Europeian Question Time no. 4

Aaaand...5...4...3...2...1...GO.

Good evening, and welcome to the fourth installment of EQT! We've all gotten medication to bring down our election fever. Now it's time to look to the electoral aftermath, and the events that have happened since then.

With me tonight are Chief Justice of the High Court of Europeia Cordova I, Mayor of the City Council and immediate past Europeian Moderate Party Chairman Lord McEntire, and Senator and former Vice Chancellor Lethen. Thank you all for being here tonight.

Let's get started, then.

What issue or event since the election stands out in your minds?

 

[McEntire]

I think that there really are two major events since the election. First, the surfacing of voting reform, and the shapes that that movement has taken, and secondly the odd non-controversy that was Sopo/IndolentDan vs. CSP/Rougiers.

First, the voting reform. We've seen a pretty strong push for something resembling it in the City Council, although the Senate seems uncooperative on this specific issue. I think that this simply highlights the rift between these two chambers, and is a bit archetypal of the sort of scenario that some populists have been harping on for ages.

Second, and a little more interestingly, the CSP Nontroversy. It honestly was the most surprisingly public event since the election. Oddly, I think that although no one questioned CSP, it made a lot of people question Rougiers' experience. There is a certain sagacity that comes with experience, and his reaction to a simple article showed a thin skin that was not apparent during the campaign.

I think this administration sort of had something to prove before they even stepped in to office, and this kind of weird, self-contained controversy is exactly what they didn't need to frame the beginning of the administration. To be fair, I don't think that it's going to be the biggest issue of this term at all, I just think it was an early setback that could have been easily avoided. And it wasn't even a setback until Hy threatened lawsuit, at which point it became an actual issue. The massive way that a simple article and corresponding joke article spiraled out of control was surprising to me, at least.

 

[Cordova I]

What stands out in my mind are the events happening in TNI, and this administration's response to it. Some people applauded the President for his statement, while others criticized it.

As a former Foreign Minister myself, I can appreciate the precarious and delicate nature of foreign relations and politics, and I think that the President is doing the best he can under the circumstances.

His official statement was vague, but that's really he could say about it, without giving off the impression that our government is interfering in the internal affairs of another region.

 

[Lethen]

I think the most major event has been the push for electoral reform.

Frankly, I'm not sold on any of it. As the Senate clearly demonstrated in their discussions, it was not feasible for such a system to be used on the Legislature. As of now, my fellow Senators and I are discussing ways to incorporate the proposed two-teir system into the Presidential elections. There is one major problem so far, however: We've been given plenty of statistical analysis by Hyanygo, but thats not a good-enough sell. Where's the logic behind such a change? How much more beneficial will such a system be? It seems like reform for the sake of it, which we don't need.

Of course, this all highlights a growing problem, the divide between the Senate and the City Council. There's one error with that assumption though: There is no problem. We don't have a clash, as the populists such as Hyanygo or Aexnidaral (during the referendum debacle) put it, between "the People" and the "elitist Senate." The City Council is at any given time never the voice of the people (often it is the voices of the active citizens and not the *majority*) and, as Anumia has pointed out time and time again (I <3 Anumia, btw), the Senate is given a mandate through election by more citizens than are even found active in the Council at any given time. So you have to dismiss that problem then. What we have is a clash between those who want to push their agenda and those that want to oppose it. People keep forgetting that the City Council is not here to be the second house of a bicameral legislature, that this region is not a direct democracy but rather a polity in the form of a mixed democratic-republic, and that a lot of changes we are seeing being proposed (and shot down or heavily-watered down by the Senate) do not work for a region like our own.

I would also like to point out the reoccurence of a trend that began with the end of Pope Lexus X's final administration and ended with the election of Falconias. It seems that Falconias has returned as head of the unofficial opposition, which is odd...the same man who dropped out of elections because he would be very busy in Real-Life is on...as much as he used to be, with just as much political sniping. I wouldn't be surprised to see a "Falconias for President" campaign again in a few months.

 

[Jusduckria]

Let's explore this "rift" between the City Council and the Senate. It seems like there's always "something" that comes up and causes a "clash".

 

[Lethen]

As far as I can tell, from studying human nature or history, there will always be that clash between the haves and the have-nots. In this case, the City Council sees themselves as the have-nots; the Senate is seen as the elites. But its more complicated than that. Much, much more complicated.

First, we aren't a direct democracy. All this talk of expanding the City Council's power to make it an essentially equal house just ignores that. This region was not established as a direct democracy; Europeia is a republic with democratic features. The funny thing is, with a lot of these proposals, especially many by Cary that we've seen over the months, they cover things that are already allowed in law. I applaud the expansion of and elaboration upon referendum, but I gives a thumbs-down and a frown to all those pleas for equal legislative standing.

