A Big Thank You

[Rach]

On behalf of Balder, we would like to personally thank The North Pacific for being great allies. Both of our regions have always been there for each other no matter the circumstances and it makes us all feel good to know we always have a friend when we’re in need. Despite the fact that I have not stayed in The North Pacific except for a couple of brief stints, the amount of friendly and cool people in the region is extraordinary. In particular, I count myself as being extremely fortunate to be extremely close friends with Mcmasterdonia, Jamie and R3n. There are countless others who I consider friends and that is special to me.

Furthermore, our regions are bonded in the ideology of democracy. The grand successes of The North Pacific and her members are in large part a product of that democracy. Balder also considers its own successes to be in part related to its own democracy and we know that we will continue to prove together the benefits of democracy in NS.

Currently, Balder is undergoing a restructuring movement in which we hope our chronically underperforming legislature in particular will be transformed for the better. The changes to the region will primarily involve fully transferring government power to our Statsminister (Prime Minister) position and transforming our legislature into one of Qualified Unicameralism. This legislature called a Storting will consist of a forum side of elected members forming one branch and all the World Assembly members in the other branch. It will be a fairly unique system that we hope makes our region even greater and will allow us to be an even stronger ally.

These changes have been universally applauded within the region with only slight disagreement over details such as the requirements to run for the forum part of the legislature. Unfortunately, writing the laws for this change has been what we call in chemistry as the rate-determining step and it has been a rather slow rate-determining step. The new laws should be completed, voted on and ratified by the entire former legislature and the region as a whole after that within two weeks.

It has been important to us that everything has been done legally and that the region is the same one that went into this process. While we did experiment with a rebranding, the Realm of Balder is here to stay. The legislation to be voted on will be sure to note this continuation and that the legal government has never changed.

We thank The North Pacific for being patient, open and understanding during this process. As well, we appreciate that the leadership of The North Pacific has always being open, truthful and candid with us and is always willing to discuss things with us involving Balder first particularly during this period of change underneath Delegate Silly String and Foreign Minister Lord Ravenclaw.

So from all of us to you,

Thank you

Yours Truly,

PS: If you have any questions regarding anything, be sure to post them below or PM me and I’ll be sure to get back to you as quickly as I can.
PSS: As well, I am currently working on creating pretty custom messages for all our allies regarding this and thus if one of our allies hasn’t gotten one yet it is in the works.

 

[Cormac]

Furthermore, our regions are bonded in the ideology of democracy. The grand successes of The North Pacific and her members are in large part a product of that democracy. Balder also considers its own successes to be in part related to its own democracy and we know that we will continue to prove together the benefits of democracy in NS.

Can you describe the democratic process involved in repeal of the previous Basic Laws and establishment of this new structure?

Can you explain how reverting to an elected, representative forum legislature -- reversion to government by popularity contest, basically -- is grounded in an ideology of democracy?

Can you tell us how the Delegate will be selected and how long they will serve?

Can you tell us why The North Pacific should keep its treaty with Balder?

Thanks.

 

[Tomb]

Thank you for the update, Rach. You are right. Our regions are bonded by a dedication to democracy, and I am glad that is not going to change. I do hope that these reforms will help Balder in the long and short run.

Thank you again and best of luck to our friends in Balder.

~ Tomb

 

[Rach]

1. Can you describe the democratic process in the repealing the previous Basic Laws and establishment of this new structure?

No laws have been repealed as of yet, but the legislature was suspended due to the vast anger against it for its multiple failings. Thus, a Royal Order was given to suspend the legislature, which was given support by the people in order to establish a new legislature and system. It should be noted that these failings were not minor. They involved the shirking of essential duties such as approving cabinet members, failing to vote on Statsminister initiatives, being inactive and writing laws that simply were riddled with mistakes. These vastly hindered the ability of the region to function smoothly and it’s been known for quite some time that the open assembly legislature was simply not working.

Thus, a group of volunteers is currently working on a group of laws that will be discussed and voted upon by the entire region. Making such vast changes are difficult but Balder is lucky to have nearly unanimous support within it for them which requires us to do it legally while keeping the same government and it is the only way it could be accomplished. We have worried a bit that with so much democracy, which goes further than any other region that there might be some pushback from foreign forum elites but luckily it has all been positive. I think that speaks to the coolness of the changes.

2. How is transforming the legislature from a small body of less than 20 to a legislature of over 200 members rooted in democracy?

Well, a larger legislature that will now better represent the entire region as a whole in my opinion is rooted in democracy. In particular, an entire section of the region that was essentially disenfranchised legally will now be able to vote and be part of the legislative process. Balder will be moving from a model of democracy where only forum citizen holders could vote to one where that voting process is extended further into the region. Essentially it is similar to how originally only landowners could vote and take part in governance in real life countries before this right was extended to all members.

Of course, this was not your original question as you focused on one aspect of the legislature, which was the forum side. However you called it the legislature, which is incorrect. It is simply one half of the legislature. I wanted to correct that aspect of it, which is why I referred to the legislature as a whole. Secondly, I would like to first take the pleasure in disproving a second aspect of your query. You state that elected government is reversion to popularity contest, which inherently means that you do not believe an open body is a popularity contest.

Firstly, this would mean that you believe that the TNP practice of elected its delegate and individual ministers, which I believe follows the Swiss model of governance, is less democratic and more of a popularity contest. Thus, if you believe this then that means you also disprove of electing officials but I am unsure of what alternative you approve of that is more democratic. Unless of course you believe in the idea of “lesser evils”

But on to the meat of the matter, are open assemblies not a popularity contest at least compared to elected legislatures? Two examples come to mind, ancient Athens and city-state Florence that sought to emulate the Greek city-state. It is not hidden knowledge that Athens was prone to mob mentality and popularity contests. The case of Socrates prove this vividly. In particular, it is well known that the execution of Socrates was based nearly entirely on the fact that he was unpopular. This is due to the fact that he would insult and demean the poets and other elites in Athens. These groups were what composed of the accusers to Socrates. Now, one could argue that the execution of Socrates was based upon the fact that he appeared to not be devout to the Gods (although he was). But then killing him is nonsensical because previous atheists and later atheists in Athens were exiled. Thus, I can say with certainty that the execution of Socrates was based upon his ill manners and the way in which he was disliked by many of the elites of Athens.

It is also well known that many of the political decisions by Athens were based upon popularity. There is the case of the decision to execute admirals without trial who had failed to bury the dead after a devastating storm on their way back to Athens. Athenian law stated that they had to have a trial, yet such was the anger that they wished to execute them without one.

Now on to the case of Florence, which sought to emulate the Greek city-states but had a lot system of choosing officials. It is well known that such a system was also based on popularity, particularly when it came to supporting or disproving of the Medici family. In fact, many people would support the Medici with the mindset that their loyalty would be rewarded later. The people who opposed the family often did it for much the same reasons. If you think that this sounds similar to a popularity contest, it was.

Thus it can be said with certainty that if elected democracy is a popularity contest then an open assembly is also a popularity contest. This makes sense since all the aspects that would lead to this in elected officials would be there for an open assembly but instead of popularity when it comes to elections it would be for making decisions. If you believe that human tendency when it comes to elections are related to popularity, then it does not make sense to believe that this tendency wouldn’t also exist in a legislative assembly.

If you do believe that both are popularity contests, wouldn’t you rather have that popularity contest being involved in the election rather than the decisions? Of course, this has not answered your question which I will reframe properly as whether or not having an elected section of the legislature is grounded in democracy in comparison to having an open assembly. It is an awkward question since the legislature is half an open legislature and more open than the previous legislature. There is no denying that it is far more democratic as a whole than the prior system of only having a legislature for less than half of the region.

Note that this is based on a hypothetical that does not truly exist. I believe that an elected assembly is as grounded in democracy as an elected one, particularly when the people prefer an elected model. After all, isn’t democracy about the peoples rule and what they wish? Each system has its advantages and disadvantages and I believe that both systems are both democratic.

In conclusion to this question, it is difficult for me to respond to a question when the question is based upon something that doesn’t exist and when the answer is as obvious as is stated in my repeat of it. A legislature of over 200 that includes far more people is more democratic than one of less than 20, which excludes over half the region. I would be happy to answer why an elected section in the Storting is superior to an assembly for the forum but this was not the question. These deal more with those advantages and disadvantages I spoke of earlier. As well, I didn’t get into the increased powers and responsibilities the legislature would have as a whole.

3. How will the delegacy be chosen?

Currently, this has not been finalized but it will likely be that the delegacy will become a largely ceremonial position in which the heir is approved or even elected by the region. This would come in exchange with the transference of the remaining major and perhaps minor delegacy executive powers to the Statsminister position. It has been my firm belief that the awkward balance between the SM and the Monarchy leads to confusion and hinders the SM position.

It would look quite bad for me to “re-gather” the powers the delegacy had and re-absorb the SM powers. In fact, I believe it would be impossible without illegal action for me or another delegate unless they were very very popular to obtain more power. Thus, if going back to an all powerful delegate is impossible and if the current system is frayed then it makes the most sense to go in the other direction in order to obtain the best result for the region.

There are numerous advantages to this and I believe the disadvantages can be vastly eliminated through the use of policies and promotion. Thus, this will mean that the democratic system has more power overall and be far more robust and full. It is no wonder that Norway, the country we are basing this on is ranked as the number 1 democracy in the world.
4. Why should TNP and Balder continue to be allies?

This makes it sounds like it’s even a question. Balder has always been there for TNP, in delegacy transfers and emergencies in TNP Balder has always provided military support. Particularly during the crisis in which Mcmasterdonia was unjustly removed from the WA briefly, Balder supported TNP militarily. Furthermore, we have worked together on the field and in the World Assembly. I have stayed up late to help Delegates r3n and Mcm in particular vote on proposals.

In this way Balder has always sought to help support TNP interests abroad when we can. This is because we view our interests as overlapping and thus supporting TNP simply makes sense. The only way we could see this alliance ending is if TNP were to either change vastly from the TNP of Jamie, Mcmasterdonia and R3n or if the leadership had personal issues with Balder and some of its members.

But we view this as extremely unlikely. We don’t believe in equating personal feelings into foreign policy as evidenced by our alliances with both TSP and Europeia. These alliances have continued strongly even with the personal disagreements between members of government at various times. Plus we like Asta and Ravenclaw anyway. We view alliances and regions as larger than any individual.

Finally, Balder is constantly becoming stronger particularly in the World Assembly, which we hope to transfer to the army. This will help us to be an ever better ally and partner with The North Pacific. As an aside, Balder surpassed 200 endorsements for the first time yesterday and is currently sitting at 201. We hope to continue this sort of growth.

Thanks

No problem

Thank you for the update, Rach. You are right. Our regions are bonded by a dedication to democracy, and I am glad that is not going to change. I do hope that these reforms will help Balder in the long and short run.

Thank you again and best of luck to our friends in Balder.

~ Tomb

Aww, thank you so much <3 I hope so too

*hugs*

 

[Cormac]

So, to summarize:

1. The legislature was suspended by you, unilaterally, without any democratic institution mandating its suspension and with no democratic oversight. It was suspended because you say it was underperforming, nevermind that it was created because the previous elected legislature, which the region has now reverted to (more on that in a minute), was also underperforming. Regardless, you, alone, decided to suspend the legislature, and somehow you're calling that democratic. How Orwellian of you.

