Monarchy Reform

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

Took a moment to expand on my thoughts and positions with respect to systemic reforms (both concerning the monarchy and otherwise), as initially expressed way back in February in the PdR's Statement of Beliefs. See attached.

This thread can be used for any respectful discussion on the topic, regardless of your level of support or opposition to the concept.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Wow. Intense. Will give it a good hard look and hopefully respond soon. I encourage all FreeDems to do likewise.

[Ian Plätschisch]

My thoughts on moving to unicameral MMP have shifted from being opposed to not really caring one way or the other. If people can make a convincing argument that getting rid of the Senate could boost activity, go for it.

We should definitely merge provinces.

My thoughts on Monarchy reform are pretty well known. I would very much like for the Compromise on the Compromise to pass but I would not want to abolish the Monarchy or make it purely ceremonial.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

There are several issues being raised here.

I support the Unicameral MMP Cosa on general principle, if for no other reason than the difficulty of finding 8 active Senators and at least that many MCs. The Túischac'h of the 56th Cosa quit politics lamenting that the Cosa didn't function, and one of the reason why the Cosa doesn't function is that at least half its members (and this is on all sides of politics) are only there to vote, they don't participate in debates, and they need a cattle prod up them to remember to vote half the time. Actually, the same is increasingly true for the Senäts. (I should note here that I'm no longer necessarily in favour of a Real Cosa because the new system of single seats for new citizens is working well so far.)

But given that, I'm not sure how an MMP Cosa in a bicameral system would solve that problem. The easiest way to imagine an MMP Cosa is: every province gets 12 "winner take all" seats, with the remaining 104 seats being appointed from the national party list. But would people be able to take both provincial seats and national-party-list seats? If not you'd be increasing the number of people the Cosa would require, to probably 12 or 13 from the current 9-10.

A bigger problem with such a reform - as with another big question raised, provincial reform - is that - by OrgLaw XII.1, that would require a 2/3 majority of the Senäts, i.e. 6 out of 8 Senators. Now given the current dominance of the Senäts by Free Democrats and allies, that *could* happen this term - if 2/3 of the Cosa were to go along with it. But unless the bad blood and political tensions between the two major political blocs significantly reduce, that's not going to happen.

Although given that, I'm intrigued by this bit:

Provinces can and
should be merged – those whose governments are completely non-existent should frankly be
held as abolished, demoted to territorial status, and merged with provinces that are at least
attempting to provide for the good government of their jurisdictions.

Can we do that? I'm pretty sure there's no law specifically authorising it, but OrgLaw IX.1 states that a Province "is administered by constitutional governments elected democratically within the Province." So theoretically if a Province doesn't have a functioning government, you could argue that it's devolved to Territory status (OrgLaw IX.9), and thus could be force-merged or whatever. That would be quite a stretch, but amusing if the CpI would accept it. Short of that, however, Provinces will only merge if they want to merge. And provinces massively don't want to merge. Even the ones with no government.

Now onto the monarchy (again, again). I'm distressed how the question keeps boiling back to a moral question, that if you oppose the monarchy or its current incumbent it means you hate the monarch or you hate monarchists. Accusing political opponents of being motivated by "hate" is an effective rhetorical stick to beat opponents with, at the cost of raising political tensions to near-civil war levels. No-one hates John Woolley. I'll always admire him for his role in leading to the downfall of the tyrannical King Robert I. But - and I'm not alone in feeling this - he is currently failing the Kingdom through inactivity, and needs to be replaced. I'm sure even the leaders of the monarchist opposition understand this in private.

My personal viewpoint is that monarchical political power + a life term is a recipe for corruption. King Robert I wasn't always an abusive cult leader. King John wasn't always inactive and apathetic. But I wonder whether the Directorate model is necessary proof against that. The evidence that a multi-person committee is not necessarily immune to just dissolving into apathy unless periodically renewed is, sadly, evident in the current Uppermost Cort.

