Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: June 5461
Next month in: 01:02:12
Server time: 14:57:47, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (3): Archangel_1 | Caoimhean | SE33 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Lex de Princeps Civitatis

Details

Submitted by[?]: Factio Unitatis Patriae

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: October 4472

Description[?]:

Senators,

This is my inaugural speech to this house following my successful standing in the Sadarium Meridianam by-election. I will start by saying I am honoured to be amongst you and to be representing my community in this august chamber.

The rest of my speech will probably not be so welcomed in certain quarters, especially amongst those of you who are fully subscribed to the established political system. For I will attempt to persuade you to strip back parts of our constitution, which I believe are now fundamentally hampering our Republic.

Selucia is a land I am proud to call my home but it has the potential to be much more. I think with significant drive and determination we can transform this nation into the economic powerhouse of, not only Majatra, but southern Terra. I also believe we can strive to be much more of an influencer on the world stage while still retaining our long-admired stance of neutrality.

But... and it is a big but: we must change at our very core.

I would argue that the main factor that holds us back is the dual consul system - two people sharing imperium is not synonymous with an efficient approach to policy making. I have heard all the arguments about checks and balances and the need for reciprocal veto, but from what I can see for too many years it has been nothing more than checks, obstacles and political posturing.

Senators! There is no doubt about it, the current system is holding us back.

Therefore, I propose a constitutional amendment that would see the existing roles of Caesar and Consul Populi merged into one - a single, elected head magistrate who would oversee the republic, direct the executive, guide policymaking in the senate and would be our sole commander-in-chief... a Princeps Civitatis. The rightful and proper checks on power would come from the democratically-elected legislature and, if necessary, the Supreme Court. There is no need to overburden the system with this tit-for-tat at the top.

One government, one democratically-elected head of the republic and a unified approach to policy making. That surely is the way forward for our republic, for national unity and for greatness.

Quintus Viridius Fabianus
Senator

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date16:41:23, October 18, 2018 CET
FromFactio Republicana Socialistica
ToDebating the Lex de Princeps Civitatis
MessageSenators,

I congratulate Senator Fabianus for his electoral victory and welcome him to this divine body. The Republic is blessed to have so many committed and intelligent citizens join the political process and I wish Senator Fabianus the best of luck in representing his constituency and pursuing his ambition in the interest of the common good.

I must, of course, disagree with Mr. Fabianus' assessment of the causes of what he sees as Selucia's stagnation. Has Senator Fabianus perhaps considered that Selucia is not an economic "powerhouse" because we do not want to become one? Rather than blame our system of collegiality, the honored Senator should perhaps consider that our economic system is designed to sacrifice excessive growth for long-term stability and democratic participation. Rather than decrying that Selucia's rich don't become richer while dooming the poor to the negative consequences of economic collapse, as our ally Istalia has been known to do, Senator Fabianus should instead be grateful that for decades Selucia has experienced rising equality and has become largely insulated from the catastrophes that befall the poor in "economic powerhouses".

None of that however has anything to do with how our executive is designed, but is rather a consequence of our economic system, especially the cooperative organization of our economy. Any change in our executive structure would do little to change our economic or military strength, but a shift towards presidentialism, as suggested by the Senator, would have negative political consequences. For one, our political system is resilient enough to handle extended periods of cohabitation and even intra-executive tensions without harming our international standing or domestic stability. And the checks and balances between the two heads of the executive are not as disruptive as Senator Fabianus claims, but rather guarantee the dispersal of power, a necessary element in any Republic with a powerful executive such as our own. Without our bicephalous executive the head of state risks becoming nothing other than a Dictator, an office so hated we have abolished it centuries ago. The Senator's proposal is, ultimately, a solution in search of a problem. The status quo is certainly not ideal, but the cause of our problems is not how the executive is designed. The cause is the excessive power elites continue to wield, a power which we have tried unsuccessfully to curb. Perhaps Mr. Fabianus will wish to join us in our attempt to keep the wealthy and powerful accountable instead of excessively increasing the power of the executive.

Albertus Laelius Pomponius
Princeps Senatus

Date18:34:40, October 18, 2018 CET
FromFactio Unitatis Patriae
ToDebating the Lex de Princeps Civitatis
MessageSenators,

I am indeed privileged that the Princeps Senatus opens the debate on my first bill but I can assure my venerable colleague that I have not entered into politics to create problems where none exist or to make the rich richer and the poorer poorer. But I do earnestly believe that the current executive structure hampers our ability to project a unified approach to economic, military and foreign policy as well as thinking from the top down. This can have the effect of making us seem somewhat... schizophrenic to the international community and can be frustratingly slow moving for the people of the republic.

Additionally, while this nation has done many great things to promote the common good, equality and democracy - and I would not wish to undo that good work - I do not feel that a push towards strong economic growth in this nation must go hand in hand with instability and an undemocratic approach. Yes, we must learn from the Istalian model, yes we must look out for our poorer elements of society but that does not necessarily mean growth is not beneficial. But I digress...

