13
Public Call for Debate: eThai Constitution
There has been discussion in the past of the notion of crafting a constitution for eThailand. Some were for it because it would give the nation a chance to formally codify governing structures. Some were against it because they felt there is not a large enough population to create legitimacy. However, the debate generally faded.
I think it would be good to reopen it.
The current political crisis is very simply over whether the President and cabinet (myself naturally included) betrayed the eThai people by reaching a secret agreement with Indonesia regarding the "war games". One major reason we're having this discussion is because we have no clearly defined limits of executive power. Is the President allowed to conclude treaties w/o the consent of Congress? Without the consent of the people? Are there exceptional circumstances under which such matters would be acceptable, but not more generally? Are the people to be informed candidly of all government dealings, or does an administration have a right to withhold some matters of government? Would such a right or lack of right extend to all matters, or simply security matters? Etc. etc.
Basically, we have an executive whose role and authority is undefined; they have as much authority as they can muster, and as much responsibility as they care to take on. This is not, I think, an ideal situation. I think it would be very good indeed for us to lay out some formal limits and responsibilities for the executive. Currently, there is some portion of the population with an abiding distrust of the government due to the current administration's handling of the Indonesian situation. I think it would be very good for us to at least publicly lay out what are commonly held beliefs on proper limits of executive power. If the common consensus is that it's not an auspicious time to craft a Constitution in toto, we could consider a contractual Oath of Office to be required of incoming Presidents. Even if we're unwilling to adopt that, I think it would probably do us some good to air our diverse opinions on exactly what the executive should and should not be able to do.
So... thoughts? What are proper limits of executive power, how much secrecy is acceptable, and how should the executive be held accountable between elections?
I think it would be good to reopen it.
The current political crisis is very simply over whether the President and cabinet (myself naturally included) betrayed the eThai people by reaching a secret agreement with Indonesia regarding the "war games". One major reason we're having this discussion is because we have no clearly defined limits of executive power. Is the President allowed to conclude treaties w/o the consent of Congress? Without the consent of the people? Are there exceptional circumstances under which such matters would be acceptable, but not more generally? Are the people to be informed candidly of all government dealings, or does an administration have a right to withhold some matters of government? Would such a right or lack of right extend to all matters, or simply security matters? Etc. etc.
Basically, we have an executive whose role and authority is undefined; they have as much authority as they can muster, and as much responsibility as they care to take on. This is not, I think, an ideal situation. I think it would be very good indeed for us to lay out some formal limits and responsibilities for the executive. Currently, there is some portion of the population with an abiding distrust of the government due to the current administration's handling of the Indonesian situation. I think it would be very good for us to at least publicly lay out what are commonly held beliefs on proper limits of executive power. If the common consensus is that it's not an auspicious time to craft a Constitution in toto, we could consider a contractual Oath of Office to be required of incoming Presidents. Even if we're unwilling to adopt that, I think it would probably do us some good to air our diverse opinions on exactly what the executive should and should not be able to do.
So... thoughts? What are proper limits of executive power, how much secrecy is acceptable, and how should the executive be held accountable between elections?
Facebook
Twitter
The only way to make it truly transparent and avoid a situation like I was faced with again, we would need a private forum for the president and the congressmen and voting on matters would need to be done privately there before such measures could again be enacted.
This is difficult to maintain because I dont think all of our congressmen are even registered on our forum, so to believe that they would check a private forum for govt issues would be problematic.
I think we should allow the president to have the power to make some decisions by himself. His power is already limited enough just by the nature of being president.
I would point out that unlike most countries Thailand runs the permanent risk of having untrustworthy congressmen, since half of our population would have to run to fill all of the seats. So rather than letting the full congress no everything, what about an intelligence or foreign policy committee made up of non-cabinet congressmen that can be trusted. It the best compromise I can some up with between security and oversight.
Vincent's right. Until we get a bigger active population, we're going to be continually stuck with congrsssmen who can't be trusted with matters of national interest. I say that Vincent is right in appointing a board of non-cabinet congressmen to act as an advisory committee. However, ultimate power should always rest with the president.
I think although small this Country has many strong voices. There are enough here to come to terms on a proper and just constitution for us to abide by.
I am for this action to be taken.
Who is to elect these non-cabinet congressmen that can be trusted?
