FreeDem Statement on the King

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Time and again, the Talossan National Congress refuse to engage on the subject of monarchy reform. Those "reforms" they do espouse – such as allowing the King to choose his own successor – are diametrically opposed to the views of the Free Democrats of Talossa. When they are not a return to the old status quo, they suggest an even worse position.
Moreover, the close affiliation between the King and the TNC – whose leader he named as his stand-in during the entire Cosa term he abandoned his Kingdom – raises questions about the King's political impartiality, which is central to maintaining trust in our current Constitutional Monarchy. Add to this the King's use of his legislative veto to defend his own power and position (or even worse, based on personal preference), and – probably worse of all – his simple absence from Talossa for months at a time, popping in only rarely to grant us his presence.

If, on the other hand, the King does miraculously become more active if the TNC take over governance, that will just be a further sign to us of his political partiality and thus his disqualification from being a Constitutional Monarch. It is clear that further progress is not going to be possible whilst King John rules the roost.
So, the King must abdicate or resign, as he has constantly demonstrated he has little or no interest in the role. If he will not do so, he must be removed by the lawful method of Organic Law amendment.

As to how to choose a new Monarch, this is a question on which we welcome public debate. However – given his obvious political partiality – it seems clear that the King must not be simply entitled to choose his own successor. When he chose a Regent a few years ago, he chose the person most guaranteed to outrage reformist and republican opinion. It seems a pretty good bet he'd do something similar with regard to his successor – maybe even the exact same thing.


With the Free Democrats position on this now made clear, I would ask the TNC: how can you continue to support a monarch who does not support or engage with his country?
And further to this, given the clear conflicts of interest that will arise if the TNC do gain power, how would the TNC's defence of the absent King not be seen as anything but political pandering? A "vicious circle" of political corruption seems clear: the TNC defends the King, so the King favours the TNC.


The Free Democrats' answer is that the King has demonstrated he is not fit to be monarch and must either step down or be removed, for the sake of future political stability in Talossa. There is no way forward with John continuing as King. And the TNC need to answer why they continue to prop up someone who's job is to help heal divides in political dives, yet due to his actions, has just caused those divides to become chasms that he cannot close.


The King MUST GO!

Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir,
And the Leadership of the Free Democrats of Talossa

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

It will be interesting to see if the TNC actually tries to engage with this position. My gut feeling is that they will try to ignore it - because they can't defend the King's record, but admitting the facts will split their party right down the middle. A lot of their membership are the kind of blind monarchists who would find some way to excuse it if John Woolley shot someone on the high street in Denver.

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

Well, if they do ignore it then they are standing with the tainted King, and against democratic principles, and democracy itself. Also if the do not engage in this, it will be clear that the TNC is furthering the chasm that John has made, and this will show that they are unfit to lead Talossa.

So i do implore the TNC to engage in this debate, as for long as i am leader, this will be one of the main things i will push for. And the only thing in this election cycle.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

Someone who is elected, and whose term of office is finite and not unreasonably long, may be given and may exercise power. That person is the choice of the people - for a while.

Someone who is not freely elected, or whose term of office is not finite, or who may appoint his/her own successor is *not* the choice of the people *for ever* but (at most) for a short time. Such a person non-elected and/or with time-unlimited tenure and/or with unlimited freedom to appoint a successor is a monarch.

In a democracy, a monarch *must* have NO power, except symbolic representation of the state.
In a democracy power must be wielded ONLY by those elected.

A democracy can be a monarchy ONLY if the monarch has no power whatsoever, other than outside symbolic representation of the realm.

We - us Talossan - can choose.

Choose.