2. Let's be realistic, here: The vast majority of WA nations aren't going to be anymore legislatively involved than they were before, because all they had to do to be legislatively involved before was register on the forum and apply for citizenship, but they couldn't be bothered to do that. Most legislation will come from the forum component of the legislature and a handful of the more active WA nations will rubber stamp it. Balder has reverted to its elected, representative legislature, with an added component of creating a rubber stamp institution comprised of apathetic WA nations that can't be bothered to register on a forum. This added component is only to create the illusion of expanding democracy to provide you with more cover for your blatant authoritarianism and consolidation of power in your own hands.

In regard to your other point, there is a difference between electing an executive and electing a legislature. Yes, The North Pacific has an elected executive as does almost every other active region in NationStates, because it doesn't make any kind of sense for an entire region to run the executive by committee. But the elected executive is accountable to the Regional Assembly, which is comprised of all citizens. In Balder, executive officials -- yourself included -- will now be accountable only to the very small handful of people elected to the new legislature. Real life examples are irrelevant; real life countries have millions of people, by your own admission you have about 20 people active on Balder's forum and in its legislature. There is no reason to disenfranchise, for example, fourteen people, and have six represent them, except that you want to. Why? Because you can get your loyalists elected to the forum-side legislature and they'll do whatever you want, without any pesky resistance you might encounter (and have encountered) in an assembly.

3. So, the TL;DR version is that you're going to remain Delegate until you're good and ready to leave office, and then you will either appoint your successor or maybe your successor will be elected. I'm betting on the former, personally. Again, this is not democratic.

4. I don't think The North Pacific should remain in an alliance with Balder after the authoritarian steps you've taken and after Balder's petty quasi-support of the NPO during its occupation of Lazarus. None of TNP's allies have been more expendable and less beneficial to TNP's interests than Balder.

 

[Rach]

1. The legislature was suspended by you, unilaterally, without any democratic institution mandating its suspension and with no democratic oversight. It was suspended because you say it was underperforming, nevermind that it was created because the previous elected legislature, which the region has now reverted to (more on that in a minute), was also underperforming. Regardless, you, alone, decided to suspend the legislature, and somehow you're calling that democratic. How Orwellian of you.

This is incorrect on several levels. Firstly, there had been people calling for changes in the legislature for quite some time. For example, when the decision had been made to reset the cabinet many people felt the issue was with the legislature rather than the cabinet itself and they expressed the opinion that the legislature should be the one that should be reformed. Secondly, it is not simply because I said it was under-performing as what I did was in response to a series of very loud of complaints particularly from the Statsminister who complained about how he was unable to work due to the lack of response from the legislature.

2. Let's be realistic, here: The vast majority of WA nations aren't going to be anymore legislatively involved than they were before, because all they had to do to be legislatively involved before was register on the forum and apply for citizenship, but they couldn't be bothered to do that. Most legislation will come from the forum component of the legislature and a handful of the more active WA nations will rubber stamp it. Balder has reverted to its elected, representative legislature, with an added component of creating a rubber stamp institution comprised of apathetic WA nations that can't be bothered to register on a forum.

This boils down to your dismissal of the WA nations in the regions as "apathetic" and that are easily swayed and rubber stamping. Firstly, that is quite dismissive and insulting towards the World Assembly nations of any region. They aren't some backwards or ignorant people. These are the last few vote results:

How should I vote on "Right to Bear Arms"?" - 11-25-0 (Aye-Nay-Abstain) (36)
How should I vote on Responsible Arms Trading? - 18-18-3 (39)
How should I vote on "Non-interference in Elections"? - 24-7-7 (38)
How should I vote on: Repeal The Prisoners of War Accord? - 7-30-4 (41)

Despite your claims that the World Assembly population would be a rubber stamping organization, this claim does not quite hold up to reality. As you can see, votes on GA affairs have been quite robust and filled with mixed expressed opinions. There is no reason to believe it'd be a rubber stamp section and to state that is in direct violation of the current trends. Furthermore, there is also no reason to believe that it wouldn't be a house of written legislation and that it wouldn't utilize the other powers that it will have.

This added component is only to create the illusion of expanding democracy to provide you with more cover for your blatant authoritarianism and consolidation of power in your own hands

This is obviously nonsensical when faced with the facts I stated above. Furthermore, I strictly make each question unquestionably neutral. Thus we can utterly dismiss this notion of "illusion of expanding democracy" and transform it into simply expanding democracy. Of course, it is ridiculous to state that expanding democracy will provide me with more cover for a blatant authoritarian and consolidation of power.

Which brings me to the second of the dismantlement of this statement, although I will note that this is obviously an unnecessary dismantlement as it already has been utterly disproven to its core. The notion that this is expanding my power and authority are patently false. As I stated previously, more powers that the delegate has will be transferred from the delegacy to other positions in the region. Thus, the delegate will be the least powerful in all the GCRs if it isn't already so. Subtraction =/= addition.

In Balder, executive officials -- yourself included -- will now be accountable only to the very small handful of people elected to the new legislature.

This is based upon an assumption proven earlier to be incorrect which is that the WAs are NOT ignorant rubberstampers. Thus, it should read that in Balder executive officials will now be directly accountable to a larger group of people. This is in addition to already being accountable to all, albeit not directly.

Real life examples are irrelevant; real life countries have millions of people, by your own admission you have about 20 people active on Balder's forum and in its legislature.

This is incorrect as a quick Google search could tell you that my examples were not millions of people. Wikipedia states that 4th Century BC Ancient Athens had approx:

Total Population: 250,000–300,000
Citizen Families: 100,000
Adult Males Entitled to Vote: 30,000

Florence in the Mediaeval Era was far smaller, Wikipedia estimates: "Between 1500 and 1650 the population was around 70,000.". The size of their legislature would have been far smaller.

Now of course, these examples are still much larger than NS regions. However they are far far far smaller than millions as you suggest. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that these numbers aren't scalable particularly when there are other similarities. Thus, it is disingenuous to describe these examples as having millions of people but I believe that you do so out of not knowing and assuming rather than out of a sense to blatantly manipulate the record. Thus, I am setting the record straight on my examples.

--------------------------------------------------------
I will be away for a few hours due to RL and I didn't want to accidently lose this, so I will be responding to the rest of your concerns soon.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Hi Rach! Thanks for this lovely note. I am similarly impressed by the bold decisions being made in your region. I eagerly await the emergence of a stable system based on the changes the region is seeking to make. Best of luck!

 

[St George]

I like Balder. It's cool and doesn't really give a shit what the smaller people think of it.

Kudos to Balder.

 

[Cormac]

This is incorrect on several levels. Firstly, there had been people calling for changes in the legislature for quite some time. For example, when the decision had been made to reset the cabinet many people felt the issue was with the legislature rather than the cabinet itself and they expressed the opinion that the legislature should be the one that should be reformed. Secondly, it is not simply because I said it was under-performing as what I did was in response to a series of very loud of complaints particularly from the Statsminister who complained about how he was unable to work due to the lack of response from the legislature.

Who were these people? Did they constitute a majority of the Riksdag? If the idea was so universally popular and you weren't worried about resistance to it, why didn't you propose it to the Riksdag instead of taking unilateral action by royal decree? Why do you think an elected forum legislature is going to perform any better than an assembly, given that both will draw from the same relatively inactive community?

This boils down to your dismissal of the WA nations in the regions as "apathetic" and that are easily swayed and rubber stamping. Firstly, that is quite dismissive and insulting towards the World Assembly nations of any region. They aren't some backwards or ignorant people. These are the last few vote results:

How should I vote on "Right to Bear Arms"?" - 11-25-0 (Aye-Nay-Abstain) (36)
How should I vote on Responsible Arms Trading? - 18-18-3 (39)
How should I vote on "Non-interference in Elections"? - 24-7-7 (38)
How should I vote on: Repeal The Prisoners of War Accord? - 7-30-4 (41)

Despite your claims that the World Assembly population would be a rubber stamping organization, this claim does not quite hold up to reality. As you can see, votes on GA affairs have been quite robust and filled with mixed expressed opinions. There is no reason to believe it'd be a rubber stamp section and to state that is in direct violation of the current trends. Furthermore, there is also no reason to believe that it wouldn't be a house of written legislation and that it wouldn't utilize the other powers that it will have.

You shouldn't equate someone thinking that people are apathetic about gameplay with them thinking people are ignorant and backward. Most people have good reason to be apathetic about gameplay: It sucks, and they don't want to be part of it. That isn't an indication of either stupidity or ignorance, if anything it's an indication that non-gameplayers are smarter than us gameplayers.

I'm not surprised that people who have made the conscious choice to enroll their nations in the World Assembly are voting on World Assembly matters, though I will point out that 41 is a far cry from the 200 number you were throwing around earlier. What will surprise me is if you see anywhere near this level of participation regarding gameplay legislative matters. These people consciously chose to enroll their nations in the WA while also consciously choosing not to involve themselves in the forum gameplay community. I don't think they're going to care anymore about gameplay now than they did when they chose not to register on the forum.

This is obviously nonsensical when faced with the facts I stated above. Furthermore, I strictly make each question unquestionably neutral. Thus we can utterly dismiss this notion of "illusion of expanding democracy" and transform it into simply expanding democracy. Of course, it is ridiculous to state that expanding democracy will provide me with more cover for a blatant authoritarian and consolidation of power.

Which brings me to the second of the dismantlement of this statement, although I will note that this is obviously an unnecessary dismantlement as it already has been utterly disproven to its core. The notion that this is expanding my power and authority are patently false. As I stated previously, more powers that the delegate has will be transferred from the delegacy to other positions in the region. Thus, the delegate will be the least powerful in all the GCRs if it isn't already so. Subtraction =/= addition.

But you aren't expanding democracy. Expanding democracy would be retaining the forum assembly legislature and adding an in-game component to it, not reverting to an elected forum legislature and adding an in-game component to it. What you're doing is disenfranchising most non-WA residents of Balder, and enfranchising WA residents who don't even care about being enfranchised or they could have just registered on the forum and joined the Riksdag. In practice, the bulk of legislative power will be wielded by the elected forum legislature, which will no doubt be comprised of your political loyalists just as the Statsminister and his Riksraadet -- with the exception of one Minister -- are your loyalists.

Regarding your supposed abdication of power to the Statsminister, again, this is not surprising. How long has your adoring sycophant, The Iron Rebel, been serving as Statsminister now, waiting for directions from you on how to govern? You're preparing to set yourself up as Delegate-for-life and in exchange for that you're abdicating most of the Delegate's powers to an office that you also control. It's like when Vladimir Putin supposedly stepped back from power in Russia and allowed Dmitry Medvedev to serve as President, while Putin served as Prime Minister. There was never any doubt who held the actual power, regardless of which office he was holding, and there should be no doubt here either. You hold all power in Balder and you have for quite some time. It is a (mostly) benevolent dictatorship masquerading as a democratic, constitutional monarchy, and what you are doing here is removing the last few checks and balances, the last few obstacles to implementing full dictatorship. Let's not pretend this is democratic reform.

Incidentally, how will the Statsminister be elected under this new system?

This is based upon an assumption proven earlier to be incorrect which is that the WAs are NOT ignorant rubberstampers. Thus, it should read that in Balder executive officials will now be directly accountable to a larger group of people. This is in addition to already being accountable to all, albeit not directly.