It would once again fall upon the president who would, once again, face criticism for having who he wishes to be the voices of Thailand and not who the public wishes (whether they'd have picked the same people or not). A constitution should first and foremost make ALL people of Thailand EQUAL; and not have a segregation of who can't be trusted and who can.
I think we should firmly fall upon Innocent until proven guilty here. If, after the constitution, they perform an action that is wholly against Thailand and break the trust given to them as either congressmen or other officials then we can place them upon the list of who not to entrust this country with; but not before.
Anything before proof of these peoples un-trust and we'll have witch hunts and "he said, she said" type conversations based around propaganda and opinion rather than fact and proof.
Unfortunately Thailand does have a small population and we should treat our country accordingly and make decisions based upon that; thus if a constitution was to be made I'd hope that our small size did play an active role in the decision making process.
A President is voted in by the people to represent them and make decisions. To strip them of all decision making is to render the position null.
Each person will trust different people more than others. It is life. You know someone better than someone else you tend to trust them more. I base my trust in past actions and words. It is part of my somewhat cynical nature.
This is why we vote for our Representatives. Sometimes the Candidate in office is not the one you voted for but that is the voting process. When You think the current Government is not effective You work to make that change. That is the beauty of Democracy. We need more voices in Thailand to take up politics.
Until the game allows for a Country to switch to a true Democracy where every citizen votes we have to accept this form of Government and work within its confines.
There is no call to render the President useless; but one must consider the effects his choices have. If, as vincent said, there is to be people who will act soley for Thailand and people that are trusted with it; having 1 person make that decision renders that trust not in Thailand but even more dangerously into one person.
At the moment, from Vincent's and Albert's comments, it seems as though they have already formed opinions upon who to trust, yet we see no reasoning as to why.
"we're going to be continually stuck with congrsssmen who can't be trusted with matters of national interest."
- Albert
It's not the idea of the president having final say; it's the word "trust" I'm having trouble agreeing with.
What suggestions do you have on how to run things?
Much like in real life, executive privilege and national security secrecy is a recognized principle. I think what JR did was fine except for one thing, inclusion of more people in the decision-making process. I don't think an offsite forum is needed when congressmen could have just been PMed. Well, that will just be my input.
I will be vacationing like Wisdom. I hope to be back. I hope.
Ok but before I vacation, I will help for a while in the Resistance War. I don't want to see that region get lost, I can't be too trustful of Indonesia.
Ok... why can't I move to Indonesia, Western Cape???????????
Because we're at war with Indonesia. You nee to move to a thir-party nation for a layover before traveling there.
"What suggestions do you have on how to run things?"
Thought this article was all about what should be in the Constitution rather than how to run things?
Personally I don't see what's wrong with the current system of congress though that would need us to look for third party "trusted" members of Thailand. If there really needs to be a narrowing view on who/what should be involved in the major decisions then why not go the route as to ask each Party president to put forward 1 congressmen who would represent the party along with himself at such decision making talks?
That way you're still keeping all views of Thailand's different political opinions while keeping it within elected officials of Congress.
but that's just my opinion
We were speaking about how to put into the Constitution how Government performs actions. I was looking for your ideas because You appear to be one of the more vocal "anti" people so I thought You must have some ideas on how You think things should be run.
A Party that has 1 representative should not have as much say as a Party that has 20 representatives. In that case people could just start a Party to get in on the "insider" cabinet with the intent to undermine or corrupt.
With the TNT party having all of the corruption issues in the past as well makes me feel having representatives from multiple parties with different agendas would wind up in constant gridlock and/or security leaks of sensitive subjects. This is why we vote in a President in my opinion. To lead and put together a team to do it. I wouldn't have a problem with us requiring it be Congress members so it remains elected officials in cabinet.
WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER ME
I will be the idealist here and I'm sure there will be argument upon argument with what I propose, but I will do it anyway. Like Adst, I do not believe that any member of congress should be assumed to be untrsutworthy and thus excluded from the decision making process. We have an obligation to not mislead people into casting uniformed votes based on deceptions. So I do not believe there is a situation (if a vote is needed) that calls for secrecy and deception, ever.
