The New Peculiar Way is a major advocate for the adoption of a dual head of state system.
Some like the pomp and ceremony of Royalty, with heraldry and symbolism.
Others would prefer a more Republican, periodically elected, type of Head of State.
The NPW says you can have both. El Regeu and El Schac'h.
El Regeu is chosen just as we currently choose our Regeu. For life. El Schac'h is chosen periodically by popular election. They are coequal, and exercise their powers in alternating Clarks.
Alternating Clark still give a future rogue monarch a chance to quell the will of the people and elected legislature by way of the veto as well as appoint UCort justices (subject to Ziu confirmation).
It's all about the veto and UCort nominations. Who gets to use the veto? Who gets to nominated justices? Are they periodically accountable to the people? Can they be tossed out?
El Regeu can be removed through the same methods we use now. There are forms of accountability that exist outside of periodic election.
And if the alternating system doesn't float people's boat, then we can hammer out an alternative.
The point is, a dual head of state of the Regeu/Schac'h variety answers a lot of objections from each side. We CAN have the best of both worlds while building something uniquely Talossan
With respect, this option really seems to me like there is an argument as to whether we should get a dog rather than a cat, and a Peculiarist decides that everyone should be happy with a Frankenstein-style dog/cat hybrid, and gets huffy when they don't.
There is such a thing as a compromise that satisfies no-one.
For frame of reference for when this referendum shall be placed for a vote, the referendum law states that the four options shall be presented to voters in a randomized order. I have therefore determined via a random number generator that the four options shall be presented to voters in the following order:
Option 1: the King of Talossa shall be replaced by an elected Head of State.
Option 2: the King of Talossa shall share power with a periodically elected Co-prince.
Option 3: the King of Talossa shall continue to have the political powers granted by the current Organic Law.
Option 4: the King of Talossa shall have no political powers except in cases of emergency or constitutional crisis.
I am actually quite sympathetic to this option, and it is the clear #2 choice for me.
First of all... yes, Frankenpuppy! Awesome. I think there's a new mascot. As for huffy, I can't say that I'm experiencing that particular emotion.
The point here is imagining beyond what we've already got and what's been already tried. There was a Talossa with an elected head of state. We know how that went. For a number of reasons, it didn't. And there's a sizeable contingent that wants to keep the trappings of monarchy in this Talossa. I think we reject that at our peril.
Yet, at the same time, there is a lot to be said for a periodically elected head of state. It's responsive to the popular will. It doesn't enshrine the state in a single body/bloodline.
Co-Princes will have to think about using their powers carefully, especially if the Cosa can just wait a month or so and work with the other instead. They will need to be regularly consulting at least one other person. It will force each diarch to communicate.
Yet also, at the same time, it wont kibosh the entire country if one of them gets tired of playing and decides to take their ball and go home.
While I'd prefer abolishing the monarchy, a position I've state repetitively for years, if Talossans prefer keeping the monarchy in some form, i could accept something similar to Japan, where the Emperor is the Head of State but doesn't even a nominal executive. Rather all executive authority is delegated to ministers, and the Emperor cannot act without the consent of the Cabinet. Ultimately, the Emperor's role is to serve as the symbolic, unifying head of the country. He appointed the Prime Minister (cannot withhold) based on the Diat. No veto.
Or something akin to Sweden, where, in 1975, transferred all executive powers to a Counsil of State. They act on behalf of the King and sign bills, answerable to Parliament.
Or something similar to Norway, where a council of state is the executive (king, prime minister, another), latter two chosen by King with consent of Parliament (generally an election).
Or something similar to the Netherlands, where the Monarch cannot act without a responsible.Minister also signing off.
Of course these are very simplified summaries, but informative.
I do not like the idea of dual Heads of States power jumping based on Clark.
.
I could live with an elected monarchy that only serves as a symbol of the country. A Regent could be appointed by that monarch, with the consent of the Ziu, to perform the necessary executive tasks, provided such person could, with the backing of the Ziu, be subject to recall from the people.
Just some thoughts.
It sounds good on paper, but in practice we would get the disadvantages of both and the advantages of neither.
A truly viable co-sovereignty would look like the Roman Consuls, whereby our Regeu and Schac'h would serve concurrently over every Clark but can veto unilaterally... in other words, each bill or other action would have to pass the approval of both.
That would be unpopular, probably, for obvious reasons.
We are better served when a given office has a clear, concise, and conspicuous exercise of its powers. If we want dual heads, then, we should merely mimic what so-called semi-presidential governments do: the head of state has unilateral power on some items, the head of government has unilateral power on other items, and everything else is exercised by the legislature or judiciary. See for some reference the governments of France, Portugal, South Korea, Russia, and Mongolia.
Unfortunately, that option is not on the list to choose from and we're given only the choice to vote for/against a "co-prince".
I plan to vote against.
Or we could mimic the Co-Princes of Andorra. Or the Captains Regent of San Marino.
You insist that the viable system would be the Roman Consuls but that's not true at all. There's no reason that unilateral veto is needed. You're working from false premises.
You are inded only given the option of "co-prince" on the survey. But if that's your issue, I suggest you take that up with your own party. It took a passel of negotiating just to get our option included at all.
But the greater point is that a Co-Regency (alternating or some other system) would solve a goodly number of issues in terms of a monarchial/republican argument. It gives us advantages of both, as well as disadvantages (which is true of any system). We keep the pomp. We get peeriodic will of the people. The two have to work together.
Further, as opposed to a "First Citizen" system (monarch or elected), it does not vest the personhood of the nation in a single individual. A monarchy invests the nation into the body of a single individual (where the furthest logical extent is "I am the state." from King Louis). An elected individual still creates a single "excellency," even if for a limited time. The use of a di-archy would at least tip the hat to Talossa as a collective enterprise, without going so far as a Council-based "Head of State" a la Switzerland.
Co Sovereignty is a solid option. To use the former motto of the Republic (and current motto of the Zuavs) "Dare something worthy."
I'm not working from false premises, but from unstated premises. There are diminishing returns if we commit to large treatises at every turn of a conversation.
The Co-Princes of Andorra and the Captains Regent of San Marino are bad comparisons. The former are both unelected - the opposite of your own proposal, because one of the co-heads would be an unelected king - and the latter are themselves
based on the Roman Consuls, i.e. where they cannot act except together (have a unilateral veto on each other), exactly as I suggested.
In other words, the Co-Princes and Captains Regent are not even what you yourself are suggesting for Talossa.
The issue with your specific proposal is that, if it came to pass, our diarchal leaders would be at constant squabbles. Imagine that AD were one half and Miestra the other half. You don't think for a second that they wouldn't undo or undermine each other at the turn of each Clark?
Your proposal assumes that the King and the Prince (??) would find a common ground. That is folly. Again:
QuoteWe are better served when a given office has a clear, concise, and conspicuous exercise of its powers. If we want dual heads, then, we should merely mimic what so-called semi-presidential governments do: the head of state has unilateral power on some items, the head of government has unilateral power on other items, and everything else is exercised by the legislature or judiciary. See for some reference the governments of France, Portugal, South Korea, Russia, and Mongolia.
You claim that we would get to keep the pomp and "periodic will of the people", but we can get those things, too, with a singular elected head of state. A "president" or "steward" or whatever title we want can still do "kingly things".
CAN WE HAVE A 50-WORD STATEMENT FOR THIS OPTION WITHIN 24 HOURS, PLEASE?!?
Thanks ESB for an extremely prompt response.