Government Proposal on an Elected Head of State

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

What if I as a Senator decided to go incommunicado?

Well, the senator for Atatürk was last online in April of 2020.  He last posted a month before that.  The senators for Cézembre and Maricopa will often let a month go by between communicating here on Witt.  Typically, in fact, we acknowledge that people will often not be engaged with Talossa for long periods, even if they hold high office, and we let it slide unless it's gotten pretty seriously in the way (ie usually only when it comes to the Seneschal or Secretary of State).  In the case of His Majesty, he acted to ensure that things got done (95% of the rubber-stamp variety, since the monarch has relatively few responsibilities these days) by appointing a regent.  This seems like it should have been fine with you, since you personally suggested he do that in September, GV.

But monarchist Talossa wants a monarchy with power.  Fine.  Does this mean an endless string of unelected monarchs with power, then?  Is that what the conservative Talossa of 2005-present wants?

That's phrased in a weird way, but yes.  I'd prefer that Talossa not "end" and that it be ruled by a monarch with significant enough power to form a stabilizing counterweight to the vicissitudes of tide and time.  I'd note that the hereditary monarchy was already eliminated, though, as you are aware and as others have mentioned.

The 2017 Organic Law makes it very difficult to throw out a bad monarch.

In what way?  It can be done the same as any other constitutional reform.  And there were five of those on just the last ballot.  If the Ziu really wanted to remove His Majesty and replace him, it could already be done far too easily, in my personal opinion.  Is there some other obstacle of which I am unaware?

With an elected monarchy, we throw the bum (not John) out straightaway.

Not John?  This bill would indeed immediately depose His Majesty King John, actually.  You and the rest of the Ziu, the heads of provinces, and the CpI would all be immediately responsible for electing a new king, with V presiding over the proceedings.  Totaling up those numbers, it actually looks like the Free Democrats would be able to pretty easily just decide amongst themselves who they want to make the new monarch.  I can imagine a pretty short list of people who you guys might pick, in fact, s:reu ;)

Why can't we have the benefits of election along with the tradition of monarchy, Alexander?  What's wrong with that?

You're describing a French-style presidency, with a term of seven years instead of five.  The office immediately becomes political and partisan (cf above).

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Why can't we have the benefits of election along with the tradition of monarchy, Alexander?  What's wrong with that?

Probably the same reason you can't have hot ice cream.

Behold, hot ice cream.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Why can't we have the benefits of election along with the tradition of monarchy, Alexander?  What's wrong with that?

Probably the same reason you can't have hot ice cream.

Behold, hot ice cream.

I actually edited that metaphor almost immediately, since I reflected (as the father of three) that I have watched kids eat ice cream soup multiple times.  But looking at the link...

"An elective monarchy is a monarchy ruled by an elected monarch, in contrast to a hereditary monarchy in which the office is automatically passed down as a family inheritance."

His Majesty King John was elected.  His successor will also be elected.  So this seems to describe what we have.  ;)

But more seriously, this is just semantics -- just arguing over labels.  We can call any office the "king," if we so choose, but that's not what we're really arguing over.  We could decide that we'd start calling the Archivist the second king, for example.  It wouldn't mean that we had a king in any way that would be meaningful in terms of governmental continuity.  I'm prepared to argue semantics, but it seems wildly beside the point and tedious.

Like, why can't we have a king who is elected every month and can be dismissed by the town dogcatcher?  There's no reason why not!  There's nothing magical about the word, if we want to use it in a weird way, and we could pass that law immediately.  We can call such an office or any other the "monarchy," but that's sort of sidestepping any actual discussion of the merits.  Such a role would not be above partisan politics, it couldn't act as a meaningful counterweight to the increasingly centralized power of the Seneschal, etc.

