influence). Also, one or two seats should be reserved for nations that don't meet the requirements just so there is a balance in the representation department.

The concept of elected officials with staggered terms just helps assure that the SC doesn't become and entrenched power elite and that a larger cross section of the citizenry has the opportunity to serve.

Also, a more simplified set of rules governing the SC needs to be arrived at as well as procedural rules simplification.


@ Pasagrad - you also bring up a concept that we need to constitutionally investigate when you mention the 'advise and consent' nature of the SC as a body (in a way, as you mention, like the House of Lords/Senate). I like this idea.

The only thing that needs to be investigate is whether or not we want what is tantamount to a hereditary system (House of Lords) or a democratically elected system (Senate) with a variable number of members as fits the influence department.

One idea of one is to go the House of Lords way, is to automatically allow anyone in the RA who meets the influence requirements to move over to the SC. Or, you simply elect people to the RA and if they don't meet the requirements they must do so withing a reasonable period of time and be excluded from emergency succession processes.

But I do like the advise and consent nature of an upper house like you detail. I think an upper house idea (without overlap with the RA and as a separate voting group on legislative issues) with a mechanical 'merit' mechanism for membership is a good idea if change were to be made.

It seems 50% of the ten who have currently taken this pole say that the Security Council should be elected. I believe that at least warrants some attention, perhaps an RA member should take this to the floor for a more formal discussion.

I move that this should go to the floor for a formal discussion. Anyone second that?

Seconded.

Romanoffia you haven't actually proposed anything. How can it get to a formal discussion stage?

Hasn't he proposed the security council becoming an elected body? A formal discussion will simply help find the way this can be best implemented.

I suppose we're not using the same language.

Historically, in formal discussion a proposal will actually exist as a Bill.

I don't know what exactly to say of Romanoffia's proposal right now as "elected body" is not remotely specific.

At heart the SC is a military body. The power of those with high influence is a resource that TNP should seek to optimize. I don't see how elections which would exclude any nation uniquely qualified to serve would be helpful to the region in times of crisis.

Felasia:

Although, I think it is worth noting that the principle of the Security Council is to ensure the security of the region and to enforce the recall. I'm not quiet certain that applying the idea that every body of the government must be democratic is a good idea here.

Click to expand...

Out of interest, the SC has been always been self selecting? Or if not, has been for a reasonable length of time?

In that time span, how many times have the SC moved against the RA's will? Or made a decision that the RA later voted against?

And in the same time span, how many elected delegates have gone off the rails?

Namyeknom has a valid point, although by nature the Delegacy and SC roles are different kettles of fish.

Great Bights Mum:

At heart the SC is a military body. The power of those with high influence is a resource that TNP should seek to optimize. I don't see how elections which would exclude any nation uniquely qualified to serve would be helpful to the region in times of crisis.

Click to expand...

The first problem is that it is NOT optimizing the power of those with high influence is a resource that TNP should seek to optimize.

The basic problem is that with a 'self regulating' SC, it can be used as a political tool to exclude qualified nations for arbitrary and/or capricious reasons. This would, in essence give a green light to an entrenched power elite that represents an entrenched power elite as an eventual inevitability.

The problem is that a self-regulating SC in essence, has more power than the Delegate precisely because it is self-regulating in nature. A literal power cabal with exclusive membership determined by an exclusive, self perpetuating elite that appoints itself, so to speak. A nice recipe for a coup, especially since the SC is a) secretive, b) elite, and c) self regulating and not accountable to anyone in a meaningful fashion or potentially so, and in reality serves one purpose - to prevent democratic sharing of power because of the power it wields. As such, it's exclusive and undemocratic nature is contrary to what we have always held to be a primary motivation in this reason - democracy, equality and representative government.

Case in point - it takes just a simple majority of RA members voting to appoint an SC chosen nation to the SC but if they exclude a qualified nation on arbitrary reasons, then it takes 2/3rds of the voting RA members to veto the SC's decision. It's an unmitigated self-perpetuation "good ol' boys' club" that in essence is more powerful than the Delegate as a whole.

Finally, Mum, how long have you known me? Have I ever under any circumstance done anything that was not to support The North Pacific and defend it against any and all invaders, rogues, etc...?

Well, in the interest of serving this region I, on the recommendation that I do so by Grossenschnauzer, applied for SC membership as I was so qualified to do so.

And what did I get for my attempt to use my nation's power status to support this region? I got declared a "Security Threat" against the region.

This arbitrary, capricious and absolutely outrageous accusation on the part of some of the SC is not only an insult to me and to the region, but absolute proof the actual danger such a elite and exclusive power cabal presents to the very security if this region.

I applied to the SC with one and only one goal and that was to serve this region and support the security of this region as I have always done without fail and out of the personal reasons of a few (and for nothing else at all), the region was denied the service of my nation's influence level. The SC as it is stands as a veritable private club interested in one thing - maintaining it's own power and to exclude anyone who actually has the interest and security of the region in mind.

I didn't make this issue personal, certain members of the SC did and for no valid or legal reason. And apparently questioning the status quo makes someone a 'security threat'. Or perhaps having an unfaltering and flawless record of service and support for this for many years is a threat to the security of the SC? I suppose my candidacy for Delegate in this upcoming election cycle will post a security threat which would mean that the SC finds democratic government by the consent of the governed and democracy itself is a security threat to the region?

I'll tell you and everyone what the biggest threat to the security of The North Pacific is and has always been: permanent power structures and the hubris that arises from self-perpetuating power elites. Every time we have managed to establish a mechanism that can be exploited by would-be thugs and rogues, and we wonder why a self-appointed power elite invites such rogues and thugs?

And this is why there needs to be a democratically elected Security Council since such an elitist power structure is so easily corrupted by the lust for exclusive control of the 'security' of this region.

And what happens if a law is up for a vote to make the SC an elected or partially elected group? I'm sure anyone who votes for it will be suddenly declared a 'security threat' and promptly told to shut up or else and be a good drone or sheep.

If the SC had an actual interest in efficiently applying the power of those with high influence as a resource that TNP should seek to optimize, then they would be more interested in having nations that have unfailingly, unflinchingly and with absolute devotion to the region becoming members instead of being a bunch of 'good old boys' who are more interested in their own status rather than the true security of TNP.

And, at heart, the SC is a power elite with the primary interest of maintaining exclusive membership at the expense of democracy, freedom and without a pure, altruistic interest in the security of this region. The SC is a power elite of the order of which the NPO or Francoists could only dream of precisely because of it's 'good old boy' cliquishness.

This possibility of an elected SC is a pivotal point in TNP history. Upon it depends whether or not TNP will be true democratic and representative region or a sham democracy with potential shadow government lurking in the wings.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The SC must become an elected body to promote the checks and balances of our Constitution, not to function as a group of 'insider' elitists who determine their own perpetual membership.

A two thirds majority of the RA can do whatever it likes to the SC.

And eventually they will, before long.

For that matter of fact, I think the RA should have a veto over the RA at 50%+1 votes instead of 2/3rds just to make things a little more democratic than they are as it is now.

And that's if there is even a RA after all those people got booted on a technicality...