Please note that the following is an opinion piece, and the sole responsibility for its content rest with the author. It's also long, but I encourage you not to skim it, as it's all relevant.
A Problem of Philosophy
Or "Why you should read the work of old, dead, Italians"
Most people don't realize that apart from Il Principe, Niccolo Machiavelli actually wrote a good deal of other works; and on top of that he wasn't even a completely evil bastard! In my mind, one of his most brilliantly influential ideas is rarely read, because while everybody has heard of Il Principe, very few have even heard of, let alone read, Les Discorsi, or in the anglicized format, The Discourses On Livy's Rise and Fall of the Roman Republic.
In every society, he posited, there were two classes with power: Il grandi, the most elite of the elite, the Kennedys, the Windsors, you get the idea. There weren't very many of them, but they had a heck of a lot of power. They are contrasted by il popolo, who were the more middle-class powers, the wealthy merchants and the clergy: The Canadas, if you prefer. He suggested that these two classes were in constant conflict; il popolo, well, they wanted to become il grandi, and who could blame them? Il grandi, on the other hand, they wanted very desperately to remain as they were; they liked the status quo, they had the power (unless, of course, the Prince was a good Prince, but that's a story for another day).
What was revolutionary about this depiction (remembering of course that Machiavelli was writing in the Renaissance!) was that, unlike many Europeians I'm sure, Machiavelli suggested that this constant state of conflict between il popolo and il grandi was not only natural, but important to the life of the community. What mattered in his mind was first the recognition that such a conflict would exist by nature, and second that the conflict must be controlled but not extinguished. The "not extinguished" part is very important here. If controlled correctly, the energies created by such a conflict would drive progress; if controlled poorly, they would only bring destruction.
It is the fear of the latter which drives Europeia's political culture and philosophy today. Think about it. Look at the number of threads wherein people are complaining about the negative tone of the discourse of the region. Look at the Presidential candidates bending over backwards to almost absurd levels of courtesy to ensure that our battles will be fought with swords bearing corks on their points. Look also to our nearly fetishistic adherence to the most strict ideal of the separation of powers.
It's not difficult to point out il grandi in Europeia. In any given term, the President joins the group, and some of the more active and brilliant ministers do as well. We put so much emphasis on the powers and activity of the executive part our government that such changes are natural and accepted. Sometimes you're in, and sometimes you're not. There are others, however, who are il grandi all the time; we know who they are, it would not be polite of me to name names. They change as well, but much less often. It's evident, though, if you've been here for very long at all, that il grandi are very much the arbiters on executive matters.
It is natural as well that the Senate should be il popolo; it is a seat of some power, but not much, and it is much more fluid in its membership, and in theory it is supposed to be engaged in a battle of checks and balances with il grandi in the executive. The two classes as described by Machiavelli are the very seat and nature of the American system which Europeia emulates. It is natural for Europeia to emulate it: A region composed of many Americans, founded by an American patriot, and seeking to distinguish itself in its early days from a very British Land of Kings of Emperors would cling to the American model of governance for direction and ideology.
Indeed, this very purist separation of powers is an American ideal, and Europeia clings to it. But outside of the confirmation of ministers — a task which is, by and large, a rubber-stamping affair, though perhaps there is some posturing and foot-stamping as well before the President's choices are inevitably confirmed — there is very little support within the political culture for true oversight by the Senate of the Executive. Senatorial candidates are known to turn down questions relating to the executive: "That's not ours to touch," they say, or something of the like.
In the immortal and oft-misunderstood words of Machiavelli, however, one must look to the final result. The lion's share of the work in this region is based in the Executive; there is no money, no public purse for the legislature to manage. As a result, we are granted the unique opportunity to watch a legislature slowly legislate itself out of existence to wither and die. For a region whose public stature is built to no small degree around the excellence of its laws and its lawmakers, this is a much more concerning issue than Europeia itself seems ready or willing to believe.
The supporting philosophy is one of checks and balances; the Senate is intended to provide a check on the Executive, through the use its (limited) powers of oversight. In turn, the Executive holds a veto over the law-making authority of the Senate, and provides a check, thus balancing the power. That's how it's supposed to work, but again, we must look to the final result. The Senate has followed this philosophy by adopting a policy of non-interference; apart from the occasional out-of-left-field appointment for the Senate to shoot down, and the occasional insane Executive Order to overturn, the Senate checks very little indeed.
The veto gets little more usage, as the Senate, with its policy of non-interference, largely fails to enact anything interesting enough to be worth vetoing. If we examine this from the perspective of Machiavelli's theory of the two classes, we find that our popolo and our grandi are not interacting at all, let alone creating a conflictual tenseness which is channeled by the Constitution to cause activity and improvement. We are failing to utilize the tools of our philosophy which permit action, dynamism and grand governance.
