Time for the Senate to act like a Senate?
•
by patti11
Sup homies,
I write this article as I am one of the many who are at DEFCON 1 levels of frustration in the Senate. Right now, they are dealing with such life changing proposals as the New Citizen Communication Act, The Congress Exchange Program and just recently, the Housing Exchange Act. While some of these programs do have merit while others are just plain silly, should it be up to the Senate to make these proposals? This fgt says no. Let me explain.
History of the Senate
Let me drop some knowledge on you. After our independence from Indonesia back in December 2008, the early settlers (yeah, I'm calling the elites settlers, sounds less sinister then old boy's club) had the rare opportunity to rebuild a perfect society- a perfect government. The initial setup was which I find ironic, spearheaded by our current Prime Minister, Xavier Griffith.
Xavier, who many of you may not know is involved with RL politics, decided to name the congress, The Senate. While the name obviously ties in with RL Australian politics, it was named The Senate over The House of Representatives as the original goal was for it serve a similar purpose to the current Senate. This of course being discussions of proposals (yes I know The Senate in some circumstances can propose bills, rarely happens). In short, the original goal was:
Cabinet=The House of Representatives, Congress=The Senate
Whether through arguing of not enough powar or something else, this idea has been skewed over time. The Senate has been acting out a role of the HoR, and so has the cabinet.
Thus, we cannot blame the current Senate for these seemingly pointless and timewasting proposals, its been hardwired into our system. Even wondered why new international players tend to struggle in our Senate?
Comparisons around the world
To effectively evaluate our Senate, it is necessary to compare it to other congress's around the world. I start with the UK, due to its relevance to Australia.
UK: Before our independence, UK was home to many, many Aussies. As such, ideas were borrowed from their Parliament (which just quickly their congress is the House of Commons, and well known, honoured citizens are House of Lords). In fact, you could be forgiven to believe you had entered the Australian parliament, the two are so similar. I bring forward case study 1 (you may have to register on their forums to see ). How similar are our two formats and passing procedures!
Poland and Romania: On the other end of the scale, two of arguably the most successful countries in the eWorld have a very hands off congress. Their congress's only participate in voting, and in extreme cases, start impeachment processes. Is a pattern emerging here?
Back to Basics
It can be argued, that countries that use our current system or a form of it, are not successful in the world (UK, arguably Australia is not reaching its full potential). Poland and Romania, are two countries that have allowed their Country President and their cabinet to do what they were elected to do, bring in policies they and the public think are effective. The congress, being the representatives of the people, vote on these proposals, for an extra check and balance.
What I think needs to be done, is a hybrid of these two extremes. While I personally do not see any problem in scrapping all the Senate's law making powers, bar important ones, I am sensible enough to see this simply will not happen, primarily due to game mechanics. The Senate has the ability to of course, propose on laws such as tax changes and donations. I do advocate, that we limit the Senate's powers to these proposals only. This gives the Prime Minister, and their cabinet, arguably the power and free reign to implement policy they have been elected to do. This should also increase the caliber of our congressmen, as we will have those who are well respected, not those who promised that Q5 hospital in Tasmania.
This is nothing new, I have been silently advocating these changes since I was first Prime Minister in April 09. I knew though, as a member of the executive government from the last 10 or so months, this would simply be seen as robbing the Senate of power. Now as I have left aussie politics, I feel I can freely speak my mind on the issue, and bring down the many deficiencies our country has.
I look forward to reading/debating your arguments on the matter,
patti11
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
tl;dr denial
patti11 is actually a girl pass it on.
P.S nice article honey.
A good one, write more.
I approve this msg
the senate is to create red tape and for self gain no more no less
Power to the Cabinet 😃
"I do advocate, that we limit the Senate's powers to these proposals only. This gives the Prime Minister, and their cabinet, arguably the power and free reign to implement policy they have been elected to do."
I have a problem with this.
The cabinet pretty much does what it likes right now, infact people are campaigning for the government to have full transparency with the senate which we have not got yet.
Also let me remind you that most cabinet members are NOT elected in any way, shape or form. (some are senators)
So giving a free reign to unelected people is a big no no.
Tbh, i think we should base everything on real life politics as much as possible. All cabinet members should be required to be senators.
This way the people being put in the cabinet positions are the people that the citizens want to lead the country. Right now it's whoever the guy running for pm wants in the cabinet.
