Perils of “Opposition”

I fear that, we are creating an artificial opposition and also creating more seperation between members; making it more difficult for new members to get involved. Is it the Senate's role to oppose? I'm not sure, but this argument has already been discussed and I'd like to discuss the second. When the Senate questions the administration, are we creating another barrier by taking/sharing the role of accountability with the ordinary citizen? Are we encouraging members to ask questions or are we telling them that it is the role of senators?

The Senate itself has asked that people submit questions to it's body. I feel that this system is more complex than it has to be. I believe that we should be encouraging people to hold the administration (and other parts!) accountable as individual's rather than as a "senator". Isn't it our civic duty to get involved, to voice our views and to do so aren't we encouraging more members to become involved Europeians? To speak their voice, to have “no fear” and to feel equal.

In the pursuit of accountability, are we actually reducing it? I believe that when we have things like “accountability” or working for the region that it should be an inclusive movement rather than an exclusive one. Because in the end, we are in this together as a whole.

 

[Klatonia]

In the "food for thought" alley, this is honey-glazed ham wrapped in bacon.

 

[Oliver]

There are a couple misconceptions in the original post, I think, which is only to be expected when trying something new. There are many different kinds of accountability, for every branch, and while elements of the Senate have the goal of introducing a new one, we don't aim to eliminate the others or silence them by any means.

The request for submissions for Question Period was directed to my fellow Senators, for the very formal Question Period between those of us taking the role of the big-O Opposition (which is, as Minister Hyanygo pointed out in his letter to the Editor of ENN, different from small-o opposition). These submissions were to be taken for the express purpose of helping the Executive acclimatize itself to the new kind of accountability that's being introduced.

I would expect individual Citizens, and the Media, to have their own questions, asked of the President and the Senate on their own. I wouldn't stand in the way of frank and open discussion with individuals and the media.

As I've said, there are many kinds of accountability. I once read an article that described twelves ways in which judges are accountable even without being elected, and I'd suggest that the executive is accountable to the People, it's accountable to the other Ministers, Ministers are also accountable to the President and Vice President, they're accountable to the Judiciary (judicial review), and now we're looking to make them accountable to the Senate as well. I think it's a good thing, but as I've said in the article for the Foreign Update, it's still too early to call.

 

[Rach]

I think you have misinterpreted my first post as I make no such claims about the aims, but rather about possible side effects. It may be too early to say if it's "good", "bad" or "neutral" (likely it will be a mix) but it is never to early to look at possible results/effects (whether unintentional or not) both positive and negative.