Opposition Is Just A Word...

[Oliver]

The following is a letter to the editor written by Senator Klatonia. The only edit made was to bold the title, it was originally sent to me unbolded.

Opposition is just a word, anonymity is not a right but it’s not a problem and read the damn label
By Senator Klatonia

Evening,

I come to you tonight with heavy thoughts on my mind. I have spent the better part of the term so far far away from any real computers, so my vision of Euro has been limited to the browser window of a popular brand of cell phone. Now that I have time and a keyboard (as I’m back home), it seems necessary to position myself on a number of issues. I do this in the fair interest of those who have supported me, and even more in the interest of those who couldn’t stand the idea of my holding an office one more time.

Three issues have been hot : opposition, anonymity and mandates.

I have not spoken with the Speaker about the idea of having the Senate body act as an opposition party would in a Westminster parliament system. As far as I am concerned, I was elected under no banner but my own and no party line nor any restriction to my curiosity and inquiries should restrict my freedom of action as a Senator. The Senate is not the opposition : it is the législative authority, and its actions should reflect the opinion of the majority of its members, with whatever compromise they can make between their agendas. These agendas are not forcibly those of the Executive, and that’s fine. If there was an opposition, it would be from a recurrent minority of Senators who do not share the opinions of a recurrent majority. We’ll blow up the bridge when we get to the water, so I’ll speak with Oliver first, then consider my options, then do what I feel is best for me and what is best for Europeia – which, it might be hard to believe, is what I do pretty much every time I make a decision hère.

If anonymity was a right, we would not have extensive background checks for citizenship. However, the way to deal with that is up to everyone. I wish not to impose my paranoïa or my desire to expose those who vilefully believe otherwise than I do. Seriously, I debate ideas, not persons, so I could not care less about who writes an idea in a newspaper. If you do… fine. But remember : while they don’t have the law on their side, you don’t have the monopoly over values, either.

Final-lay, mandates. Ahhh… was I elected with a mandate? No. I was elected. And I was completely transparent. I said I was going to vote against Senators for the Cabinet, and I did. That doesn’t mean I support the proposed ‘opposition’ system. It means I am following a predictable pattern of principles and reflexions. How predictable? It’s in my platform. The fact that it's predictable also means that I can be negotiated with, with relative ease, if one takes a minute to do so.

I was not elected with a mandate – because I know for a fact that many voted for me DESPITE disagreeing strongly with me on certain issues. They still did, though, and the other who did vote for me were liable to read the damn platform and vote either on the program or on the man. In the end, I assume people read the f-cking label before they buy anything.

 

[North East Somerset]

Now, hold on just a second. Of course you were elected with a mandate. The definition of a mandate is "the support or commission given to... an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory". This concept of your election having been ratified by public opinion upon your election, and thus having a mandate to carry out the policies laid out in your Manifesto is the very foundation of any and all Representative Democracy. It's absolutely crucial to our whole existance as a democracy that you are charged as a Senator to implement the mandate outlined in your Manifesto. You are not supposed to be a proxy for the people, you are supposed to be elected on a platform, which you will then implement, in combination with using your judgement on any matters which may arise that are not in your manifesto. The fact some people may or may not have voted for you based on you as a person, rather than your platform, is neither here nor there. As you yourself say it is their responsibility to "read the label" and the label was very specific in a number of areas about what you will do.

So, thats what I think about mandates.

As for anonymity, I am personally and politically opposed. I can think of few and rare circumstances where such an approach should be pursued, and I think it is much overused in Europeia. So I will certainly not be encouraging it, but I don't think it should be "outlawed" either, nor is there any practical way of doing so. But it needs to be kept a close eye on.

As for opposition. I think your manifesto was clear where you stand on certain policies. But I appreciate you never specifically mentioned "opposition" and you have every right to distance yourself from any such "movement". Indeed, myself, I am beginning to think opposition is not really the right word for the general movement towards the Senate playing a greater role in ensuring transparency and Executive, that we were undeniably proponents of in both of our manifestos.

