Life in the political fastlane and the accountability deficit

Day 861, 06:01 • Published in Canada Canada • by Alias Vision

I have been urged recently to write more. I guess I just haven't had too much to say or often I've lacked the time (I wanted to do a piece on the elections but couldn’t on the weekend and nobody cares five days later) or the motivation (spending three hours on something to gather thirty votes takes its toll after more than a year).

But I have something to say now!

Until yesterday I was Speaker of Congress with a better than even chance of re-election for the month of April. Last night I resigned the post and removed my name for consideration, meaning that Jacobi ran unopposed and will be the new Speaker of Congress.

The catalyst for this decision was a ruling on my part that banned Congressman Spencer Magee from Congress for seven days OR asked for a $200 CAD donations to be made voluntarily on behalf of the CPF to the government of Canada.

It is the "or" part that created the furor.



First I would like to share how I came to the decision to impose such an unusual ruling. The ban was due to the motion to impeach the President launched minutes before the conclusion of voting on the 25th for a new congress. Although perfectly valid from a "mechanic" point of view in-game, the vote was illegal from a forum law point of view (those laws that some will claim are irrelevant now that admins no longer support contracts but more on that later). My first instinct was to let it pass, the motion would be defeated anyways, but when I got called on my inactivity I realized that I was simply trying to avoid a difficult decisions that I knew would be potentially divisive.

The easy ruling would have been to ban Congressman Spencer Magee, there was ample precedent to justify such a move, but I felt it would have been an unfair decision. Why? Spencer is a veteran politician, one who both knew he would get re-elected and wanted to be in Congress. People like that don't simply up and make frivolous law proposals, especially ones with the potential impact an impeachment has. That this was actually a CPF sponsored proposal is no secret since the party and their allies published many articles in the media stating this. Should I punish the one for the work of many? Especially considering the fact that I chose to believe their argument that this was in fact meant as a protest vote.

So in attempting to find a compromise that would reflect the nature of the infraction with the delicate balance of authority of the Speaker position and precedent, I came up with the notion of a $200 donation. There was no question in my mind that I did not have the authority to fine a political party, the Speaker is not a law unto himself. That is why I carefully worded my ruling to say that the amount would be a "donation". Upon initial protest, I went back and edited the judgement to also add the word "voluntarily". In other words, this part of the ruling would be non-binding, as per the limits of the Speakers mandate and authority, but if someone chose to act upon it would reflect well on the party and their willingness to be accountable. If such a thing happened, the ban on Spencer would be lifted as acknowledgment of the shared responsibility.

A lot of the anger expressed was due to the fact that I was "making stuff up". Well... yeah... anytime someone makes a ruling that deviates from what was done before, you are in fact making stuff up. There was no malicious intent and no political agenda. But it was never "bail" or a "fine". I'm pretty sure I wasn't oppressing anyone.

Did I make a mistake? Yes. When feedback came to me both publicly and privately, I could see that I either had not explained myself properly or in fact completely overstepped my bonds. Spencer and the CPF wasted no time in ridiculing the ruling before appealing it. The reaction from the public was also very telling. Regardless of intent, the optics of the decision were bad. So much so in fact that I would have accepted a demand for appeal on that basis alone. When the official calls for appeal came in, the decision was an easy one, the $200 stipulation would be removed from the ruling leaving only the seven day ban.



Why resign?

Two main reasons: The first is that it was very important for me, in my role as Speaker, to maintain separation between the issues and any political interests I might have. In other words I had to both be and appear to be impartial. When this ruling came down, I lost all appearance of impartiality as the issue was politicized so fast and so aggressively. Also from now on I would always have to fight against the perception of bias against Spencer and the CPF. The position of Speaker is "work" enough, if I was going to be part of the CPF narrative then it would become a problem and I'd rather remove myself from that. It also helped that the person running against me for Speaker is such a strong candidate with a proven track record of dealing with difficult politicians.

The second reason is due to the growing separation between those that proclaim that the only thing that counts is the "mechanics" of the game vs. those that give importance to what I'll call the "humanistic" side of our community.

From a purely mechanistic point of view, the impeachment vote was legal, the laws, regulations and practices of the eCan forums are not and therefore all institutions therein are irrelevant, including the Speaker of Congress. It is a valid point but a destructive one. No nation in the New World will reach its full potential from this simplistic ethos.

From a purely humanistic point of view, the community traditions should be the main laws, even above and beyond those found hard coded here. This opposite extreme position does not take into account the freedom of choice of citizens to live as they wish and keep things as simple as they can get if they so desire.

The silent majority meld the two approaches. The position of Speaker of Congress is the most visible official position in our community that must meld both approaches. If those that chose to participate in the full life of government and congress pick and chose which side to champion when they see fit or is politically expedient... then why bother? Why not come straight out and say then that you are only in it for the gold and the power? Which brings me to my final point... accountability.

There is virtually no accountability in this game. You should not be allowed to declare the system broken and irrelevant, ignore the parts you want when it suits your needs and then when you get called on it, state that nobody else is doing anything to fix things. To be blunt that is simply not true but over the last two months, whenever someone tries to change the way we operate, they get shouted down. Those doing the shouting are not offering alternatives, but they have the bigger voices and so far, the plurality of support from the public.

I choose to hold myself accountable. I have acceptable responsibility for my ruling in Congress and now here. I also choose to put myself in a position where I can better contribute to the solutions rather than the problems and right now that is as a simple member of Congress for Ontario.

When the next elections come, if I am sponsored by a party to run, I hope the electorate will take it as an opportunity to continue to hold me accountable. I further hope that we can wake up that same electorate so that it becomes more demanding of its elected officials. Elected office is a privilege, not a free ride.

This article will be an interesting measuring stick... one to see if the public has an appetite for such a wall of text and two... if they have an appetite for this kind of debate (trolls notwithstanding).

This time I was an easy target because I do not have the political capital to fight on the same playing field as the self-styled consciences of Canada. The incoming Speaker will not be so impaired and perhaps in the future those that seek to destroy our institutions will be held accountable by those that seek to promote and defend it.

Thank you.