Perhaps I'm being unfair. There's definitely merit to the argument that the City Council is no longer merely there to "teach" members how to legislate and be good Senators; it should be listened to, but its word is not binding.

Just as its word is not binding, its decisions aren't and shouldn't be binding. As I've said above, the City Council is *not* the people. Its used that way in populist movements, but its not true. Reference the relevant paragraphs in my post above for clarification.

Will we ever have a bi-cameral legislature? No, I don't think so. Should we have one? No, I don't think we need it. That system, above all, would create the elitist idea that most people think the Senate has no. Almost any bi-cameral legislature devolves into "House of Lords vs. House of Commons" in NationStates today. I've always seen it happen that way which opens a whole new can of worms.

I think the "clash" as we'll call it is moreso a clash of personalites than a clash of legislatures. Thats what people need to remember, that the views and actions of one or two outspoken members of a body don't speak for the entire compositin of that body.

 

[McEntire]

I'm glad that I get to be a panelist when this is discussed, because I think that there's a little bit of something misconstrued here. As the leader of the CC and the founder of a party in favor of CC empowerment, I have to say that the "rift" is imagined mostly. I have been a critic of the Senate in the past, but really only when they have deserved it. The idea that the Senate is some elitist body with major internal flaws is a populist myth.

It is true that sometimes the Senate does not give proper consideration to the City Council's work, and several examples of this can be cited. Such as, the whole fiasco before my time as Mayor with the repeal of the AG Act. The Council overwhelmingly rejected the idea, and then the Senate approved it with not much really looking in as to the Council's opinion. Signs of disrespect like that are few and far between, however. And, truth be told, they're not really anything illegal, just sort of a slap in the face. So yes, when it needs to be stood up for, I am very willing to stand up for the CC.

However, that said, I also think that the CC's populist drive fueled the success of the Senate over the last few weeks. When we look at the volume of legislation that has been passed, it is impressive, and I think that that's at least partially because the Council is so active. Council activity effects the Senate in three ways. Firstly, it passes legislation up to the Senate, giving the Senate more food for thought. Secondly, CC activity puts pressure on the Senate to be just as, if not more, active. Thirdly, the Council provides the Senate with members. Former Council members are some of the best Senators, because they have that experience. That's been proven especially true with the last two classes of Senators. So I think that the Senate and the CC can help each other, and the CC certainly has been benefiting the Senate. Definitely one way that the "rift" has been imagined.

The most important thing in this debate is perception and mindset. If the CC wants the Senate to pass our bills, let's have bills that are not only in the right format, but that are reasonable reforms. Take, for instance, Hyanygo's Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. When he resigned from the CC, I made the decision that his bills should go to a vote (they were also already way past the requisite time limit). There had been pages on this specific one about range voting, and several amendments offered and rejected overwhelmingly. The language on range voting just couldn't be nailed down. So, when that bill had to go up for a vote, I decided to put up the idea that had garnered the most public support. If the CC thinks in those terms, as to what can and will garner support, and thinking about formatting bills to the Senate's preference, then there really should be no reason for there not to be accurate and appropriate consideration to CC bills.

Basically, both chambers should be in the mindset of listening, and then we won't have problems. And, apart from a very select few circumstances, both chambers have been in that mindset. The rift between us is not as big as it seems, and I truly believe that there's an important symbiotic balance that is being pretty well struck.

 

[Cordova I]

I always thought that the Senate looked down on the City Council. And I think that's wrong.

I remember a little while ago, a few Senators publicly stated that they don't even bother to check in on the City Council. Honestly, that's just shameful.

The Senators were elected to represent the best interests of the people. How could they do that if they don't even bother to listen to what they're saying?

Furthermore, the City Council comprises of the constituents of the region.
Yes, the CC does not represent the entire region, BUT, they comprise of the politically active electorate. These are the people that actually care about the politics of this region. This is even more reason for the Senate to keep in touch with the City Council.

I'm not saying that the Senate must always listen to the CC. However, I think the Senate should listen to it more than they do now.

 

[Jusduckria]

I may be overstepping my boundaries as a host, but...

How do we define politically active, though?

And can we quantify how much the Senate "listens" to the City Council? During my time there I never felt like the Senate looked down upon or ignored the City Council. And, I have to say, I never felt that the City Council always represented what I wanted.

Let's take the attempt to repeal the Attorney General Act. For some time now, several Europeians talked about repealing it. I finally decide to do something about it, and it fails the City Council. The Senate, as they are allowed to, decided they wanted to do something about it after it fails, and it immediately gets taken up as a populist movement of an "elitist" Senate versus "The People".

