We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: OOC: Guidelines on the powers of the Supreme President [Originally written by the Utilitarian Party of Solentia]
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Party of Solentia
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 3076
Description[?]:
| [UPS] I have been looking at the qualifications of the Head of State and the Head of Government. According to all the provisions and options available in the game, it seems that the basic principle is that power originated in the Head of State: Consider the options in the articles on the appointment of mayors, the administration of justice, and proposing the Cabinet. It does seem that from that point on the system evolved and the Head of State gave many of its powers to other structures. According to our law, any party may propose a Cabinet; since the Head of State belongs to a party, his choice will very likely follow his party's. The Head of State has also the capacity to draft treaties, but since no provision states that his treaties must be approved we cannot grant him any executive powers. He doesn’t have veto because the game does not need the approval of the Head of State in order to accept a bill. Do you have the option of resigning to your post as Supreme President? That could give some insights into what the platform would do. I also have not seen any limit on how many terms a Supreme President can serve; I guess we tolerate indefinite reelection. The law stipulates that under special circumstances curfew may be imposed, yet I see no explicit text defining the person who could impose the curfew nor its limits. The bill Zanz referred me to (Supreme Presidential Power Clarification Act 2786) mentions that as a sign of respect the Cabinet proposed by the Supreme President shall be approved unless grounded reason exists; we have seen that provision not being followed and we should consider overruling the aforementioned resolution. Once an election takes place it might well be possible for the Cabinet to remain indefinitely in office. Imagine that no majority exists and that no compromise is reached. The game effectively imposes a constructive vote of no-confidence in order to remove the Cabinet. It is also possible for the Supreme President to belong to a party not represented on the Cabinet. He could have won in the second round, but he only achieved 45% of the popular vote in the Senate. We would be facing something very similar to how cohabitation works in France: The Head of State retains his ability to draft international treaties, but because he represents the opposition in the government and therefore in the cabinet, the legislature could oppose any treaty. I believe that one element missing to the game in order to guarantee a balance between Head of Sate and Head of Government is the option for the Supreme President to dissolve the Senate; he still has the option for calling an early election, but he is also risking his job; in a semi-presidential system no new Head of State is elected if an early election was called. The other element present in most democratic nations which guarantees the equilibrium is the judiciary branch. This whole problem would have been solved with a ruling on its constitutionality by the Supreme Court of Justice of Solentia, with its judges appointed by the Supreme President and staying in their office about 10 years. Unfortunately it was never implemented. With all this in mind, I reason that under our current laws the only role the Supreme President has is to work as a symbol of the Nation and the nominal guarantor of independence; he is only a ceremonial figure with the added capacity of drafting international treaties. He is not responsible to the Senate and he cannot refuse accepting a cabinet. Under the last previsions it should be noted that the position of former Supreme President Jack Alvaren was wrong. His job is not to choose a cabinet. The choice does not belong to him. Our laws do not allow a semi-presidential system (like France), because the Head of State cannot call new elections on its own. We are working on a parliamentary democracy with an elected head of State: Think about the recent evolution of the political system in Austria, in which the President even refrains from dissolving the Assembly, but he is elected by popular vote. Our Supreme President resembles the Presidents of Germany, Greece, or Finland. They are symbolic figureheads. Which are your considerations on the subject and how should we integrate this into a resolution? |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:51:39, February 14, 2011 CET | From |  Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the OOC: Guidelines on the powers of the Supreme President [Originally written by the Utilitarian Party of Solentia] |
| Message | [Conservative Party of Solentia, May 12 2010, 17:33] UPS, it's good to see you delving so thoroughly into Solentia's mechanics so early into your tenure here! In the past, the power to propose a cabinet had been invested only in the party from which the Supreme President was elected. This was changed in the time between this stint of mine in Solentia and my last. I would support reestablishing this, since it really is a part of Solentian tradition to have a 'Supreme Presidential Cabinet.' This really followed more with the "Supreme Presidential Power Clarification Act 2786," since any cabinet proposed would by definition be the Supreme President's choice, and those voting 'No' would by Senatorial ettiquet be asked to provide reason for their disapproval. It is not possible via game mechanics to resign the post of Supreme President, though any other executive position