Such a move would not be necessary. The Communists did publish a Constitutional document which they published in their
paper. As you can see, they reserve their upper house entirely for their party and in their first clause assert a leading role for this party. That is unacceptable by any democratic standard.
As for the similar charge you levelled at us, Frau Bunognini, I should like to say this. Septembrism as an ideology is not party-political, but rather a national ideology that emerged in our history 900 years ago and brought us the most stable democratic regime we ever had. The principles of Septembrism - the
federal nation,
civic democracy,
non-aggressive resistance - are for the greatest part above the level of what one would normally understand as a political ideology. You must understand that my forefather, the first Graf Michels, and his fellow Septembrists in the first 15th of September Movement, were not looking to come up with an ideology. They were seeking to solve the problem of democratic collapse due to periodic ethnic tensions in our country. We have seen this very war what that can led to. His conclusion is poignant to the problem: to gain democratic stability, both peoples of Hulstria and Gao-Soto must have a permanent stake in the state and a democracy that serves all citizens of this state and is designed to do so. These are the very principles underlying the Basic Law, as they underlied the Constitution of 3416 on which it is based. The state is described as "Septembrist" because its constitutional law is built on the insights of Thomas Michels
cum suis and its workings are based on the workings he designed in 3416. Especially given the history of ethnic tensions, this symbolic clause (because I recognise non-Septembrists can be as democratic) is highly important.
I should also stress that the clause does not imply a leading role for the Septembrist Movement in the new state. We have a history of participating in politics as a unified force only when that democratic order is being threatened. Parties which adhere to Septembrism are in no way privileged. Parties cannot be banned for the reason of not being Septembrist, but they can be for being anti-democratic or racist.
Furthermore, Septembrism is broad enough to embrace the entire political spectrum. Communists can be Septembrist; Hosian Democrats can be Septembrist; Liberals, Social Democrats, et cetera, can all be Septembrist. This is because it is, historically, not so much a political as a national ideology: its principal concern is with the way in which Hulstria and Gao-Soto can exist as a peaceful, democratic state at the junction of East and West, and how we can ensure it stays that way. It emerged naturally in our history because it expresses something of who the Hulstrian and Gao-Showan peoples aspire to be: one nation, united in its diversity, appreciating the heritage of their fathers and cultivating what they share, not least of it the land of two peoples, united and free. Is it so hard to understand, knowing this, that we wanted to recognise that history in our constitutional laws?
Moving on to the education programme. First of all, I would urge that it be recognised that the vast majority of Hulstrian people were not complicit in this. They should not be put on collective trial at this table for the racist actions of a few who worshipped Dundorf more than Hulstria. Hulstrians had their history taken from them and saw the proud name of their people usurped by a regime who used it to justify horrible crimes against their neighbours. Secondly, a strong part of the celebration of September Day is to recognise that freedom and democracy are not self-evident and that they must be defended; to commemorate the victims of dictatorship alongside those who made sacrifices to rid themselves of it. We think we must never forget the horrors of the regime, just like we never forgot the suffering under the 3411-3416 regime. This is true.
Returning to the Communists, they rejected competing in elections under the terms of what you described as a satisfactory constitutional law. If they persist in this, what do you propose to do? If there's one party refusing to engage in the democratic process, isn't that a destabilising factor?