[UKRP/TUP/PCP/WRP/UKPP/ESO/BD Cabal] Constitutional Swagger
Day 2,709, 07:27
•
Published in United Kingdom 
•
by
•
by Sir Humphrey Appleby
Afternoon gentlemen o7,
After the most cunning liberation attempt in eHistory I hope you are enjoying the gradual restoration of the eUK after the glorious ascension of Scarfar to the Dictatorship. Since the 16th a more modest cabal consisting of the top 6 Party Presidents have been negotiating a potential framework to try and prevent another incident where foreigners seemingly walk in, punch your grandmother and walk off with your grand piano and now ex-girlfriend.
It has been a strangely useful wake up call for those that previously saw this as a scaremongering tactic for what they considered a dangerous threat to democracy. Barely a week into their celebrated free democracy it was, embarrassingly, taken away by exactly the kind of group we were warning against. And now people seem to see the merits of having a dictator that’s at least on your side…
Happily we are now prepared to publish our proposed solution to this constitutional problem of simultaneously having a CP and a Dictator, whilst protecting the functions of our democracy. What has proved contentious is the level of power we accord to the Dictator given that they have near absolute power in game - which is an obvious problem for the rest of us if there’s no agreed framework in place guaranteeing our votes shape our government. I hope you will offer us your thoughts on what we consider to be our middle ground.
We hope to submit this Act to the new parliament on the 26th. Instead of re-posting the Act here, I will just go over some of the arguments behind the clauses in each part.
The Appointment of a Dictator
We considered that a candidate would have to ask a party president for a nomination rather than a congressman, as it would be assumed that the PP would only support them if it had wider party backing - by proxy including their congressmen. Additionally, the requirement for 10 people from OUTSIDE that party was to promote a cross-political candidate that truly had backing from beyond one group. The length of the elections was to ensure that as many people could vote and have time to consider who to vote for. The week limit on elections was to avoid a scenario where the dictatorship is constantly challenged.
Dual Responsibility of the CP/Dictator
The main section of the Act, this is what effectively defines how the dictator can act once they’ve won their election. Essentially, the CP is free to carry out the day to day running of the government with the dictator giving a forced nod on the relevant ingame proposals. The extent of the Dictator’s power over the CP is to ask them what they’re doing, and have that reason published. They can also temporarily secure the orgs if the government is oddly silent about a missing bag of swag, until the results of an impeachment proposal where the orgs have to be released. However, if the CP is proven innocent then they can force the Dictator to resign for interfering with the government’s money. To some these 2 clauses of asking for info and temporarily securing the orgs make this Act too authoritarian, but to us PPs it seems just to be common sense.
Congress and the Dictator
The tiniest part, largely because this simply requires the dictator to carry out the wishes of congress in game. The dictator can, however, refuse a congressman’s citizenship request for someone - but this can be reversed by the CP and the dictator forced to accept them in. I’m not particularly sure what the contention is in this part but it just allows the dictator to raise an eyebrow when someone wants to let in an obvious PTOer.
When the Dictator goes Rogue
Probably the simplest part - it says what you’d expect it to say really. Get rid of the sod
Congratulations for making it to the end - you’re in the top 1% x_X
Appleby
After the most cunning liberation attempt in eHistory I hope you are enjoying the gradual restoration of the eUK after the glorious ascension of Scarfar to the Dictatorship. Since the 16th a more modest cabal consisting of the top 6 Party Presidents have been negotiating a potential framework to try and prevent another incident where foreigners seemingly walk in, punch your grandmother and walk off with your grand piano and now ex-girlfriend.
It has been a strangely useful wake up call for those that previously saw this as a scaremongering tactic for what they considered a dangerous threat to democracy. Barely a week into their celebrated free democracy it was, embarrassingly, taken away by exactly the kind of group we were warning against. And now people seem to see the merits of having a dictator that’s at least on your side…
Happily we are now prepared to publish our proposed solution to this constitutional problem of simultaneously having a CP and a Dictator, whilst protecting the functions of our democracy. What has proved contentious is the level of power we accord to the Dictator given that they have near absolute power in game - which is an obvious problem for the rest of us if there’s no agreed framework in place guaranteeing our votes shape our government. I hope you will offer us your thoughts on what we consider to be our middle ground.
We hope to submit this Act to the new parliament on the 26th. Instead of re-posting the Act here, I will just go over some of the arguments behind the clauses in each part.
The Appointment of a Dictator
We considered that a candidate would have to ask a party president for a nomination rather than a congressman, as it would be assumed that the PP would only support them if it had wider party backing - by proxy including their congressmen. Additionally, the requirement for 10 people from OUTSIDE that party was to promote a cross-political candidate that truly had backing from beyond one group. The length of the elections was to ensure that as many people could vote and have time to consider who to vote for. The week limit on elections was to avoid a scenario where the dictatorship is constantly challenged.
