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: Reform of the Prerogative
Details
Submitted by[?]: Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK)
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 4487
Description[?]:
| The Socialist Party of Kalistan calls for the reform of the Presidential Prerogative, given the recent absence of various Presidents of the Republic, and the need to form a functioning Government. This Bill, if passed, will completely supercede the Original Prerogative found at : http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=519674 We seek to move the power of proposing a Government to the Plurality Party. We seek to establish the Prerogative under the following terms: 1) The Plurality Party shall be granted the power to name the Government. Ideally, consultation of the President of the Republic will be sought before a bill is proposed, but the consultation of the President is not mandatory nor binding. 2) The Plurality Party should adhere to the Principle of Separation of Powers, where the Party controlling the Presidency and the Party controlling the Premier's Office are not the same Party. 3) All governments formed must include Parties representing a majority of the seats in the Assembly. There is no other guidance on the content of the Government. 4) If the Presidential Party is in the governing coalition, that Party should control the seat of Foreign Affairs, so that foreign policy is unified under the same Party. 5) The Upper Seats (Premier, Foreign Affairs, Finance, Defense, Justice, and Interior) should be divided as evenly between governing Parties as possible. If this bill passes with the requisite votes, it will replace the current Prerogative listings in the Institutions List, and those currently listed there will be moved to the "Historical Reference" section. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The constitutional right and responsibility to propose a cabinet to the legislature.
Old value:: Only the Head of State can propose a cabinet coalition.
Current: Only the largest party can propose a cabinet.
Proposed: Only the largest party can propose a cabinet.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:05:31, November 18, 2018 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Reform of the Prerogative |
| Message | We will leave this bill open for comment and amendment. |
| Date | 01:27:51, November 18, 2018 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Reform of the Prerogative |
| Message | The Socialist Party believes change int he Prerogative is necessary: the Governing process of Kalistan has been broken for a while, and our Party's dogged defense of the previous Prerogative has more to do with our attachment to the Great Past than to pragmatic concerns for the present and future, and a desire to make our government work. We hope all interested Parties will offer input to help improve this bill where needed, and then to pass this bill into law. -John Henry Bennots, Speaker of the Socialist Party of Kalistan |
| Date | 01:29:04, November 18, 2018 CET | From | Democratic Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Reform of the Prerogative |
| Message | This is a bill which will provide stability to the country. Wholly in favor. |
| Date | 01:43:49, November 18, 2018 CET | From | Freedom Party of Kalistan | To | Debating the Reform of the Prerogative |
| Message | I share the sentiments expressed by others in this debate regarding stability and the need for a change. I will support this bill. - Sarah Buxton, Leader of the FPoK |
| Date | 06:38:16, November 18, 2018 CET | From | Social Democratic Party of Kalistan. | To | Debating the Reform of the Prerogative |
| Message | Could the SPok officials elaborate on the second clause and enlighten us about the aim of this proposal? Sheldon Burrat,Chairman. |
| Date | 07:09:51, November 18, 2018 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Reform of the Prerogative |
| Message | The Separation of Powers Principle is the longstanding tradition that the Presidential Party and the Premier's Party are not the same. The design is to prevent one Party dominance in the Assembly. Even if one Party has a straight majority, the goal is to split decision making between several Parties. The Separation of Powers Principle does that so that more Parties are involved in governing. If forces cooperation and compromise when it works correctly, and when it doesn't at least the Government isn't being tyrannical. For example: When President Reiley won office during the 70s, he struggled to put the Plurality's Leader in as Premier. That Party happened to often be Conservative in orientation. But the goal was to give non-Presidential Parties something to do. This clause changes it so that the Plurality (the biggest Party) maintains the separation principle, and doesn't simply appoint all seats to his Party. There is often a good chance that the Presidential Party is also the Plurality Party, so we made it explicit here that the Plurality, when creating a government bill, should adhere to the Separation Principle when forming the Government. Does this clear up any confusion? -John Henry Bennots, Speaker, SPoK |
| Date | 19:03:34, November 18, 2018 CET | From | United Kalistani Worker’s Front | To | Debating the Reform of the Prerogative |
| Message | We will of course vote in favor. |
| Date | 21:45:52, November 18, 2018 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Reform of the Prerogative |
| Message | We are appalled that our SPoK comrades would throw our traditions out the door in this obvious power grab move. If we're abandoning tradition, we would much rather prefer getting rid of the prerogative altogether than changing it so Socialist parties can deny the us right ringers the right to form a government. |
| Date | 22:14:34, November 18, 2018 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Reform of the Prerogative |
| Message | OOC Sorry, it's supposed to say "right wingers" not "right ringers." |
| Date | 22:15:34, November 18, 2018 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Reform of the Prerogative |
