Chasmanthe
TNPer
Nickname(s)?: Chas
Main Nation?: Chasmanthe
RL Country?: GBNI
Favourite Colour(s)?: Indigo
Do you use IRC?: Yes
Political Ideology? Liberal, Conservative, Anarchist, do you care?: I like all of them, but on an average day I'd say I'm a liberal and social democrat
Do you enjoy Roleplay or forum games?: I admire roleplay but I find it way too hard. I love forum games.
I have been here 10 months tomorrow but I never posted an introductory post. Hi!
I've recently joined something called the TNP Civil Liberties Union. I'm also TNP's ambassador to The Pacific, and to the Land of Kings and Emperors. This is a rewarding experience because the door is open at Francoists Anonymous... and today in LKE I came across an essay:
In the RA I have abstained 16 times, and I've learned that RA votes generally pass 4 out of every 6 times, but in the cases where I vote aye, it's 5 out of 6, which is a 25% higher probability.
Motion[c]My Vote[c]Result[c]Recall EC Eluvatar[c]Abstain[c]Voting[c]Recall EC Hileville[c]Abstain[c]Failed[c]Recall Justice Punk D[c]Abstain[c]Failed[c]Oath Reform[c]Abstain[c]Passed[c]Amend Term Limits[c]Aye[c]Passed[c]Delegate Succession Bill[c]Aye[c]Failed[c]NPA Deployment Override Vote[c]Nay[c]Failed[c]RA Membership Removal Bill[c]Aye[c]Passed[c]Second Chief Justice Bill[c]Aye[c]Passed[c]Chief Justice Bill[c]Missed[c]Passed[c]Concord Treaty[c]Nay[c]Failed[c]The OR bill[c]Aye[c]Passed[c]Repeal Legal Code 6.2[c]Abstain[c]Failed[c]RA Membership Bill[c]Abstain[c]Failed[c]Motion to Recall Security Council Member Pasargad[c]Abstain[c]Passed[c]Judicial Review Power Tweak Bill[c]Abstain[c]Passed[c]Motion to Recall AJ Gaspo[c]Abstain[c]Failed[c]Judicial Tweak v4[c]Abstain[c]Passed[c]Election Transition Clarification Bill[c]Abstain[c]Passed[c]Amendment to Legal Code[c]Aye[c]Passed[c]Amend Ch 3 Judicial Law[c]Aye[c]Failed[c]Flemingovia God Act[c]Abstain[c]Failed[c]Blue Wolf's SC Admission[c]Abstain[c]Passed[c]Bigfoot Surstroemming Act[c]Aye[c]Passed[c]Recall the Speaker[c]Aye[c]Failed[c]Recall the Delegate[c]Abstain[c]Passed[c]WA Voting Regulation Act[c]Abstain[c]Passed[c]Rule 2 SPT[c]Abstain[c]Passed[c]Sacagawea Alliance[c]Invalid[c]Passed[c]Recall of Grosseschnauzer[c]Nay[c]Failed[c]Rule 5[c]Aye[c]Passed[c]Constitutional Omnibus[c]Aye[c]Passed[c]NPA Doctrine[c]Aye[c]Passed[c]SC OoS[c]Nay[c]Passed[c]Amend Rule 3: OoS[c]Aye[c]Passed[c]Regional Anthem[c]Invalid[c]Failed
I would describe myself as troubled, lacking in any real focus or discernable personality, and kind of random, and noobish.
Main Nation?: Chasmanthe
RL Country?: GBNI
Favourite Colour(s)?: Indigo
Do you use IRC?: Yes
Political Ideology? Liberal, Conservative, Anarchist, do you care?: I like all of them, but on an average day I'd say I'm a liberal and social democrat
Do you enjoy Roleplay or forum games?: I admire roleplay but I find it way too hard. I love forum games.
I have been here 10 months tomorrow but I never posted an introductory post. Hi!
I've recently joined something called the TNP Civil Liberties Union. I'm also TNP's ambassador to The Pacific, and to the Land of Kings and Emperors. This is a rewarding experience because the door is open at Francoists Anonymous... and today in LKE I came across an essay:
--------------------
There are multiple ways to govern a region and even more ways to dictate one. Ultimately, a region's genuine leadership will
often come down to one man or woman elected, selected, or self-dictated to their post. It could be anyone: An elected
president chosen through direct democracy, a prime minister chosen by the legislature to command governance, or even the
appointed chancellor or even prince to serve as the right hand to a monarch or other non-elected founder figure. This one person will often stand alone even when there are those that stand behind them, such as a cabinet or trusted advisers to their post.