Having a monarch has both tangible symbolic and tangible governmental benefits.  The value of the former will be somewhat eroded if the office becomes a partisan prize, since we already vote ourselves all kinds of awards and postnominals.  The value of the latter will be drastically eroded in the same circumstance.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

His Majesty King John was elected.  His successor will also be elected.  So this seems to describe what we have.  ;)

It's true, the Talossan Monarchy has been elective from the very beginning. It is weird that there are so many conservatives then who, considering the constitutional status quo and tradition, openly ask(ed) for a hereditary one -- hell, some even accidentally asked to abolish the Seneschalsqåb three days ago!! -- but who am I to judge.

But more seriously, this is just semantics -- just arguing over labels.  We can call any office the king, if we so choose.  We could decide that we'd start calling the Archivist the second king, for example.  It wouldn't mean that we had a king appointed by the Seneschal in any way that would be meaningful in terms of governmental continuity.  I'm prepared to argue semantics, but it seems wildly beside the point and tedious.

Like, why can't we have a king who is elected every month and can be dismissed by the town dogcatcher?  There's no reason we can't call such an office the "monarchy," but that's sort of sidestepping any actual discussion of the merits.

Let's not indulge in such a tangential and tedious argument then, as you put it. More to the actual point, the link I provided lists a bunch of historical and contemporary examples of time-limited tradition-rich elective monarchies, so I have no idea why the mere concept of having something like that in Talossa is treated as some kind of obvious paradox by some people here.

Such a role would not be above partisan politics, it couldn't act as a meaningful counterweight to the increasingly centralized power of the Seneschal, etc.

Now I'm by no means an expert, but I'm not sure if the current Monarch is really all that above partisan politics either, you know? Especially when the Monarch himself is the center of so much partisan policy nowadays, perhaps due to the lack of other things to legislate? What I'm saying is, I'm aware that vetoing bills for personally partisan reasons is within His Majesty's right, but it's not something an apolitical counterweight to the elected Government ought to do. As a side note, if federal power is too centralised (not sure what that means in Talossan terms), maybe it would be in order to empower the provinces somehow instead of propping up a monarch for life to do the meaningful counterbalance.

Having a monarch has both tangible symbolic and tangible governmental benefits.  The value of the former will be somewhat eroded if the office becomes a partisan prize, since we already vote ourselves all kinds of awards and postnominals.  The value of the latter will be drastically eroded in the same circumstance.

Firstly, you've already said that the Talossan Monarch is elected, which by that logic would mean he already is a partisan prize. The fact that this symbolically and governmentally important post is only up for grabs once every few decades (I refuse to believe that anyone would actually hold on to the office for life) instead of once every seven years doesnt make it less of a prize, quite the opposite, that's just my personal opinion though.
Secondly, did you know that the Federal President of Germany is elected by federal and state legislatures and still manages to be a non-partisan figurehead? The office is so apolitical and inoffensive that you only ever get reminded of its existence when the incumbent manages to find himself implicated in a scandal of gargantuan proportions. Which is to say once in a lifetime or so. How's that for an idea?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

if federal power is too centralised (not sure what that means in Talossan terms), maybe it would be in order to empower the provinces somehow instead of propping up a monarch for life to do the meaningful counterbalance.

History shows that's probably a pretty bad idea, since focus is so overwhelmingly on national politics that provincial politics seldom goes anywhere and there are usually -- not just often, but usually as a matter of course -- multiple provinces that are utterly silent because there's only one or perhaps two active people.  We could consolidate them to try to change that, of course, but then we're also making it much less likely that they will meaningfully diverge from the national results (since they already usually don't very much).  It's also possible that giving them more power will somehow inspire more activity, but they already each command 1/8th of the Senate individually and have a ton of latitude to do things (all power not explicitly vested in the Ziu or Government is theirs), and that hasn't changed much about the activity level for most provinces.  When they are active, they are usually historically dominated by one or two people, as well, who are themselves typically very active in national politics.