But the real problem here is that all these questions are totally theoretical without a 2/3 majority in the Cosa - and even that isn't enough if it's something that will rouse the King from his torpor to veto it.  It's part of Talossa's essential character is that big political changes are nearly impossible to make. Some call that "stability". Basically I fear that the chance of any fundamental reforms in this Cosa are gone because there is so much bad blood between the major parties. We don't like each other and we don't trust each other. As the PdR leader rightly points out, the last, best chance we had for change was stymied by the current Opposition Leader for no reason he ever explained - it can only be ascribed to either personal spite, or naked political calculations. Even if - for example - some new monarchical reform proposition came out of the TNC (even one for replacing the King!) the experiences of the last few Cosas would make the Free Democrats, in particular, wonder "what's the catch? surely they're just going to renege on this at the last moment if they see some political advantage in it?" The precondition for a lasting constitutional reform is political trust.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

It's part of Talossa's essential character is that big political changes are nearly impossible to make. Some call that "stability".

In recent years, a wholesale revision to the OrgLaw happened, as well as huge changes in the role of the monarch (such as the elimination of the hereditary monarchy, changing of the royal veto to a mere suspension, reassignment of the Royal Household to the Government), and the reworking of the entire justice system (the fourth such since I've been a citizen).  And that's just the past few years!  In the few years before that, every single law in the entire place was repealed when we changed our entire legal framework to a legal code, and before that we had Reunision to merge together the Kingdom and Republic!

I'm sorry, but it is flatly untrue to assert that big political changes are nearly impossible.  Some of your preferred changes may not have happened, but that's rather different.

Basically I fear that the chance of any fundamental reforms in this Cosa are gone because there is so much bad blood between the major parties. We don't like each other and we don't trust each other. As the PdR leader rightly points out, the last, best chance we had for change was stymied by the current Opposition Leader for no reason he ever explained - it can only be ascribed to either personal spite, or naked political calculations. Even if - for example - some new monarchical reform proposition came out of the TNC (even one for replacing the King!) the experiences of the last few Cosas would make the Free Democrats, in particular, wonder "what's the catch? surely they're just going to renege on this at the last moment if they see some political advantage in it?" The precondition for a lasting constitutional reform is political trust.

This is good to know, but I hope the whole "fan club" doesn't feel the same way.  I think there's a lot of potential for real and amicable forward motion, but if you're saying that the necessary "precondition" for a "lasting constitutional reform" just doesn't exist, it makes me wonder what the point might be.  Hopefully you aren't correct.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

I support the Unicameral MMP Cosa on general principle, if for no other reason than the difficulty of finding 8 active Senators and at least that many MCs. The Túischac'h of the 56th Cosa quit politics lamenting that the Cosa didn't function, and one of the reason why the Cosa doesn't function is that at least half its members (and this is on all sides of politics) are only there to vote, they don't participate in debates, and they need a cattle prod up them to remember to vote half the time. Actually, the same is increasingly true for the Senäts. (I should note here that I'm no longer necessarily in favour of a Real Cosa because the new system of single seats for new citizens is working well so far.)

But given that, I'm not sure how an MMP Cosa in a bicameral system would solve that problem. The easiest way to imagine an MMP Cosa is: every province gets 12 "winner take all" seats, with the remaining 104 seats being appointed from the national party list. But would people be able to take both provincial seats and national-party-list seats? If not you'd be increasing the number of people the Cosa would require, to probably 12 or 13 from the current 9-10.

This is actually exactly as I currently envision it happening: Right now, 12 seats per province would get us as close as possible to half the nominal size of the Cosa without going over. And yes, since active citizens are currently stretched thin between the Cosa and Senäts, the idea was that people would be eligible both for provincial and proportional seats, which would reduce the number of people necessary for the Cosa to function and free up others. There would still be a limit of 10*(total seats)/(votes cast), same as there is now, but with more people to spread seats between, parties could (but would not be required to) dilute the power some amongst themselves -- which also avoids, as an example, the problems of someone who has a large number of fairly crucial seats missing a Clark.

