What's new

Democratic Reform For Europe

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 10, 2015
Messages
4
Location
Hants, UK
Capital
New Copenhagen
Nick
Gorbo
With the rollout of Regional Officers in the game, I feel this is the right time for us to grasp both effective and representative democracy in Europe's NationStates region.

There's absolutely the danger that this opportunity will pass us by, but we owe it to ourselves to have a real debate over fundamental democratic reform in Europe. The following is merely the system that I advocate, but it is vital that we have an open and honest debate, because we can achieve better than the current status quo.

So here goes.

1) Changes to the role of 'Founder' and 'Delegate'.
The Founder and Delegate would be entirely seperate from the Regional Government. Both members would act as 'Heads of State'- far from being ceremonial roles though.
The Founder, or King for the sake of argument, would be the ultimate insurance policy for Europe. Taking responsibility only in the instance of a total breakdown in security, removing a rogue Delegate or Prime Minister, or other Officers. The Founder still retains ultimate power in the Region, but will rarely execute that power.
The WA Delegate, or President would be the figurehead of the Region, the true head of state. Still representing us at the WA. Still holding executive power over the Region. Still appointing Governments. Answerable purely to endorsements for WA members. Election of a WA Delegate would of course remain the same.

2) Regional Officers
One Regional Officer, elected by the people, is given all available executive power. This member is the Prime Minister . Elected in Regional polls, in terms of 3 months. The Prime Minister appoints his Regional Officers as his Government . The Prime Minister must appoint a minimum of 4 Regional Officers, to avoid undue influence over the Region. The PM is appointed by The President, and can be impeached by the President if there is suitable reason, or if a motion of no confidence in the government is passed in a Regional poll.

3) People Power
Elections will take place every 3 months. Anyone, WA member or otherwise is free to run for PM as an individual or a Party. The Poll however will be the candidate running for Prime Minister only and the PM is free to appoint anyone of his/her choosing as Regional Officers. We could see Party Politics developing in Europe, which I personally think is very exciting.
Motions of no confidence in PMs, or governments will be put to a vote if ten or more members vocally support the motion.

This is a first draft, and it is put to Europe at large to be debated and amended, but also to act as a catalyst for the wider debate.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
4
I'm sorry, currently we have the best form of democracy, where you endorse the nation you want in power, and you unendorse those that don't. I don't see why we should change that - especially for you. I know I'm newer, but you only joined the region a week ago. Our system works well, and while I have been here, we haven't had any problems except from outsiders attempting to change our ways.
 

Imperium Anglorum

Establishing Nation
Staff member
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
279
Capital
Londinium
Nick
IA
Any regional government is going to have to, in my opinion, take the election of the Delegate into account. The powers of the Delegacy are inextricably executive (without founder action) and powerful beyond reproach compared to any regional officers. The overwhelming ability of the Delegate to control the government cannot be discounted from any plan of governance.

I myself believe in a form of government which is both accountable to the people and deals with matters efficiently. I also believe that we already have a system which operates in that fashion today. I am accountable to the people, as has been shown by the end of my first Delegacy on 5 July 2015 when my reform proposals associated with the constitution led to a wave of withdrawn endorsements. Seeing that this was entirely due to a backlash over the constitution, I the Delegacy, as is expected from parliamentary procedure. Thus, the Delegate is already quite responsible to the people and the populace. Furthermore, the Delegate's ability to exercise control over all matters of state whilst being able to Delegate authority and remaining accountable makes the position able to deal with matters more efficiently than any assortment of regional officers could.

The regional government proposal which you gave, I feel, would be quite suitable in the situation of a major government in the real world (though the idea of a King and a President just does nothing but create redundant positions). However, considering that the Delegate is necessarily the font of power in the region due to his implicit advantages (like lower ejection and banning influence costs and executive controls), this structure here is simply untenable.

Regarding the administration of what is termed under heading 3 as 'people power', I simply don't see how elections every 3 months is any more democratic than an election every 12 hours. Motions of no confidence already exist in the form of withdrawing endorsements. Furthermore, the fact that Europe has many WA players (with 87.4% endorsement of the Delegate) necessarily means greater participation in the election of our Delegate. In the last monitored poll (that is, restricted to WA members so people couldn't vote twice), 44 players voted 38–6 on whether we should have an embassy with the region 10000 Islands. That is 22% participation. In that manner, polls simply operate in a manner which is both unrepresentative and undemocratic in the context of our region. 22% is no mandate for anything, especially something as important as appointing some with real power! 88% of the confirmed population did not even vote!