That said, I will address the power of the president. Let us keep in mind that the president does not have exclusive power ever. There has to be a balancing system (that is congress). In fact, the presidents seat carries with it many responsibilities and very little exclusive power. That's how it is. So no power is being stripped away.
Finally, I would like to propose an idea to anyone that can make this work. The congress needs a separate forum for voting. In that forum, the congress members will cast a pre-vote. Based on the outcome of that vote, all of the congressmembers will vote yes or no on the actual voting program. The difference would be that the president would get a disproportionate number of votes (maybe three). This would give the president some additional power without giving him or her the ability to make decisions all on his or her own.
My two cents.
I agree with you that secrecy is a bad thing. It is something that nothing good comes from with Government. Current debacle included. Some issues that have to do with national security rely on things of a timely and confidential nature.
I think we do need to put official policies in place that cover all situations we can think of and vote on them accordingly to come to an agreement on how to handle situations.
Without this can we really hold people responsible for these "invisible rules" that weren't officially in place?
Unfortunately, Your idea requires programming changes not country changes. I'm definitely for a congress forum. Maybe not the pre-vote for everything as it is a bit redundant for lesser important, simple votes.
"That said, I will address the power of the president. Let us keep in mind that the president does not have exclusive power ever. There has to be a balancing system (that is congress). In fact, the presidents seat carries with it many responsibilities and very little exclusive power. That's how it is. So no power is being stripped away."
In RL USA Congress = Lawmakers, President = Decision-maker/executor. This is why we reserve our vote for a trustworthy candidate for President because they will be making decisions on part of the voters. (Though in RL USA its been a while since we had a trustworthy candidate) Just my opinion on how Gov works. Of course it is different everywhere.
@Adst, I really don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I never suggested a process for choosing "trusted" members of the hypothetical committee I'm proposing, there is no reason that congress itself couldn't do it. I'll give both a RL and ER example in defense of my proposal.
RL: In the United States, both houses of congress are divided into committees for efficiency's sake. This also has the effect though of allowing certain members be briefed on sensitive materials, namely members of the intelligence and armed forces committees. Nothing undemocratic or distrustful about it, they are, in fact, chosen by the leaders of the houses.
ER: Let's say, oh I don't know, a bunch of people from Iran/Italy/USA/Pakistan or any other country come here for the purposes of political takeover/medals/gold etc. Do you want them to be briefed on matters of national security? Perhaps no more in necessary than only allowing congress members who have been resident in Thailand for more than 2 weeks, or any other arbitrary amount of time.
The point is, there is nothing wrong, in principle, with allowing certain people more privileged access to information. No one sees a problem with allowing all of congress to hear something, but not the entire population do they? Does that mean that all citizens of Thailand wouldn't be equal, because we trusted our elected (usually by one vote) officials over the general population? No.
Please avoid drawing conclusions and making assumptions. I meant what I said, no more and no less.
Drawing conclusions? I think this quote says it all Vincent: "So rather than letting the full congress no everything, what about an intelligence or foreign policy committee made up of non-cabinet congressmen that can be trusted."
That would lead ANYONE to assume that you're stripping away some people and leaving only those that can be "trusted." and if that's not what you meant then you simply didn't type it up properly to give a full explination of what you did mean.
So perhaps you should stop being angry at me for "drawing conclusions" and instead next time explain yourself fully so that people don't do the same in the future?
@Adst from now on please read past the first paragraph of my comments. Thanks.
Well, the title says 'public call', so I might as well pitch in...
I am leaning towards the idea of having a constitution (limiting power and secrecy is uasually a good thing), but I'm lost to how it will be maintained and executed. Unless it is somehow ingrained into eRepublics coding (if only), it won't really take much to override or simply ignore it.
As if fairly obviuos, not all of the congressional seats can be "trusted", thus making it easy for congress not to follow the constitution. What is going to happen to the people who don't follow it? Not anything, it seems.
Going off of that, if there were consequenses for certain actions, what anyone do? The only punishment the congress can implement is the impeachment of the president. So the constsution will hold one person responsible, if it is followed. You can't put a massive bump on taxes (well you can, but you won't want to) because that would hurt not only the "law breaker" but also anyone else who that tax applies to.
Feel free to correct me if I'm missing any information, I'm still fairly new to this. But I don't think that you can afford to bypass how to execute the constitution without it becoming useless.