Although given that, I'm intrigued by this bit:

Provinces can and
should be merged – those whose governments are completely non-existent should frankly be
held as abolished, demoted to territorial status, and merged with provinces that are at least
attempting to provide for the good government of their jurisdictions.

Can we do that? I'm pretty sure there's no law specifically authorising it, but OrgLaw IX.1 states that a Province "is administered by constitutional governments elected democratically within the Province." So theoretically if a Province doesn't have a functioning government, you could argue that it's devolved to Territory status (OrgLaw IX.9), and thus could be force-merged or whatever. That would be quite a stretch, but amusing if the CpI would accept it. Short of that, however, Provinces will only merge if they want to merge. And provinces massively don't want to merge. Even the ones with no government.

This is sort of the catch of the argument. I'm actually not particularly for force-merging things if we can avoid it, there should always be some democratic process involved. But under our laws as they currently stand -- laws that were democratically adopted, mind you -- there are several provinces not currently fulfilling their constitutional obligations. I'm struggling to come up with another possible solution there, if I'm honest. There are a few macronational parallels to this, where by law if an incorporated area loses all its citizens, its government is automatically unincorporated and the place ceases to exist from a legal standpoint.

My personal viewpoint is that monarchical political power + a life term is a recipe for corruption. King Robert I wasn't always an abusive cult leader. King John wasn't always inactive and apathetic. But I wonder whether the Directorate model is necessary proof against that. The evidence that a multi-person committee is not necessarily immune to just dissolving into apathy unless periodically renewed is, sadly, evident in the current Uppermost Cort.

That's just it, a staggered term allows for that renewal you mentioned -- obviously I would want to include a recall mechanism as well, an impeachment of sorts, not just "oh well we elected this person so there they are for the next year or two". Ideally though the only types who would run for the office in the first place are the types who would remain active, but obviously there's no good way to guarantee that beforehand.

But the real problem here is that all these questions are totally theoretical without a 2/3 majority in the Cosa - and even that isn't enough if it's something that will rouse the King from his torpor to veto it.  It's part of Talossa's essential character is that big political changes are nearly impossible to make. Some call that "stability". Basically I fear that the chance of any fundamental reforms in this Cosa are gone because there is so much bad blood between the major parties. We don't like each other and we don't trust each other. As the PdR leader rightly points out, the last, best chance we had for change was stymied by the current Opposition Leader for no reason he ever explained - it can only be ascribed to either personal spite, or naked political calculations. Even if - for example - some new monarchical reform proposition came out of the TNC (even one for replacing the King!) the experiences of the last few Cosas would make the Free Democrats, in particular, wonder "what's the catch? surely they're just going to renege on this at the last moment if they see some political advantage in it?" The precondition for a lasting constitutional reform is political trust.

I will say that I am willing to give people a chance to work together on something. Given what I understand to be some of their past actions, I'm not sure about multiple chances, but one? Yes. It's a hell of a lot more productive than zero.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

One of the arguments you make in your essay, @Mic'haglh Autófil, MoFA , is that eliminating some features of Talossa will help inspire activity in some way.

New citizens join Talossa and see various entities they are
interested in learning more about and perhaps even joining – only to find the lights are all off.
Inactivity paralyzes the country not just from conducting its business but from keeping new
arrivals around. The answer to this is fairly simply: prune. It might not be a popular idea;
everyone loves their own little pet projects, and no-one wants to let theirs be the one shut down.
But this is the right answer. Of course, the government itself only has so many things that can
be pruned, and the chief among these are the provinces and the Senäts. Provinces can and
should be merged – those whose governments are completely non-existent should frankly be
held as abolished, demoted to territorial status, and merged with provinces that are at least
attempting to provide for the good government of their jurisdictions. Similarly, as a largely
superfluous organization, the Senäts can and should be abolished, with the justified concern for
direct provincial representation moving the Cosa to a Mixed-Member Proportional electoral
system.