The thing is, Rach, most WA nations that don't get involved on regional forums have no idea what's going on in gameplay because they don't want to know. They don't want to participate in gameplay. You're not going to be actually accountable to them when they neither know nor care to know what's going on, which is why I say they're going to be a rubber stamp. If they wanted to know what was going on and be actively involved in it, they would already have registered on the forum and joined the Riksdag. Enfranchising them isn't suddenly going to erase their apathy.

Real life examples are irrelevant; real life countries have millions of people, by your own admission you have about 20 people active on Balder's forum and in its legislature.

This is incorrect as a quick Google search could tell you that my examples were not millions of people. Wikipedia states that 4th Century BC Ancient Athens had approx:

Total Population: 250,000–300,000
Citizen Families: 100,000
Adult Males Entitled to Vote: 30,000

Florence in the Mediaeval Era was far smaller, Wikipedia estimates: "Between 1500 and 1650 the population was around 70,000.". The size of their legislature would have been far smaller.

Now of course, these examples are still much larger than NS regions. However they are far far far smaller than millions as you suggest. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that these numbers aren't scalable particularly when there are other similarities. Thus, it is disingenuous to describe these examples as having millions of people but I believe that you do so out of not knowing and assuming rather than out of a sense to blatantly manipulate the record. Thus, I am setting the record straight on my examples.

Okay, let's not get nitpicky. My point is it isn't practical to have directly democratic legislatures in most, if not all, real life countries, but it is very practical in NationStates. Your choice not to do it is a choice to have a less democratic government than you could have, and that needs to be very clear as you're trumpeting these "democratic" reforms to Balder's embassies. You have deliberately chosen to have a less democratic government than is available to you and practical to achieve.

In a Feeder or Sinker, there is one and only one office that has true power: the WA Delegate. All of these reforms are smoke and mirrors to obscure one very basic fact, that you are ensuring you will retain the only office with true power in Balder for as long as you want to hold it. These reforms to Balder's government mean nothing when, as Delegate, you are unaccountable and can just upend everything because you don't like how it's functioning, which is what you've done here. Balder's "democracy" is a complete sham.

 

[Rach]

Who were these people? Did they constitute a majority of the Riksdag?

I believe so. The debate has been over what kind of changes, not over change itself.[/quote]

If the idea was so universally popular and you weren't worried about resistance to it, why didn't you propose it to the Riksdag instead of taking unilateral action by royal decree?

It wasn't unilateral and as I already stated, I felt this would help spur and galvanize things along.

Why do you think an elected forum legislature is going to perform any better than an assembly, given that both will draw from the same relatively inactive community?

I disagree that the community is inactive relatively. However, in the Politics by Aristotle he states how a person will care more about a tool he owns than a tool he does not own but shares. It is not a particularly novel concept but one that I believe holds water.

I'm not surprised that people who have made the conscious choice to enroll their nations in the World Assembly are voting on World Assembly matters, though I will point out that 41 is a far cry from the 200 number you were throwing around earlier. What will surprise me is if you see anywhere near this level of participation regarding gameplay legislative matters. These people consciously chose to enroll their nations in the WA while also consciously choosing not to involve themselves in the forum gameplay community. I don't think they're going to care anymore about gameplay now than they did when they chose not to register on the forum.

Well it is over 200 WA members who will have the opportunity to vote. Also lets not forget that this criticism of WA members voting can easily be applied to any forum assembly. Both are filled with apathetic members.

But you aren't expanding democracy. Expanding democracy would be retaining the forum assembly legislature and adding an in-game component to it, not reverting to an elected forum legislature and adding an in-game component to it.

I must admit, your confidence in knowing exactly what is more and less democratic is quite impressive. Personally, I can't feel even remotely that confident for more well built arguments and ideas. Obviously I disagree with this, it has been easily shown how a group of World Assembly nations can be more democratic as they represent a greater portion of the region. 260 or so World Assembly members will be represented and thus a greater share of the region as a whole.

What you're doing is disenfranchising most non-WA residents of Balder

This point is quite nonsensical. The 3000+ non-WA residents already can't vote in Balder and I doubt they can vote in TNP. Obviously there are security concerns when it comes to voting for non-WA members as people can simply create nations and vote. Furthermore, this point also rests on the assumption that non-WA residents couldn't just join the WA.

Ironically, you have stated that non-forum WAs could simply join the forums. Well, I am making a counter point, non-WAs could simply join the WA (or the army) if they wished to participate. In effect any member of Balder could be a member of the legislature forum or otherwise. Thus, I think we can agree that your point holds no water as your argument can simply be swapped and put to work for a WA model that is more inclusive than an elitist forum model.

In practice, the bulk of legislative power will be wielded by the elected forum legislature, which will no doubt be comprised of your political loyalists just as the Statsminister and his Riksraadet. -- with the exception of one Minister -- are your loyalists.

Why? Because you can get your loyalists elected to the forum-side legislature and they'll do whatever you want, without any pesky resistance you might encounter (and have encountered) in an assembly

This is making a multitude of assumptions, which demonstrates why this argument is untenable:

1. That the forum legislature would wield the bulk of the power
2. That I have the ability to make loyalists
3. That I would want to make loyalists
4. That I would have the time to make loyalists
5. That I would use the time I have to make loyalists

All of these assumptions are incorrect, and if even if only one of them was incorrect your argument collapses. Firstly, the forum legislature will not wield the bulk of the power. Secondly, I do not have the ability to make loyalists. Thirdly, I don't want to make loyalists. Fourthly, I clearly don't have the time if I could and I wouldn't want to spend all my time doing that anyway (5).

Come on Cormac, I have been dropping enough hints in all of this that demonstrate what I clearly can and can't do with the time I have to spend. When I talk about dropping my powers... and responsibilities.... Doesn't this suggest that I don't have the time to run things directly even if I wanted to? I mean the army is under my direct control and you've seen how that is gone in comparison to my work in Europeia. Furthermore, creating loyalists would take a lot of work too... doesn't it make more sense to simply have the system run and be self-sufficient? It would take far more work than simply telling people what to do, so it utterly ridiculous to suggest I have that sort of time on my hands.

I know you're smarter than this. Now you can disagree with whether this system is better for Balder or not, but you really can't argue that I'd want to run a time intensive system.

How long has your adoring sycophant, The Iron Rebel, been serving as Statsminister now, waiting for directions from you on how to govern?

Considering that he gives me crap when I spend more time in Europeia and that he constantly disagrees with me, he would be a pretty shitty adoring sycophant if he was one which he obviously isn't. Besides yourself apparently, he is my toughest critic. Thus, I would kindly like to ask that you not call him that.

You're preparing to set yourself up as Delegate-for-life and in exchange for that you're abdicating most of the Delegate's powers to an office that you also control.

Well, this rests on the assumption that I control the SM position which I clearly already don't. Secondly, this also rests upon the assumption that I would want to do this, that I could do this and that I have the time to do it. Which I clearly don't even have time to do so amongst other things that I already addressed. Obviously me running government directly is unsustainable. So wouldn't a system like that which requires more time also be even more unsustainable?

It's like when Vladimir Putin supposedly stepped back from power in Russia and allowed Dmitry Medvedev to serve as President, while Putin served as Prime Minister. There was never any doubt who held the actual power, regardless of which office he was holding, and there should be no doubt here either. You hold all power in Balder and you have for quite some time. It is a (mostly) benevolent dictatorship masquerading as a democratic, constitutional monarchy, and what you are doing here is removing the last few checks and balances, the last few obstacles to implementing full dictatorship. Let's not pretend this is democratic reform.

I thought RL countries were not comparable to NS regions?!

But in any case, this has already been disproven earlier. If I wanted to just establish a full dictatorship I could just do so. I don't have the time to even do that let alone run a Putin scheme. That is also assuming I'd want that.

Incidentally, how will the Statsminister be elected under this new system?

I kinda want for the SM to be elected by the entire legislature, to better suit the idea of the Norwegian system which incidentally is ranked as the #1 democracy in the world. As well, I hope people region side will run and then join our forums > : ). But this might not be how they are elected in the final draft and it might be more of a full election to citizens.

The thing is, Rach, most WA nations that don't get involved on regional forums have no idea what's going on in gameplay because they don't want to know. They don't want to participate in gameplay. You're not going to be actually accountable to them when they neither know nor care to know what's going on, which is why I say they're going to be a rubber stamp. If they wanted to know what was going on and be actively involved in it, they would already have registered on the forum and joined the Riksdag. Enfranchising them isn't suddenly going to erase their apathy.

There is a saying that if you build it, they will come. I truly believe that you are underestimating the WA population. Many do want to participate but simply don't have either the time or the patience to do it via the forums. Illand and Vhearan are great examples. Both joined the forum, but Illand in particular found it difficult and prefers the region side. This doesn't mean that he doesn't want to get involved, it's just that he doesn't want to get involved on the forums. Many of them simply are overwhelmed but truly do want to help. It is not about denying people access but rather giving people more than one way to participate.

One net will catch a lot of fish, but two nets will catch even more. Not only does this benefit Balder but it will also benefit the individuals involved. It will allow everyone to draw upon more than before

Okay, let's not get nitpicky.

But one more point! Athens and Florence weren't and never were countries either!

My point is it isn't practical to have directly democratic legislatures in most, if not all, real life countries, but it is very practical in NationStates.

My examples had little to do with population size. It is my belief that the issues in Florence and Athens at those periods are a risk for any assembly.

Your choice not to do it is a choice to have a less democratic government than you could have, and that needs to be very clear as you're trumpeting these "democratic" reforms to Balder's embassies. You have deliberately chosen to have a less democratic government than is available to you and practical to achieve.

Once again I feel a democracy that better represents 4,000 nations than simply 40 is more democratic. There is no getting around that fact. Particularly after I have consistently disproven the assumptions you have been making in denying this. It should be noted that you have not denied this fact, but rather have made some questioning assumptions regarding this whole system.

In a Feeder or Sinker, there is one and only one office that has true power: the WA Delegate. All of these reforms are smoke and mirrors to obscure one very basic fact, that you are ensuring you will retain the only office with true power in Balder for as long as you want to hold it.

You referenced Putin earlier. Let me tell you something, I have take and studied Russian history. It is the idea of an all power autocracy that has led it to become what it is. There are only very brief times in Russian history after Ivan IV in which Russia has not had autocracy. I would argue that this is early 1917 and around the time of Yeltsin. The idea of one true power is a dangerous one that has consistently damaged Russia and many other powers greatly. I don't want an autocracy, whether in the form of the Tsardom underneath someone like Alexander III or the Soviets or the Putin type system that Russia is currently under.

These reforms to Balder's government mean nothing when, as Delegate, you are unaccountable and can just upend everything because you don't like how it's functioning, which is what you've done here. Balder's "democracy" is a complete sham.

Should the reforms be finished I will no longer have the power to upend everything anymore as Royal Decree will either disappear or be far more limited if I have it my way. Secondly, I am always accountable. I always apologize for my mistakes and always respond to criticisms. Thirdly, this is ignoring the fact that there will very likely be greater accountability on the delegate. Which ironically, this whole idea is in direct contradiction to what you are stating before.

I believe I have done enough in arguing against these bizarre notions and I appeal to your mind rather than your heart.

I like Balder. It's cool and doesn't really give a shit what the smaller people think of it.

Kudos to Balder.