This is also causing another trouble because a political elite has been formed. The same old people are getting the same cabinet positions each month. You could make the argument "well don't elect that pm which has them in the cabinet" But if you look at every candidate, every candidate has the same people in it.
Senators should form cabinet.
The role of congress in eRepublik is a mindset out of RL ideas, a country have to be quick and able to make deciwions on 1 hour, not wait 24 hours for congress decision. They should have power of course in ingame votings, and some internal issues, like plans for helping newbies, subsidies for companies, etc, and of course they can judge the representative by impeaching, but not a priori
Voted!
@discrate:" The cabinet pretty much does what it likes right now, infact people are campaigning for the government to have full transparency with the senate which we have not got yet."
Whether it is your eAge or not, I disagree. In comparison to other, arguable more successful countries, our cabinet is more transparent and more restricted (many countries dont even publish a budget).
"Also let me remind you that most cabinet members are NOT elected in any way, shape or form. (some are senators)"
I will need XG to confirm, but I believe this was part of the initial plan. It was rejected due to the bi/multipartisanship shown by all PMs.
"So giving a free reign to unelected people is a big no no."
Shouldn't the PM be held accountable then?
"Tbh, i think we should base everything on real life politics as much as possible. All cabinet members should be required to be senators. "
so a PM's cabinet has to be from their own party (in practice)
"This is also causing another trouble because a political elite has been formed. The same old people are getting the same cabinet positions each month. You could make the argument "well don't elect that pm which has them in the cabinet" But if you look at every candidate, every candidate has the same people in it."
there is a huge difference between those who do good jobs, and those who are their for the sake of it but nonetheless, I agree, there are some cabinet ministers who are in cabinet for the sake of it. With that being said though, there should always be a nice mix of new and old blood.
vote
Asking a legislative branch of government to do its job and legislate? You're either crazy or trolling.
"Shouldn't the PM be held accountable then?"
To what? We wouldn't even know if any cabinet members do anything wrong because under what you propose, the cabinet wont have to report anything to the senate. Under an amend that i made a couple of weeks ago, all government departments that receive government money are required to make 1 short basic report to the senate outlining 1. How much money they got 2. What they spent that money 3. What was the outcome of that spending.
"so a PM's cabinet has to be from their own party (in practice)"
We could leave that out since that would be pretty hard seeing as the party the pm is from might only have 2 senators.
The PM would be free to choose any senator he wishes.
"there is a huge difference between those who do good jobs, and those who are their for the sake of it but nonetheless, I agree, there are some cabinet ministers who are in cabinet for the sake of it. With that being said though, there should always be a nice mix of new and old blood."
Even if they are doing a good job, they should atleast have a 1 month break sometime. Take aussie_bloke for example, he has held a cabinet position for the past 7 months.
Unfortunately right now, no new blood is being put in and let me tell you, there is ALOT of capable people to do the jobs.
Good thought provoking article Patti.
Generally I am happy with the PM/Cabinet as executive and Senate as legislator but I think we have too many and overly complex laws. The issue of insufficient calibre and activity of people affects both Cabinet and Senate. Its something that needs to be worked on.
There are too many restrictions on the executive and I think the laws should be unwound a lot. However in releasing these restrictions, I would advocate more transparency and accountability. We may be high on this scale already but thats a good thing.
OMG - I don't remember the last time I saw such a well thought out article, along with articulate and educated comments/responses.
I agree with venja - some of the laws on the books are needlessly complicated and ambiguous, and instead of helping matters they actually provide more questions than answers.
I also like patti11's ideas about limiting the senate responbilities to only those than can be mandated in game. Our current set up gives too much power to the senate, which at times is very professional, and others resembles a elementary school playground. As a former senate member, I would have no problem at all conceding some of that "power" to the CP - allowing progress instead of perpetual congressional debate.
Good article, patti11.
When I was CP in another country, we had a constitution as our only source of law. It was about 20 pages. As CP, I could pretty much run the show. In the RL USA, another term for the President is "Chief Executive". IMHO in eAus, the CP is not a "Chief Executive" but a slave to barriers of red tape.
The other disturbing thing about the Senate is some of the... well, my favorite example is when Adam Creedy MoI was censured by the Senate for accepting to companies donated to CentreLink. Whoever thought the Senate could censure a minister for accepting free donations of behalf of the country.