Dual Responsibility of the CP/Dictator
The main section of the Act, this is what effectively defines how the dictator can act once they’ve won their election. Essentially, the CP is free to carry out the day to day running of the government with the dictator giving a forced nod on the relevant ingame proposals. The extent of the Dictator’s power over the CP is to ask them what they’re doing, and have that reason published. They can also temporarily secure the orgs if the government is oddly silent about a missing bag of swag, until the results of an impeachment proposal where the orgs have to be released. However, if the CP is proven innocent then they can force the Dictator to resign for interfering with the government’s money. To some these 2 clauses of asking for info and temporarily securing the orgs make this Act too authoritarian, but to us PPs it seems just to be common sense.
Congress and the Dictator
The tiniest part, largely because this simply requires the dictator to carry out the wishes of congress in game. The dictator can, however, refuse a congressman’s citizenship request for someone - but this can be reversed by the CP and the dictator forced to accept them in. I’m not particularly sure what the contention is in this part but it just allows the dictator to raise an eyebrow when someone wants to let in an obvious PTOer.
When the Dictator goes Rogue
Probably the simplest part - it says what you’d expect it to say really. Get rid of the sod
😛
Congratulations for making it to the end - you’re in the top 1% x_X
Appleby
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Link to Act: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BP4C2rVqqcrQVjqad5oFtG3AzzUiVxhpI4C1xkj1pnQ/edit
As discussed on IRC, I think the procedures of appointment and duality between CP and Dictator outlined in your document will create an unstable political climate in the eUK, and possibly an unstable government. This, I believe, can be avoided by taking powers away from the Dictator and making the role as un-controversial as possible to avoid inevitable clashes over the constitution that will arise in the future.
'Essentially, the CP is free to carry out the day to day running of the government with the dictator giving a forced nod on the relevant ingame proposals. The extent of the Dictator’s power over the CP is to ask them what they’re doing, and have that reason published. They can also temporarily secure the orgs if the government is oddly silent about a missing bag of swag'
I don't see how asking someone to publish their reasons is unacceptably unstable to you, or how the Dictator keeping an eye on the funds is a danger to our civil liberties...
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one 🙂
Why should the CP be accountable to the Dictator? Why should the Dictator be given the right to decide when to withhold money? If a CP is rogue then it's common sense, but if that isn't made absolutely clear in the bill then it's too easy to exploit.
There still seems to be the sense that the Dictator should have the right to certain powers over the CP and Congress without any explanation as to why.
The only powers the Dictator has under this Act is:-
a. To request why an action was taken by the government to be published
b. To withhold funds if they have a strong suspicion they are being stolen and the government refuses to explain why. Given the Dictator owns the orgs ONLY THEY can have the CP banned and thus they are the first and last defense for the country's taxes.
I mean, the Act even says the Dictator has to resign and return the orgs if the CP is reaffirmed by congress after an impeachment vote - I am mystified how this gives the Dictator overbearing authority...
But why should the CP have to answer to the Dictator in the first place? What's the justification?
The Dictator is also elected via a referendum and they wouldn't ask for the info unless they thought something clearly dodgy is going on. Why is this such a contention?
Because it is an affront to the preservation of democracy, it is the role of Congress to scrutinise the CP, not the Dictators. Further to that they are a democratically elected cross party collection of 40 individuals, not one person determined by a PP and ten of his mates.
If people are given a free and fair chance to vote for the dictator then they have the electoral mandate to ask about what's going on and enforce their right to ban rogue CPs as allowed by the admins.
Again I don't see how this is an infringement of the CP unless they've decided to betray the country.
If you are convinced that this will lead to the downfall of the country then I would suggest convincing parliamentary candidates to vote against us in the new session. Again I'm mystified at how you perceive these very modest safeguards as an affront to basic liberty
The first time that a dictator uses their powers in a contentious way, we will have genuine civil war in the eUK. A truly rogue CP won't be an issue, but anything less will be seen as partisan.
Not only will this be hugely expensive, as £200k follows £200k out the door, but it will be as useful to eUK community spirit as alternating Dapper/Big Ant presidencies.
You are creating a direct rival to the CP, and are either:
a) oblivious to the dangers
b) entirely aware of the consequences.
Whilst debate *is* a valuable component of successful Government, I cannot help but think that we are lucky to have someone ike Scarfar to take unilateral decisive action when required!
I agree with you here certacito. But you've missed out an important word here and that is - FAIR.
What Scarfar has said is that EVERY citizen should be given a say in how we govern ourselves and NOT for people like Adastros to get everyone to agree to a system and then simply say - "I don't care what people want, or who they elect - they are ALL stupid and I'm giving the dictatorship to Wayne.
That is the key point.
Again, I don't see how the clauses in this act allow the Dictator to become a rival to the CP other than in the case of the CP going rogue. They would be compelled to interfere if funds are stolen as they are the only person who can have the CP banned - and that is the highest extent this Act goes to impede an otherwise normal CP term like any other.
