Opinion: Split Executive Shell Game


Opinion: The Split Executive Shell Game
By Deepest House


(Europeia - December 27, 2018) - As proposals for reform have floated about the region in recent months, the Lazarus Project has promoted an image of Europeia whereby a split-executive would oversee regional affairs and improve executive performance. Specifically, Europeia would have a president who oversees foreign affairs and a prime minister who oversees domestic affairs.

As a former president and vice president with a solid grasp of executive functions, roles, and responsibilities, it is my opinion that such a proposal would do nothing to increase executive bandwidth, capabilities, or performance. While it is true that presidency is a time-consuming job, in both a unified and split executive, success will depend on teamwork more than anything else.

An important part of governance is identifying challenges and opportunities for improvement and the best strategy to correct those deficiencies. In this case, the purported challenge is the presidency is so large that one person simply can’t handle both domestic and international affairs alone.

Fortunately, the president doesn’t work alone. The citizens of Europeia concurrently elect a vice president when they elect the president. While the exact role of the vice president is left to the discretion of the president, many administrations have successfully used the vice president to divvy up the functional areas of the executive branch in much the same manner as proposed in the Lazarus Project.

Indeed, if the goal of the Lazarus Project’s split executive proposal is to improve executive performance by making the domestic and international portfolios easier to manage by sharing the workload, one must point out that by splitting the executive and making the vice president a collateral duty as opposed to its own position, the Lazarus Proposal reduces the president’s resources and his or her ability to accomplish administration objectives.

The vice president is indispensable to the president, an agile resource to provide additional support and leadership. Simply put, without the vice president as a standalone position the president will have less flexibility to assign additional resources where needed, potentially resulting in a slower and less responsive government. It is also a position of prestige, and one in which the citizens must also put forth their full faith and confidence to serve as president should the need arise. We should not marginalize this position by demoting it to a collateral duty associated with service in the cabinet.

The president works as part of a large team on behalf of the entire population. That team works together to advance Europeian values and administration objectives. Rather than adding capacity to the executive branch’s overall ability to accomplish priorities, The Lazarus Project’s split executive reduces the resources available to the president, it demotes to the sidelines one of the most important positions of our government, and potentially fosters competition rather than collaboration between the domestic and international leadership. I’m not a smart man, but I don’t see how this will improve executive branch performance. It will, however, diminish the role and prestige of not just the vice president, but also the president.

That isn’t the answer to current challenges facing the executive branch. For the executive to fully succeed, it requires all members of the executive team to work together … as a team. Any inefficiencies within the executive branch usually come down to effort and/or bandwidth. Either the effort on the part of an individual isn’t there, or the effort is there but the bandwidth to get the job done isn’t. Neither of these problems is solved by splitting the executive.

With the president and vice president focusing on their respective priorities in full partnership and collaboration with their trusted and empowered ministers, the unified government can achieve greater results for the republic than a split executive, which has additional weaknesses of its own.

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.
 
People who put in a consistent effort become ministers. Rach gave the example of cuddlebuns in Radio. Rach herself is an example in Culture--she was the only active person in the ministry before she was appointed to replace Jay, and Jay is an example before her. Thatcher was an example in the WA (though he had to resign). I would have gladly promoted an Interior JM to minister this term, but the only one who had been active (Wissen Coast) had stepped back. We have at least one JM who could feasibly serve as minister of communications.

I would argue that advancement is actually easier and faster than ever before in our history (excepting perhaps the first couple of years). The one glaring exception being FA, simply because it's a different animal. Even there, HEM has a number of less experienced members serving as deputies (for which there was an opportunity to apply). Perhaps an element of it is being in the right place at the right time, but I can point to the things that each of those people above did to get my attention (or the attention of whoever hired them). It's not enough simply to be a JM.

OD, I don't want you to feel slighted--I think your contributions in Culture this term have been stellar--but before this term, I just haven't seen that much interest from you, and I'm not sure where it is that you feel you've been passed up. I'd be happy to talk to you about it if you want.

This has nothing to do with Culture, Sopo.

