Join the new world

In the next few articles, I will explain some of the things that happened during the coalition: some points that I’ve learned, things that went right or wrong, learnings for the next formation, etc.

In this first article, I’ll go into some general thoughts. I will use the TI weekly #1, to clarify some points mentioned there. I’m not going to say those points are completely wrong, it’s just a different perspective. I feel I should describe the formation from my perspective too.

After long but good coalition talks, a coalition between I&W/LSD/IP has been formed. Quite a surprise, as many suspected the coalition over right (I&W/GLD/IP) would be it.
Definitely true. In fact, it took me by surpise too, as I expected a right-wing coalition to come out of the talks. I’ll come back on it later.

The formation has been, in my opinion, quite dubious. First of all the appointment of Boklevski, which LSD and IP announced even before I&W could agree on it.
I’m afraid you have been misinformed here. Three people agreed to sit together and discuss how to move forward after the situation that was not covered by our constitution: Garmr (Country President), Hans Rienveld (LSD Party President) and Auggustus (I&W Party President). Due to unforeseen RL circumstances, Auggy could not make it, and Garmr – also a member of I&W – showed initiative by acting on Auggy’s behalf. They agreed that a neutral formateur had to be appointed, and both acknowledged that I could be that neutral person. That is why they appointed me as formateur. Therefore, this was an agreement between both LSD and I&W, and IP was not included in this at all. Maybe some “rumours” were expressed on IRC by individual members of LSD and IP, but only LSD PP and Garmr as I&W representative were included.

We could easily conclude that the coalition over right was the most preferred one, by all three parties, still Boklevski went for a coalition with LSD/I&W. I can understand he did that, as that's the most fair solution, but he shouldn't ignore the preferences he asked for.
I did not choose that because it was “fair”. There was indeed support for a right-wing coalition, most supported was even an I&W/GLD/IP/TI (thus 4 party) combination. However, there was also agreed between LSD and I&W, when appointing me as formateur, that first a coalition of I&W/LSD would be discussed. Therefore, I was bound to this agreement as formateur, and looked at this opportunity first. Both LSD and I&W kept their promise too and were willing to talk about this first. Only if this would fail, I would look at the second option: a coalition over the right. I didn’t ignore preferences, I hold myself to agreements made.

I&W and LSD only have 20 seats, so they needed a 3rd party, and surprise, it was IP. Once again LSD and IP began publicizing they would go for this coalition, before I&W could respond.
This was actually not a surprise (and I sense the sarcasm in the above sentence). In fact, there were three possibilities: include IP, GLD or CPNL. Including more than one party was quickly dismissed during the talks with I&W and LSD, as that would only make the coalition unnecessary complex. Here is where the survey, including the preferences, came in. GLD and CPNL were no option, and thus IP remained. It did not matter at all that I am part of IP, it was simple the only possible combination. LSD and IP did not publish anything as far as I know, and – to ensure transparency – I only published that talks were being held between I&W/LSD/IP, but that nothing was final.

But actually I don't blame LSD and IP, I&W hasn't been helpful too and delayed the formation process with days. What amazes me more is that I&W just agreed with that, and didn't push for GLD instead of IP.
You explain it already yourself. If I&W would have pushed for GLD, any possibility of an I&W and LSD coalition would fail, and we would have had to look further at other possibilities. That I&W didn’t narrow-minded push for GLD shows their willingness to cooperate and is, in my opinion, a fair gesture of I&W. That brings me immediately to the “delaying the formation process with days”: such decisions shouldn’t be made without thought, and I can imagine that I&W members wanted some time to think about their relations with GLD and the implications.

I would feel betrayed as party member of GLD, as we all know that I&W wouldn't dominate the politics like they do now, without GLD support. Garmr wouldn't even be president now, if GLD didn't support him last month.
Let’s face that I&W is the biggest party in members. GLD is most close to them, looking at their political values. That is why their cooperation exists. They supported Garmr, because they decided Garmr was the best candidate. GLD can think for themselves, they aren’t some daughter-party of I&W, and therefore, I see no reason to feel “betrayed”. GLD is a reasonable party, and – with my explanation of the process above – I assume they will understand that this coalition was formed.

Hope this clarifies things up a bit.

Regards,
Boklevski