Some are experienced from long years of service, others are just simply talented in their understanding of general community building related to or separate from Nationstates, but there will always be those who stand amongst the mix who can be considered green or without a true understanding but nonetheless will have been chosen for any number of reasons to do what needs to be done. While it is nice and preferred to have a leader to stand who already has what he or she needs, this will not always be a reality and that means that there will come a boundless number of issues facing the region they govern if they themselves cannot rally the capacity they need to progress forward.
Perhaps this person has been selected because they are favored by popular opinion or are good at convincing those around them, maybe this person is all that's left that has the time or the capacity to serve their region, it may be that this very person is trying to start and lead a region of their own and need to set a basis on how they can move forward and establish effective reign once the region begins to grow. There is always a story and a reason for why people end up where they do and it often comes to pass both by choice and necessity.
There has always been a genuine sense of opposition to proper bureaucracy on NS and often for good reason in the eyes of those standing against such an idea. In a small region it -can- become a hindrance if not implemented correctly, in a larger region it might bog everything down and branch off accountability and decision-making to more areas than are appropriate. I would also like to point out that there has always been a general and misinformed view of bureaucracy circulating and the idea itself is much more simplistic and effective than is often the case when those who misunderstand the process are also the ones implementing it. Even I have fallen prey to that misinformation and ineffectual push for red tape and paperwork.
There are multiple definitions of the word and that means there are multiple ways to interpret the idea in that same stroke.
The definitions of what we know as "bureaucracy" is as follows by the standards of the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
1. A: A body of non-elective government officials
B: An administrative policy-making group
2. Government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority
3. A system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation
-----
In observing those three versions of the word "bureaucracy" we find that all aspects of regional government are often immediately associated with each and every one of those definitions in varying levels of accuracy and association. We find that regional governments are unto themselves, the first and foremost bureaucratic force of any region and that the structures of procedure, organization by hierarchy and by post, and the proliferation of officialism and what we know as red tape is present in any number of forms - from binding decree and constitutional amendment to dictation by laws. A region's government is first and foremost a bureaucracy centered around one or more key bodies that may include both elected and appointed officials who are placed into the government by proxy. This force, this organization that is so vital and important to the survival, prosperity, and development of regions is in itself bureaucracy of it's own caliber in the world of Nationstates.
Laws, decrees, and dictation are all forces present in government that must eventually be tasked out to those in their respective roles and positions to carry out. However, among all of them that stands out is a need for procedure that every administration will select and implement to carry out the will of their government. Sometimes we may see these methods change term by term through motive, official ideology, or even personal gain as can be occasionally apparent. While adaptive government can be implemented through a loose association of ideas and policies carried out by a government, it can also be easily implemented through a process of entrenchment and longevity to set the stage for future administrations in ensuring that most governments are effective governments, regardless of candidates and even their ideology. This cannot be done through direct dictation, and especially not quite so via temporary or non-binding decree.
People have always felt it necessary to take the battle of politics to implement their wishes and their stances upon the region they occupy, and that is only natural. But we can never forget that a region is in fact a community and that there are times when agreed upon entrenchment and longevity of structure and policy can create a comfortable atmosphere of governance that can often be found appropriate to multiple sides and biases despite partisan aims or personal views.
A region is one thing, and one thing only - a collection of individuals grouped into a community that occupy either a physical region or both physical region and an offsite forum with perhaps added limbs of interaction. A region's government has only one job - to set and advance a region's aims and prospects and to furthermore carry them out. Developing a region and furthermore cementing a community's place amongst the mantles of the inter-regional community. To survive is a region's first and last task, and to thrive is a region's best hope. I am not here to write about how to specifically cement an ideology, or how to win over your opponents by preventing them from gaining ground or trying their hand at governance. I am equally not interested in sorting out the often present issues of politics and how often times it can become personal and filled with conflict and division because of the investment of time, emotional weight, and effort that members place toward their community in fulfilling their intentions or carrying out their grand view of what they want. That's neither my problem nor anything that can be fixed.