This is a point I feel that you and even Rach before you are missing. This has nothing to do with not being a Minister or considering to being a Minister. This has everything to do with the fact that we want people to join Civil Service. To gain the experience they need to be Deputies and maybe one day a Minister or even President. But their not interested, the reasons their not interested vary depending on who you talk to, from social over political or from this or that.

The one constant I have been finding in talking to my fellow JMs is that many Ministries have been practicing Promotion by Addition or in laymen terms, the first new person to apply for JM becomes a Deputy Minister. They get promoted over top of people who have served as a JM and have done the work asked of them with little recognition and their reward isn't a promotion or even hey good work, its "Ministries need more JMs" without even respecting or trying to mentor the ones we have. Those JMs leave or burn out because they feel their not being taken seriously or respected or trained and they see others promoted ahead of them go on to either fade away via inactivity or in the rare occasion go on to be a Minister.

So imagine they log into the forums today and see that hey, we are going to lower the bar to bring more people in who may be interested. Cool, but what about the people here before the bar was lowered?

What does that say to those who worked hard without recognition?

What does that say to those who come to Euro and do what is asked of them?

Literally what does it say to those people that we need to lower the bar to accommodate more people that can be ignored by Ministers?
 
Give me the sure-fire fix and I’ll not only drop the reform effort, but I’ll immediately endorse you for President..

Mentor the JMs we have and stop promoting people ahead of them.
 
This has nothing to do with Culture, Sopo.

This is a point I feel that you and even Rach before you are missing. This has nothing to do with not being a Minister or considering to being a Minister. This has everything to do with the fact that we want people to join Civil Service. To gain the experience they need to be Deputies and maybe one day a Minister or even President. But their not interested, the reasons their not interested vary depending on who you talk to, from social over political or from this or that.

The one constant I have been finding in talking to my fellow JMs is that many Ministries have been practicing Promotion by Addition or in laymen terms, the first new person to apply for JM becomes a Deputy Minister. They get promoted over top of people who have served as a JM and have done the work asked of them with little recognition and their reward isn't a promotion or even hey good work, its "Ministries need more JMs" without even respecting or trying to mentor the ones we have. Those JMs leave or burn out because they feel their not being taken seriously or respected or trained and they see others promoted ahead of them go on to either fade away via inactivity or in the rare occasion go on to be a Minister.

So imagine they log into the forums today and see that hey, we are going to lower the bar to bring more people in who may be interested. Cool, but what about the people here before the bar was lowered?

What does that say to those who worked hard without recognition?

What does that say to those who come to Euro and do what is asked of them?

Literally what does it say to those people that we need to lower the bar to accommodate more people that can be ignored by Ministers?
I just don't see other people raising this same issue--who are the JMs you're referring to if not yourself?

Edit: To clarify, I don't believe this is a widespread problem but would like to know if it actually is.
 
I just don't see other people raising this same issue--who are the JMs you're referring to if not yourself?

Edit: To clarify, I don't believe this is a widespread problem but would like to know if it actually is.

I sent you the pertinent convos.
 
I sent you the pertinent convos.
On a related note, if anyone else is feeling the same thing, like they aren't being noticed and/or promoted, please feel free to DM me. I promise it will remain confidential.
 
Mentor the JMs we have and stop promoting people ahead of them.

I created three different Civil Service programs to mentor Junior Ministers so ?‍♀️

When it comes to inefficiencies in the JM system, you’re preaching to the choir, man. I don’t disagree that there are things that need to be fixed, but i don’t know that JM affairs explain entirely the issues we have today, and I sincerely believe those things become easier to fix in a new institutional system where the snow globe is shaken up a bit and we are broken out of some tired patterns.
 
I created three different Civil Service programs to mentor Junior Ministers so ?‍♀️

When it comes to inefficiencies in the JM system, you’re preaching to the choir, man. I don’t disagree that there are things that need to be fixed, but i don’t know that JM affairs explain entirely the issues we have today, and I sincerely believe those things become easier to fix in a new institutional system where the snow globe is shaken up a bit and we are broken out of some tired patterns.