I can assure you that we do care, I am a smaller person and not that tall

But I hope you still still like us and think we're cool

Hi Rach! Thanks for this lovely note. I am similarly impressed by the bold decisions being made in your region. I eagerly await the emergence of a stable system based on the changes the region is seeking to make. Best of luck!

Thank you so much DD, it means a lot to me

 

[Deleted User (Guest)]

Thank you Rach, for this illuminating viewpoint into the changes in Balder, and on behalf of the Executive Council, I'd like to express my gratitude for adding some more pieces to the puzzle.

While as a rule, I don't care to see yet more arguments, I do think that the disagreement between Cormac and yourself has given a positive result of giving more information on how these reforms will work, so thank you both for that.

The Executive Council has expressed a concern that in the course of these changes, the legal documents which govern our treaty were, last I checked (at their request), invisible on the regional forum. I queried a colleague from another allied region and they found the same. Can I ask when these documents will be returned to public viewing?

Article 1 of our treaty states: "The parties will recognize the constitutional governments [...]"; in The North Pacific, we have our Constitution, and in Balder, from our discussion about a fortnight ago, you mentioned the Act of Government which empowers the state. It is, by my own knowledge of precedence, that specific act which governs the validity of the Treaty between our states.

Following precedence set in September 2013, if that Act no longer exists, or has been abolished without a successor act legally in place then it would render the Treaty no longer binding on either signatory and would require us to act as we did in September 2013 with Osiris, and begin the process to repeal the treaty between us. Options are generally limited and it would be at the discretion of the Regional Assembly on how they wish to proceed.

Yours,

 

[Cormac]

I must admit, your confidence in knowing exactly what is more and less democratic is quite impressive. Personally, I can't feel even remotely that confident for more well built arguments and ideas. Obviously I disagree with this, it has been easily shown how a group of World Assembly nations can be more democratic as they represent a greater portion of the region. 260 or so World Assembly members will be represented and thus a greater share of the region as a whole.

It's not hard to know what is more democratic.

A legislature comprised of WA residents and any non-WA resident who registers on the forum and applies for citizenship is more democratic than a legislature comprised of WA residents and a small number of elected citizens. That isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact, because in the former system you have more people voting and more people given the opportunity to vote than in the latter system. That's pretty much the definition of more democratic. It's not subjective or relative; it can be measured.

This point is quite nonsensical. The 3000+ non-WA residents already can't vote in Balder and I doubt they can vote in TNP. Obviously there are security concerns when it comes to voting for non-WA members as people can simply create nations and vote. Furthermore, this point also rests on the assumption that non-WA residents couldn't just join the WA.

Ironically, you have stated that non-forum WAs could simply join the forums. Well, I am making a counter point, non-WAs could simply join the WA (or the army) if they wished to participate. In effect any member of Balder could be a member of the legislature forum or otherwise. Thus, I think we can agree that your point holds no water as your argument can simply be swapped and put to work for a WA model that is more inclusive than an elitist forum model.

The difference is that non-WA residents of Balder, under the previous system, did have the opportunity to vote if they registered on the forum and applied for citizenship. Now they will only have the opportunity to vote if they join the World Assembly or Balder's imperialist military, or if they're one of the few people elected to the forum component of the legislature. You've disenfranchised any resident who doesn't want to or can't join the World Assembly in Balder. For what purpose? How does that benefit Balder?

This is making a multitude of assumptions, which demonstrates why this argument is untenable:

1. That the forum legislature would wield the bulk of the power
2. That I have the ability to make loyalists
3. That I would want to make loyalists
4. That I would have the time to make loyalists
5. That I would use the time I have to make loyalists

All of these assumptions are incorrect, and if even if only one of them was incorrect your argument collapses. Firstly, the forum legislature will not wield the bulk of the power. Secondly, I do not have the ability to make loyalists. Thirdly, I don't want to make loyalists. Fourthly, I clearly don't have the time if I could and I wouldn't want to spend all my time doing that anyway (5).

Come on Cormac, I have been dropping enough hints in all of this that demonstrate what I clearly can and can't do with the time I have to spend. When I talk about dropping my powers... and responsibilities.... Doesn't this suggest that I don't have the time to run things directly even if I wanted to? I mean the army is under my direct control and you've seen how that is gone in comparison to my work in Europeia. Furthermore, creating loyalists would take a lot of work too... doesn't it make more sense to simply have the system run and be self-sufficient? It would take far more work than simply telling people what to do, so it utterly ridiculous to suggest I have that sort of time on my hands.

I know you're smarter than this. Now you can disagree with whether this system is better for Balder or not, but you really can't argue that I'd want to run a time intensive system.

Rach, anyone who has spent any time in Balder knows that you have a dedicated army of loyalists, and "loyalists" is the nice word for them. You don't have to work to gain them; you already have them.

There's a difference between controlling and directly running. I'm sure you don't have time to directly run everything anymore, which is why you're no longer trying to abolish the office of Statsminister like you were wanting to do the last time you attempted to unilaterally smash Balder's democracy while I was serving as Pharaoh of Osiris. You can still control Balder without running the government, by ensuring that you have people you control running the government for you. You already control the Statsminister and by reverting to an elected legislature, you're ensuring that you'll control that as well.

Considering that he gives me crap when I spend more time in Europeia and that he constantly disagrees with me, he would be a pretty shitty adoring sycophant if he was one which he obviously isn't. Besides yourself apparently, he is my toughest critic. Thus, I would kindly like to ask that you not call him that.

Uh-huh.

Well, this rests on the assumption that I control the SM position which I clearly already don't. Secondly, this also rests upon the assumption that I would want to do this, that I could do this and that I have the time to do it. Which I clearly don't even have time to do so amongst other things that I already addressed. Obviously me running government directly is unsustainable. So wouldn't a system like that which requires more time also be even more unsustainable?

I like how you completely evaded the point that you're setting yourself up to serve as Delegate-for-life, or at least Delegate for as long as you want to be Delegate. You didn't dispute that because it's true, and that's really the bottom line here. A Feeder or Sinker is in no sense democratic if the Delegate is unelected and therefore unaccountable.

I kinda want for the SM to be elected by the entire legislature, to better suit the idea of the Norwegian system which incidentally is ranked as the #1 democracy in the world. As well, I hope people region side will run and then join our forums > : ). But this might not be how they are elected in the final draft and it might be more of a full election to citizens.

Leaving aside the Norwegian system and how democratic it is or isn't in a real life context, let's talk about what that actually means. What you're saying is that you would like the Statsminister to be elected by WA residents and elected forum legislators only. You can keep calling the disenfranchisement of non-WA citizens "democratic" all you want, but the rest of us don't have to buy that because it's B.S., plain and simple. There is nothing democratic about arbitrarily disenfranchising people, especially when they were previously enfranchised.

There is a saying that if you build it, they will come. I truly believe that you are underestimating the WA population. Many do want to participate but simply don't have either the time or the patience to do it via the forums. Illand and Vhearan are great examples. Both joined the forum, but Illand in particular found it difficult and prefers the region side. This doesn't mean that he doesn't want to get involved, it's just that he doesn't want to get involved on the forums. Many of them simply are overwhelmed but truly do want to help. It is not about denying people access but rather giving people more than one way to participate.

One net will catch a lot of fish, but two nets will catch even more. Not only does this benefit Balder but it will also benefit the individuals involved. It will allow everyone to draw upon more than before

And if they aren't involved on the forum, how will they be well informed enough to responsibly vote? What are they going to know about a treaty, or a law (which will probably apply primarily to the forum community), or even election or recall of officials, if they aren't involved in that aspect of the region? Yeah, now they'll be able to vote on it, but without being involved on the forum they won't have any better an idea what they're voting on.

This is why the WA component is going to end up being a rubber stamp. They're going to end up doing whatever the forum government -- your forum government -- tells them to do, because they're not going to know any better. How can they, when they aren't involved on the forum that most of the legislating will be geared toward?

Once again I feel a democracy that better represents 4,000 nations than simply 40 is more democratic. There is no getting around that fact. Particularly after I have consistently disproven the assumptions you have been making in denying this. It should be noted that you have not denied this fact, but rather have made some questioning assumptions regarding this whole system.

But a legislature that includes WA residents and all forum citizens instead of just a few elected citizens would be more democratic still. You've yet to provide any coherent reason you're disenfranchising the majority of forum citizens, and until you do all this talk about democracy rings hollow. You're deliberately choosing to have a less democratic system than you could have, without providing any clear reasoning you're making that choice, so "democracy rah rah!" just sounds weak and like George W. Bush level rhetoric at this point.

You referenced Putin earlier. Let me tell you something, I have take and studied Russian history. It is the idea of an all power autocracy that has led it to become what it is. There are only very brief times in Russian history after Ivan IV in which Russia has not had autocracy. I would argue that this is early 1917 and around the time of Yeltsin. The idea of one true power is a dangerous one that has consistently damaged Russia and many other powers greatly. I don't want an autocracy, whether in the form of the Tsardom underneath someone like Alexander III or the Soviets or the Putin type system that Russia is currently under.

No autocrat, including Vladimir Putin, ever wants an autocracy. It's an amazing phenomenon.

Should the reforms be finished I will no longer have the power to upend everything anymore as Royal Decree will either disappear or be far more limited if I have it my way. Secondly, I am always accountable. I always apologize for my mistakes and always respond to criticisms. Thirdly, this is ignoring the fact that there will very likely be greater accountability on the delegate. Which ironically, this whole idea is in direct contradiction to what you are stating before.

Unless the Delegate is elected, there will not be any accountability for the Delegate. Being accountable doesn't mean apologizing or responding to criticism, it means being able to be held accountable. There is no realistic way for citizens of Balder to hold you at all accountable for your actions, as it is, and it will be even more impossible to hold you accountable once you've accomplished this "reform" agenda.

I'm not surprised royal decree will disappear after this, as there will no longer be any need for it once you've established this system. You can accomplish what you want through your new puppet legislature rather than through royal decree. Nonetheless, as you've already repeatedly demonstrated, it won't matter whether royal decree exists or what the limits are if you decide you want to upend everything. What will matter is that you're Delegate and you can upend everything if you want to. It's already legally questionable whether you can even suspend the legislature, amend Basic Laws, etc., through royal decree, but you've done so regardless of how questionable that is.

I will point out that royal decree only exists now, and in the form it exists, because you proposed it. Every expansion of the Delegate's power has been your proposal or proposals made by your puppets -- and be careful if you're going to argue that your puppets don't make legislative proposals, because I still have logs proving the contrary. The notion that you can now be trusted to limit the power of the Delegate, your own power, is laughable. If any powers are being limited it is only because you've found an alternative power mechanism, which is going to be your puppet forum legislature and rubber stamp in-game legislature. Anybody who has paid even passing attention to Balder knows better than to believe you are giving up any power.

 

[Syrixia]

It's not like Rach's MALICIOUSLY suspending democracy or anything. Balder is simply going through some restructuring, of which is long needed.

That said, please calm down, Cormie Wormie. Want a muffin?

 

[Cormac]

It's not like Rach's MALICIOUSLY suspending democracy or anything. Balder is simply going through some restructuring, of which is long needed.

That said, please calm down, Cormie Wormie. Want a muffin?