We do the same in other areas as well. We let our fear of a poorly managed and destructive conflict extinguish the conflict of il popolo and il grandi, and we do it in the name of good manners. In doing so, we've created a situation where il grandi are immune to challenge, because none of our citizens have whetted their swords with a whetstone; we've taught them to cork their blades instead. The skills of conflict must be learned, and rarely is the learning a pleasant experience. Most Europeians with the skill have learned it elsewhere, whether in their real lives or in other regions. I learned it in the Commonwealth, and I learned it well. HEM and Lethen learned it in the LKE. Wherever we learned it, however, we have failed to pass it on, and in our well-meant attempts to make things better, we have destroyed the engine which powers progress.
I'm reminded of a story from one of my mother's parishes, when she was a student. There were two churches who had the same issue: An altar server wore too much hairspray, and got too close to one of the candles, and her head went up in flames. Neither server was hurt, but the two churches reacted very differently to the same issue. The first church sat its servers down and said "This is a candle. It's made of fire. Hairspray is flammable. Don't be stupid," which, in my mind, was a very reasonable response. The other church responded by replacing the candles at the end of the sticks the servers carried with lightbulbs. To return to my previous metaphor, we must teach our children that swords are sharp, and can hurt, and can kill; there will be accidents and wounds, and we will patch them up as best as we can, but corking the swords is just ridiculous, and it teaches our children nothing.
We can even take this examination to a macroscopic level. Europeia is a member of il popolo, in Nationstates, and we long, we strive to be il grandi. How can we fight for our place when we have learned naught but how to cork our swords to keep the others safe? How can we struggle when our leaders say we must compromise and concede to make others happy? Europeia has extinguished its own will to fight, and in doing so has ceased the engine of progress.
If we are to restart it, we must start by examining our philosophies. Our purist separation of powers has left a gulf between the Senate and the Executive, and killed all hope of generating energy. Perhaps, just perhaps, this American ideal is not what Europeia needs right now. We have failed to teach our younger citizens to fight for their beliefs, and encouraged them to hush and be quiet while the "adults" are talking, and reasserting this may require the empowerment of the City Council; we have been against it long, but perhaps this will get us going again.
We can lead through example on the foreign stage, and make it clear to the citizens of Europeia that the philosophy of patience, purity and tolerance is perhaps not serving our best interests anymore. If we stand and fight as a region, we can inspire our newer members to take our new ideologies to heart.
At the end, this is a problem of philosophy; if conflict is by its nature a bad thing, then Europeia can fight no battles, its Senators can fight no Presidents, and the President cannot fight for the best Europeia. Think about your philosophies, and in the words of Varys, from A Song of Ice and Fire; serve the realm. Someone has to.
A Problem of Philosophy
Or "Why you should read the work of old, dead, Italians"
Most people don't realize that apart from Il Principe, Niccolo Machiavelli actually wrote a good deal of other works; and on top of that he wasn't even a completely evil bastard! In my mind, one of his most brilliantly influential ideas is rarely read, because while everybody has heard of Il Principe, very few have even heard of, let alone read, Les Discorsi, or in the anglicized format, The Discourses On Livy's Rise and Fall of the Roman Republic.
In every society, he posited, there were two classes with power: Il grandi, the most elite of the elite, the Kennedys, the Windsors, you get the idea. There weren't very many of them, but they had a heck of a lot of power. They are contrasted by il popolo, who were the more middle-class powers, the wealthy merchants and the clergy: The Canadas, if you prefer. He suggested that these two classes were in constant conflict; il popolo, well, they wanted to become il grandi, and who could blame them? Il grandi, on the other hand, they wanted very desperately to remain as they were; they liked the status quo, they had the power (unless, of course, the Prince was a good Prince, but that's a story for another day).
What was revolutionary about this depiction (remembering of course that Machiavelli was writing in the Renaissance!) was that, unlike many Europeians I'm sure, Machiavelli suggested that this constant state of conflict between il popolo and il grandi was not only natural, but important to the life of the community. What mattered in his mind was first the recognition that such a conflict would exist by nature, and second that the conflict must be controlled but not extinguished. The "not extinguished" part is very important here. If controlled correctly, the energies created by such a conflict would drive progress; if controlled poorly, they would only bring destruction.
It is the fear of the latter which drives Europeia's political culture and philosophy today. Think about it. Look at the number of threads wherein people are complaining about the negative tone of the discourse of the region. Look at the Presidential candidates bending over backwards to almost absurd levels of courtesy to ensure that our battles will be fought with swords bearing corks on their points. Look also to our nearly fetishistic adherence to the most strict ideal of the separation of powers.
It's not difficult to point out il grandi in Europeia. In any given term, the President joins the group, and some of the more active and brilliant ministers do as well. We put so much emphasis on the powers and activity of the executive part our government that such changes are natural and accepted. Sometimes you're in, and sometimes you're not. There are others, however, who are il grandi all the time; we know who they are, it would not be polite of me to name names. They change as well, but much less often. It's evident, though, if you've been here for very long at all, that il grandi are very much the arbiters on executive matters.