What's important is that if this Act is passed by Congress that it is jointly enforced both by the CP and the elected Dictator until it is either amended or repealed. If the Dictator oversteps their limits defined in this Act then we need to get rid of them asap, if the CP goes rogue we need to have them banned.
Well, let's take a particularly woolly clause as an example:
"The Dictator, however, has the right to withhold funds if they believe there are obvious discrepancies in government spending - however these funds MUST be released following the results of an impeachment vote or a fresh CP election."
Who gets to decide what "obvious discrepancies" are? What happens if 50% of Congress/the rest of us don't agree? What happens if 75% don't agree?
What happens if there is a suspicion (but not proof) that the Dictator has acted out of political motivation?
What happens if the Dictator withholding funds is sufficient delay to ruin a central plank of a CP's democratic mandate?
It wouldn't take Machiavelli being Dictator to see how these Cabal-granted powers could be misused/abused. In fact it is so obvious that I'm beginning to wonder if that is the whole point of this exercise.
I have gone over the clauses that you and Woldy object to and have come up with this compromise that seems to get his nod of approval
a. The Country President is completely free to ignore the Dictator’s advice. The Dictator has the right to publish their advice to the public as part of their electoral responsibility.
b. The Dictator can only request the banning of a CP after an impeachment vote from Congress AND if it is completely clear they have stolen from the treasury or deliberately betrayed the eUK.
I think this achieves what we both want in the interests of the safety of the country and our taxes
Read it, loved it.
voted
A cool solution, incorporating both the merits of dictatorship and autocracy. o/
Hopefully we can ensure that this agreement will become a normal part of the election process.
Works for me.
Hi Mr Apples please add British Democrats to your gdoc
anyone can read it
feel free to 😛
but our name is not on the list
oh, if your party wants to sign it sure
yeah
sorry - wasn't sure if it would
cool then 🙂
we dont want to feel left out
ol
i do agree with most of it any one u want find no problems from us 🙂
anyway
that's great news, adding you now
thank you !
Cool
SPONGER HAS SPOKEN!
SPONG!
I like this - it is simple.
I particularly like the 'Action on Rogue Dictator': GET RID OF THE SOD. Nice!
In the meantime Scarfar is doing a fine job rebuilding our MPPs and liberating territory....
o/
None of this stops any MU from doing what MEK did, the initial cost of removing the original dictator is marginal.
The only real defence is strength and coordination something eUK has lacked for a long time
Yes, this is certainly true and discussion has taken place in respect of our military weakness as a nation and our lack of military co-ordination. This however (in my view) needs to be addressed after we have strong and stable government.
Somehow I think of carts and horses
Do you have a potential solution you'd like to air? Or are you just highlighting an obstacle?
We have prevaricated over the whole dictator thing for two months now. Appleby and Woldy have come up with a plan than seems to be accepted by the vast majority of those who have expressed an opinion, so let's act on it.
this sounds like alot of fuss and alot of writing and work, when simple why cant we just say the CP should be the Dictator. Otherwise whats the point in CP elections anymore
Sadly last time UKRP (Adastros got us all to agree to this very principle - they then ignored it.
UKRP and Adastros are not the same. He's a part of the party and overall has done good work, but yes he betrayed our trust. I don'tcondone what he dI'd bUT weneed to stop treating him as a scapegoat for the entirety of recent events.
We didn't simply ignore it, most of us just tried to make the best of the situation.
Good point - I think we need to give the action a name other than the person who did it, in that what happened is in the past and can't be undone, so any reference should be to the event not the person.
Maybe we should call it doing a Joe Bloggs?
To make absolutely clear about the proposals here - I along with the PP's of the other top parties have agreed in principle to the concept of electing a Dictator. However, what I have not agreed in my capacity as PP of TUP is the final wording of each clause as laid out in the draft document provided by Appleby.
An alternative has been made available by Mr Woldy, which is being given serious consideration.
It would be utterly remiss of the eUK to jump straight in and approved one version of a proposal without given equal and due merit to another.
Better to take 3 weeks and agree what is right, than take 3 days and get it all wrong and find ourselves back to square 1.
Let's be clear here - if this proposal takes on a partisan approach and we are bounced into it by UKRP - then there will be serious doubts as to its long term sustainability.
I love it when we make up rules that can't be enforced.
Takes me back to the old days.
Yes, but - by agreeing on clear rules we provide a proper process available to eUK to ensure it can be enforced.
What we have to ensure is when a dictator is acting against the wishes of the community we can point to legislation and there can be no argument against removal of the dictator.
Congress already has the power to remove the CP, so it is the dictator who needs both legitimacy by election and a process to limit his powers irrespective of game mechanics.
tragically we became paralyzed over the last month or so because no one was able to determine the need to remove a dictator no one had agreed should be in place.
There seems to be real agreement forming here. Hopefully all the PPs are currently talking to their parties seeking support for this plan.