Malicious or not, suspension of democracy should always be a major concern for The North Pacific. "Restructuring" that occurs outside the rule of law and without institutional democratic oversight and input is restructuring that should not occur unless there is absolutely no alternative. Liberal democracy and observance of the rule of law are major cornerstones of what this region is about, and something we should hope to see from our allies as well.

"Please calm down" has to be one of the most condescending phrases in NationStates. Disagreement with someone doesn't signify that I'm not calm. When I'm not calm you'll know it by the warning I get for flaming.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Good luck with it all Rach

 

[Rach]

Thank you Rach, for this illuminating viewpoint into the changes in Balder, and on behalf of the Executive Council, I'd like to express my gratitude for adding some more pieces to the puzzle.

While as a rule, I don't care to see yet more arguments, I do think that the disagreement between Cormac and yourself has given a positive result of giving more information on how these reforms will work, so thank you both for that.

The Executive Council has expressed a concern that in the course of these changes, the legal documents which govern our treaty were, last I checked (at their request), invisible on the regional forum. I queried a colleague from another allied region and they found the same. Can I ask when these documents will be returned to public viewing?

Article 1 of our treaty states: "The parties will recognize the constitutional governments [...]"; in The North Pacific, we have our Constitution, and in Balder, from our discussion about a fortnight ago, you mentioned the Act of Government which empowers the state. It is, by my own knowledge of precedence, that specific act which governs the validity of the Treaty between our states.

Following precedence set in September 2013, if that Act no longer exists, or has been abolished without a successor act legally in place then it would render the Treaty no longer binding on either signatory and would require us to act as we did in September 2013 with Osiris, and begin the process to repeal the treaty between us. Options are generally limited and it would be at the discretion of the Regional Assembly on how they wish to proceed.

Yours,

Those documents should be viewable in the final stages of this process. All acts that currently exist still exist and any new acts will likely have a clause stating that they are in fact continuations of the current acts.

A legislature comprised of WA residents and any non-WA resident who registers on the forum and applies for citizenship is more democratic than a legislature comprised of WA residents and a small number of elected citizens. That isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact, because in the former system you have more people voting and more people given the opportunity to vote than in the latter system. That's pretty much the definition of more democratic. It's not subjective or relative; it can be measured.

Balder has over 200 WAs who each will get a vote. Even 50 is more than currently exist in Balder presently. Thus, more people are voting and more people have the opportunity to vote. Let's not forget that it is easier than in the previous system to just join the Storting. People can just join the WA if they wish to have a vote in the legislature. It is that easy.

The difference is that non-WA residents of Balder, under the previous system, did have the opportunity to vote if they registered on the forum and applied for citizenship. Now they will only have the opportunity to vote if they join the World Assembly or Balder's imperialist military, or if they're one of the few people elected to the forum component of the legislature. You've disenfranchised any resident who doesn't want to or can't join the World Assembly in Balder. For what purpose? How does that benefit Balder?

Our military is independent. As well, all citizens will be able to vote for a portion of the legislature, potentially the SM position as well as any other elected position. As I stated previously, allowing for a broader range of people in Balder to more easily participate is beneficial to us. There are many avenues to participation and it would be easier than ever to be part of the legislature.

Rach, anyone who has spent any time in Balder knows that you have a dedicated army of loyalists, and "loyalists" is the nice word for them. You don't have to work to gain them; you already have them.

There's a difference between controlling and directly running. I'm sure you don't have time to directly run everything anymore, which is why you're no longer trying to abolish the office of Statsminister like you were wanting to do the last time you attempted to unilaterally smash Balder's democracy while I was serving as Pharaoh of Osiris. You can still control Balder without running the government, by ensuring that you have people you control running the government for you. You already control the Statsminister and by reverting to an elected legislature, you're ensuring that you'll control that as well.

It's already been demonstrated that the legislature would be harder and less prone to outside controlling factors. Every sign points that way. Thus, even if I could, wanted to, had the time to, would spend my time on controlling people it would be quite impossible in this system. More impossible than the previous system. Although I'm not sure if something more impossible than something else also impossible is more impossible.

Furthermore, the idea of an army of loyalists is absurd. While such an idea sounds awesome, one would think I could turn an army of loyalists into an actual army which has obviously not occurred. Furthermore, I can't do it, don't have to do it if I could, don't want to do it and wouldn't want to spend my time on it. The idea that people would stay so loyal without effort, is ridiculous and I obviously don't have the time to maintain such an army even if I had one and wanted to spend time (which I don't have) on maintaining one.

Finally, all of this seems to suggest that my own skills and ability do not matter or are incredibly limited. You seem to be suggesting that people aren't supporting me because of my ideas, work or my smarts but because of manipulation which is patently untrue and hurtful.

I like how you completely evaded the point that you're setting yourself up to serve as Delegate-for-life, or at least Delegate for as long as you want to be Delegate. You didn't dispute that because it's true, and that's really the bottom line here. A Feeder or Sinker is in no sense democratic if the Delegate is unelected and therefore unaccountable.

I disagree with the point that it is undemocratic entirely. As was proven earlier, this system as a whole will be more democratic than the previous one and this change will allow for a greater focus on the SM position to better enable it to thrive.

You can keep calling the disenfranchisement of non-WA citizens "democratic" all you want, but the rest of us don't have to buy that because it's B.S., plain and simple. There is nothing democratic about arbitrarily disenfranchising people, especially when they were previously enfranchised.

They will still be able to vote and have a say. Furthermore, they can easily rejoin the legislature by joining the World Assembly or applying to join our independent army.

And if they aren't involved on the forum, how will they be well informed enough to responsibly vote? What are they going to know about a treaty, or a law (which will probably apply primarily to the forum community), or even election or recall of officials, if they aren't involved in that aspect of the region? Yeah, now they'll be able to vote on it, but without being involved on the forum they won't have any better an idea what they're voting on.

This reminds of me of how you said that the WAs in the region weren't ignorant, yet that appears to be what you are suggesting here. All of this points to the need to have open, accountable government that is actively trying to inform its citizens. WA nations can be referred to discussions on the forums so that they may make informed decisions. A culture of politics won't happen overnight but it will eventually take place and grow

This is why the WA component is going to end up being a rubber stamp. They're going to end up doing whatever the forum government -- your forum government -- tells them to do, because they're not going to know any better. How can they, when they aren't involved on the forum that most of the legislating will be geared toward?

As was proven earlier, it won't be my government and they will be informed enough to make their own decisions. All of this is making me think of perhaps the inclusion of independent watchdogs to monitor how biased or unbiased news is.

But a legislature that includes WA residents and all forum citizens instead of just a few elected citizens would be more democratic still.

But this is patently false as all forum citizens can participate if they wish by either joining the WA or the army. It is easier than ever and hopefully we will see more forum citizens join than ever before!

You've yet to provide any coherent reason you're disenfranchising the majority of forum citizens, and until you do all this talk about democracy rings hollow.You're deliberately choosing to have a less democratic system than you could have, without providing any clear reasoning you're making that choice, so "democracy rah rah!" just sounds weak and like George W. Bush level rhetoric at this point.

This has already been patently disproven earlier and at great length. I'd also like to point out that George W. Bush did support India and push for relations with India over China which is not what we've seen under Obama. Furthermore, it's not like Obama has exactly been the most democratic President as he has committed extra-judicial killings and has utilized the NSA to great degree. I'd like to point out that I greatly prefer Obama to Bush, although I do think there are specific things Bush did better than Obama but that as a whole Obama has a lot more of those specific things. Although I do find Obama's conservative foreign affairs policies to be a bit off putting which is why I would prefer someone more left wing than Hillary next term for the Democrats. But this is more a fun aside for me.

No autocrat, including Vladimir Putin, ever wants an autocracy. It's an amazing phenomenon.

Um, that is quite close to the most incorrect a statement could be. Nearly all the Russian Autocrats wanted autocracy. Ivan IV famously felt that he was Gods wrath upon the nobles and Alexander III felt it was his duty to protect and promote the autocracy.

"In the Fundamental Laws of 1906, Russians were told to obey the tsar, “not only out of fear but also for the sake of conscience”, as he had been “ordained by God”."

Or what about the President of Hungary, Orban?

“I don’t think that our European Union membership precludes us from building an illiberal new state based on national foundations,” Orban said, according to the video of his speech on the government’s website. He listed Russia, Turkey and China as examples of “successful” nations, “none of which is liberal and some of which aren’t even democracies.” ~ Bloomberg News

People who love autocracy brag about it.

It's not like Rach's MALICIOUSLY suspending democracy or anything. Balder is simply going through some restructuring, of which is long needed.

That said, please calm down, Cormie Wormie. Want a muffin?

I wish I could have a muffin

Good luck with it all Rach

Thank you

*huggles*

 

[St George]

*throws muffins at Rach*

 

[Rach]

What kind of muffins are they?

 

[bootsie]

I hope they are blueberry. I love a good blueberry muffin. Good to see you in my neck of the woods, your Nordic Majesty. Hope everything in Balder works out!

 

[Rach]

Omg! I love those too <3

I hope so as well, thank you!

 

[Cormac]

Rach, I honestly just have one simple question because you keep evading this point:

Why restrict the forum component of the legislature to elected citizens instead of keeping it open to all citizens? It won't be "easier than ever" to participate in the legislature, because previously all you had to do was register on the forum and apply for citizenship, whereas now you have to either dedicate your WA to Balder -- which is to say, to you -- or get elected.

 

[Rach]

Yay, I can actually (attempt) to answer this on my phone. I have given one answer on this although I will assume you either missed or did not find it satisfactory. The answer I initially gave is of Aristotle in the politics in his idea that we take better care of something people own rather share. Thus, the idea that someone will naturally take better care of something like an elected seat vs unelected.

Of course, this is not the only benefit particularly with regards to Balder. The second main point is that there should be avenues of opportunity for the WA portion of the body. It doesn't make as much sense to simply have two bodies that essentially are both assemblies. With one elected chamber it means that people can strive to those elected positions and create more activity via this political growth.

Furthermore, there are people convinced an elected legislation would work better as a whole and also people who have concerns that due to the small open assembly size that a small unelected assembly on the forum is susceptible to foreign influence. At least foreign influence without providing a net benefit for the region. I will note that it is this concern that helped you, at least I think establish the current Osiris legislative system and it's restrictions.

Finally to my final point, I worry that open assemblies tend to be more prone to popularity contests and mob mentality than an elected legislature. The cases of Athens and Florence highlight this.

The biggest issue with this system imo is that it will be complex. Hope you're not mad at me btw! I've enjoyed these debates and they have helped me solidify my stances which is not easy for me to do. Although I haven't enjoyed you calling me a dictator and a manipulator

 

[Cormac]

Yay, I can actually (attempt) to answer this on my phone. I have given one answer on this although I will assume you either missed or did not find it satisfactory. The answer I initially gave is of Aristotle in the politics in his idea that we take better care of something people own rather share. Thus, the idea that someone will naturally take better care of something like an elected seat vs unelected.

Except the elected Riksdag was also inactive, which was part of the reason it was expanded to an assembly in the first place. The difference is that the elected Riksdag was transformed into an assembly through normal, constitutional legislative procedures, and not by royal decree.

Balder's history does not demonstrate that an elected forum legislature will perform any better than an assembly. Neither, for that matter, does Osiris' history (but more on that in a minute).

Of course, this is not the only benefit particularly with regards to Balder. The second main point is that there should be avenues of opportunity for the WA portion of the body. It doesn't make as much sense to simply have two bodies that essentially are both assemblies. With one elected chamber it means that people can strive to those elected positions and create more activity via this political growth.