may be vacated. I suppose that a resignation could be RPed, but often times stuff that requires RP like that will fail in Solentia due to some parties' unwillingness or inability to roleplay that extensively. There is no executive veto in the game mechanics, either, but again with strictly RP bills this could be added for flavor. Solentia has no set term limit, technically one person could hold Supreme President for 200 years, because there are no characters in game, only names, and no one ages outside of RP. We do try to keep it realistic but with the passage of years so swift, it is often easy to make a mistake and leave a man in office for longer than you intended. I would be willing to begin work on a bill which defines the curfew stuff, heck I'd be very willing to start drafting a larger bill that includes a lot of the stuff that we decide needs to be defined as far as the executive goes. There is no way to dissolve the Senate in Particracy. Like I told you via message, Particracy is not a finished product, and so this may be working as desired, or it may be for other reasons. I'm not particularly familiar with this. I strongly, STRONGLY support the creation of an RPed judiciary branch, I always have, I merely never found anyone else with an interest in establishing this. The issue again is the swiftness of game time... A case could easily span across several judges, which presents its own problems... This could be solved using fluid time, but I also have doubts as to whether or not a Supreme Court would be utilized often: the in game Constitution is notoriously weak and we would likely need to create RPed addendums to it, in my opinion. If the old system of only allowing the HoS party to propose a cabinet were reinstated, the Supreme President would once again have the guaranteed capability to refuse any cabinet which is not suitable to him. (This may mean that he ends up stuck with a cabinet that was in place before he was elected, but this is his choice, essentially.) The Supreme President in my opinion, should retain the right to propose 'executive decrees' as established in the "Supreme Presidential Power Clarification Act 2786," and since in my perfect Solentia he would have the right to accept who is Senate Warden (who's given the right to request a declaration of war by game mechanics,) he would also have this right himself. |
| Date | 05:52:23, February 14, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the OOC: Guidelines on the powers of the Supreme President [Originally written by the Utilitarian Party of Solentia] |
| Message | [UPS, May 12 2010, 23:25] I actually have no problems with the Supreme President remaining as it is. I personally think that Solentia works best with a parliamentary system. Just imagine what could have happened had in this election the FIP won in the second round. It would not had been so hard for him to snatch an extra 10% from the parties eliminated in the first round. I actually think, that since a new part is around and many more are welcome, a party retaining the presidency without a coalition in the Senate is even worse than a one-party rule. It is considered that a first-past-the-post system with a strong President with no responsibility to the Legislature results most of the times in stagnation: The Weimar Republic, The French Third and Foruth Republics, and in my own experience the last 7 years in Mexico. Retaining the Head of State as a ceremonial figurehead sounds fine to me; since he was not elected by the Senate, why should he have that responsibility? The semi-presidential system would work quite well if the President retained the ability of calling new elections without loosing his post, and if his mandate terms were regular and independent from the Senate. Another way for making it work is used in France, where the party of the winning President automatically gains 50% + 1 of the seats whenever legislative elections are held at the same time as presidential elections. The way the game was left in development makes me think that the only ways it can work is if we keep the Supreme President as an almost non-partisan Head of State with very limited powers (I wouldn't want him to impose curfews or anything of the sort... see the Weimar Republic). Or if we allow once early elections are called the Supreme President to remain in place; this would demand from all the parties to agree to endorse the ruling Supreme President, with the negative consequence that turnout would fall [and actually way to hard to achieve]. Or a third option would be a constitutional amendment to have the same person serving as Head of State and Head of Government. This way the person winning the election would have some powers and would also clearly be responsible to the Senate; a compromise would be needed between both branches of government. See how the system works in the Dundorfische Demokratische Republik (Dundorf) and in the Commonwealth of Rutania. Anyway, I would be strongly against removing all the parties the ability to propose a new cabinet, unless of course, the Head of Government and the Head of State be merged; only in s similar situation would I support giving the appointment of the cabinet to the Head of State/Government. I quite enjoy a republic in which coalitions are necessary and seeing it work this term in Solentia reaffirms my believe that the system is way more dynamic with coalitions in place. This nevertheless does not imply that after the next elections the parties now in the opposition will not attempt to return to the way it was, but if we permit a strong executive, small parties are left out of Solentia. |
