The Second Constitutional Convention of Europeia: A Review






The Second Constitutional Convention of Europeia:
A Review

Written by Istillian




Mos Maiorum, a Latin term meaning "the way of the elders" or "the custom of the ancestors," refers to the traditional code of conduct and values that governed Roman society. It encompassed the unwritten rules, social norms, and cultural practices that guided the behaviour of individuals within the Roman community. Europeian society prides itself on its challenging political atmosphere and structure, our rules and regulations - but by the very nature of being a political community it is cyclical in its frustrations with the status quo. Just as a third Constitutional Convention has been announced, the Europeian Broadcasting Corporation will now take a moment to reflect on the customs, the Mos Maiorium, and the events that led to the second Constitutional Convention of Europeia.


On May 18, 2018 Senate Speaker Writinglegend of the 65th Senate of Europeia convened Europeia’s second official Constitutional Convention, receiving full support from all members of the Senate. The Constitutional Convention discussion area was created soon thereafter, with registrations open on June 13, 2018. Membership was able to be sought at any stage of the Convention.

During this convention, the most discussed thread was regarding the overall principles of Europeia's government, with the biggest argument summarised by HEM stating that, “What we know [beyond] any doubt is that our current system isn't working. The Citizens' Assembly is dead, perhaps mortally ruined by the shift to automatically including all citizens instead of having applications. The Senate has been inactive and politically irrelevant for years. You point out that these institutions worked in the past, so maybe they could work again.” Further argued by Prim that, “Reforms have been overwhelmingly supported by the citizens as the method for moving forward, that is how the Senate has been tasked to proceed and proceed we shall.”

Following this initial discussion period by members on the role of the Convention, on June 25, 2018, Sopo suggested the idea of splitting the Executive, and the first rough draft of this idea was explained:

Dividing the executive government between two elected positions, one focused on external affairs (FA, WA, Comms, GA) and one focused on internal affairs (Interior, Culture, AG). The purpose would be to divide the workload between the two and potentially create more electoral activity. These positions could alternatively be elected on a ticket like the P/VP. The external position could focus on more long-term grant strategy issues (potentially with a longer term). The internal position may be more accessible to newcomers.

This idea of splitting the Executive gained quite a lot of support, and after a lengthy discussion phase, the proposal was passed by members of the Convention on August 31, 2018. On September 16, 2018 then-Senator HEM proposed on the Senate floor the beginning of what was dubbed The Concord of the Second Europeian Republic. This proposal was inspired by HEM’s speech “Looking for Diocletian” in which he described five pillars of what the Republic of Europeia should have:

Government work should be easy to attain - Meaningful responsibilities and titles should be immediately accessible to new citizens. In an age of Discord where communication (and importantly) making new connections comes at rapid speed, we cannot ask citizens to spend weeks or months "working up" to taking some position. They will get bored. We are moving too slow for them.
  1. Government work should be easy to understand - This ties into pillar #1. We cannot expect citizens to stick around as we "teach" them how to play a game. They have energy and enthusiasm once they get here, we need to tap into that before they find another region or social-only activities that are easier to enjoy.
  2. In general, we need more roles that have less work - Many of our positions have become bloated over time. Expectations for these roles have soared through the roof, and most new members are simply not equipped to succeed. This is not a put down on anyone, but we've built positions where folks with two, three, five years of experience at working in them all the time. Once those people step back (almost all of whom now have) those who step forward are going to face daunting expectations.
  3. We must actively communicate the value of the forum - It's not immediately intuitive to folks who are more comfortable navigating a mobile app with orderly channels and instant replies from friends. But this is where an organized government can be built. Discord does not allow for deep, threaded conversations that we crucially need. If this forum dies, our Discord chat dies six months later. No region I know of has ever shifted to a non-NS, social-only framework and survived
  4. Our government needs to intrinsically emphasize Europeian values & Europeian exceptionalism - Right now we have a lot of citizens who aren't sure what we are all doing here, besides chatting and having a good time. It isn't their fault. Our values and ideals always seem to be at the periphery of our society, not embedding in everything we do. How often do we talk about Independence? How many times have our leaders explained why the IJCC is crucial? Why aren't these things that are intrinsically obvious? We need to market our ideals in some easy-to-understand truisms, then embody those ideals at the core of our cultural and political structure. Think how effective Francoism has been, or how Gatesville's simple anti-WA stance made it a pre-eminent world power.

On November 13, 2018, members of the Constitutional Convention were given until November 18 to propose an outline of their reform proposal, including details on any changes from the status quo, and how the three branches would operate. The two most popular proposals were The Lazarus Project, and the Simplified Unicameral proposal.

The Lazarus Project's main outline was to split the executive between Foreign and Domestic affairs, whereby ministerial positions would still be nominated. The proposal included a People's Assembly as the main legislative body with universal membership upon application. The Senate would be structured as a self-electing Senate minor house with a 90-day term, which would not be able to table legislation passed to it, and a Judiciary comprised of a three Justice system whereby the appeals court function moved to Judicial review by a Justice which did not preside on appealed cases.

In contrast the Simplified Unicameral proposal drafted by Prim suggested the introduction of a dual executive system, splitting responsibilities between a Prime Minister focusing on Domestic Affairs with 60-day terms, and a President, overseeing Foreign Affairs with a 90-day term. This suggestion was also comprised of a People's Assembly, an open unicameral legislature, holding power to pass legislation, confirm nominations, and the ability to recall officials, governed by a Speaker. The judicial system would be led by a Chief Justice, with two Associate Justices, all handling trials collectively, while appeals would be reviewed by a neutral Arbiter appointed by the Chief Justice.