Except, again, Balder has had an elected forum legislature before, and it did not generate more activity. I agree that it doesn't make sense to have two bodies that are both assemblies -- it makes sense to have one body that is an assembly, open to any resident who registers on the forum and applies for citizenship. If you had really wanted to incorporate WA nations who don't want to participate on the forum, you could have done something like Lazarus has recently done, allowing them to participate in the Riksdag by sending their votes by telegram to the Speaker.

You've yet to provide any coherent explanation for disenfranchising most non-WA citizens of Balder. You could have accomplished enfranchisement of WA residents without disenfranchising non-WA citizens, but opted for disenfranchisement of the latter. You've still yet to explain why you chose that option.

Furthermore, there are people convinced an elected legislation would work better as a whole and also people who have concerns that due to the small open assembly size that a small unelected assembly on the forum is susceptible to foreign influence. At least foreign influence without providing a net benefit for the region. I will note that it is this concern that helped you, at least I think establish the current Osiris legislative system and it's restrictions.

Anyone convinced an elected legislature would work better obviously is not familiar with the elected Riksdag, which worked so poorly that it was replaced with an assembly Riksdag. They are also obviously not familiar with the elected Sepatarchy of Osiris under the Kemetic Republic of Osiris, which performed so poorly that Detective Figs (Astarial/SillyString) had to do something very similar to what you've done in Balder, dissolving the KRO so that an assembly legislature could be created because the Sepatarchy was too inactive to legislate it into existence. Of course, Asta only did this after a vote by the entire government at the time, whereas you've held no vote at all, and she was pursuing enfranchisement of more people across the board, whereas you are needlessly pursuing the enfranchisement of some at the expense of others.

I will point out that after Asta dissolved the KRO, The North Pacific determined that Osiris' constitutional government was no longer in force and repealed the treaty between TNP and the KRO. Why do you believe TNP shouldn't follow this precedent in regard to Balder?

Regarding your security point, that is the same justification the NPO uses to disenfranchise the vast majority of its population, the same justification regularly used by those undertaking authoritarian coups, and the same argument A mean old man repeatedly used to argue that non-WA residents should be disenfranchised in The East Pacific and elsewhere.

Regarding present-day Osiris, the current Osiris legislature has no WA membership requirement and never has. In the early stages of the OFO, it did have a requirement that every member had to be actively involved in an executive ministry, but that requirement was later repealed because it was proving difficult to monitor and enforce. Citizens are now accepted into the legislature by its presiding officer, or rejected by him, and the entire legislature can vote to override an acceptance or rejection. But no citizen is disenfranchised on the basis of WA membership and they never have been.

Finally to my final point, I worry that open assemblies tend to be more prone to popularity contests and mob mentality than an elected legislature. The cases of Athens and Florence highlight this.

You're concerned that a legislature open to anyone is going to be prone to popularity contests, but a legislature in which voters have to choose between some citizens over others isn't going to be? That seems... odd.

When has the assembly Riksdag demonstrated inclinations toward mob mentality in the past? You act as though the assembly Riksdag is new and untested. It existed for quite some time, so surely if it was going to show signs of mob mentality, it would have. Can you cite a single example of that happening?

 

[Rach]

I've been quite clear, simply because they haven't struck home to you does not mean they aren't incoherent. It doesn't make much sense for me to simply C&P what I've already stated. As well, I think you and I have different ideas of disenfranchisement. By that, I mean I don't think it doesn't mean what you think it does or you are using it incorrectly on purpose.

From Wikipedia:

Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or through practices, prevention of a person exercising the right to vote.

Or if you're taking a more general stance on the word, looking more to the "other privileges" as stated by Mirriam Webster for example, it is pretty disingenuous. Non-WA citizens just like before will have the opportunity to join the Assembly and they will be able to vote of course. Before, this was done by applying to the Riksdag now it would be done by either applying to the WA or the Army and there would not be a mechanism for refusing them as there was before where it was the power of the speaker. Although this power was never used.

Thus, that argument of yours is very disingenuous and I believe is appealing more to some sort of crowd than contributing an actual legitimate point. I think I have quite clearly made this point.

I will point out that after Asta dissolved the KRO, The North Pacific determined that Osiris' constitutional government was no longer in force and repealed the treaty between TNP and the KRO. Why do you believe TNP shouldn't follow this precedent in regard to Balder?

We have not dissolved the Realm of Balder. This is like when I gave the cabinet a fresh start albeit once again legally and with the support of people. Thus, I do not believe TNP should follow this precedent given that it isn't a precedent and is not comparable. The only reason as I stated earlier that I believe TNP would do this is if TNP had changed due to the presence of extremists or people fulfilling personal vendettas but I do not believe this to be the case.

You're concerned that a legislature open to anyone is going to be prone to popularity contests, but a legislature in which voters have to choose between some citizens over others isn't going to be? That seems... odd.

I will re-iterate what I stated earlier, which is that if you are going to have a popularity contest for elections that this is preferable to popularity contests in decision making.

When has the assembly Riksdag demonstrated inclinations toward mob mentality in the past? You act as though the assembly Riksdag is new and untested. It existed for quite some time, so surely if it was going to show signs of mob mentality, it would have. Can you cite a single example of that happening?

Given the relative inactivity of the Riksdag it has not occurred but an effort to bring greater activity to the legislature would increase this risk exponentially. I refer you to the examples of Athens and Florence.

 

[Cormac]

I've been quite clear, simply because they haven't struck home to you does not mean they aren't incoherent. It doesn't make much sense for me to simply C&P what I've already stated. As well, I think you and I have different ideas of disenfranchisement. By that, I mean I don't think it doesn't mean what you think it does or you are using it incorrectly on purpose.

From Wikipedia:

Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or through practices, prevention of a person exercising the right to vote.

Or if you're taking a more general stance on the word, looking more to the "other privileges" as stated by Mirriam Webster for example, it is pretty disingenuous. Non-WA citizens just like before will have the opportunity to join the Assembly and they will be able to vote of course. Before, this was done by applying to the Riksdag now it would be done by either applying to the WA or the Army and there would not be a mechanism for refusing them as there was before where it was the power of the speaker. Although this power was never used.

Thus, that argument of yours is very disingenuous and I believe is appealing more to some sort of crowd than contributing an actual legitimate point. I think I have quite clearly made this point.

You are disenfranchising anyone whose WA status is committed elsewhere and who was previously able to vote. You act like committing their WA to Balder is a simple matter, but the fact is that some people already have their WA nations committed to another region, or to another region's military. That doesn't negate the contributions they've made to Balder or the contributions they could make if given the opportunity, without their WA nations being committed to the region.

We have not dissolved the Realm of Balder. This is like when I gave the cabinet a fresh start albeit once again legally and with the support of people. Thus, I do not believe TNP should follow this precedent given that it isn't a precedent and is not comparable. The only reason as I stated earlier that I believe TNP would do this is if TNP had changed due to the presence of extremists or people fulfilling personal vendettas but I do not believe this to be the case.

You've dissolved the constitutional government that was in place at the time the treaty was ratified, without following the constitutional process for amendment, which means that the treaty is no longer valid as it was between the constitutional governments that were in force at the time of its ratification. Believe it or not, Rach, following the rule of law is not a measure of extremism or an indication of vendettas.

I will re-iterate what I stated earlier, which is that if you are going to have a popularity contest for elections that this is preferable to popularity contests in decision making.

Can you provide an example of when the assembly Riksdag descended into a popularity contest over decision making?

Given the relative inactivity of the Riksdag it has not occurred but an effort to bring greater activity to the legislature would increase this risk exponentially. I refer you to the examples of Athens and Florence.

So you admit that there is no example to provide of the assembly Riksdag demonstrating an inclination toward a mob mentality, and that this was a straw man argument. But you're concerned that activity would create a mob mentality, so your solution is to create a legislature that is sure to be inactive?

 

[Gradea]

Worst. Government. Idea. Ever

 

[Rach]

You are disenfranchising anyone whose WA status is committed elsewhere and who was previously able to vote. You act like committing their WA to Balder is a simple matter, but the fact is that some people already have their WA nations committed to another region, or to another region's military. That doesn't negate the contributions they've made to Balder or the contributions they could make if given the opportunity, without their WA nations being committed to the region.

They can still join the military and they can still join the civil service and be accepted on to the cabinet. There are some strong feelings of regionalism and ending "corruption" when it comes to multiple regionalists in Balder and thus these changes also move in that direction. There are many opportunities for involvement.

You've dissolved the constitutional government that was in place at the time the treaty was ratified, without following the constitutional process for amendment, which means that the treaty is no longer valid as it was between the constitutional governments that were in force at the time of its ratification. Believe it or not, Rach, following the rule of law is not a measure of extremism or an indication of vendettas.

If I tell you a pig can fly, this is patently false. I have not dissolved the constitutional government, 1 one of the 5 branches has been suspended due to public pressure for it and reform. The Riksraadet remains in place, the Royal Council remains in place, the delegacy remains in place and the judicial branch remains in place. This is beginning the sound more and more like you have a clear agenda here in this matter rather than debating this honestly and with your heart.

Furthermore, I hate to educate you once again on well known matters but you should already know that Balder does not have a constitution but rather a series of acts. You have been in Balder before and a member of our Riksdag, you should know this Cormac. There is no constitutional government and there is no constitutional process because... there is no constitution and has not been one. I'm not even certain if once the reforms are done if there will be a constitution but rather a continuation of the process of acts. This has all been done legally and the acts remain in place. As you can tell, the SM is still the SM and every position is still there beyond the Riksdag ones. So I'm not sure if you're intentionally trying to muddy the truth and use key words, or if you simply have forgotten about the way Balder functions. Either way, I am setting the matter straight here in no uncertain terms so that way you understand and hopefully discontinue your defaming words.

If you have an agenda that is fine, but you should be truthful about that and understand that what you say is simply incorrect. I have been more than willing to debate you despite everything, so I think you should show me return the courtesy about being truthful. Now of course, if you simply were mistaken that is alright of course. But I simply cannot debate you if you are making up lies and telling them as the truth. I have studied Russian history, I don't want to debate a Putin/Sepp Blatter type character who have a bizarre alternative "reality" they are masquerading around.

If your goal is to continue to try to upset me and goad me into being more emotional, then you very well may have succeeded.

Worst. Government. Idea. Ever

The smartest minds I know loved this idea, so I find it unfortunate you feel that way but to each their own.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Worst. Government. Idea. Ever

I agree! Perhaps Balder has not heard of the wonders of Communism?

 

[Cormac]

They can still join the military and they can still join the civil service and be accepted on to the cabinet. There are some strong feelings of regionalism and ending "corruption" when it comes to multiple regionalists in Balder and thus these changes also move in that direction. There are many opportunities for involvement.

So the solution to corruption -- and I look forward to you providing examples of that, as you still have not provided examples for your two other straw men, popularity contests and mob mentalities -- is to unilaterally and without democratic process, dissolve legally mandated institutions? That sounds rather like the corruption you're supposedly trying to prevent.

If I tell you a pig can fly, this is patently false. I have not dissolved the constitutional government, 1 one of the 5 branches has been suspended due to public pressure for it and reform. The Riksraadet remains in place, the Royal Council remains in place, the delegacy remains in place and the judicial branch remains in place. This is beginning the sound more and more like you have a clear agenda here in this matter rather than debating this honestly and with your heart.