It is natural as well that the Senate should be il popolo; it is a seat of some power, but not much, and it is much more fluid in its membership, and in theory it is supposed to be engaged in a battle of checks and balances with il grandi in the executive. The two classes as described by Machiavelli are the very seat and nature of the American system which Europeia emulates. It is natural for Europeia to emulate it: A region composed of many Americans, founded by an American patriot, and seeking to distinguish itself in its early days from a very British Land of Kings of Emperors would cling to the American model of governance for direction and ideology.
Indeed, this very purist separation of powers is an American ideal, and Europeia clings to it. But outside of the confirmation of ministers — a task which is, by and large, a rubber-stamping affair, though perhaps there is some posturing and foot-stamping as well before the President's choices are inevitably confirmed — there is very little support within the political culture for true oversight by the Senate of the Executive. Senatorial candidates are known to turn down questions relating to the executive: "That's not ours to touch," they say, or something of the like.
In the immortal and oft-misunderstood words of Machiavelli, however, one must look to the final result. The lion's share of the work in this region is based in the Executive; there is no money, no public purse for the legislature to manage. As a result, we are granted the unique opportunity to watch a legislature slowly legislate itself out of existence to wither and die. For a region whose public stature is built to no small degree around the excellence of its laws and its lawmakers, this is a much more concerning issue than Europeia itself seems ready or willing to believe.
The supporting philosophy is one of checks and balances; the Senate is intended to provide a check on the Executive, through the use its (limited) powers of oversight. In turn, the Executive holds a veto over the law-making authority of the Senate, and provides a check, thus balancing the power. That's how it's supposed to work, but again, we must look to the final result. The Senate has followed this philosophy by adopting a policy of non-interference; apart from the occasional out-of-left-field appointment for the Senate to shoot down, and the occasional insane Executive Order to overturn, the Senate checks very little indeed.
The veto gets little more usage, as the Senate, with its policy of non-interference, largely fails to enact anything interesting enough to be worth vetoing. If we examine this from the perspective of Machiavelli's theory of the two classes, we find that our popolo and our grandi are not interacting at all, let alone creating a conflictual tenseness which is channeled by the Constitution to cause activity and improvement. We are failing to utilize the tools of our philosophy which permit action, dynamism and grand governance.
We do the same in other areas as well. We let our fear of a poorly managed and destructive conflict extinguish the conflict of il popolo and il grandi, and we do it in the name of good manners. In doing so, we've created a situation where il grandi are immune to challenge, because none of our citizens have whetted their swords with a whetstone; we've taught them to cork their blades instead. The skills of conflict must be learned, and rarely is the learning a pleasant experience. Most Europeians with the skill have learned it elsewhere, whether in their real lives or in other regions. I learned it in the Commonwealth, and I learned it well. HEM and Lethen learned it in the LKE. Wherever we learned it, however, we have failed to pass it on, and in our well-meant attempts to make things better, we have destroyed the engine which powers progress.
I'm reminded of a story from one of my mother's parishes, when she was a student. There were two churches who had the same issue: An altar server wore too much hairspray, and got too close to one of the candles, and her head went up in flames. Neither server was hurt, but the two churches reacted very differently to the same issue. The first church sat its servers down and said "This is a candle. It's made of fire. Hairspray is flammable. Don't be stupid," which, in my mind, was a very reasonable response. The other church responded by replacing the candles at the end of the sticks the servers carried with lightbulbs. To return to my previous metaphor, we must teach our children that swords are sharp, and can hurt, and can kill; there will be accidents and wounds, and we will patch them up as best as we can, but corking the swords is just ridiculous, and it teaches our children nothing.
We can even take this examination to a macroscopic level. Europeia is a member of il popolo, in Nationstates, and we long, we strive to be il grandi. How can we fight for our place when we have learned naught but how to cork our swords to keep the others safe? How can we struggle when our leaders say we must compromise and concede to make others happy? Europeia has extinguished its own will to fight, and in doing so has ceased the engine of progress.
If we are to restart it, we must start by examining our philosophies. Our purist separation of powers has left a gulf between the Senate and the Executive, and killed all hope of generating energy. Perhaps, just perhaps, this American ideal is not what Europeia needs right now. We have failed to teach our younger citizens to fight for their beliefs, and encouraged them to hush and be quiet while the "adults" are talking, and reasserting this may require the empowerment of the City Council; we have been against it long, but perhaps this will get us going again.
We can lead through example on the foreign stage, and make it clear to the citizens of Europeia that the philosophy of patience, purity and tolerance is perhaps not serving our best interests anymore. If we stand and fight as a region, we can inspire our newer members to take our new ideologies to heart.
At the end, this is a problem of philosophy; if conflict is by its nature a bad thing, then Europeia can fight no battles, its Senators can fight no Presidents, and the President cannot fight for the best Europeia. Think about your philosophies, and in the words of Varys, from A Song of Ice and Fire; serve the realm. Someone has to.