The most popular proposal was The Lazarus Project, which ended up garnering 57.7 percent of the convention members' votes to proceed forward with. However, the Lazarus Project then faced numerous concerns, both in the discussion threads in the Constitutional Convention, and publicised in media. On December 28, 2018, Deepest House wrote of the Lazarus Project and the idea of the Executive Split that: "The proposal to split the executive, consolidate positions, and rename it all amounts to a shell game – a sleight of hand in which we move pieces around to distract and confuse, and at the end we have to guess and hope we’ve made the right decision going forward. It provides no new resources for the government and creates additional administrative burdens without the promise of proportional benefit. It is change for change’s sake."

While The Lazarus Project was ultimately tabled, its inspiration allowed then Senator Kari to bring to the Senate floor the Executive Split Amendment on January 3, 2019. Senators of the 68th Senate of Europeia spearheaded a campaign solely focused on passing the Executive Split bill, which while it still garnered heavy public criticism, was given more support due to its simplicity and regional consensus. The Executive Split officially passed the approval of the Senate on February 3, 2019. On this same date, the Senate Speaker, HEM, passed the bill to the Oval Office, where it received President Sopo's signature on February 4, 2019.

With the passing of the Executive Split, and more than a years worth of discussions on government reform, on February 9, 2019 Constitution Chair United Vietussia opened up the thread to close the Constitutional Convention, and the Second Constitutional Convention of Europeia was officially closed by a 23-5 vote on February 11, 2019.

Reflecting on the Second Constitutional Convention of Europeia shows how immensely pivotal this time in the community's history was. As we look forward to the third Constitutional Convention, this article hopes to have paid tribute to the progress that citizens made to reform during the past convention, and to see how citizen input defined and changed Europeia for the better.

 
Excellent article, Istillian! I wasn't here during the time of the second constitutional convention so it's fascinating for me to read about it. This is also great context, especially as we are on the verge of a third constitutional convention.

I do have some questions which require details, so hopefully those who were here at that time would be able to provide some answers.

1 I saw that HEM had originally proposed to abolish the Senate. Did the abolition of the Senate actually happen, even for just a brief period of time? If so, was it replaced by the citizens' assembly? Also, is our current People's assembly a remnant of or inspired by the citizens' assembly that was proposed at the time?

2 Is the Concorde of the second Europeian republic the same thing as Constitution VI? Which number republic are we in now? Second or third?

3 From conversations with others, I learned that we did try the executive split idea for a while, with a chief of state & first minister. Why was that idea and the practice eventually retired and replaced by something similar to the old system? That is, why did we revert back to the old system of one president being responsible for both domestic and foreign affairs? To phrase my question more specifically: What were the challenges of the executive split which caused that concept to be eradicated entirely?

Incidentally, having one president presiding over everything is the system that I am most familiar with. Just to remind everyone: I was most active from 2007 (starting from the very early days of the Republic, because I had arrived just after the transition from monarchy) to 2015. And I was still around up till 2017 or so.

I know I could probably find the answers to these questions by hunting around the forum but I am not even sure where to begin. Forgive me if the answers to my questions were already mentioned in the article or in the links. If so, I may have missed them. Thank you in advance.
 
I wasn't here during the time of the second constitutional convention so it's fascinating for me to read about it.
I very much enjoy this subject because I joined Europeia in May of 2019, so was "born" in the split era, and I remember feeling very hesitant about going (back) to the presidential system!

1 I saw that HEM had originally proposed to abolish the Senate. Did the abolition of the Senate actually happen, even for just a brief period of time? If so, was it replaced by the citizens' assembly? Also, is our current People's assembly a remnant of or inspired by the citizens' assembly that was proposed at the time?
Since I wasn't here for this, going from research through the forums alone the answer is no, the Senate has never been entirely abolished. We had a Citizens Assembly that fell into inactivity and was disbanded and replaced with the City State of Arnhelm - which I thoroughly recommend a review of this, as while it too was eventually disbanded, it was certainly unique.

My understanding is that the current People's Assembly drew some inspiration from the Citizens Assembly, though there are some clear differences in how they operate. To be clear, the updated People's Assembly was only created in 2023, and not a remnant of the old Citizens Assembly.


Is the Concorde of the second Europeian republic the same thing as Constitution VI? Which number republic are we in now? Second or third?
The Concord essentially assisted with the inspiration for the Executive Split, which (and someone feel free to correct me here) would effectively be the Second Europeian Republic. Many of our articles still refer to a split, pre-split, and post merge era of our government. The Executive Modernization Omnibus Act can be found here, which moved us back to the Presidential system. The decision to merge the Government back together was voted upon via referendum.

From conversations with others, I learned that we did try the executive split idea for a while, with a chief of state & first minister. Why was that idea and the practice eventually retired and replaced by something similar to the old system? That is, why did we revert back to the old system of one president being responsible for both domestic and foreign affairs? To phrase my question more specifically: What were the challenges of the executive split which caused that concept to be eradicated entirely?
I would say this is a much bigger question than you realise, as there was both for and against arguments regarding it. From my own personal perspective, I liked the split era and saw a lot of positives for how newer players rose in our government and seemed to be offered many opportunities to lead.

However, the more experience I gained in the region I certainly understood how having a split system caused a lot of confusion and double handling, both for heads of government in other regions, and internally when trying to make joint announcements or collaborate on something that a President could make a single decision on.

For example, the ministry of communications fell under domestic affairs/the first minister, so if you wanted a dispatch regarding a foreign announcement the Chief of State would first have to consult with the First Minister, who would then consult with the MinComm.

For a more thorough analysis on both sides, I recommend a read of this article as a pro-split perspective, and this article as a pro-merge perspective.

I hope this answers some of your questions, but I'm always happy to chat on this subject too!!
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your detailed answers, Istillian. That clears it up more. I'm going to read the articles you recommended.
 
Back
Top