If one would go back and review the history of IG inquiries, you would find complaint after complaint, often petty, filed against one person or another. Besides the unproductive proposed laws you mentioned, this is the sort of thing the Senate spends its time on.
Ireland had a similar problem. Now no congress member dares to introduce a piece of legistlation that doesn't have to do with things in-game. Good luck to Australia
I would never run for senate again here unless things change...
I would run for senate again in eJapan in a heartbeat!!! They just get it... The don't fight the President... Even the MoD just turns and says... "we need to fight, give me 500G for the next 2 days fighting" the senate all say yes, and at the point that half of them say yes (takes about 4-6hrs) the money goes through...
If I was to ask for money for the defence force right now, I would need to start a 48-hr discussion in the senate, then wait for a speaker to put that discussion to a 48-hr vote, so that 4 days later we can go to war (I know about executive orders... but i'm demonstrating a point)...
Anyone else see that we either just missed our window to attack, or that we just lost 4 states???
This is one of the major reasons that I left eAustralia in the first place.
And I'm certainly not back to get involved in it again...
The thing that is nice about the Australian Senate though is that it provides a mechanism for anyone in the country to get into national governance without first getting into the good ole boys club. Many countries have come to favor military dictatorships over representative democracy, because, lets face it, this is a war game on many levels.
The thing is though, Military Dictatorships rapidly stagnate. Has anyone ever stopped to wonder why the eWorld has such a wide diaspora of Americans roaming about in countries like the UK, Germany, Japan, China and here in Australia? The fact is the American government model in eRepublik is very incestuous politicaly, and, bluntly put, boring. Eventually you just grow weary of a the same old crap over and over again with the same old people doing the same old thing.
The Aussie Senate does not in any way slow down the Prime Ministers right to act decisively to an emerging crisis. What it does do is provide a forum for a disparate portion of the citizenry to affect government policy. And this is a very good thing.
The Cabinet are not elected. To give them legislative powers is to defeat the very purpous of democracy.
Lets make our system very clear and simple. The Cabinet are the Executive and the Senate is the Legislateur.
Wow! What fantastic, well thought out and informative article! Great work Patti!
Also what great responses especially from discrate1, infin & Aeros!
I know that these peoples arguments don't necessarily agree, but I think they still all make very valid points.
I think that we can distill these arguments as follows:
- We need a simpler frame work with less red tape
- We need the highest possible degree of transparency
- We need to eliminate the possibility of a political elite forming
- We need to restrict the powers of unelected officials
- We need a framework which allows the government to act swiftly
Now we just need to work towards a model that best balances these needs.
Personally I believe that requiring the cabinet to be formed from the senate, might be a good change.
Many laws need to be unwound and the senate needs to lose the red tape it continues to tangle itself up in it. Get back to basics and let those who need the senate in order to feel special find something else to do.
Great article and great discussion.
Something people have to keep in mind that in a way, the cabinet IS elected, because by voting for the CP, you're also voting for their policies, their goals and the cabinet they have put forward.
Not the same as voting for the cabinet itself, but still.
"The incompetence of some of the Prime Ministers and their cabinet members and their desire to just roll over the top, pressure, abuse or slap the Senate is what has caused most of the tightening of rules and therefore increase level legislation. Also, most PMs and their Cabinets have been overly secretive about things, which hasn't helped. Transparency was a real issue for many of the PMs and their Cabinets, I hope that this has changed over the last 2 terms."
Exactly what the problem is.
The cabinet is sometimes too incompetent and too secretive hence the restrictions
Possibly the cabinet is too secretive because anytime someone has a new idea it gets blocked by the senate for being "absurd" and the minister is threated with all sorts of nasty thing?. Suppose the senate are the ones who are incompetent, not the cabinet? It was admitted above that most cabinet members are senators, so if they are incompetent in the cabinet they are just as likely to be incompetent in the senate.
Just saying
@Hinokai - Techinally not on the cabinet issue. You do vote for the PM, but remeber that PM can change he's cabinet at anytime and could look different from the one adveryised (as it has in the past).
However with Senate, unless they resign (for which they are not replaced) you get who you voted for, for the whole term.
I think its good the cabinet is un elected because lets face it, some Senators can get in on 3 votes (rarely) 4 is generally the minimum. Cabinets are picked by the PM and are generally more trustworthy. If you want an elected cabinet think about it as RL, you have one team running against the other, each team has a chosen leader.