But reading this, I noticed that you kind of skipped why this is the answer to inactivity.  And I'd be curious to know why you think eliminating things will make Talossa more active.

Obviously, I don't think empty offices are a good thing.  It took a very long debate before I was able to convince Owen Edwards, when creating the civil service, that they shouldn't just exist by default.  I thought it would look bad to have so many empty offices, since I was very skeptical that there was a vast legion waiting to jump into service.  So I'm not opposed to culling useless offices as necessary.

But we use the Senats, and there are regular competitive elections.  It's also a pretty big feature of a system that is getting terrifyingly streamlined already, with power overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the two or three people that lead the Government coalitions.  A lot of people like politics and legislating, and already most of that process is just "convince these two people you're right."

So it makes sense to me to concentrate provincial activity a little bit, thus I'm working on a provincial alliance right now.  But I'm interested to know why you would think that getting rid of the Senats will make people more active.  Big permanent changes like that are hard or impossible to reverse (for reasons you note) and it seems like we should need pretty good reasons for them.

I mean, Talossa started to become more active during the last couple of months of the 56th Cosa, and it still at a higher level than most of last term now.  No one slashed or burned any institutions.

Secondly, I will note that I am not in favor of a republic, no matter if it is headed by a president or by a directorate.  I already live in a republic and participate in its politics a great deal, and I don't see much attraction in doing it here, too.  I think most Talossans have tended to feel interested in important aspects of monarchy that aren't a part of their daily lives, otherwise -- it's actually one of our most important features.  It's a Talossan thing that's peculiar to us and makes people want to immigrate.  Poker is fun, for example, but there's nothing specifically about Talossa that would make anyone want to immigrate here to play poker.  To put it another way, we need to focus on our competitive advantages.

People do immigrate because they think monarchy stuff is fun and weird and interesting.  The pompous formality of storied institutions, the long tradition it represents, the different quirks like arms and peers: all of that stuff is cool to a lot of folks, and they represent competitive advantages.  Parliamentary democracy is another big draw, especially on a scale that allows anyone's influence to be meaningful.  These things actively draw people, particularly in a time when so much of the rest of our community is quiet-cum-dead.  (Our other "killer app" is the language, but certainly a majority of immigrants don't join for that.)

I do think we need some stuff to change, but I don't see any reason to think it would help our immigration rate if we were to become a republic.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

In recent years, a wholesale revision to the OrgLaw happened

Only because the monarchist opposition simply boycotted that Cosa that time, or to be precise, never assigned their seats, so a 3/4 majority was possible. If large numbers of hyper-conservative citizens flush their votes down the toilet, yes, things can happen over the King's objections.

I'm sorry, but it is flatly untrue to assert that big political changes are nearly impossible.

I'm sorry too. Let me re-specify: "big political changes are nearly impossible if the King feels threatened by them in any way."

I think there's a lot of potential for real and amicable forward motion, but if you're saying that the necessary "precondition" for a "lasting constitutional reform" just doesn't exist, it makes me wonder what the point might be.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the Free Democrats will support proposals on their merits (and I'm sure the same is true for our PdR colleagues). The point is you just can't wish away political mistrust and hostility. Let's put it this way. If the Government parties came up with a new Monarchy Reform proposal, I would simply assume you guys would vote it down, regardless of its contents, because giving us a political "win" would be intolerable for you. Is that not true?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

In recent years, a wholesale revision to the OrgLaw happened

Only because the monarchist opposition simply boycotted that Cosa that time, or to be precise, never assigned their seats, so a 3/4 majority was possible. If large numbers of hyper-conservative citizens flush their votes down the toilet, yes, things can happen over the King's objections.