The point made by Senator Pomponius that a presidential system risks becoming a dictatorship is valid - theoretically. But in practice, in Selucia, where the Supreme Court has the power to overturn secondary legislation, such as a Consul's executive orders, if deemed ultra vires, and where there is a healthy multi-party legislature which does not allow one political force to dominate or push through constitutional change unchecked, I would argue a dictatorship will never happen.

And given those checks and balances are in place, surely the necessity for two consuls to be there to ensure power is dispersed further is simply not necessary. It equates to buying a padlock for a door which is already double bolted, locked and alarmed.

Therefore, I will suggest again that the dual consulship is unnecessary as the checks it provides are provided elsewhere in our political system and a single head of the executive would provide a much more efficient, unified approach to both our domestic and international policy making.

Quintus Viridius Fabianus
Senator

Date19:57:22, October 18, 2018 CET
FromOptimates
ToDebating the Lex de Princeps Civitatis
MessageSenators,

We emphatically reject any suggestion that our tried and tested Republican traditions are not up to scratch. We do not doubt the sincerity with which Senator Fabianus brings forward such proposals, and indeed we do not believe that his intention is to erode key institutions within our Republic, but unfortunately that would be the outcome. Needless to say, the reason we elect two consuls in the first place is because we have come to understand the deeply ingrained flaws of a monarchy, and of imperium concentrated in the hands of one man: by returning executive power to a single man, we stray dangerously close to despotism and autocracy. We must not return to such ways.

It's unfortunate that Mr. Fabianus equates checks and balances with mere obstructionism; if this were the prevailing attitude in government, no doubt a sole ruler would rule with an iron fist, with not a single legislature to hold him to account. I urge all Senators to vote against this proposal in an effort to preserve our Republican institutions which we hold so dear.

Septimus Sertorius Bruccius
Senator, co-leader of the Optimates

Date22:49:48, October 18, 2018 CET
FromClara Aurora - COSIRA
ToDebating the Lex de Princeps Civitatis
MessageSenators,

Mr. Fabianus shall clarify what does he understand by "nothing more than checks, obstacles and political posturing", as the quality of our democracy has remained strong enough to allow, even when the most different ideologies where in charge of both Consulships, a fruictful development of the policies in our nation.

In this case, we agree with our Republican peers, and recognize that, with its good and bad things, the current system is one of the best to guarantee political independence and stability. Trying to centralize all power in a single figure is something that was banned under the legislature of Aelius Celer, done correctly, since, in most cases, the power goes to the head, and we enter dangerous periods as we have already lived with every Imperator we have had to suffer.

Helios Sigilis
Dux Oppositionis

Date23:15:43, October 18, 2018 CET
FromFactio Republicana Socialistica
ToDebating the Lex de Princeps Civitatis
MessageSenators,

It is possible that my colleague Princeps Senatus Pomponius may be suffering from status quo bias, not an uncommon issue for elder statesmen. After careful deliberation, we do find that there is some merit to Senator Fabianus' proposal, although we would need strong institutional guarantees before we would seriously consider supporting such a reform. He does raise the valid point that the threat to the Republic does not come from individual politicians holding the executive, given that both the legislative and the judiciary would keep a presidential office in check, thus the possibility of a strong one-person executive gaining dictatorial powers is more theoretical. And he does raise the good point that, given the often irreconcilable foreign policy views of Selucia's parties, a divided executive has not rarely become rather schizophrenic in foreign affairs, like what happened during the Yukimura-Nerva government or, more recently, the al-Mutanabbi-Nerva administration (http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1585&start=700#p136902).

But, the fact that our political parties have substantial differences in their views on foreign policy means that instead of coexisting under a single unified dual executive office, we will instead witness an alternation between irreconcilable foreign policies. Instead of being schizophrenic we will risk instead becoming bipolar. What guarantee is there that there will be some degree of continuity between different administrations?

There is also the fact that the current system witnesses a certain fusion of powers between the executive and the legislative, since one of the executive offices is elected by and is accountable to the Senate. If a presidential system of government were to be implemented, we would need to also introduce a strict separation of powers, by placing the entire executive and administration under the exclusive control of the presidential office. Otherwise, we would continue to experience the same inter-institutional conflict Senator Fabianus finds so troubling.

Lastly, if we are to increase the monarchical element of our mixed constitution, we should also increase the democratic. A unified and powerful executive must be countered not only by a strong legislative and and independent judiciary, both aristocratic by nature, but also an increase in the popular element. Introducing popularly-judged political trials for all former executive office-holders as soon as they leave office, as well as expanding the principle of selection by lottery, would make this proposal acceptable and more balanced than it currently stands.

Cyprianus Tiburtius Numitor
Caesar

Date12:01:09, October 19, 2018 CET
FromFactio Unitatis Patriae
ToDebating the Lex de Princeps Civitatis
MessageSenators,

I will rise to respond to some of the points made.

Firstly to answer to the honourable Dux Oppositionis, the Yukimura-Nerva administration was the example I was going to cite regarding not only the checks, balances and political posturing but the inconsistency of foreign policy during one political term. However, as the Caesar has already spoken of it, I will not dwell any longer on what was an embarrassing episode for our nation.

