Opinion:President HEM's Unique Approach to Ministers Necessitates Confirmation Changes




Opinion:president HEM's Unique Approach to Ministers Necessitates Confirmation Changes
Written by GraVandius








If you've been paying attention to the Senate's confirmation process you may have noticed that it is a bit different this term. For the most part, confirmations have tended to simply assess a candidate's qualification to serve as minister.. This has frequently resulted in nominees being simply rubber-stamped by the senate with virtually only one question about their potential activity.

Now however, due to newly elected President HEM putting an "unprecedented amount of power to the hands of individual Ministers" to essentially independently create the majority of their agenda, that previous rubber-stamping clearly wouldn't work. Senators are now not only confirming the nominee but also their personal agenda for their ministry. This is why I took the time to attempt to nail down the specifics of each ministers plan and ask any and all questions about policy I had.

This system, if continued, would also allow for the Senate to determine executive policy. Previously, the people confirmed a candidate's ideas for each ministry by voting for that candidate. The people did not get such a chance to confirm those ideas in this election, and it is now up to the Senate, the representatives of the people, to make that confirmation. Thus,if the Senate really does not approve of a nominee's idea for a ministry, I think it would be very acceptable for the Senate to vote that nominee down, regardless of their qualifications.

This changing process would also seem to affect who we blame for a lackluster ministry. Much more onus is now on the Ministers to carry out a good term. They are no longer primarily the implementer of the president's ideas but their own; in a way, mini-presidents. I would think this system gives the President a bit more political breathing room if things go south in a ministry. For example, if say Comrade Prim's ideas for the Ministry of Interior turn out to not be effective at all, which for the record I don't think is at all likely, then who is to blame? HEM? I mean they weren't his ideas. Interestingly, I think that of all bodies involved, the Senate, would carry some blame had it simply rubber stamped the minister. Alternatively, if Prim fails to implement his ideas, again not likely, then the person in the administration, other than the minister, most likely to take heat for Prim not staying on task is probably again not the president but Chief of Staff Deepest House.

Thus in a way, decentralized administrative structure has one other final effect. It lessens the burden on the president. This may be very beneficial as the strain of the presidency has been something of a concern of mine as we have seen much more frequent resignations recently. President HEM's system of governance promises to cause many subtle and interesting changes in the community and how things operate.


This is a personal opinion, and not intended to reflect the opinion of the EBC.


 
Interesting times, indeed, good sir. :gentleman:

I admit, I don't really agree with a lot of what went into the article, but it was a good read nonetheless!

Looking forward to more.
 
I think this is a pretty neutral, accurate article. I will say that there have definitely been times in the past where Senates have questioned policy - though I do agree that tendency could increase with this new mode of operation.

I guess we will see!
 
Darcness said:
Interesting times, indeed, good sir. :gentleman:

I admit, I don't really agree with a lot of what went into the article, but it was a good read nonetheless!

Looking forward to more.

What don't you agree with?

HEM said:
I think this is a pretty neutral, accurate article. I will say that there have definitely been times in the past where Senates have questioned policy - though I do agree that tendency could increase with this new mode of operation.

I guess we will see!

Thank You HEM :)
 
Interesting article.

Alternatively, if Prim fails to implement his ideas, again not likely, then the person in the administration, other than the minister, most likely to take heat for Prim not staying on task is probably again not the president but Chief of Staff Deepest House.

I think that ministers are fully responsible for their achievements and their failures. My role is to ensure public transparency of their work, and keep them accountable. The office of the CoS will chip and and help where we can, but ultimately doesn't retain much responsibility for respective failures, just as we don't earn much credit for respective achievements.

Now if you also want to give me credit for the achievements across the ministries, then I'll take it. With that, I'd also have to take responsibility for the failures, as well. :gentleman:
 
GraVandius said:
What don't you agree with?
I don't agree with pretty much the entire premise. HEM and Sopo were elected in good faith. Just as with any election, the people made their choice, based on the plan before them. In a campaign that we are used to, you would say that since the people knew the plan, then rubber-stamping the nominees makes sense, because the people have spoken, and they agree with the plan. I say this campaign should be no different. The people have spoken, and they have said that they have faith in whatever it is the Cabinet decides to do.
 
To be fair, in this case, HEM and Sopo laid out their ministers before the election as well. So, it could be argued that the people tacitly agreed to each minister.
 
HEM told us the problems he was going to fix. If progress hasn’t been made by the end of the term on those things, the administration will be responsible. Just because HEM is trying a new approach doesn’t change what output we should expect. He told us very clearly what to expect. I suspect he’ll be able to get much of it done. But if this new system causes the Senate to play a greater role in oversight, that’s a good thing too.
 
Back
Top