Firstly, you've already said that the Talossan Monarch is elected, which by that logic would mean he already is a partisan prize. The fact that this symbolically and governmentally important post is only up for grabs once every few decades (I refuse to believe that anyone would actually hold on to the office for life) instead of once every seven years doesnt make it less of a prize, quite the opposite, that's just my personal opinion though.

That hasn't proven to be the case.  That may change, but we also need to again look at history: every single political party which existed when His Majesty was elected is gone.  Almost every single person active in politics at that time is no longer active.  The oldest political party now existing dates back to 2015, only six years ago.  Talossan politics just tends to move in smaller timeframes these days, because so many political parties lean heavily on the energies of just one or two people.  That might change someday, but the Seneschal just gave a big speech about how it's still true for her party, at the least.

Yes, I expect that the election of a new king someday will have some sort of partisan pressures, and I don't think there's any way to avoid that with elections in a nation with partisan elections.  But we can minimize it and also hope that infrequency lends some majesty to the process to help forestall it.

Secondly, did you know that the Federal President of Germany is elected by federal and state legislatures and still manages to be a non-partisan figurehead? The office is so apolitical and inoffensive that you only ever get reminded of its existence when the incumbent manages to find himself implicated in a scandal of gargantuan proportions. Which is to say once in a lifetime or so. How's that for an idea?

I didn't know that!  I didn't even know that the President of Germany had significant power to wield in a way that made the office a meaningful part of sustaining the system of governance, I'm ashamed to say.  And I know other examples have been raised that are similar.  I'm not saying it's impossible for any country to have a nonpartisan empowered monarch who is regularly elected, but I will say that Talossa is very different from most countries.  I'd be interested to explain specifically how, if the topic is one you'd like to unpack, but for now this post is probably long enough.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

It is weird that there are so many conservatives then who, considering the constitutional status quo and tradition, openly ask(ed) for a hereditary one -- hell, some even accidentally asked to abolish the Seneschalsqåb three days ago!! -- but who am I to judge.

Ha ha ha, lolwut? I must have missed that!

[Ian Plätschisch]

I must say I am concerned with some of what top Free Democrats are saying at their party convention regarding this proposal. FreeDem President-elect Grischun said in a speech earlier this week:

The journey doesn't need to stop here.  We can stay unified and keep chipping away, slowly, surely, to achieve something closer to your [Republican's] overall visions.

Later, GV said:

...if the monarchy could have been made to go altogether, so much the better.

I would like to believe the Seneschal that this proposal really is going to be a Historic Compromise, but if it is instead just another waypoint on an ultimate mission to abolish or dramatically diminish the Monarchy, then I can do nothing else but oppose it.

[Eðo Grischun]

I must say I am concerned with some of what top Free Democrats are saying at their party convention regarding this proposal. FreeDem President-elect Grischun said in a speech earlier this week:

The journey doesn't need to stop here.  We can stay unified and keep chipping away, slowly, surely, to achieve something closer to your [Republican's] overall visions.

Later, GV said:

...if the monarchy could have been made to go altogether, so much the better.

I would like to believe the Seneschal that this proposal really is going to be a Historic Compromise, but if it is instead just another waypoint on an ultimate mission to abolish or dramatically diminish the Monarchy, then I can do nothing else but oppose it.

To oppose this compromise, which leans very heavily in favour of Monarchism, and in turn rejecting the democratic result of a popular referendum, just because the Republican caucus might want to keep campaigning for future changes is nothing short of petty.  None of us have a crystal ball, so we can't say what the future will or won't bring, but I'm sure if any future moves towards Republicanism ever happen then it would happen as a result of an election that led to a future parliament being made up of a supermajority of Republicans.  I'm not sure how likely that is.  You are basically saying that you won't help pass this compromise proposal because, what?... you thought Republican caucuses would cease to exist from this point forward?

[Ian Plätschisch]

To oppose this compromise, which leans very heavily in favour of Monarchism, and in turn rejecting the democratic result of a popular referendum, just because the Republican caucus might want to keep campaigning for future changes is nothing short of petty. 