You picked out one item from among a very long list of sweeping changes (just off the top of my head -- there's a lot more!), selecting that one item for special pleading.  And your explanation for even that one item still sounds a lot like "here's one example of how big changes can happen if you persist and opponents become disorganized."

At a certain point, it starts to sound as though you're complaining that we have a constitution which limits what a bare majority can do.

I think there's a lot of potential for real and amicable forward motion, but if you're saying that the necessary "precondition" for a "lasting constitutional reform" just doesn't exist, it makes me wonder what the point might be.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the Free Democrats will support proposals on their merits (and I'm sure the same is true for our PdR colleagues). The point is you just can't wish away political mistrust and hostility. Let's put it this way. If the Government parties came up with a new Monarchy Reform proposal, I would simply assume you guys would vote it down, regardless of its contents, because giving us a political "win" would be intolerable for you. Is that not true?

...no?  Yikes, that seems like it must be a pretty unpleasant way to operate -- where everything is just hyperpartisan point-scoring.  It actually sounds kind of exhausting.

So I guess when people in the TNC are having fun doing stuff, or offering possible compromises, that just looks like a trap to you?  Like, Breneir is putting together cookbooks and working with Tafi on translating them because he wants to score points, so if you ever participate in fun stuff like that or agree to a compromise when it's not strictly necessary, you're just losing points for your team?  So you must think we're pretty stupid when we do stuff like push forward energetic proposals to get stuff like the Coletx working again, huh?

Look, I know that the TNC doesn't operate that way, and I'm pretty sure most human beings don't think that way, either.  I think operating that way would lead to rejecting a lot of good ideas just because they're from the wrong team, and difficulty ever actually understanding what others are thinking in terms of their principles, and private Facebook threads devoted to explaining how such-and-such is really a clever trap.  I don't think it's a healthy way to run things.

It's not, like, official policy or anything, but I feel very confident saying that the TNC will address all bills on the merits!

[GV]

As to MMP, MMMP, MmMmMmP, or whatever, I leave that to wiser brains than mine.

As to the King himself, the only thing I wish from him is at least some semblance of him giving the Republic of Talossa at least a bit of slack for the provocation for its very existence.  'Betrayed, Stolen, Kept' is still a sticking point with a number of us.  John could have put out that fire years ago, but continues to let it live on in the collective Talossan memory undisturbed.

Reunision happened de jure.  Reunision of the heart has never even come close to coming about, and until that happens, it will be a festering cancer - a cancer in the heart of Talossa.

[GV]

As GV gets ready to give John a piece of his mind...

I actually admire, like, and respect John immensely.  I'm genuinely sorry it was Talossa and not real life through which I 'met' him and Hooligan.  Both seem like amazing people.  Ditto for AD.

That's all.

GV

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

So I guess when people in the TNC are having fun doing stuff, or offering possible compromises, that just looks like a trap to you?  Like, Breneir is putting together cookbooks and working with Tafi on translating them because he wants to score points,

The TNC leader turned against the Compromise on the Compromise, which he ran in the election supporting, and never gave any explanation of his actions. He has also repeatedly accused the Free Democrat President who is also the Secretary of State of dishonesty, or even of using his role to promote partisan political interests. This is not an environment conducive to bipartisan trust on the constitutional issue.

It's your party's right to play hard politics. It wins votes, at the expense of causing lasting resentments among your opponents, and publishing cookbooks and working on heraldry doesn't "pay" for that. The Seneschál is running a competition where in return for wiki edits you get a Day of Observance - but I don't remember a "Do This Many Cultural Events And You Get To Behave Badly In Politics And No-One Is Allowed To Get Upset" competition. (Speaking of cultural events, the fact that neither you nor the TNC leader have done the Civics Quiz and applied for your ID card has provoked comment.)