 

[Klatonia]

Now, hold on just a second. Of course you were elected with a mandate. The definition of a mandate is "the support or commission given to... an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory". This concept of your election having been ratified by public opinion upon your election, and thus having a mandate to carry out the policies laid out in your Manifesto is the very foundation of any and all Representative Democracy. It's absolutely crucial to our whole existance as a democracy that you are charged as a Senator to implement the mandate outlined in your Manifesto. You are not supposed to be a proxy for the people, you are supposed to be elected on a platform, which you will then implement, in combination with using your judgement on any matters which may arise that are not in your manifesto. The fact some people may or may not have voted for you based on you as a person, rather than your platform, is neither here nor there. As you yourself say it is their responsibility to "read the label" and the label was very specific in a number of areas about what you will do.

So, thats what I think about mandates.

Haaaa... I should have provided for a clear definition of what I thought a mandate was and how it could affect my term. Yes, I am clearly closer to your interpretation than to the very narrow (yet foggy) one that states that you're ultimately not just bound, but limited by the reason people voted for you.

Since one cannot see all of what a person can be/do while in office, I cannot claim that I have a mandate, unless we have a one-issue term, the issue of which having been well-defined before the election.

I completely agree with NES' interpretation, here.

 

[Rach]

On the topic of anonymity, I am particularly concerned by PhDre's admission that Judge's have played such a role by posting political articles under the guise of anonymity.

 

[Klatonia]

On the topic of anonymity, I am particularly concerned by PhDre's admission that Judge's have played such a role by posting political articles under the guise of anonymity.

Well, it's a trade-off, I think: I wouldn't want to deny a Justice the right to participate in public debate. I'm not sure how I would feel about a Justice using the weight of her office title to impose her views on the readers (it,s the effect it would undoubtedly have on many). So while I don't like anonymity myself, I think a reasonable case could be made that it's an instance where it's useful.

Then again, it's my opinion, and I understand your uneasiness.

 

[North East Somerset]

Now, hold on just a second. Of course you were elected with a mandate. The definition of a mandate is "the support or commission given to... an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory". This concept of your election having been ratified by public opinion upon your election, and thus having a mandate to carry out the policies laid out in your Manifesto is the very foundation of any and all Representative Democracy. It's absolutely crucial to our whole existance as a democracy that you are charged as a Senator to implement the mandate outlined in your Manifesto. You are not supposed to be a proxy for the people, you are supposed to be elected on a platform, which you will then implement, in combination with using your judgement on any matters which may arise that are not in your manifesto. The fact some people may or may not have voted for you based on you as a person, rather than your platform, is neither here nor there. As you yourself say it is their responsibility to "read the label" and the label was very specific in a number of areas about what you will do.

So, thats what I think about mandates.

Haaaa... I should have provided for a clear definition of what I thought a mandate was and how it could affect my term. Yes, I am clearly closer to your interpretation than to the very narrow (yet foggy) one that states that you're ultimately not just bound, but limited by the reason people voted for you.

Since one cannot see all of what a person can be/do while in office, I cannot claim that I have a mandate, unless we have a one-issue term, the issue of which having been well-defined before the election.

I completely agree with NES' interpretation, here.

Well, I'm not sure what definition of mandate you are using, it's certainly not one I'm familiar with using in the political context. But I'm glad you agree with what I put forwards, and to have helped clarify that matter.

 

[Peaceful Llamas]

On the topic of anonymity, I am particularly concerned by PhDre's admission that Judge's have played such a role by posting political articles under the guise of anonymity.

Well, it's a trade-off, I think: I wouldn't want to deny a Justice the right to participate in public debate. I'm not sure how I would feel about a Justice using the weight of her office title to impose her views on the readers (it,s the effect it would undoubtedly have on many). So while I don't like anonymity myself, I think a reasonable case could be made that it's an instance where it's useful.

Then again, it's my opinion, and I understand your uneasiness.

Precisely. Judges will have political opinions. Having them not associate with the Justice is probably a good thing.

 

[hyanygo]

This concept of your election having been ratified by public opinion upon your election, and thus having a mandate to carry out the policies laid out in your Manifesto is the very foundation of any and all Representative Democracy. It's absolutely crucial to our whole existance as a democracy that you are charged as a Senator to implement the mandate outlined in your Manifesto. You are not supposed to be a proxy for the people, you are supposed to be elected on a platform, which you will then implement, in combination with using your judgement on any matters which may arise that are not in your manifesto.

Aye. Burke would love you.