Senate Candidate Interview - Gem
JayDee sits down with Gem to talk about their candidacy for the Senate by-election
Written by JayDee
JayDee: Let's start with why you decided to run, were you always intending to run when UPC announced their intention to serve half a term or is this a newer development?
Gem: It was conditional. I withdrew from the last senate race because I felt I needed to prove to myself and others that I could be an active and engaged citizen before I stepped back into the Senator shoes. Over the past 40+ days, I feel like I've flown past that bar, and so my heart told me to run in the by-election.
JayDee: What have you been doing to prove to yourself that you can be actively engaged? To use your words
Gem: I was quite active in our executive ministries this term, especially in the (former) Ministry of Interior, where I leveraged my gameside and integration expertise, and the ERN, where I headed the Civillian Service, and created new userbars for the Civillian and active service; I took an active role in the fledgeling People’s Assembly, writing and passing Resolution 011, and proposing and writing the Referendum Petition Time Allotment Amendment; positioning myself on the front lines of the debate over judicial term limits; and I even polled for and wrote a comprehensive analysis to ascertain the region's approval of various legislative decisions and proposals through my private media paper, the Gem Research Center.
I'm not the type of person to drop out of an election, miss out on a cabinet position, or whatever else, and be all but silent until the next opportunity comes along. I've stayed active and engaged in a variety of regional affairs across the last few months, and there's no signs that that's going to change.
JayDee: In contrast to your competitor, your platform does not mention executive issues at all. Do you have anything to say about the ongoing controversy concerning MadJack and the administration?
Gem: It's my belief that a Senate platform should be about Senate business, not executive business. It's the Senate's responsibility to oversee the executive, and ensure things are going smoothly, but it's not the Senate's job to decide executive policy.
As for the Senate response to the Madjack Affair, I thought about putting commentary on this in my platform, but I decided not to, as it seems a somewhat contentious topic (it spurred CSP’s withdrawal, after all), and I don’t want to fan the flames. That said, I’m generally frustrated with the Senate (or rather, Senator’s) approach to this situation. The executive is doubtless under extreme pressure to resolve this situation from abroad, and the last thing they need is the senate combing over their every intention and taking their time away from their job. Given TRR’s apparent apathy (or opportunism, you decide which), towards getting on the same page and restoring the trust between our regions, a flexible foreign affairs response is a must. And strict senate oversight is antithetical to that. (edited)
JayDee: Do you have any legislative proposals you want to bring to the senate?
Gem: Yes. In fact, I laid out three such proposals in my platform, posted earlier today. (https://forums.europeians.com/index.php?threads/gem-for-senate-3-5-kingem-hearts.10063498/)
I'd like to amend the Awards and Honours act to better reflect our new ministry structure, namely by splitting the Order of Integration, which was concieved with a unified Interior in mind
I'd like to amend the Senate Protocol Act to enable better handling of urgent cabinet confirmations. We should have procedures on what we should or should not do when the executive getting directly to work is the utmost priority. It's my belief that, had we such a procedure on the books, there wouldn't be this controversy over how some within the Senate are using senate confirmation and oversight powers in the wake of the Madjack Affair
and I'd like to move the Referendum Petition Time Allotment Amendment to the Senate floor. While the specifics may be the subject of some disagreement, I believe that the region is generally in favor of tightening up the time allotment for referenda petitions, and that the Senate can more effectively handle this discussion.
I have other ideas should these get done, but given that I'd only be serving less than half a term before the next election, I've chosen to set legislative goals that I think I can feasibly achieve before the term comes to a close.
JayDee: Thank you! Did you take issue with how the senate handled Kazaman's confirmation?
In regards to the expedited process they took, not Kazaman himself (edited)
Gem: No. Given the sticky situation we're in foreign affairs-wise, it was of utmost importance that we got our lead diplomat to work as quickly as was feasible. (edited)
Does that answer your question?
I do take issue with how part of the senate used its confirmation and oversight powers to grill the executive in the wake of this nomination, but I'm not sure that falls within the scope of what you're asking, and I sort of already touched on that earlier.
JayDee: It is a part of what I'm asking. To expand though, do you think a hearing on the ongoing issue is necessary at all? If so, do you think the region needs it right now or the senate should wait until the situation is resolved?
Gem: I absolutely think it's important that the region gets all the information surrounding this situation, whether by hearing or otherwise. However, resolving our sticky foreign affairs situation comes first, and a hearing now could interfere with the executive's ability to address that in a quick, effective, and flexible manner.
As I said earlier in this interview: The executive is doubtless under extreme pressure to resolve this situation from abroad, and the last thing they need is the senate combing over their every intention and taking their time away from their job.
JayDee: With that in mind, what is your ideal senate-executive relationship? If you can describe that?
For a normal term, not bearing in mind the ongoing negotiations.
Gem: Whew. That's a toughie. The executive is in charge of day-to-day policy. Anything pertaining to the active affairs of the region, anything experimental, etc. should be under the executive
The Senate's job, then, is twofold; to analyze ongoing and future executive policy choices through oversight and confirmations, in order to maintain a smooth and effective executive; and to deal with the slower-moving affairs. Things not day-to-day, like how we run our elections, what recognition can be given to our citizens, and what regions we treat with.
That's part of the reason why I don't like Senators proposing executive policy. The laws we pass are much more firm than an executive policy stance. Executive policy is much easier to implement, and much easier to change than a law.
and I daresay that's all I have to say on that topic.
JayDee: You had quite a lot to say during Senator Ellenburg's interview and you allude to it here, but do you want to expand on your feelings about senate "experimenting" with mentorship?
Gem: The senate mandating an executive program has rarely ever worked. If we're experimenting with a mentorship program, the executive has the capability to do it in a more flexible and ministry-tailored manner. Aside from suggesting something to the executive via oversight, the Senate is restricted to firm laws, which aren't ideal for policymaking as much as they are for policy-cementing.
JayDee: Thank you, Gem. I think this interview has gone on rather long, are there any parting words for the electorate that you want to give?
Gem: You give me the hard questions, this is so unfair
Okay, for real this time. Thank you for the lovely interview, and for those planning to vote in the upcoming by-election, I hope that my honest and comprehensive portrayal of what a Gem Senatorship would look like, and what the senate more broadly should look like, have won me your vote.
https://discord.com/assets/da3651e59d6006dfa5fa07ec3102d1f3.svg