I know its like screaming into the wind, especially with you. But like I said you have to realize that by saying these things how it looks to the rest of the JMs. I don't think that personally its wise to upset the people who are working sight unseen right now by telling them the work they've done is essentially meaningless. While you didn't say those exact words, the way this is all coming off is coming across that way.
 
I know its like screaming into the wind, especially with you. But like I said you have to realize that by saying these things how it looks to the rest of the JMs. I don't think that personally its wise to upset the people who are working sight unseen right now by telling them the work they've done is essentially meaningless. While you didn't say those exact words, the way this is all coming off is coming across that way.

Hm, I’m confused. Could you explain what I said that suggested the work of our Junior Ministers is meaningless?
 
Hm, I’m confused. Could you explain what I said that suggested the work of our Junior Ministers is meaningless?

Yet, by lowering the bar slightly, we are opening these positions to more members. An example: the foreign policies of Presidents Ervald and Drexlore were disasterous and eventually led to the end of both their terms, yet I could see them both thriving in a domestic-focused leadership position.

To me and probably me alone, to even mention lowering the bar for admission to being a JM, as if the bar for that was set too high is really a slap in the face. By doing this, like you are essentially taking the role of JM from its position as trainee Minister and turning it into a testing ground for might work, hopefully, if we just do this one thing. The bar to be a JM is simply applying to be one, how much lower does the bar need to be? All of this bringing more people on does nothing to reinforce the positive role of already existing JMs, their work isn't going to be acknowledged (and it hasn't been) because the focus will be on the newer folks and actually onboarding them whereas a lot of sitting JMs had to figure it out as they went.

There will be a greater focus on newer JMs, as there already is with this proposed plan.

The fact that I am not alone in feeling this way proves that in this particular case it is a culture problem, not a personnel problem.
 
To me and probably me alone, to even mention lowering the bar for admission to being a JM, as if the bar for that was set too high is really a slap in the face. By doing this, like you are essentially taking the role of JM from its position as trainee Minister and turning it into a testing ground for might work, hopefully, if we just do this one thing. The bar to be a JM is simply applying to be one, how much lower does the bar need to be? All of this bringing more people on does nothing to reinforce the positive role of already existing JMs, their work isn't going to be acknowledged (and it hasn't been) because the focus will be on the newer folks and actually onboarding them whereas a lot of sitting JMs had to figure it out as they went.

There will be a greater focus on newer JMs, as there already is with this proposed plan.

The fact that I am not alone in feeling this way proves that in this particular case it is a culture problem, not a personnel problem.

I think it’s pretty clear from the content of my quotes excerpt there that I was talking about lowering the bar to the executive by creating the executive split. What made you think I was talking about JMs?
 
I think the far more hazardous path here is being zealots for the past, if people disagree with me please vote against me in the upcoming election. One way or another, we need to put a bow on this never ending existential crisis.

It's unfortunate that our electoral system doesn't really allow for something like that. I can't vote you down, I can only vote for the candidates that match my desires. Problem is, there are none, because the concept of 'doing something' is so alluring people are willing to follow along.
 
It's unfortunate that our electoral system doesn't really allow for something like that. I can't vote you down, I can only vote for the candidates that match my desires. Problem is, there are none, because the concept of 'doing something' is so alluring people are willing to follow along.
This is a tangential point, but there’s this narrative a few anti-reformers have that “reform is a bad idea, and the pro-reformers are just stringing people along without thinking critically about it.”

It’s a really irritating idea, because many of us have spent countless hours coming up with the best ideas, lobbying for them among our citizens, liasoning with the master law makers to polish our legal language. This idea that we just want to “do something” and haven’t put the work in to find the “right thing”, quite frankly, is a myth, and a rather irritating one at that.
 
Last edited:
This is a tangential point, but there’s this narrative a few anti-reformers have that “reform is a bad idea, and the pro-reformers are just stringing people along without thinking critically about it.”

Please name these people. Please name these people with evidence to support this claim.
 
This is a tangential point, but there’s this narrative a few anti-reformers have that “reform is a bad idea, and the pro-reformers are just stringing people along without thinking critically about it.”