I am here simply to provide one of hopefully many documents that can pave the path for effective government and an effective implementation and entrenchment of policies to foster a sense of longevity and consistency in governance that must be properly thought out and implemented before it is put in place, and that must require more than a simple election to disestablish. Elections are popularity contests and changes of governments are merely changes of leaders with different views and aspirations. I do not seek to encourage the total removal of the power of those elected to push their agenda, in fact I'd say it's quite the opposite. I simply believe that it is in the best interest of a region and it's progression that there be a greater barrier against inconsistent governments and rapid changes in governing procedures and policies. I simply seek to present the view that it is best that debates be won after the election and on the floor of a legislature to prove the genuine merits of an idea or a path after one's own political career and voting block is not the primary subject of concern. It is my view that after the elections have died down and the reign of the political spectacle has passed, it is both more genuine and better resolved to use a mix of constitutional and non-constitutional laws and acts to give some entrenchment to ideas that have merit and that equally good and well supported ideas should win the test of wills before simple ideological pandering and conviction. This is not to say that this will prevent that from happening, but rather to show that the merits of a given policy or idea should be given a chance to stand the test of time beyond an election rather than be thrown into the win at the slightest change of an administration.
I am simply trying to encourage the use of laws amongst political leaders to foster a system of merit in ideas, rather
than simply the merits of an administration. Perhaps an idea flops because an administration itself is lazy or ineffectual and yet it could in turn prosper under a new administration that perhaps has more drive and skill. To center merit on ideas and their potential rather than personal accomplishment and select accountability of officials who failed or succeeded in their duties. To provide fairness to the opposition as well as the victorious hegemony of a realm to properly determine whether an idea has truly succeeded or failed in a way that can both be implemented and challenged by the multiple sides. To allow the voice of the minority to make just as much of an impact as the voice of a majority through the discussion and diffusion of influence and ideas on any number of relevant subjects.
--------------------
What is legislative bureaucracy? - I will define this term as the centerpiece of my essay as the concept of using a legislature and it's power to debate, draft, and enact laws, constitutional amendments, and hold government figures accountable through powers granted by a region's established legal structure. The power of lawmaking to leave a lasting impact on a region to cement worth and to revoke the unworthy. This power has often been solely restricted to the process of accountability toward leaders more-so than specific policies. The point is back up the efforts of a government by providing an extra layer of functioning bureaucracy to set precedents and to construct an establishment.
This conceptualization of procedural entrenchment can serve a multilayer purpose: To prevent inevitably poor or ineffectual leaders from easily overturning the established methods of doing things, to give a greater chance of proving a method's merit or worth by providing a reasonable barrier to removal, and to guide with good policies and methods across multiple administrations from the time the law is enacted until the moment it is repealed. This also allows for a concept of modifying prior existing policy in a way in which the progression is still consistent rather than always moving toward removal and replacement. A system of adapting and evolving the methods of government in a fashion that has form, weight, and force.
This gives a legislature even more of an ability to enforce accountability by allowing for focus on a more specific as opposed to broad level and can help in allowing the representatives of their respective sides and citizens to more effectively guide their government in a proactive manner. Legislative bureaucracy stands just as much for the idea of accountability as much as it stands for consistency in seeking better governance. By allowing more specific procedures to be entrenched, you also allow more ways in which effective discussion and collaboration can exist across multiple partisan agendas to solve a region's problems regardless of who leads and who works.
From setting binding standing orders and officiating policy documents to entrenching reforms issued by executive decree and building on and protecting existing government policies - There are many ways that a region's government can make a lasting impact upon the region it governs, for the good of the region as much as for the good of their side. Legislation can be a powerful force that shapes a region and ensures a better government.
While I was rather redundant in my writings here, I feel as though I got the point across in my own way and that my case was well made. It shows considerable benefit and worth to entrench policies and actions with acts and laws that are meaningful and perhaps even beneficial rather than standing behind elections and decree - to stand for good government rather than simply a good election and to make sure that the legacy of your government has a chance to survive and hopefully shape the future generations of administrations to aspire to a standard of excellence in administration.
It is my view that it is just as much the responsibility of a leader to set and establish enforced precedents as part of their governing administration just as much as pushing effort and enacting those policies. In this way, we see governments that strive to foster a long term atmosphere of effective action and prosperity beyond their control of government, rather than only during their term.
Regardless, thank you for reading!
- Cephal Talleyrand
There are multiple ways to govern a region and even more ways to dictate one. Ultimately, a region's genuine leadership will
often come down to one man or woman elected, selected, or self-dictated to their post. It could be anyone: An elected
president chosen through direct democracy, a prime minister chosen by the legislature to command governance, or even the
appointed chancellor or even prince to serve as the right hand to a monarch or other non-elected founder figure. This one person will often stand alone even when there are those that stand behind them, such as a cabinet or trusted advisers to their post.
