Wildcard Submission

Common-Sense Politics

Common-Sense Politics

Audentes Fortuna Juvat
Deputy Minister
Honoured Citizen
Citizen
Pronouns
He/Him
​

FEP Members Propose Sweeping "Democratic" Reforms

​

In just the past fifteen days, members of the Freedom & Equality Party have proposed legislation to remove Senate floor privileges for Honored Citizens, instituting term limits on the Office of President, barring ministers from service in other branches of government, and the complete abolition of the Office of Supreme Chancellor.

These proposals have produced some of the most contentious and passionate debates in our recent history which, on the face of it, isn't such a terrible thing. In a time when people need to be poked with a hot iron to publicly take a side, one might even find it refreshing if not for the damage these proposals collectively represent to the Republic.

Let's put the HC debate to the side because, frankly, it doesn't matter all that much in the great scheme of things. The rest, however, do. The finer points of these debates are being fleshed out as we speak and you'll find no recitation of them here. This isn't a policy brief. This is an assertion that the FEP's legislative record is one that unarguably seeks to diminish or destroy stabilizing forces in Europeian politics and government. Further, it's an assertion that the FEP's legislative record promotes neither "freedom" nor "equality".

Populism is a powerful force in NationStates, just as it is in real life. In a competitive environment such as Europeian politics, there will be winners and losers. Those who are denied at the ballot box will naturally look to those in positions of power and influence as forces holding them back from promotion, access, and prestige. Such players have historically latched onto proposals like these which promote "separation of powers" and "impartiality" and "transparency" because they, perhaps not entirely foolishly, believe they will create a more level playing field. The purpose of this article isn't to demonize these folks but to assert that not only are these ideas impractical in the context of NationStates communities, they actually breed instability and stifle achievement.

The Freedom & Equality Party was supposedly founded to expand democracy, to demand a more open and communicative government. I support these goals and therefore would like to see the Party succeed in the long term. I would like to see them make more robust efforts to expand the size of the Senate on an ongoing basis to give a platform to more and varied voices rather than attempt to silence or relegate others. I would like to see them work with officeholders to make the functions of government more apparent and accessible to the citizen body rather than limit the President's ability to choose the right person for the job. I would like to see them pursue legislative measures that level the playing field by lifting us all up rather than cut some down. I want this party to succeed because their underlying goals, if taken at face value, will create a better region for us all to benefit from. They have thus far not lived up to that, in my humble view.

Will the FEP alter course in an effort to truly address the problems they see in the region? Do these proposals actually represent a more equitable status quo and the will of a majority of Europeians? Do some (wo)men just want to watch the world burn? That's for you to decide.
 
While I have not been in agreement with any of the amendments, blaming it on a single entity is not going to get us anywhere. How about, instead of pointing fingers at everyone, we look at the person who introduced the amendment. While I will readily admit there is no love lost between Rach and myself, blaming the party she founded for what was Constie's idea is not going to get us anywhere.
 
This is a good article. On the face of it, I’d like to note that speaking rights reform, increased transparency and larger Senates are the official planks of the FAEP that you have listed. The other proposals by Constie are his only (consider them akin to private members bills). The issue of the Supreme Chancellery while discussed by the FAEP to a light degree was still in its preliminary stages and there was no consensus on what should be done within the party. So that proposal to abolish the Supreme Chancellery is also akin to a private members bill that reflect the individuals who proposed them rather than party policy.

I disagree heavily with the concept that they are populist items or that the party is populist because all our official planks and even the reform of the Chancellery have always crossed ‘elite’ lines and were never intended to target or diminish any group. Particularly in the HC speaking rights debate, we had many Honoured Citizens on our side. These reform items were not even meant to be contentious at all.

I do agree with the notion that the Party has given a voice and has led to lines of thinking that you, I and many others do not support or agree with. With any idea, there will be multiple offshoots of thinking and disciples. In real life for example, we do not support Communism but there are offshoots of communist thinking like Universal Healthcare and Social Security that we find appealing. It is certainly possible to find what one likes and dislikes even with an ideology that one dislikes. For other lines of thinking that we like, like Darwinism there are dark offshoots like eugenics that are wrong. Ideas and lines of thinking take on lives of their own that produce new ideas and concepts. But I don’t think that this is the parties fault, we can’t control people’s minds.

Of course, you disagree with our party’s accomplishments so far. We fundamentally have very different opinions on the HC speaking rights and the effect of removing them. For us, HC speaking rights relate to increased transparency but I’m glad you support our mission as it pertains to increasing transparency. Certainly, the party is not done yet and there remains a lot of work relating to increasing transparency, the size of the Senate and accountability. What I can assure you is that right now there are no more controversial items being discussed by the FAEP.

I do hope that we can work together on those issues that we agree with and I do hope that even when it comes to the Chancellery we can find common ground on necessary reform. My greatest disappointment with the Chancellery is not how it exists as an institution but how its members have sullied its name and have allowed it to become contentious. Even back in 2010 or 2011, I was perfectly content with the Chancellery as an institution and its members. But over the past few terms, the behaviour of certain members has upset people so much that it has come to this. The idea that the party or myself would want the region to burn is simply not true. If anything, it has been members of the Chancellery who have allowed it to become a less reputable institution than it was in the past who are responsible for this.

We were founded because there simply was not a party that promoted accountability or larger Senates among other issues. We filled that gap and like I said earlier, I hope we can work on these issues. As much as people like making political opponents into supervillains like Bane & Joker, we honestly do mean well. Like you, we want to improve the region we just disagree on certain points how to do that.
 
I'd like echo what Rach has said.

1) HC was definitely an FEP thing, it was one of the issues that the party was founded one.
2) Limits on Presidential terms is not an FEP thing. It has not been discussed once in the party, this is Consite's own personal view. One I know I oppose and I think most within our party do as well.
3) The proposed separation of powers again not an FEP thing, it has not been discussed in the party, this is Consite's own personal view. Again I oppose and I think most within the party do too.
4) The party was having a discussion on SC and it is ongoing. The party as a whole has not reached a decision and so currently this is just Vert's own view.

So out of four you got one right.

The FEP has completed one of it's goals and a small minority have decided to call the party a populist party. In fact before the HC amendment was passed a small minority decided to call the party a populist party. The only people calling the party a populist one are those who clearly don't like the party and therefore don't want it to succeed so are trying to create some negative traction about it by trying to brand it as a populist party.

Nice article though! :p
 
Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation that populism is when it is stated that ordinary people are being taken advantage of by the elites. This has never been a part of our party and we have always sought and gained co-operation between 'elites' and 'ordinary' Europeians. So I think it's important that we look at what it is before we start throwing it around.

A much bigger is whether the party is FEP or FAEP...
 
I think it is a mistake to conflate Constie's proposals in the Citizens' Assembly to being part of any parties' agenda other than Constie's, himself.
 
Aex, you have been more than happy to conflate multiple issues to Mouse and the CRP acting out some conspiracy to take over the region. I stand by my defense of the FEP, but I must point out the hypocrisy of your comment.
 
Constie is certainly in a class of his own, but its amusing to see members essentially be thrown under the bus to protect the party.

Also JayDee re: your first post, its called a wildcard submission for a reason :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top