Senate Candidate Interview with ICH
Lime Interviews Senate Candidate ICH
Written by Lime
Lime: Why are you running for Senate?
ICH: Legislative work has always been of great interest of me as I particularly like nitpicking any small problems that exist in any draft legislations. I also like discussion the creation of new policies or improving existing policies, and what could be a better place to do that in than the Senate! I felt now was the best time for me to run for the Europeian Senate for the first time as I understand the issues that concern Europeia much better than I did in the past. So, I am confident in my preparedness to assume the responsibilities associated with the position of Senator.
Lime: What experience and/or skills do you have that would make you a good Senator?
ICH: It's not the first time I'll be serving in an NS legislature. As mentioned in my platform, I served for four terms as a Senator in Thaecia and my experience from there has taught me a few important lessons which could be of great value to the next Senate.
The first lesson is the readiness to compromise. In a chamber with seven or eight Senators, there'll of course be many different conflicting viewpoints and all of the Senators would be eager to have their particular adopted in entirety by the chamber. But practically, in most cases, it is not possible and this sometimes scuttles any attempt of improvement to an existing bill. But we have to recognise that the result is what matters at the end. If we fail to pass an amendment/bill because of our refusal to compromise, then all the days of discussions add up to nothing. In order to get something out of these discussions, it is practical to accommodate as many view-points as you can, even if it means sacrificing some things you wanted in the greater interest of getting something to be done.
Another lesson is the close attention to be paid to the text of the proposed bill/amendment. While considering a piece of legislation, sometimes, the way the legislation is written gives rise to multiple possible interpretations. While considering a bill, we have to ensure the writing of the legislation fulfils the purpose of the legislation and does not lead to a messy situation of multiple interpretations.
Lime: What's the most important issue (in this election) for you as a candidate?
ICH: I am not going into this election with a solitary issue/policy to focus on, as I have aimed to pay adequate attention to multiple issues at the same time with a single objective in mind, that is to continue improving our regional laws. I don’t think we have any pressing/urgent problem as we speak but that doesn’t mean we should sit idle. A key reason Europeia has always thrived is our continued focus on all-round improvement and to sustain our status, there’s no way forward other than to keep on improving our existing processes. For example, in my platform, I talked about a change Prim proposed to our existing nomination system, which would assist the Government in making more out of a term by cutting down on the time currently needed for a confirmation hearing to conclude. As we pass legislation after legislation, we are of course going to run out of stuff to legislate but that’s nothing to be satisfied with.
Lime: Could you summarise your platform/ideas in 2-3 sentences?
ICH: This would be very difficult to condense a platform of six-seven paragraphs in 2-3 sentences, as you can understand. In my platform, I had detailed my personal observations on some of the legislation that we could be expected to work on in the next Senate session. There have also been discussions on increasing the maximum limit of the Senate seats, and on the transition process. I have been against increasing the maximum limit of the Senate seats as it could reduce the chances/scope of competitive elections. An institution as prestigious as the Senate should have competitive elections to it in order to ensure the best possible candidates make it to the Senate, thus sustaining the quality of the Senate. I have also expressed my support to a proposed improvement to the existing confirmation hearings.
Lime: In the Senate how might your colleagues describe your legislative approach?
ICH: My fellow colleagues in the Senate can expect me to consider their viewpoints with a great degree of importance. I am not someone who’s stubborn and insists that my ideas are better than others so my ideas in entirety have to pass. If someone presents me with a viewpoint that’s different from mine, I’ll sit down and compare my own idea/viewpoint with the different one proposed in the chamber. Then, I’ll check if there are particular points from the different viewpoint that could be integrated into my own plan and strengthen it as well. When proposing a new bill/piece of legislation, I’ll be open to changing it until everyone’s in the Senate is satisfied with it or until I can make as many people in the Senate satisfied with it. My colleagues would see me more of as a consensus-builder than someone who’s intent on bulldozing their agenda through while a significant part of the Senate or the Citizenry is dis-satisfied with it.
Lime: What's your ideal approach to oversight?
ICH: While conducting oversight over the actions of the Government, the first and foremost important thing we have to remember is that the Government is not our enemy. The voters didn’t give the oversight mandate to the Senate just so that we pick up fights with the Executive. It is very important to understand the Government’s perspective on the issue that is being discussed between the Senate and the Government. If we do not understand where they are coming from, it prevents the Senators from actually understanding the root cause of a problem.
It is also important for us to understand our boundaries while carrying out the process of oversight. As I mentioned in my platform, the Senators should remember their job is only to assess whether the government is performing well in certain parameters, and to not impose their own idea/ways of doing things on the Government.
The Senators should also try not to add themselves to the list of problems being faced by the Government at that time. Equal emphasis should also be put on suggesting solutions to the issue in hand, which the government should be free to accept or not. If the Senate discusses with the Government about a problem existing at that moment, it should also ask the Government about how it plans to solve it, rather than only asking about how the problem came into existence.