That would be like President Obama, after declaring the Congress dissolved, saying that the constitutional government of the United States remains in place because the Presidency, the Cabinet, and the Supreme Court still exist. The Riksdag is the heart of the constitutional government, the legislature, the source of law, and the means by which the people hold the government accountable.

You have dissolved the Riksdag by royal decree, contrary to any power granted to you by the Basic Laws. The government that exists at this moment is not the government mandated by the Basic Laws of Balder, and is therefore not the constitutional government of Balder.

Furthermore, I hate to educate you once again on well known matters but you should already know that Balder does not have a constitution but rather a series of acts. You have been in Balder before and a member of our Riksdag, you should know this Cormac. There is no constitutional government and there is no constitutional process because... there is no constitution and has not been one. I'm not even certain if once the reforms are done if there will be a constitution but rather a continuation of the process of acts. This has all been done legally and the acts remain in place. As you can tell, the SM is still the SM and every position is still there beyond the Riksdag ones. So I'm not sure if you're intentionally trying to muddy the truth and use key words, or if you simply have forgotten about the way Balder functions. Either way, I am setting the matter straight here in no uncertain terms so that way you understand and hopefully discontinue your defaming words.

If you have an agenda that is fine, but you should be truthful about that and understand that what you say is simply incorrect. I have been more than willing to debate you despite everything, so I think you should show me return the courtesy about being truthful. Now of course, if you simply were mistaken that is alright of course. But I simply cannot debate you if you are making up lies and telling them as the truth. I have studied Russian history, I don't want to debate a Putin/Sepp Blatter type character who have a bizarre alternative "reality" they are masquerading around.

I'm not being deceptive at all. The Basic Laws are constitutional documents; they have separate processes for amending them than do other laws, and a higher voting threshold in order to be amended. Yes, they are a series of documents rather than a single document, but they are nonetheless constitutional documents that establish the various institutions and processes of Balder's government. It's you who is being disingenuous here in suggesting that Balder has no constitutional laws and taking advantage of the fact that most people reading this don't know anything about Balder's system, can't see the laws for themselves, and therefore don't know who to believe.

If Balder didn't have a constitutional government, then the treaty between The North Pacific and Balder was null and void from the start, as the treaty was between the constitutional governments that were in force at the time the treaty was ratified. If Balder supposedly has no constitutional government because the Basic Laws are somehow not constitutional documents, Balder failed to communicate this to TNP at the time the treaty was negotiated and ratified, and the treaty is based upon a completely false premise that Balder even had a constitutional government at the time of ratification. So which is it, Rach, are the Basic Laws constitutional documents, or are they not constitutional documents and the treaty between TNP and Balder null and void before it was ever ratified?

If your goal is to continue to try to upset me and goad me into being more emotional, then you very well may have succeeded.

My goal is to get to the bottom of these developments in Balder, since you decided to post an announcement about them in your embassy in TNP and invited questions. This isn't just me debating for the hell of it, this is an attempt at fact-finding because as a citizen of TNP, I am also a legislator of TNP, and these matters impact the treaty between our regions.

Nonetheless, it was not my goal to upset you or goad you into being emotional, and since that has apparently occurred I think it would be best to discontinue the discussion. We seem to mostly be going in circles now anyway, and discussion about this should probably shift to the Regional Assembly on our end and wherever you discuss things in the absence of a legislature on Balder's end.

 

[Syrixia]

If it helps, Rach, I have an assortment of muffins: Lemon Poppy Seed, Strawberry, Banana, Corn, Blueberry, Chocolate Chip, and Regular Default Boring-As-Hell Bread Muffins.

 

[Zenny]

Worst. Government. Idea. Ever

I agree! Perhaps Balder has not heard of the wonders of Communism?

 

[North East Somerset]

That would be like President Obama, after declaring the Congress dissolved, saying that the constitutional government of the United States remains in place because the Presidency, the Cabinet, and the Supreme Court still exist. The Riksdag is the heart of the constitutional government, the legislature, the source of law, and the means by which the people hold the government accountable.

Don't be absurd. It would be absolutely nothing like President Obama dissolving Congress, the parallels are non-existant, and its a comparison flawed beyond any relevance.

The reality is that the Riksdag's future was brought up for discussion, but the only participants in that discussion were members of the Government and Royal Council. The Speaker and Deputy Speaker hadn't logged in for over a week, and were unable to exercise the basic duties of the Riksdag, even in organizing their own replacement. I'm no expert on American legislatures, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have happened with the Congress, unless Boehner got lost playing golf or something. The Riksdag as an Institution was dead, it was defunct. It wasn't capable of sustaining itself.

If the Riksdag was the heart of anything, then that organism was dead. However unfortunate and regrettable that is, that is the reality, and pretending that wasn't a factor is simply revisionism. The return of sustainable democracy is only possible with reform of defunct institutions, rather than ignoring problems and sticking heads in the sand. It was on that basis that the Monarchy used its Emergency Royal decree powers to instigate a process of change. A process I'm sure Balder would be grateful for TNP's continuing support in, hence this topic.

 

[Cormac]

Don't be absurd. It would be absolutely nothing like President Obama dissolving Congress, the parallels are non-existant, and its a comparison flawed beyond any relevance.

The reality is that the Riksdag's future was brought up for discussion, but the only participants in that discussion were members of the Government and Royal Council. The Speaker and Deputy Speaker hadn't logged in for over a week, and were unable to exercise the basic duties of the Riksdag, even in organizing their own replacement. I'm no expert on American legislatures, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have happened with the Congress, unless Boehner got lost playing golf or something. The Riksdag as an Institution was dead, it was defunct. It wasn't capable of sustaining itself.

If the Riksdag was the heart of anything, then that organism was dead. However unfortunate and regrettable that is, that is the reality, and pretending that wasn't a factor is simply revisionism. The return of sustainable democracy is only possible with reform of defunct institutions, rather than ignoring problems and sticking heads in the sand. It was on that basis that the Monarchy used its Emergency Royal decree powers to instigate a process of change. A process I'm sure Balder would be grateful for TNP's continuing support in, hence this topic.

The Monarch does not have any emergency power to suspend, dissolve, amend, or repeal Basic Laws. She has the legal power to make royal decrees that have the force of law -- statutory law -- unless repealed by the Riksdag. This power was modeled after Europeia's power of executive order, a power which does not extend to constitutional law. If royal decree had been intended to alter constitutional law, that would have been made explicit, just as there are explicitly separate ways for passing Basic Laws than for statutory laws.

I don't accept that this couldn't have been pursued through the Riksdag. Does Balder have no legal process for removing an inactive Speaker from office? Could you not have done that, replaced the Speaker with someone more active (e.g., one of the people you acknowledge was providing input, from the Riksraadet), and then pursued constitutional change through the Riksdag? You once pursued fairly radical constitutional change yourself, with the Instrument of State and Government Act, and you pursued it through the Riksdag. Rach's refusal to do that demonstrates either her lack of confidence in and respect for democratic institutions and the rule of law, or her lack of certainty that an active and deliberative Riksdag would actually have made the changes she was seeking, as Balder has thrice rejected her authoritarian plans after giving them deliberative consideration.

You shouldn't expect The North Pacific to continue standing by a region it thought was a reasonable, democratic, and deliberative region with respect for the rule of law when that region has turned out to be an authoritarian region that has allowed itself to be ruled by an autocrat with a cult of personality. Perhaps TNP will continue to stand by Balder despite it now being clear that this community is no longer the kind of community with which TNP thought it was ratifying a treaty, if ever it really was that kind of community. But whether TNP will or will not, it's not something you should expect. The blame for this situation rests entirely on Balder and your collective refusal to pursue constitutional change through constitutional processes.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

People who love autocracy brag about it.

This is correct.

And, it more or less sums it all up for me. Balder isn't an autocratic region. I would know.

 

[North East Somerset]

Don't be absurd. It would be absolutely nothing like President Obama dissolving Congress, the parallels are non-existant, and its a comparison flawed beyond any relevance.

The reality is that the Riksdag's future was brought up for discussion, but the only participants in that discussion were members of the Government and Royal Council. The Speaker and Deputy Speaker hadn't logged in for over a week, and were unable to exercise the basic duties of the Riksdag, even in organizing their own replacement. I'm no expert on American legislatures, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have happened with the Congress, unless Boehner got lost playing golf or something. The Riksdag as an Institution was dead, it was defunct. It wasn't capable of sustaining itself.

If the Riksdag was the heart of anything, then that organism was dead. However unfortunate and regrettable that is, that is the reality, and pretending that wasn't a factor is simply revisionism. The return of sustainable democracy is only possible with reform of defunct institutions, rather than ignoring problems and sticking heads in the sand. It was on that basis that the Monarchy used its Emergency Royal decree powers to instigate a process of change. A process I'm sure Balder would be grateful for TNP's continuing support in, hence this topic.

The Monarch does not have any emergency power to suspend, dissolve, amend, or repeal Basic Laws. She has the legal power to make royal decrees that have the force of law -- statutory law -- unless repealed by the Riksdag. This power was modeled after Europeia's power of executive order, a power which does not extend to constitutional law. If royal decree had been intended to alter constitutional law, that would have been made explicit, just as there are explicitly separate ways for passing Basic Laws than for statutory laws.

I don't accept that this couldn't have been pursued through the Riksdag. Does Balder have no legal process for removing an inactive Speaker from office? Could you not have done that, replaced the Speaker with someone more active (e.g., one of the people you acknowledge was providing input, from the Riksraadet), and then pursued constitutional change through the Riksdag? You once pursued fairly radical constitutional change yourself, with the Instrument of State and Government Act, and you pursued it through the Riksdag. Rach's refusal to do that demonstrates either her lack of confidence in and respect for democratic institutions and the rule of law, or her lack of certainty that an active and deliberative Riksdag would actually have made the changes she was seeking, as Balder has thrice rejected her authoritarian plans after giving them deliberative consideration.

You shouldn't expect The North Pacific to continue standing by a region it thought was a reasonable, democratic, and deliberative region with respect for the rule of law when that region has turned out to be an authoritarian region that has allowed itself to be ruled by an autocrat with a cult of personality. Perhaps TNP will continue to stand by Balder despite it now being clear that this community is no longer the kind of community with which TNP thought it was ratifying a treaty, if ever it really was that kind of community. But whether TNP will or will not, it's not something you should expect. The blame for this situation rests entirely on Balder and your collective refusal to pursue constitutional change through constitutional processes.

Firstly, you are making massive assumptions regarding your interpretations of Royal decrees. What is your interpretation based on. There is no limitation of Royal Decrees to non-Basic Laws in the Statute. To the contrary, Royal decrees apply "for the peace, order, and good government of Balder in relation to all matters." If it wasn't intended that they should not apply to Basic Laws, that would obviously be specified.

Basing Balder's laws on the supposition that it was designed to copy the Executive Order system in Europeia is ludicrous. Europeia is a Republic, Balder is a Monarchy - for a start. Balder laws is not based on legal precedence in Europeia, and many of the Monarchy's powers were designed by Cerebella. Yes, the same Cerebella who is King of Albion, incidentally - a fellow Monarchist region - where the King possesses considerable Sovereign powers. Oh, and an ally of TNP.