Some are experienced from long years of service, others are just simply talented in their understanding of general community building related to or separate from Nationstates, but there will always be those who stand amongst the mix who can be considered green or without a true understanding but nonetheless will have been chosen for any number of reasons to do what needs to be done. While it is nice and preferred to have a leader to stand who already has what he or she needs, this will not always be a reality and that means that there will come a boundless number of issues facing the region they govern if they themselves cannot rally the capacity they need to progress forward.
Perhaps this person has been selected because they are favored by popular opinion or are good at convincing those around them, maybe this person is all that's left that has the time or the capacity to serve their region, it may be that this very person is trying to start and lead a region of their own and need to set a basis on how they can move forward and establish effective reign once the region begins to grow. There is always a story and a reason for why people end up where they do and it often comes to pass both by choice and necessity.
There has always been a genuine sense of opposition to proper bureaucracy on NS and often for good reason in the eyes of those standing against such an idea. In a small region it -can- become a hindrance if not implemented correctly, in a larger region it might bog everything down and branch off accountability and decision-making to more areas than are appropriate. I would also like to point out that there has always been a general and misinformed view of bureaucracy circulating and the idea itself is much more simplistic and effective than is often the case when those who misunderstand the process are also the ones implementing it. Even I have fallen prey to that misinformation and ineffectual push for red tape and paperwork.
There are multiple definitions of the word and that means there are multiple ways to interpret the idea in that same stroke.
The definitions of what we know as "bureaucracy" is as follows by the standards of the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
1. A: A body of non-elective government officials
B: An administrative policy-making group
2. Government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority
3. A system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation
-----
In observing those three versions of the word "bureaucracy" we find that all aspects of regional government are often immediately associated with each and every one of those definitions in varying levels of accuracy and association. We find that regional governments are unto themselves, the first and foremost bureaucratic force of any region and that the structures of procedure, organization by hierarchy and by post, and the proliferation of officialism and what we know as red tape is present in any number of forms - from binding decree and constitutional amendment to dictation by laws. A region's government is first and foremost a bureaucracy centered around one or more key bodies that may include both elected and appointed officials who are placed into the government by proxy. This force, this organization that is so vital and important to the survival, prosperity, and development of regions is in itself bureaucracy of it's own caliber in the world of Nationstates.
Laws, decrees, and dictation are all forces present in government that must eventually be tasked out to those in their respective roles and positions to carry out. However, among all of them that stands out is a need for procedure that every administration will select and implement to carry out the will of their government. Sometimes we may see these methods change term by term through motive, official ideology, or even personal gain as can be occasionally apparent. While adaptive government can be implemented through a loose association of ideas and policies carried out by a government, it can also be easily implemented through a process of entrenchment and longevity to set the stage for future administrations in ensuring that most governments are effective governments, regardless of candidates and even their ideology. This cannot be done through direct dictation, and especially not quite so via temporary or non-binding decree.
People have always felt it necessary to take the battle of politics to implement their wishes and their stances upon the region they occupy, and that is only natural. But we can never forget that a region is in fact a community and that there are times when agreed upon entrenchment and longevity of structure and policy can create a comfortable atmosphere of governance that can often be found appropriate to multiple sides and biases despite partisan aims or personal views.
A region is one thing, and one thing only - a collection of individuals grouped into a community that occupy either a physical region or both physical region and an offsite forum with perhaps added limbs of interaction. A region's government has only one job - to set and advance a region's aims and prospects and to furthermore carry them out. Developing a region and furthermore cementing a community's place amongst the mantles of the inter-regional community. To survive is a region's first and last task, and to thrive is a region's best hope. I am not here to write about how to specifically cement an ideology, or how to win over your opponents by preventing them from gaining ground or trying their hand at governance. I am equally not interested in sorting out the often present issues of politics and how often times it can become personal and filled with conflict and division because of the investment of time, emotional weight, and effort that members place toward their community in fulfilling their intentions or carrying out their grand view of what they want. That's neither my problem nor anything that can be fixed.