It’s a really irritating idea, because many of us have spent countless hours coming up with the best ideas, lobbying for them among our citizens, liasoning with the master law makers to polish our legal language. This idea that we just want to “do something” and haven’t put the work in to find the “right thing”, quite frankly, is a myth, and a rather irritating one at that.
To be clear, I wasnt trying to put forth that narrative. There are people who are trying to solve a problem, and, after thinking long and hard about it, believe structural reform to be the solution. To put it simply, there are leaders in this space, and I believe they've put in the work. My point is that there are a sizeable number of people who are supporting reform because they believe doing something, despite the actions not solving anything, to be better than doing nothing. When presented with an idea, no matter how destructive or counterproductive (and yes. I find these to be exactly that. Or, at least vacuous at best, as the debate about the debate is, itself, activity), they hop aboard, because it is the only idea out there.
 
To be clear, I wasnt trying to put forth that narrative. There are people who are trying to solve a problem, and, after thinking long and hard about it, believe structural reform to be the solution. To put it simply, there are leaders in this space, and I believe they've put in the work. My point is that there are a sizeable number of people who are supporting reform because they believe doing something, despite the actions not solving anything, to be better than doing nothing. When presented with an idea, no matter how destructive or counterproductive (and yes. I find these to be exactly that. Or, at least vacuous at best, as the debate about the debate is, itself, activity), they hop aboard, because it is the only idea out there.

There were unlimited ideas out there. I scrapped my own proposal and re-opened a process in the convention so all people could put their ideas out there. After months of intense debate, the Lazarus proposal is the one with the most support.

I and other reformers have spent countless hours working to refine, edit, and sell our vision. The people know why this is important, and why we think our ideas work. Not everyone agrees, but it’s a tough sell to assert we haven’t done work to educate and discuss.
 
There were unlimited ideas out there. I scrapped my own proposal and re-opened a process in the convention so all people could put their ideas out there. After months of intense debate, the Lazarus proposal is the one with the most support.

I and other reformers have spent countless hours working to refine, edit, and sell our vision. The people know why this is important, and why we think our ideas work. Not everyone agrees, but it’s a tough sell to assert we haven’t done work to educate and discuss.

The Lazarus Project was not the only one with the most support, prims idea also had significant support. Coming up right behind them was mine and Drecq's one vote back. I wouldn't say that everybody wanted the Lazarus Project and to continue to say that is facetious at best.
 
60% supported the Lazarus proposal in its concept form. That was the highest percentage among the proposals. There was a sizeable gap between the Lazarus proposal and the second highest -- The second highest only had about 40% support.

HEM never said "everyone wants" -- he said
After months of intense debate, the Lazarus proposal is the one with the most support.
 
The Lazarus Project was not the only one with the most support
Don't split infinitives to try and "prove" a fundamentally flawed point.

Coming up right behind them was mine and Drecq's one vote back
You are also trying to attempt to word the quoted post to twist the facts, TLP received 15 (57.7%) voters, Prim's came next with 10 (38.5%) voters, Your's and Drecq's had 9 (34.6%) voters each. To attempt to say that your proposal has any form of a mandate when it failed to get the support of even 35% of the voters, never mind more than 50%, is fundamentally flawed.

edit: small typo
 
Last edited:
Don't split infinitives to try and "prove" a fundamentally flawed point.


You are also trying to attempt to word the quoted post to twist the facts, TLP received 15 (57.7%) voters, Prim's came next with 10 (38.5%) voters, Your's and Drecq's had 9 (34.6%) voters each. To attempt to say that your proposal has any form of a mandate when it failed to get the support of even 35% of the voters, never mind more than 50%, is fundamentally flawed.

edit: small typo

Considering 66% was the vote needed to go immediately to a discussion in the Senate and your proposal didn't reach it is more than justified in my opinion in saying that it wasn't a mandate. It was the highest vote getter sure, but it wasn't any sort of mandate.
 
Considering 66% was the vote needed to go immediately to a discussion in the Senate and your proposal didn't reach it is more than justified in my opinion in saying that it wasn't a mandate. It was the highest vote getter sure, but it wasn't any sort of mandate.
So the proposal with by far the most support, that won the poll and meets the revised goals does not have a mandate to be discussed by the Senate? Oh please.:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top