The full subsection says:

3) It shall be lawful for the Monarch of Balder to make Royal Decrees for the peace, order, and good government of Balder in relation to all matters. These decrees shall have the force of law unless an objection to said decree is raised by any Riksdag member at any time in which case the Riksdag may vote to allow the decree to become law otherwise the decree shall be overruled.

Nobody ever stopped a Riksdag member objecting to the Royal Decree on its suspension, and if they had done so, a vote would have been held where it could have been overruled. As I have said before, the reality is that the Riksdag was inactive, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker had not even been on the forums for a week, and no attempt had been made to replace them. We're not laying the blame at any one person, we're saying collectively the system didn't work and it was everyones fault including the Executive.

The parallels with my term where I pursued legislative reforms are just not there, because in my term the Riksdag was active, and thus able to vote on those Reforms and pass them through. That option wasn't on the Table for Rach.

And secondly, you should stop trying to speak for TNP. What TNP thought and thinks about Balder, should not be up to you, or me - as we are both clearly biased on this matter. If it is up to you, Balder-TNP relations are clearly doomed, regardless of what Balder does.

 

[C. I. Cerebella]

Apologies for my intervention.

Basing Balder's laws on the supposition that it was designed to copy the Executive Order system in Europeia is ludicrous. Europeia is a Republic, Balder is a Monarchy - for a start. Balder laws is not based on legal precedence in Europeia, and many of the Monarchy's powers were designed by Cerebella. Yes, the same Cerebella who is King of Albion, incidentally - a fellow Monarchist region - where the King possesses considerable Sovereign powers. Oh, and an ally of TNP.

I'd prefer not to be cited in favour of these particular powers. The monarchical system that was introduced during my tenure was a fundamentally different one to the one that exists today, though of course I have been around and voted on many of the other changes since then. As far as Albion goes, the mere fact of it being a UCR makes it rather a different situation. My specific powers as King anyway are in some ways less extensive than Balder's:

'xv). No statute binds the Crown unless expressly stated to. The King shall be immune from prosecution and beyond contempt jurisdiction. Decisions of the King are exempt from judicial review.

xvi). The King is obliged to respect the rule of law and be publicly neutral as to the outcome of all domestic elections. The King may act so as to keep the peace.'

In absolute emergencies I have the power to do things, which merely recognises the ability I hold anyway as founder and ROOT. But I have no right to do anything that holds the force of law.

 

[Cormac]

Firstly, you are making massive assumptions regarding your interpretations of Royal decrees. What is your interpretation based on. There is no limitation of Royal Decrees to non-Basic Laws in the Statute. To the contrary, Royal decrees apply "for the peace, order, and good government of Balder in relation to all matters." If it wasn't intended that they should not apply to Basic Laws, that would obviously be specified.

And if it was intended that they should apply to Basic Laws, that would obviously be specified in the very separate process for amending Basic Laws, which requires a vote by the Riksdag followed by a vote of the entire citizenry, and supermajorities for both votes. Are you honestly asking us to believe that it's a reasonable interpretation to assume that the same people who required two separate supermajority votes for Basic Law amendments also decided to scrap all of that and let one person amend Basic Laws by fiat? That is not a reasonable interpretation.

Basing Balder's laws on the supposition that it was designed to copy the Executive Order system in Europeia is ludicrous. Europeia is a Republic, Balder is a Monarchy - for a start. Balder laws is not based on legal precedence in Europeia, and many of the Monarchy's powers were designed by Cerebella. Yes, the same Cerebella who is King of Albion, incidentally - a fellow Monarchist region - where the King possesses considerable Sovereign powers. Oh, and an ally of TNP.

[me] glances at Cere's post, above, and rests his chin on his palm.

You were saying?

Nobody ever stopped a Riksdag member objecting to the Royal Decree on its suspension, and if they had done so, a vote would have been held where it could have been overruled. As I have said before, the reality is that the Riksdag was inactive, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker had not even been on the forums for a week, and no attempt had been made to replace them. We're not laying the blame at any one person, we're saying collectively the system didn't work and it was everyones fault including the Executive.

So these reforms were proposed to the Riksdag, and then the Riksdag failed to act on them? Or they just weren't proposed to the Riksdag at all? The reason I ask is...

The parallels with my term where I pursued legislative reforms are just not there, because in my term the Riksdag was active, and thus able to vote on those Reforms and pass them through. That option wasn't on the Table for Rach.

Actually, the Riksdag, as usual, had bursts of activity during your term. It was active after you proposed the reforms you proposed, to discuss and vote on those reforms, and then fell into inactivity again shortly thereafter.

I note this because it is entirely possible that would have happened in this situation as well, had Rach bothered to propose her reforms to the Riksdag instead of unilaterally enacting them by royal decree. The problem, as always, and as when Cere and many others objected to her authoritarian reform proposals in the past, is that Rach's first inclination is toward authoritarianism. It never even occurred to her to propose these reforms in the Riksdag because, first, why bother, and second, they may decide not to enact them or may alter them in a way she doesn't like. So she just enacted them herself, to no one's surprise, given that the community of Balder has thrice rejected her authoritarian measures when they were actually proposed through appropriate channels in the past.

And secondly, you should stop trying to speak for TNP. What TNP thought and thinks about Balder, should not be up to you, or me - as we are both clearly biased on this matter. If it is up to you, Balder-TNP relations are clearly doomed, regardless of what Balder does.

I'm not trying to speak for TNP. TNP is capable of speaking for itself, and I'm more than confident that it will soon do so.

While your personal attacks are as charming as they were in Osiris, this isn't about you or me, and unlike you, I am not representing a foreign region either here or in the Regional Assembly, so false equivalence is false. I have no vested interest in this and certainly nothing compared to your vested interest, Your Highness, the Crown Prince of Balder.

 

[North East Somerset]

And if it was intended that they should apply to Basic Laws, that would obviously be specified in the very separate process for amending Basic Laws, which requires a vote by the Riksdag followed by a vote of the entire citizenry, and supermajorities for both votes. Are you honestly asking us to believe that it's a reasonable interpretation to assume that the same people who required two separate supermajority votes for Basic Law amendments also decided to scrap all of that and let one person amend Basic Laws by fiat? That is not a reasonable interpretation.

No it's not, because Balder's laws were changed over a long period of time, with a variety of organic considerations along the way. The point is that Emergency powers of Royal decree were granted, through a democratic system, and it's those powers that are being used to reform and revive the democratic in Balder that had fallen inactive. And it will be done in a way which is constitutionally fitting with the amendment of Basic Laws - ie. a plebiscite of all citizens.

Cormac glances at Cere's post, above, and rests his chin on his palm.

You were saying?

Well, let me respond to what Cere has said;

The monarchical system that was introduced during my tenure was a fundamentally different one to the one that exists today, though of course I have been around and voted on many of the other changes since then. As far as Albion goes, the mere fact of it being a UCR makes it rather a different situation. My specific powers as King anyway are in some ways less extensive than Balder's:

I think the way Balder has been trying to go is specifically to try and follow the UCR Constitutional Monarchy model, as exemplified by Albion. There's no reason why the region cannot be structured like a UCR with the right security provisions in favour of the Delegacy. The Royal decree powers were structured more on an Albion-like Monarchist system, than an Europeian-like Republican system. The simple fact is, both of those regions have enjoyed more activity than Balder historically, and currently. And so its easier for them to make changes without resorting to a top-down approach. But a top-down approach is the only way of reviving interest in Balder whilst retaining continuity of Government. I'm sure its easier as a UCR to make these changes because of the mandate that Founder/ROOT gives you, but thats something Balder also has to an extent, and I think the region should leverage this unique advantage to copy the UCR model that Albion exemplifies. I'm not saying we've done this historically, I'm saying that's the direction we are going in, which might explain why certain courses of action have been taken like they have.

So these reforms were proposed to the Riksdag, and then the Riksdag failed to act on them? Or they just weren't proposed to the Riksdag at all? The reason I ask is...

The reforms haven't even been proposed yet. When they are, they will be voted in a referendum of the entire citizenry of Balder, which goes above the Riksdag in terms of democratic mandate.

Actually, the Riksdag, as usual, had bursts of activity during your term. It was active after you proposed the reforms you proposed, to discuss and vote on those reforms, and then fell into inactivity again shortly thereafter.

And that just goes to explain why the Riksdag was not the Institution to bring Balder forwards, and why the Monarchy needed to utilise its Royal decree powers to secure change. Clearly the Riksdag wasn't/isn't capable of reforming itself, to provide activity, and it needed the Leadership of the Monarchy to move it forwards.

I'm not trying to speak for TNP. TNP is capable of speaking for itself, and I'm more than confident that it will soon do so.

While your personal attacks are as charming as they were in Osiris, this isn't about you or me, and unlike you, I am not representing a foreign region either here or in the Regional Assembly, so false equivalence is false. I have no vested interest in this and certainly nothing compared to your vested interest, Your Highness, the Crown Prince of Balder.

Absolutely, I have vested interests in this matter, and I've been more than upfront about that from the start. My point is merely that your personal opinions don't form a pure distillate of what TNP's best interests are either, but the narrow-minded viewpoints of someone historically opposed to the Balder Government, unlike how you have posed your arguments.

 

[Cormac]

Absolutely, I have vested interests in this matter, and I've been more than upfront about that from the start. My point is merely that your personal opinions don't form a pure distillate of what TNP's best interests are either, but the narrow-minded viewpoints of someone historically opposed to the Balder Government, unlike how you have posed your arguments.

The assertion that I am "historically opposed" to the Balder government is a gross oversimplification. I was the first Pharaoh of Osiris to pursue positive relations with Balder and the one under whom the first treaty alliance with Balder was negotiated and ratified, at my urging. I was Scribe of Foreign Affairs in Osiris when the current treaty was negotiated and ratified as well. I enjoyed extremely friendly relations with Balder throughout 2013 and the early part of 2014.

What I've "historically opposed," not just here but everywhere, is authoritarian models of Feeder and Sinker governance. My opposition to the government of Balder began with Rach's moves toward authoritarianism and have continued along that line since then.

In any event, we are repeating the same arguments over and over again, and I was about to essentially argue with you yet again that royal decree was never intended to amend Basic Laws, which would undoubtedly have prompted yet another response from you that it was, which would have prompted another response from me that it wasn't. At some point that cycle of repeating the same argument with nothing added and expecting a different result has to be broken, so I'm breaking it now. Have a good day, NES.

 

[Rach]

So we can conclude that Cormac still does not understand the concepts of authoritarianism and that he opposes the Balder government. Even if out of his own misconceptions/misunderstandings or perhaps simply the old adage that if you try hard enough and squint, any person can find evidence suiting their own pre-made conclusions. Which is why we still have debates on issues in which the evidence overwhelmingly points to one direction.

What I've "historically opposed," not just here but everywhere, is authoritarian models of Feeder and Sinker governance.

I'm pretty sure you have flip flopped on this issue a few times. If I recall correctly you were a member of the NPO and also had supported a more authoritarian government in Osiris. This of course did not occur due to popular support for a more democratic one particularly from the more recent (recent at the time) people changing support from the KRO to the OFO. Unfortunately, you appear to be supporting a more authoritarian and less democratic model in Balder today although of course we are dealing with degrees of democracy.

Furthermore, it's been painstakingly obvious in Balder that we have striven towards compromise and always had a strategy of allowing the people to do what they wish.