If you've really got a proposal and this isn't some bizarre fakeout, then really, I look forward to seeing the details, but you and your party have not behaved in a trust-building way, and I've given up trying to explain to you that people are actually hurt by your behaviour. Perhaps you could start by demonstrating some good faith and commenting on Mic'haglh's very well-written and substantive document?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

You seem to have quite forgotten all about the discussion about how it's impossible to enact serious change in Talossa.

So I guess when people in the TNC are having fun doing stuff, or offering possible compromises, that just looks like a trap to you?  Like, Breneir is putting together cookbooks and working with Tafi on translating them because he wants to score points,

It's your party's right to play hard politics. It wins votes, at the expense of causing lasting resentments among your opponents, and publishing cookbooks and working on heraldry doesn't "pay" for that.

Yeah... Again, I think we're probably just thinking differently about things.  I think Talossa is... well, fun.  I like doing stuff like heraldry.  I think it's really interesting.  I think it's probably a mistaken to imagine that doing interesting things is just a sort of currency that you can trade for other stuff.  I'd imagine that ends up souring everything, since then even things that might legitimately delight you are just another callow point in the never-ending imaginary tally.  Talossa would just be a burden.  That doesn't appeal to me.

Heraldry is just cool.  It's ancient and bizarre, a sort of crazed melding of battlefield necessity with modern branding.  There's all these weird quirks, only about half of which actually are necessary for any larger end.  I don't advocate for the Coletx to "pay" for anything.  It's a reward all on its own -- kind of like Talossa as a whole, in fact.  It's fun stuff!

(Speaking of cultural events, the fact that neither you nor the TNC leader have done the Civics Quiz and applied for your ID card has provoked comment.)

Yes, officials with access to government records have announced the fact to the public several times.

Perhaps you could start by demonstrating some good faith and commenting on Mic'haglh's very well-written and substantive document?

...I did, though?  Yesterday, substantively and in detail, tagging him so he'd be notified.  It's earlier in the thread; here's a link: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1655.msg13806#msg13806

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

You're right! Sorry I missed that, because it contains this particular gem:

But we use the Senats, and there are regular competitive elections.  It's also a pretty big feature of a system that is getting terrifyingly streamlined already, with power overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the two or three people that lead the Government coalitions.  A lot of people like politics and legislating, and already most of that process is just "convince these two people you're right."

As opposed to the current system, where serious change is impossible (in usual circumstances) unless you convince one guy in Colorado that you're right. Did you mean to make government by a majority of Cosa seats democratically elected sound like an oligarchic conspiracy against the people? There is an argument to be made against a strong party system, but not one by the leaders of the largest single party.

(If you're offended by questions about why the TNC are boycotting - blockading?!? - the ID card process, fair enough, but I thought maybe it was an actual political position - i.e. you intend to abolish the Civics Test and just give ID cards to all citizens if you take power, so why bother making an effort to study now, right?)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

You're right! Sorry I missed that, because it contains this particular gem:

But we use the Senats, and there are regular competitive elections.  It's also a pretty big feature of a system that is getting terrifyingly streamlined already, with power overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the two or three people that lead the Government coalitions.  A lot of people like politics and legislating, and already most of that process is just "convince these two people you're right."

As opposed to the current system, where serious change is impossible (in usual circumstances) unless you convince one guy in Colorado that you're right. Did you mean to make government by a majority of Cosa seats democratically elected sound like an oligarchic conspiracy against the people? There is an argument to be made against a strong party system, but not one by the leaders of the largest single party.

The king can slow consideration of a bill at most. One of the big systemic changes that occurred recently was the removal of his veto, replacing it with a suspensive veto. That's one of those significant changes that are impossible and couldn't happen, yet did.

But yes, I think the government has too much power and it's definitely unwise to make it worse.

(If you're offended by questions about why the TNC are boycotting - blockading?!? - the ID card process, fair enough, but I thought maybe it was an actual political position - i.e. you intend to abolish the Civics Test and just give ID cards to all citizens if you take power, so why bother making an effort to study now, right?)

I don't think officials with access to Government records should use that privilege as a political weapon.