PROPOSAL: A United Leadership

Syrixia

Syrixia

The one, the true, the great.
-
TNP Nation
Syrixia
Discord
TrialByDance#0419
PROPOSAL: The creation of a united leadership as a figurehead for the NPTO and a uniter of the Assembly and the NPTOPF, and their respective leaderships, as well as an amendment to the Charter to complement this proposal.

PROPOSED BY: The Most Serene Republic of Syrixia

RELEVANT LINKS: NOTE- READ ALL THE POSTS IN THE QUOTE STRING- http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8229518&t=7346551

INITIAL ARGUMENT: The Executives lead the Assembly while the Peace Council leads the NPTO Peacekeeping Forces. That basically means we have, de facto, an organization divided in half, only held together because they have to be in order to work. That's not a strong organization. There needs to be a group in charge of the NPTOPF, which we have in the form of the PC, and one in charge of the Assembly, which we have in the form of the Executives. That's all well and good, but we also need a central figurehead to unite them. I propose the Chair and Deputy Chair fill this figurehead position, and we elect a Speaker and possibly a few Deputy Speakers of the NPTO Assembly. And yes, you probably by now know what I'm coming from. TNP's system. The Executives take the place of the Delegate and Vice Delegate, the PC takes the place of the SC (minus the Vice Delegate leading it of course), and the Speaker and Deputy Speakers take the place of the people of the same title in the Regional Assembly. Wanna know why I'm proposing TNP's system? Because it works. The Delegate is a strong regional leader and his region's branches work just fine thanks to his subordinates in the SC and the Speaker's Office. A TNP-style system is, IMO, the best alternative to the weak system we have now.
 
It's not supposed to work like The North Pacific's system. It should function (as it comes as no surprise to anyone, the United Nations). Now, granted, the UN has six principle organs, and we have two, it does not keep the executive out of NPTOPF. In fact, to counter the Peace Council's veto, the Executive also runs the operation, and is the Peacekeeping Commander-in-Chief.
 
@Bootsie- Yes, but that essentially means it's just like two scarves being sewed together like a Frankenstein Scarf. It never was one big scarf.
 
Bootsie:
What does the executive gain by being over NPTOPF? Where is their check?
Click to expand...
It gains the ability to lead as the actual figureheads of the organization, rather than just being integrated into the branches themselves. Leaders lead their followers, they don't become followers themselves if they're leaders because then there will be a less leadershippy leadership.
 
plembobria:
This is an international organization. It needs no single leader.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Having leaders spread out to each subdivision of the organization is okay, as long as we have one leader to oversee the organization as a whole and uphold the laws.
 
Yeah, except the Executives are completely shut out of the Peacekeeping Forces. The Peace Council approves operations and oversees them, while the Chairman leads the forces militarily. He's at the whim of the Council and its orders. The only thing he can actually lead is the Assembly. That sounds like a divided, disunited organization to me.
 
I'm sorry, I forget NPTO was at the helm of one person. These checks-and-balances were put in for a reason.
 
Bootsie:
I'm sorry, I forget NPTO was at the helm of one person. These checks-and-balances were put in for a reason.
Click to expand...
Can we not have checks and balances with the suggested new leadership structure?
 
What Cascadia said. The UN has a Secretary-General. The USA has a President. Et cetera. They do what I'm proposing here and their organizations have checks and balances. Who said the same is unapplicable here? For example, if the Assembly passes a bill and the Speaker submits it to the Chairman, and the Chairman vetoes it, the Assembly could overturn it.
 
Syrixia:
What Cascadia said. The UN has a Secretary-General. The USA has a President. Et cetera. They do what I'm proposing here and their organizations have checks and balances. Who said the same is unapplicable here? For example, if the Assembly passes a bill and the Speaker submits it to the Chairman, and the Chairman vetoes it, the Assembly could overturn it.
Click to expand...
That's a great compromise. In the final version, we could add more checks to make it so the Chair or their Deputy can't EVER abuse their power.
 
Plus, the PC doesn't just run NPTOPF; it also has the job of making sure the organization's legal rules are abided by. So this TNP system would further affirm their status as a sort of security council.
 
Let's get rid of the Peace Council and delegate administrative, political, and military power to the Assembly. Hell, we could have a two-tiered Assembly, with each nation sending one civilian/political representative and one military representative, to ensure both diplomatic cooperation and military security.

What we need is not more bureaucracy, but a more effective, unicameral system.

Granted, RPing a UN system is quite fun with all the vetoes and whatnot. You could be Soviet Union and block all the pro-democratic military interventions, etc. But the UN system is a horrible system. It gives too much power to a select group of countries.
 
That's because the UN SC Big Five members have automatic veto power. We're smart enough not to include the corrupt idea that is veto power.

That said, I do think a unicameral assembly would help, as I personally don't see a practical purpose for the Peace Council. The Assembly could easily help manage the NPTOPF; and they could also help prevent abuse of power via an "If you see something say something" policy, that something being seen being power abuse. Plus, that'd appease the admins since there'd be less subforums and groups.

So, either we use that, which I call the Kannex Approach, or we use the TNP Approach.
 
In international organizations, it's a bad idea to have one nation hold a supreme position over the others. The EU, for instance, has no supreme executive. Each organ has its own leader for the purpose of order and structure within each individual branch.

It is inherently wrong to have one nation in this Organization hold a position of hegemony over the rest. We are members here for mutual benefit. Therefore, we don't need a single "leader" to "follow."

Even some governments don't have a single head of state or government. Like Switzerland. (Or Kalti, for an IC example.)

Syrixia has not actually prevented evidence of any material benefit for this idea.
 
Also the PC exists for nations with responsible military practices to hold control over the NPTOPF.

I wouldn't approve, for example, putting Syrixia on the PC, since they show little restrain over the use of their military.
 
To add another example to Plemby's list. The United Nations has no supreme leader and have the Secretary-General as their "de facto spokesperson".
 
Kannex and Syrixia:
Let's get rid of the Peace Council and delegate administrative, political, and military power to the Assembly. Hell, we could have a two-tiered Assembly, with each nation sending one civilian/political representative and one military representative, to ensure both diplomatic cooperation and military security.

What we need is not more bureaucracy, but a more effective, unicameral system.

Granted, RPing a UN system is quite fun with all the vetoes and whatnot. You could be Soviet Union and block all the pro-democratic military interventions, etc. But the UN system is a horrible system. It gives too much power to a select group of countries.

That's because the UN SC Big Five members have automatic veto power. We're smart enough not to include the corrupt idea that is veto power.

That said, I do think a unicameral assembly would help, as I personally don't see a practical purpose for the Peace Council. The Assembly could easily help manage the NPTOPF; and they could also help prevent abuse of power via an "If you see something say something" policy, that something being seen being power abuse. Plus, that'd appease the admins since there'd be less subforums and groups.

So, either we use that, which I call the Kannex Approach, or we use the TNP Approach.
Click to expand...
It is an option we can use, but I'm fine if you're not convinced; I think Kannex has convinced me about his approach myself.
 
plembobria:
I wouldn't approve, for example, putting Syrixia on the PC, since they show little restrain over the use of their military.
Click to expand...
What you call little restraint for military use Syrixia calls defending its allies against imperialist powers and mad queens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top