| Date | 05:53:15, February 14, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the OOC: Guidelines on the powers of the Supreme President [Originally written by the Utilitarian Party of Solentia] |
| Message | [CPS, May 12 2010, 23:25 (UPS' post above was 20:50)] I do not agree with your last point about a strong executive meaning small parties are left out of Solentia, actually quite the contrary. Regardless of the Executive branch, all parties will have the ability to earn their seats in the Legislative, even the small. Not having a seat on the cabinet means nothing as far as Legislative representation is concerned, and I strongly believe that a Supreme President who has the job of appointing the cabinet will ENCOURAGE, not destroy, coalition governments. The more power which is given to the Executive, the more important it will become to secure the Supreme Presidency, and this will surely lead to politicking as to endorsements and coalition cabinets in order to become Supreme President. We have in the past tried a sort of Presidency 'sharing' arrangement where everyone agreed to endorse one party, but it never flew and I doubt that it ever will. Certain parties will hold out and there will be occasions where the system is abused. In effect it's very hard to 'rig' the Supreme Presidential system simply because this is a game and nobody's afraid to annoy their fellow parties and submit their own candidate. Good luck trying to get a joint HoS-HoG... Tradition dies VERY hard in Solentia. I'm not saying I wouldn't support it, but we haven't had a 'Supreme President' and a 'Senate Warden' in Solentia since 2400 by sheer luck. As hard as it is to accept, people have put a ton of effort into making Solentia the way that it is and there are certain aspects of it that just don't get changed while the 'old guard' is still here, so to speak. Trust me. I've tried. I believe really that this is an issue on which we simply don't agree. I am in favor of a stronger Executive than we have now because I feel that the Senate has been entrusted with Executive powers that have not traditionally been, nor, in my opinion, should be now, in their hands. A delicate system of checks and balances is upset when a popularly elected Supreme President is nothing more than a figure head, and the CPS strongly supports giving some of these powers back in the name of the people. |
| Date | 05:53:49, February 14, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the OOC: Guidelines on the powers of the Supreme President [Originally written by the Utilitarian Party of Solentia] |
| Message | [UPS, May 13 2010, 00:17] I agree, but since we do not always have to agree, everything is fine :) It is just that when the FIP mentioned that the choice of cabinet belonged to the Supreme President, that puzzled me; however, if that is the way Solentia has been working, so shall it be! |
| Date | 05:54:17, February 14, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the OOC: Guidelines on the powers of the Supreme President [Originally written by the Utilitarian Party of Solentia] |
| Message | [CPS, May 13 2010, 00:27] No, no... I think that you raise a valid point! When the FIP mentioned that he would reject any cabinet which didn't suit the Supreme President, the weight behind his statement actually came from the fact that in the LEGISLATIVE he held a majority: In reality it was his party rejecting it, not the Supreme President. In times past, when the Supreme President's party was the only one allowed to propose cabinets, the FIP's statement would have held weight. Any cabinet WOULD have had to be approved specifically by the SP. Now, since any one can propose and if they have a majority pass, his statement is lacking in any weight whatsoever. I favor returning this power to him. |
| Date | 05:54:47, February 14, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the OOC: Guidelines on the powers of the Supreme President [Originally written by the Utilitarian Party of Solentia] |
| Message | [CPS, May 13 2010, 21:23] I would ask that once you deem this discussion completed, move it to vote, do NOT just remove the bill. I'd like for it to be archived! But don't rush closing it either, I think it's still a subject which needs to be addressed. |
| Date | 05:55:20, February 14, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the OOC: Guidelines on the powers of the Supreme President [Originally written by the Utilitarian Party of Solentia] |
| Message | [Centre and Unionist Party, May 24 2010, 15:16] Perhaps we could have the Modern Senate confirm the Supreme Presidential Powers Clarification Act 2786? I think it would allow the UPS to debate this IC more openly and get us some better RP flowing again.\r\n\r\nI also strongly advise Modern Supreme Presidents to use Executive Decrees for the odd-measure, just to continuously confirm that the power exists in case it eventually becomes lost-in-time.\r\n\r\nFinally, I would agree to a RPed Judiciary/Supreme Court. |
| Date | 05:55:45, February 14, 2011 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the OOC: Guidelines on the powers of the Supreme President [Originally written by the Utilitarian Party of Solentia] |
| Message | OOC: Rewritten and sent to vote so that the original can be cleared off the debate phase docket. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 70 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 34 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 321 |
| Random fact: Parties have the ability to endorse another party's candidate for the Head of State election (if there is one). This adds a strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "The trouble with unemployment is that the minute you wake up in the morning you're on the job." - Slappy White |