Any party with a majority in the Ziu and any province can create themselves a friendly Senats seats whenever they please. A simple act of the Ziu creates a new province from the existing one and assigns whatever specific citizens they want, however they please (as long as it includes one active person and nine other citizens). Theoretically this could be done multiple times, in fact, if there are enough citizens available -- but I think only Benito could actually do it more than once right now (yielded two new ten-person provinces and one four-person province). As far as I can tell, there is nothing to prevent this. It's actually a significant danger, since any majority in the Ziu is going to command a majority in at least a couple of provinces, and two Senats votes would be a big deal.
I'll bite on this one for academic debate.
Isn't everything you wrote in the quoted statement just democracy?
A party with a majority in parliament would have been democratically elected, so as long as it's actions are not inOrganic and also fall within the Organic powers vested in VII.3 then the governing party can pretty much do whatever it likes*. That's just parliamentary democracy.
If a government then chooses to carry out the actions you write about above, they could only do it following ratification from the original province. The Ziu can only create new provinces, from OrgLaw, "such that the sovereignty and territory of any extant Province is not altered without the consent of that Province". So, a referendum would need to be held. Again, this is democracy.
For the events in your example to occur and reach conclusion, then a party would need to first convince the electorate to democratically elect them into majority to form a government, followed by the Ziu passing legislation in line with the Organic Law, followed by a democratic ratification from the original province, simultaneously with the democratic proclamation of the people forming the citizenry of the new province(s). This is all just democracy.
The "friendly Senator" is just an incidental by-product, and it would probably be temporary as there would be no guarantee for the governing party that the Senate seat would remain in their control beyond the next election.
*Talossa's parliamentary system doesn't explicitly include the concept of
imperative mandate. In fact, it's not even an implied concept bound by protocol or tradition. The concept just doesn't exist within our systems. Sometimes, and only sometimes, we have seen members of the Ziu mention the term 'mandate', including myself, however, it holds no real legal basis in Talossa. A government can legally do whatever it likes and pass all kinds of laws even if they never campaigned on that issue in the previous election. This all may be an accidental result of Talossa's somewhat odd system where American influenced federal aspects, and concepts like elected bicameralism, smash together with concepts of parliamentarianism, and also that the parliamentary system in Talossa is actually pretty, pretty weak and has many major parliamentary concepts missing. Some may argue this is by design. Again, probably a result of American influences, such as the very strong desire for constitutional supremacy over parliamentary sovereignty (in a Talossan context, the OrgLaw being superior to the Ziu).
***
This does make me think about another related point which has always had me feeling uneasy, by the way. You are correct that it is
somewhat easy not difficult not impossible for the Ziu to change the composition of the provinces. However, at the same time, the provinces themselves are entirely disallowed to secede from the nation (or any territorial subdivision for that matter). But, the provinces are also supposed to be Sovereign and autonomous at the same time. This has never made a whole lot of sense to me; nor does it sit right with my personal ideological stances (anyone who knows my macro-national political views wouldn't be too surprised at this).
The provinces find themselves trapped within a quasi-federal union in which they are not allowed to leave. It is inOrganic for them to even attempt to secede, while simultaneously having the Organic status of being "inherently Sovereign and autonomous".
Org.IX.10 has similarities to Scotland's situation with requiring Westminster's permission to ask ourselves questions about our own self determination, and also with Catalonia's situation where they are constitutionally barred from same. It also doesn't jibe well with Talossa's own spirit of self secession.