| Message | When we ran on the promise to reform the prerogative, we had no idea we would have the plurality. But I encourage the Presidential Party to name a Government before this bill passes, so we can't be accused of attempting to steal power in a baseless accusation. And additionally, we will commit to NOT naming a Government before an election intervenes if the Presidential Party opts not to name a Government which is still within the prerogative of the President. And finally, we reject this base allegation of the NCP. We do not believe that anarchy should reign in the naming of the government, where any johnny come lately Party can appear, and clog our national business with frivolous cabinet bills. There should be some basis to the forming of governments, and so we also reject the notion that the prerogative should be abandoned completely. |
| Date | 22:19:12, November 18, 2018 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Reform of the Prerogative |
| Message | And finally, If it is the will of the assembly that this bill should pass, which without the votes of the Sitters who have refused to show up to vote on issues before the Assembly for a significant portion of time now, this act will not pass anyway. Unfortunately for the NCP, that means that a new Government will not be formed, right wing or not. We do not see the Presidential Party rushing to perform its constitutional function, and we understand that the political process has been broken for a very long time in Kalistan. This is an effort to fix it while maintaining some of the vestiges of the old prerogative. It is NOT a power grab, and we resent the accusation. Our first interaction upon reforming is for the NCP, our old colleagues, to poison the well. This does not bode well for future cooperation between right and left. |
| Date | 00:58:54, November 19, 2018 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Reform of the Prerogative |
| Message | Than we rescind our allegations towards SPoK, but we still oppose this bill as we see no reason for a change. Please tell me how exactly this will stabilize the country, and how the country is even unstable. Also, in response to your argument against giving all parties the right to propose a cabinet, how exactly is "any johnny come lately Party can appear, and clog our national business with frivolous cabinet bills" different from that Johnny come lately Party proposing a frivolous legislation, treaty, or financial bill? Should we just ban all non Presidential or Plurality Parties from proposing new laws so we don't have to deal with any frivolous policy changes? Lastly, we don't wish to poison the well between our two parties, we have worked together in the past and will likely do so in the future. We simply hastily pointed out something out which we thought to be a shameless power grab at the expense of our traditions. We admit, we should of thought better of the SPoK, as you have always fought for Kalistan and its institutions in the past. |
| Date | 01:51:42, November 19, 2018 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Reform of the Prerogative |
| Message | We are not charging the nation with instability. We are saying that the Presidential Party refuses to name a government, and resignations of previous Presidents have made it imperative to have new elections to put a new government in place. We accept your apology, and we will put it behind us. The reason we seek this reform is not to benefit from it ourselves, but we think, hearing the various objections to the Prerogative for decades, and perhaps centuries, that in eras of political turbulence, which I think our current situation certainly is, given the multitudes of Parties, and certainly compared to eras of single, or perhaps two Party rule, that reform can potentially increase the possibility of a new government being named when elections are held instead of waiting for a Presidential Party which will never do so to come in and make a proposal. We have nothing against sitting with the NCP in government. We have done so numerous times in the near Past. Nor do we have any problem whatsoever in naming an all conservative government if that is what will pass, and will fail without it. Our goal is to get a government in place filled with ministers that will actually do something with their offices, a situation which the socialists in our Nation did not see before we disbanded and certainly less after we did so. However we can accomplish this, we will. We would consider cutting ourselves completely out of power if we thought that other parties would actually do something (OOC: RP in the forums, for example) with their offices. We yield. -John Henry Bennots, Speaker of the Socialist Party of Kalistan |
| Date | 01:56:59, November 19, 2018 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Reform of the Prerogative |
| Message | I wouldn't worry much about it though: It looks like the Presidential Party, after wining the office, will neither name a new Government before voting on this bill is set to end, nor come in to vote on this bill, ensuring it defeat, and ensuring that Kalistan retains its functionless government. Whatever. Its this reason that the prerogative needs to be reformed, more than any concerns about power. |
| Date | 13:18:59, November 19, 2018 CET | From | National Conservative Party | To | Debating the Reform of the Prerogative |
| Message | The Conservative Party and Kalistan First both look as if they're close to disbanding, I know we haven't found agreement on this issue, but perhaps we could find common ground in holding an emergency election after their imminent collapse. We'd endorse SPoK for the sake of getting a functional cabinet, but we just don't wish to change an institution which has worked well in the past. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 133 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 26 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 91 |
| Random fact: Party organizations are eligible for deletion if they are over 50 in-game years old, do not have at least 1 active member or are historically significant and possess historically significant information. |
| Random quote: "Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." - Albert Einstein |