Secondly, in response to Senator Bruccius I will say this: I do not equate healthy checks and balances with obstructionism and certainly do not advocate an 'iron-fisted ruler' being installed. But when the checks and balances we have in place are replicated elsewhere in the system, one must seriously consider how to get rid of this duplication as one would any bureaucratic inefficiency. Yes, Imperium may be in the hands of one man but his ability to wield such power would be channelled through the will of the people and regulated by the balancing effect of the Senate and the Supreme Court.

Finally, in regards to the thoughts of the Caesar, we are glad that our proposals have found some preliminary support with out esteemed colleague; however, I would also like to clarify some matters.

In terms of the bi-polarising of foreign policy from one administration to the next, surely this is an issue that all democratically-elected administrations face around Terra, whatever their form of government? However, I would prefer a government to have a four-year plan during which time they have the mandate to carry out consistent foreign policy-making on behalf of the country rather than our current system whereby every executive decision proposed by one consul has to be reviewed and could be overturned by their fellow consul - a frustration that does not serve us well when dealing with international colleagues.

I do agree with the Caesar that if this system is implemented there would need to be a further separation of powers between the executive and the legislative, in order to allow the directing of government policy to be more efficient. The precise mechanics of this is something I would be pleased to work on with colleagues if the Senate were to consider advocating this reform.

Finally, I believe there is much merit in a popular approach to holding political figures accountable and find myself agreeing with many of the Caesar's ideas for devolving further power to the people. I believe this could be entirely meshed with his party's previous law proposal regarding the establishment of a People's Tribunate (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=583707) - a piece of legislation I would generally support as it introduces a new set of checks and balances without over-burdening the ability of the government to carry out its mandated duties.

Senators, I will yield the floor again to see if there is any further debate. If not, I will look to put this to the vote before this electoral term is up, so I may test the water, so to speak.

Quintus Viridius Fabianus
Senator

Date12:26:33, October 19, 2018 CET
FromFactio Republicana Socialistica
ToDebating the Lex de Princeps Civitatis
MessageSenators,

If this proposal were to introduce the requirement that the head of state be exclusively responsible for proposing a cabinet coalition we would be willing to vote in favor. We'd also suggest naming the new executive office "Rector/Rectrix Rei Publicae" (Rector of the Republic), a term used by ancient authors (OOC: Cicero) to refer to the ideal statesman, and a term with no monarchist undertones.

Cyprianus Tiburtius Numitor
Caesar

Date13:01:54, October 19, 2018 CET
FromFactio Unitatis Patriae
ToDebating the Lex de Princeps Civitatis
MessageSenators,

Given that it is the mechanics of how the executive is directed once in government that is of most concern to me, I am willing to amend the bill to include the Caesar's suggestions. It seems fitting that the prerogative to make a cabinet proposal should come from the person elected to hold imperium and, on reflection, the title of Rector Rei Publicae may well sit more easily with people suspecting an attempt to return to autocracy.

Quintus Viridius Fabianus
Senator

Date17:09:09, October 19, 2018 CET
FromClara Aurora - COSIRA
ToDebating the Lex de Princeps Civitatis
MessageSenators,

The great defender of their so-called Republic, is now willing to accept that a single person should have the power to decide who shall be the Head of Government of the nation, instead of allowing all democratic parties to start conversations and negotiate this. Huge mistake. No system is perfect, but for sure approving this law will imply that, once a not so-democratic person reaches the HoS, an injustice will be committed as he/she will be the person who decides the next Caesar, therefore leaving out a possible government those parties that disagree with their ideas. We can announce that In Marea-Civis Sinistram will vote against this proposal.

Plinius Cauco
Orator of In Marea-Civis Sinistram

Date19:57:41, October 19, 2018 CET
FromFactio Republicana Socialistica
ToDebating the Lex de Princeps Civitatis
MessageSenators,

Orator Cauco should perhaps refresh his knowledge on constitutional theory. It is a widely known fact that in a presidential system the executive and the legislative are independent of each other, being characterized by strict separation of powers. This independence allows the legislative to act as an additional check on presidential power while preserving distinct spheres of competence between them. In a parliamentary system on the other hand the executive is, paradoxically, by far the most powerful institution. Since the Caesar requires the confidence of a majority of the Senate and if the majority is formed of a single party, the Caesar can then dominate the legislative with almost no risk of a Senatorial revolt. The revolt of the Senate against an abusive or dictatorial executive becomes far more likely in a presidential system.

Our own preference is for a reform of our existing system by replacing the two executive offices with a single office formed of two officials. But unfortunately the Senate did not see the wisdom in our proposal, so we will need to think outside the box. A presidential system with strict separation of powers and checks and balances between the main branches of government might be the right system to enhance Selucian democracy, so we will endorse this proposal.

Cyprianus Tiburtius Numitor
Caesar

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 281

no
   

Total Seats: 469

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: Players are expected to play the game independently and should not share their passwords or allow others to access their accounts.

    Random quote: "I say myself that I am beautiful, and I think that all woman strive to look like me.“ - Melissa Hargreaves, former Dranian politician

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 75