La S'chinteia Volume XIV

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Volume XIV is out!


Do you want to have the next volume of La S'chinteia sent straight to your inbox a day early? Click here to subscribe!

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Posted.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

It is often claimed that a figurehead Monarchy is more than capable of providing the desired pomposity, but there is just something hollow about being awarded a coat of arms from someone whose only job is to award coats of arms. It works better if the Monarch is also responsible, in some small capacity, for the governance of the Kingdom.

How well does it work if the Monarch only has two jobs:
1) vetoing legislation which he doesn't like;
2) awarding coats of arms?

The King's veto on legislation - his last effective power - is not only offensive to our legislature because it is usually "parachuted in" at the last moment, but it certainly hasn't worked as a check on the quality of laws, since the King only uses it against legislation he doesn't like the principle of, rather than serious bugs/typos. And the very nature of monarchy is we can't stop him doing whatever he likes unless we get a 75% Cosa majority, which will probably not happen again for a decade.

Honestly, remove the King's ability to name Senators to vacancies and his legislative veto - or replace it with a system as in Ireland, where the King can submit a law to the CpI to check for Organicity - and my effective problems (rather than my principled problems) with the current system would be gone.

[Eðo Grischun]

On the point about Senatorial appointments:

Am I right in assuming that interim Senators are appointed by the King only because at one stage it was seen as desirable not to hold by-elections outside of the regular election schedule? Possibly so not to overburden or annoy the Chancery even?

If so, does that reason still hold true today now that we have provinces doing their own elections?  Wouldn't it be perfectly fine to just allow provinces to hold their own by-elections outside of the election schedule and just do away with interim senators altogether?

[Glüc]

Well, strictly speaking the provincial executive appoints a replacement senators. The King only comes in when the provincial executive fails to do so (but in that case its often questionable whether the province would be able to hold an election). 

Also, many provinces still leave their senatorial elections up to the chancery (which considering the current state of provincial senate elections is probably a good thing).

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Both Eðo and Glüc are right. The King only "fills in the gaps" in the constitution re: Senatorial appointments (and Constables, as well). But his unaccountability in doing so not only enables - but entitles - him to do so as and when it suits him, politically and personally.

Power + unaccountability is the problem. The only thing we can threaten the King with is deposition, and that only when it reaches the level of what the Big Neighbour calls "high crimes", as opposed to ordinary everyday obstructionism and sabotage.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

How well does it work if the Monarch only has two jobs:
1) vetoing legislation which he doesn't like;
2) awarding coats of arms?

The King's veto on legislation - his last effective power - is not only offensive to our legislature because it is usually "parachuted in" at the last moment, but it certainly hasn't worked as a check on the quality of laws, since the King only uses it against legislation he doesn't like the principle of, rather than serious bugs/typos.

I've written extensively to complain about the King waiting until the last minute to issue vetoes, but in so far as the King is allowed to veto legislation he doesn't like the principle of, that is the point. Otherwise he would just be, to use your words, a legislative janitor.

And the very nature of monarchy is we can't stop him doing whatever he likes unless we get a 75% Cosa majority, which will probably not happen again for a decade.

A veto can be overridden the very next Cosa with only the normal 2/3 threshold. The King's veto over amendments, and regular bills, are both (thanks to me) suspensive only.

Honestly, remove the King's ability to name Senators to vacancies and his legislative veto - or replace it with a system as in Ireland, where the King can submit a law to the CpI to check for Organicity - and my effective problems (rather than my principled problems) with the current system would be gone.

This statement essentially boils down to "if I succeed in stripping the King of his remaining powers, I will have succeeded in my goal of stripping the King of his remaining powers." I don't see what you are actually conceding or compromising by this, except perhaps throwing out the Monarchy entirely.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

It is my principle that power must be balanced with accountability. If the Head of State is to exercise political power outside of an emergency situation, the Head of State must have a limited term, because that is the only way to provide accountability (short of impeachment and overthrow, which you will agree should be reserved for the most heinous cases). The idea that someone should own Talossa and be able to thwart the will of elected officials by virtue of that, because... why? It sounds cool to you? ... is repugnant to me. It could have been justified in the case of Robert I, who created the Nation and founded the State. Not in any of his successors.

Conversely, I have no problem with a life term for the Head of State if they don't have such powers.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I just have to say, that even when I did recognize Robert I's rights as head of State over Talossa, I always found it kind of... creepy that people actually liked monarchy as a feature. I.e. they were part of a community where one person had political power of veto and people had to perform obeisance to him, and they saw that as a feature, not a bug. Kinky, and not in the good way.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Ian, really good article and very good reasons why the monarchy makes sense for Talossa.  Well done!

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

regarding monarchism, i am not impressed by the arguments presented in la s'chinteia XIV. i do not much care if the person is called president or king or shah or big-violet-bambaloo, until she/he has such a position in our political system, that it is substantiated, she/he cannot play a partisan or possess absolute power over anything.

if talossa needs a royal backbone for a long term stability, i do not really like it, cos it would be an artificial glue; talossa needs a strong civil society to survive, not an empty shell refillable at need. one (wo)man cannot be talossa, we all have to be.

i would understand a ceremonial, entertaining and representative role of the head of state, but never anything beyond constitutional monarchy with strict division of powers. we need no figurehead, but also no robert-the-first-like l'état, c'est moi tyrantosaurus.

what kingdom of talossa definitely needs is a good jester. jesters of bohemian kings are legendary (brother paleček or žito the mage).

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

(short of impeachment and overthrow, which you will agree should be reserved for the most heinous cases)

I wouldn't agree, actually.

The idea that someone should own Talossa and be able to thwart the will of elected officials by virtue of that, because... why? It sounds cool to you? ... is repugnant to me.

The King doesn't own Talossa and his limited power (which doesn't rise near to the level of being able to really "thwart" anything) doesn't make it so. Point 3 of the articles explains why I think it's good that the King have this small amount of power, and it's not that I think it's "cool."

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

regarding monarchism, i am not impressed by the arguments presented in la s'chinteia XIV. i do not much care if the person is called president or king or shah or big-violet-bambaloo, until she/he has such a position in our political system, that it is substantiated, she/he cannot play a partisan or possess absolute power over anything.

The King already does not have absolute power over anything political.

if talossa needs a royal backbone for a long term stability, i do not really like it, cos it would be an artificial glue; talossa needs a strong civil society to survive, not an empty shell refillable at need. one (wo)man cannot be talossa, we all have to be.

The King should of course not "be Talossa," so on that part you are right. However, the Monarchy is an institution that can help the rest of civil society along.

what kingdom of talossa definitely needs is a good jester. jesters of bohemian kings are legendary (brother paleček or žito the mage).

I tried that once before, but not enough people would go for it.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I do think it's cool. It's one of the features of our country as a political simulation that I have always been most interested in. It isn't for everyone, but since in the modern age we have always been a constitutional monarchy, most of the people who come here like it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

(short of impeachment and overthrow, which you will agree should be reserved for the most heinous cases)

I wouldn't agree, actually.

This is interesting. So, you support a monarchy (i.e. a life term as head of state), but one which might be impeached and removed for less than high crimes? Bear in mind that we have precedent in Talossa (with the impeachment of BenArd) that you just have to be bad at your job. Would you set a similar standard for impeachment/removal of the King as we did for UC justices?