Now, while I have come around from my original position, I still don't think of it in those terms. It was hijacked by one or two people with an agenda. And, let's look at the electoral results. While the Aexnidaral affair may have accounted for part of it, the majority of those who were in the Senate then still are.

If what you say is true, Cord, then shouldn't there have been a sloughing of incumbents?

*steps back over boundaries*

 

[Cordova I]

And can we quantify how much the Senate "listens" to the City Council? During my time there I never felt like the Senate looked down upon or ignored the City Council. And, I have to say, I never felt that the City Council always represented what I wanted.

What I mean by the Senate listening to the CC is how frequently the Senate checks the debates going on in the CC. As was mentioned before, a few Senators admitted they don't even bother to do that.

Actually, this issue has been around for a long time. Ever since the CC's inception, the Senate was seen as elitist by the CC.
I personally always felt there was a rift between the two governing bodies.

I refer you to HEM's article "The City Council Rebellion." This was the first time that CC was established.
http://z6.****************/Europeia/index.php?showtopic=6642

It was basically a power struggle.

How do we define politically active, though?

Politically active just refers to those people that care enough to sign up for and participate in the CC.

If what you say is true, Cord, then shouldn't there have been a sloughing of incumbents?

Well, that's the funny thing. I would attribute this phenomenon to a unique aspect of Europeian culture. Europeians are quite loyal and forgiving. They tend to re-elect incumbents over and over again. The incumbents would have to commit murder (gross overexaggeration) to be fired.

 

[McEntire]

See, I'd tend to disagree with you, Cord. I'd like to see Senators read all CC debates about bills that come to the Senate, but it's also up to the CC to do our part. That's something that I've thought was very important that hasn't really been talked about, is that the author of a CC proposal that goes to the Senate has an invite to speak. If they can use that in order to sum up the pros of the bill, we won't have these types of questions. Sure, were I to be a Senator, I would get as much information on every bill as I could, but if the author has an invite to speak, who better to explain the bill? Then the Senate has to listen, and we avoid conflict all together.

 

[Lethen]

I have to disagree with you there, Cordova.

Its also a double-standard. The Senate is belittled if we are not wrapping our heads around the City Council's goings-on, and I'll admit, I rarely read through all the threads in there unless someone points out an interesting debate because I don't have the time, but I posted a very good point about one of the bills being discussed in the City Council shortly after the AG fiasco and was summarily ignored. The CC has to pay attention to us, too.

The Senators were elected to represent the best interests of the people. How could they do that if they don't even bother to listen to what they're saying?

The City Council is *not* the people. The City Council is a small group of active citizens who are politically-aware and like to legislate, discuss, etc. relevant laws and ideas. We see massive voter turnouts for most elections; however, maybe...less than half of that voter turnout is actually City Councillors. To say that the CC is the people is to say that they are completely responsible for providing the Senate with the mandate to govern, and that is plain wrong.

I personally always felt there was a rift between the two governing bodies.

...which brings me to this point. The City Council? Not a governing body in the sense that it runs the region. This simply isn't true. The Senate is the lone governing body in our unicameral system as established in the Constitution. How many City Council pre-laws affect the region without Senate (and Presidential) approval? None.

They tend to re-elect incumbents over and over again. The incumbents would have to commit murder (gross overexaggeration) to be fired.

Even those 12-term Senators who get there by running on campaigns of nostalgia, rhetoric, and the old-fashioned "Build my career on my past success and contribute little currently" campaigns?

 

[Cordova I]

Even those 12-term Senators who get there by running on campaigns of nostalgia, rhetoric, and the old-fashioned "Build my career on my past success and contribute little currently" campaigns? 

Yes, even those.

Good to know that I'm inspiring healthy debate here.

Well, I do agree that there has to be a two-way street here. More communication is definitely needed between the CC and the Senate. I, for one, would like to see relations improve even more between the two.

In the past, the CC failed twice, only to be revived successfully a third time. The CC is here to stay and innovation is needed to foster its growth, and its relation with the Senate.

 

[Jusduckria]

If there are no further thoughts on the Senate or the City Council, let's turn to the recent temporary board switchover to the Communist theme. What did everyone think of that?

 

[Cordova I]

If there are no further thoughts on the Senate or the City Council, let's turn to the recent temporary board switchover to the Communist theme. What did everyone think of that?

It was interesting, but I've seen better jokes around here.

I'd like to see the next festival/attraction in Europeia soon.

 

[Lethen]

I thought it was a neat idea. Certainly made a few chuckles. The only thing that *irked* me was the everyone assumed I knew what was going on beforehand, including those involved, so I got some very confusing MSN messages.

 

[Jusduckria]

And that concludes this latest edition of Europeian Question Time.