The Declaration of Executive Portfolios Requirement
An Expression of Popular Will or Entirely Redundant?
Written by Maowi
The first half of 2020 saw Europeia undergo its second major restructure of the executive in recent years, returning to the unified government of pre-2019. The system we were leaving behind was a split between the domestic and the foreign executives, with a first minister and a chief of state in charge of each, respectively. The two halves of government each had their own Cabinet (that of the chief of state was termed the Council of State), as well as a designated second-in-command. Billed as a way of reducing burnout and allowing fresher faces into top leadership positions, discussions were sparked in March when an opinion piece by Vice Chancellor Deepest House identified executive bloat as a major issue in the region, and a return to a unified system was suggested as part of the solution.
The conversation carried over to the Senate, which took on the monumental task of analysing the benefits and disadvantages brought by the executive split and discerning the best way forwards. While the discussions that took place there were incredibly varied and comprehensive, one major theme was the desire to maintain some sort of stepping-stone to high executive office - potentially reforming the role of the vice president to bridge what could be, for younger members, a daunting gap between Cabinet service and the presidency. The search for a balance of responsibility and acquiring experience with the safety to take risks and fail was not and could never be easy; however, the final agreed solution was to mandate that the president and vice president split management of the Cabinet between each other, and officially declare these portfolios to the Senate at the start of their term. This requirement - now EA3. (3) of the Constitution - seems to have developed as a more flexible version of initial proposals that the president and vice president each take responsibility for domestic and foreign affairs, respectively.
Upon election to the presidency last Saturday, Pichtonia posted his and Vice President Kuramia’s declaration of portfolios in the Senate - assigning every single ministry to both of them. While their decision was fully legal, it provoked debate about the worth of having EA3. (3) in the Constitution, both in the Senate and in the Grand Hall. Those in favour of removing the requirement have argued that, as demonstrated by President Pichtonia, it brings nothing to the table whatsoever; others have argued that this particular situation is an outlier (Pichtonia and Kuramia are both extremely experienced individuals in Europeian politics, and as such the idea of a “stepping-stone” measure is not applicable) and it is not worth axing an otherwise valid measure due to its ineffectiveness in one instance.
Pichtonia, however, believes that the premise itself of the requirement is flawed. Speaking to the Europeian Broadcasting Corporation (EBC), he claimed to have always held the belief that "it [EA3. (3)] wasn't exactly aligned with the practical reality of government here. [...] Both as Vice and as President, you're always sort of involved with everything, even if involuntarily. Theoretically I had domestic Ministries in my portfolio as Vice President to Peeps, but I've become more of a Foreign Affairs guy, and so often times folks would come to me for Foreign Affairs matters." And even making an effort to abide by the spirit of EA3. (3), it would be difficult, in practice, to make it work. "And as President, when someone asks you about a Ministry not in your portfolio, you will usually also not say "Hey, this is a Ministry my Vice has in their portfolio, please go talk to them". When you prepare a Vice for the Presidency-at-large, you don't just hand them a few Ministries to manage and think that's it."
The president and vice president's decision not to split portfolios has long been in the works for Pichtonia. "[W]hat Kuramia and I did is something I already wanted to do had Lloen and I won the first remerged Presidential election, and something I wanted for Peeps and myself too, but ultimately we decided not to start that way and to just declare something instead. Kuramia and I can argue long and well about various matters, but on this one they were with me surprisingly quickly."
It is also therefore imperative to explore whether EA3. (3) works as intended in a non-outlier situation. Admittedly, a sample size of three post-split presidents is less than ideal, but arguably Sopo’s presidency with Monkey as vice president was the kind of pairing for which this measure was designed. While Monkey has significant experience in Europeia, he had returned to the region after an extended hiatus not too long before and had come off of a shortened term as second minister and minister of culture for McEntire, his second-ever Cabinet post and his first since 2017. Certainly compared to Sopo, he was the fresh face on the ticket. According to Sopo, though, their declaration of portfolios was only ever decided upon as a box-ticking exercise to ensure compliance with Europeian law.
“My preference was always that of a more equal partnership and shared leadership of all areas. Functionally, it still was like that. We were both involved in all areas, but it varied depending on the need rather than depending on the ministry itself.
“Monkey was the first point of contact for the domestic ministries, but in reality, the ministers would talk to whomever was available, and monkey and I almost always consulted each other on any decisions anyway.”
Meanwhile, their successors, Peeps with Pichtonia as vice president, had the opposite dynamic - a relatively newer president with an experienced member as vice president - but similarly they only ever approached it as a duty rather than an opportunity.
“It was definitely more of a we have to do the thing we are legally obligated to do thing,” Peeps told the EBC. “I can certainly envision an administration acting on it, but both of our styles weren’t really comparable with it. We each did what we needed to do regardless of what ministry it was. I generally did more FA and he generally did more DA, but it wasn’t a strict split.”
Senators’ reasoning that this provision is in place as an aid to chief executives in managing their staff, therefore, may not be fully founded. It is certainly the case that the requirement has no explicit restrictive effect on presidents, but Senator Lloenflys’ point about EA3. (3) potentially exerting a degree of political pressure on presidents to split portfolios in this way might also not, in practice, be realistic, looking at Sopo’s and Peeps’ approach to it.
There are of course other issues to consider - such as Lloenflys’ question about the weakness of the requirement possibly damaging the Senate or the Constitution - but if we are contemplating removing one of the last remaining holdovers from the executive split era, it may be worth stopping to re-evaluate what we learned from that time and, even further back, from the circumstances leading up to it. Europeia is thankfully active and vibrant at this time, so it might be difficult to imagine the frustration that led to both the executive split and the remerge, but it is essential to plan for the future of our region as well as the present.