I am here simply to provide one of hopefully many documents that can pave the path for effective government and an effective implementation and entrenchment of policies to foster a sense of longevity and consistency in governance that must be properly thought out and implemented before it is put in place, and that must require more than a simple election to disestablish. Elections are popularity contests and changes of governments are merely changes of leaders with different views and aspirations. I do not seek to encourage the total removal of the power of those elected to push their agenda, in fact I'd say it's quite the opposite. I simply believe that it is in the best interest of a region and it's progression that there be a greater barrier against inconsistent governments and rapid changes in governing procedures and policies. I simply seek to present the view that it is best that debates be won after the election and on the floor of a legislature to prove the genuine merits of an idea or a path after one's own political career and voting block is not the primary subject of concern. It is my view that after the elections have died down and the reign of the political spectacle has passed, it is both more genuine and better resolved to use a mix of constitutional and non-constitutional laws and acts to give some entrenchment to ideas that have merit and that equally good and well supported ideas should win the test of wills before simple ideological pandering and conviction. This is not to say that this will prevent that from happening, but rather to show that the merits of a given policy or idea should be given a chance to stand the test of time beyond an election rather than be thrown into the win at the slightest change of an administration.
I am simply trying to encourage the use of laws amongst political leaders to foster a system of merit in ideas, rather
than simply the merits of an administration. Perhaps an idea flops because an administration itself is lazy or ineffectual and yet it could in turn prosper under a new administration that perhaps has more drive and skill. To center merit on ideas and their potential rather than personal accomplishment and select accountability of officials who failed or succeeded in their duties. To provide fairness to the opposition as well as the victorious hegemony of a realm to properly determine whether an idea has truly succeeded or failed in a way that can both be implemented and challenged by the multiple sides. To allow the voice of the minority to make just as much of an impact as the voice of a majority through the discussion and diffusion of influence and ideas on any number of relevant subjects.
--------------------
What is legislative bureaucracy? - I will define this term as the centerpiece of my essay as the concept of using a legislature and it's power to debate, draft, and enact laws, constitutional amendments, and hold government figures accountable through powers granted by a region's established legal structure. The power of lawmaking to leave a lasting impact on a region to cement worth and to revoke the unworthy. This power has often been solely restricted to the process of accountability toward leaders more-so than specific policies. The point is back up the efforts of a government by providing an extra layer of functioning bureaucracy to set precedents and to construct an establishment.
This conceptualization of procedural entrenchment can serve a multilayer purpose: To prevent inevitably poor or ineffectual leaders from easily overturning the established methods of doing things, to give a greater chance of proving a method's merit or worth by providing a reasonable barrier to removal, and to guide with good policies and methods across multiple administrations from the time the law is enacted until the moment it is repealed. This also allows for a concept of modifying prior existing policy in a way in which the progression is still consistent rather than always moving toward removal and replacement. A system of adapting and evolving the methods of government in a fashion that has form, weight, and force.
This gives a legislature even more of an ability to enforce accountability by allowing for focus on a more specific as opposed to broad level and can help in allowing the representatives of their respective sides and citizens to more effectively guide their government in a proactive manner. Legislative bureaucracy stands just as much for the idea of accountability as much as it stands for consistency in seeking better governance. By allowing more specific procedures to be entrenched, you also allow more ways in which effective discussion and collaboration can exist across multiple partisan agendas to solve a region's problems regardless of who leads and who works.
From setting binding standing orders and officiating policy documents to entrenching reforms issued by executive decree and building on and protecting existing government policies - There are many ways that a region's government can make a lasting impact upon the region it governs, for the good of the region as much as for the good of their side. Legislation can be a powerful force that shapes a region and ensures a better government.
While I was rather redundant in my writings here, I feel as though I got the point across in my own way and that my case was well made. It shows considerable benefit and worth to entrench policies and actions with acts and laws that are meaningful and perhaps even beneficial rather than standing behind elections and decree - to stand for good government rather than simply a good election and to make sure that the legacy of your government has a chance to survive and hopefully shape the future generations of administrations to aspire to a standard of excellence in administration.
It is my view that it is just as much the responsibility of a leader to set and establish enforced precedents as part of their governing administration just as much as pushing effort and enacting those policies. In this way, we see governments that strive to foster a long term atmosphere of effective action and prosperity beyond their control of government, rather than only during their term.
Regardless, thank you for reading!
- Cephal Talleyrand
In the RA I have abstained 16 times, and I've learned that RA votes generally pass 4 out of every 6 times, but in the cases where I vote aye, it's 5 out of 6, which is a 25% higher probability.
I would describe myself as troubled, lacking in any real focus or discernable personality, and kind of random, and noobish.