Finally, I don't really see a major difference between our visions for Europe's democratic system and my own. Mine simply does the exact same thing excepting that it cuts out the 'Delegate' in this plan and moves all officers up a step. The PM in this plan appoints his cabinet, so there's no benefit on the perspective of democratic Officer confirmation in either plan. This plan provides for more regional officers and periodic elections. But, why should Europe bother with more officers when there is no need for them? One officer has operated adequately for the last 12.8 years and three officers will be more than able to administer the region effectively at all times. Furthermore, why should Europe have periodic elections when we already have an election every 12 hours? Would that not simply decrease the democratic exercise for which we stand?

In the long run, in a future where I know that I am not going to be Delegate forever, a future where I know that I shall one day return to being no more than a member (though influential in the more medium term) in Europe, I cannot support this proposal. As your Delegate, I feel that moving the power of executive action from the Delegate to a regional officer who must spend twice the influence to take any action is a security risk. As a member of the government, I feel that the issues raised in this proposal are already adequately addressed by the current system. As a WA author, I see that this disconnects the Delegate's WA functions from those of the government, hence placing them out of reach to most players. As a diplomat, I see nothing more than confusion amongst other regions on our forms of government. But most importantly, as a nation of Europe, I feel that this proposal does nothing to advance our democratic traditions in any meaningful manner whilst imposing significant impacts of the efficacy of our government.

I applaud you for thinking about the manner in which we are to operate our region. However, this is simply not the best way of dealing with the issues raised. I commend the gesture of posting this on the forums for all to read. However it is, it is just and good that our region is thinking of such an important topic. It is just and good that we look at our forms of government critically and change them when necessary. It is just and good that we keep our government accountable. This may not be the best proposal for government, but keep up the good work.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 10, 2015
Messages
4
Location
Hants, UK
Capital
New Copenhagen
Nick
Gorbo
I'm sorry, currently we have the best form of democracy, where you endorse the nation you want in power, and you unendorse those that don't. I don't see why we should change that - especially for you. I know I'm newer, but you only joined the region a week ago. Our system works well, and while I have been here, we haven't had any problems except from outsiders attempting to change our ways.


Thank you for your reply. I take your point about being new, but you should know that I played the game for four years as North-Territores.
I'm glad you bring the point of effective government up, we definitely have a well working government, but in my opinion that doesn't mean that we can't have better.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2015
Messages
4
Location
Hants, UK
Capital
New Copenhagen
Nick
Gorbo
I thank you for that answer, but I would go on to make the following points.

1) I agree that the Delegate should not just be a figurehead. Ultimately under my proposals he /she would be the executor of government, ratifying any plan made by the Regional Government. That's without a doubt not nothing, in fact, as I'd mentioned, the Founder and Delegate have the ultimate executive positions, it merely means that for the most part, their need to use them is less.
2) You are certainly accountable, but you are accountable only to those nations in the WA. This is fine but that means you have a total mandate pool of comfortably less than half of nations in the Region. (I accept there are some duplicate nations) I would argue that's neither democratic nor representative. It's not mandatory to join the WA, we shouldn't treat not WA nations as second class, and a nationwide vote for government makes a government with a 100% mandate to govern.
3) with regards to efficiency, I take his point, but my personal opinion is representative democracy is more important than efficiency, dictatorships are undoubtedly more efficient than republics, but that doesn't mean I support dictatorship! ( an extreme example I know)
4) I don't agree that it is untenable here, unless for some reason we encounter a rogue Delegate that doesn't accept the legitimacy of the Regional Government. The delegate may have executive power but Regional Officers have sufficient power to effectively run the Region in all but a crisis, which is where the Founder and Delegate come in. I see why the redundant roles come up, but EuroFounder is all but active, so I think a royal title sums that role up pretty well!
5) regarding the argument about 3 month terms, I don't believe that what we have is necessarily effective democracy, in that nations will only endorse you if you endorse them. In effect, you have to do something wrong for people to become elected, because the only way the position will change is when people withdraw. I'd argue there are nations out there who have endorsed almost everyone to get some back. That's not democracy, and you can't force people to vote but at least in a poll you get a clear choice.
6) this is the debate which we need to have, and I accept everyone will have differing views, this is merely my advocacy and we are obviously miles off a general consensus region wide. The 'its not broke don't fix it' point is a powerful one, but I do feel that Europe would benefit from wider participation in government, in that interest in the running of the Region is higher.

My overarching feeling is that we could be involving more nations in government, some may see that as unnecessary, but I feel it can truly maximise the activity in our region as being involved in government is all the more possible. My proposal may not be perfect, and I accept there will need to be amendments, but I absolutely advocate it, and I think reform is necessary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top