I am upholding the democratic result of the 55th Cosa election, which entrusted 77 seats to the LCC for the purpose of defending the Monarchy. As I said in my article, I am not supporting this proposal because it prima facie gives Monarchists any benefit, only because I think passing this might make enough FreeDems content enough for this to be a long-term compromise that protects the Monarchy from worse changes in the near future. If that isn't true, then it is not petty for me to be concerned.

None of us have a crystal ball, so we can't say what the future will or won't bring, but I'm sure if any future moves towards Republicanism ever happen then it would happen as a result of an election that led to a future parliament being made up of a supermajority of Republicans.  I'm not sure how likely that is.  You are basically saying that you won't help pass this compromise proposal because, what?... you thought Republican caucuses would cease to exist from this point forward?

I don't need a chrystal ball to read these speeches, which don't sound like the FreeDems view this as a long-term compromise.

[Eðo Grischun]

I actually do see it as a long term compromise that puts the issue to bed for quite some time. Also said in that speech was that I am not a die hard Republican and that I would steer the party on safe ground (in fact, I would have thought that the opposition would be elated and stoked that the FreeDems are about to elect a person who has been as pro-Monarchy as I have been as the next party leader).  I also think you know well enough that that section  of the speech was a call for party unity more than anything else. Nothing radical or extreme will be coming from the FreeDems on this issue; at least, not under my stewardship of the party.  The spirit of our policy of 'agnostism' will continue on. This compromise proposal, or something similar to it, should satisfy the majority of FreeDem members to cease seeking any further, more radical proposals, yes.  Although, neither of us should just expect the die hard Republican minority to just sit down and eat their cereal and stop campaigning for what they desire. Is that reason enough to not pass reforms in line with the result of the referendum?  That a political movement would do what political movements would be expected to do? You correctly identify that passing this reform will put the issue to bed for a majority of our nation.  Choosing not to pass such a reform will only allow the issue to continue being a big issue and the debate to continue being a big debate for longer.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I think that if the leader of the opposition's idea of a compromise is for there to not be any Talossan Republicans any more, he'll be waiting a long time. In Northern Ireland, the vast majority of Republicans have accepted the "Belfast Agreement" compromise for now and peaceably work towards their goals, no matter what an incalcitrant fringe might believe. That is the kind of situation I see as the best possible outcome from here.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Although, neither of us should just expect the die hard Republican minority to just sit down and eat their cereal and stop campaigning for what they desire. Is that reason enough to not pass reforms in line with the result of the referendum?  That a political movement would do what political movements would be expected to do? You correctly identify that passing this reform will put the issue to bed for a majority of our nation.  Choosing not to pass such a reform will only allow the issue to continue being a big issue and the debate to continue being a big debate for longer.

I'm glad we're on the same page then. I should point out that of course I never thought all Republicans would go away; my only concern was that the leadership of the party seemed to be endorsing them. I'm happy to be mistaken on that.

[Ian Plätschisch]

I think that if the leader of the opposition's idea of a compromise is for there to not be any Talossan Republicans any more, he'll be waiting a long time. In Northern Ireland, the vast majority of Republicans have accepted the "Belfast Agreement" compromise for now and peaceably work towards their goals, no matter what an incalcitrant fringe might believe. That is the kind of situation I see as the best possible outcome from here.

See above.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

If one side views an outcome as an indefinite compromise, and the other views the outcome as an interim concession, only one of them can actually be correct.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Anyway, I've come up with a proposal to elect the King.

A convocation of the following people:
-Eight MCs, chosen by the parties in proportion to their Cosa seats (plus the Seneschal if not an MC or Senator)
-The eight Senators
-The Justices of the UC
-The eight provincial executives
-The eight officers of the Royal Civil Service
-All Talossans who have been a citizen for at least ten years

The King is elected from this group papal style; repeated single-preference votes until someone gets 2/3.