Constitution of the Second Istalian Empire at voteThe new foundamental law will maintain a federal form of the state, will continue to protect the cultural diversity of the country, will introduce a federal upper house that will give a strong voice to the constituent Communities and outline a strong centrality of the legislature12 October 5075COLSAMIA- This morning around 11 o'clock the Madame President of the Constituent Assembly Stefania Casciongi officially started the debate and voting procedures of the Constitution of the Second Istalian Empire, finalized after almost two years of work by the Assembly and the dedicated commissions that they availed themselves of the collaboration and advice of jurists, constitutionalists and various experts in the sector.
After long and heated debates that saw the federalist and unionist positions confront each other, finally the former prevailed and in fact the new constitution will maintain the federal form of the state inherited from the Union of Quanzar and Alaria.
The Constitution recognizes, and therefore confirms, enshrined among the very first articles that outline the nature of the new State, the role of the constituent States of the previous Union, i.e. the current Community of Sarrentina and the Autonomous Community of Alaria, which have been confirmed as Federal Communities of the State which made up the Istalian Empire.
The new constitution, to give a greater, more autonomous and more incisive voice to the two Federal Communities, provides for the creation of an upper federal house, which will be known as the Federal Council, which will form with the lower house, the National Assembly, the National Congress. Although the National Assembly, the House of the People, will have a greater role between the two houses, the Federal Council will be part of legislative power and will have equal competence and power on all those matters that affect the Federal Communities and other local authorities as well as on all constitutional issues, ratification of treaties and declaration of war and peace.
The Federal Council will also meet in joint session with the National Assembly for the election and appointment of various other offices and positions of the state apparatus, particularly regarding the judiciary, and to deal with various matters concerning the Crown.
The new constitution not only recognizes the existence of the Federal Communities and gives them a much more incisive role in the administration of the state but will also continue to protect the cultural diversity and particularities of the country, incorporating in the constitution itself the recognition of a special and protected status for the local Istalian languages as well as for the Majatran, thus making the reforms introduced in this area during the very first years of the Union of Quanzar and Alaria its own, reconfirming how, despite the fears of a slavish return to the past and of damnatio memoriae for the Union, what has happened in the past forty years has had a real impact on the history and culture of the country which will be preserved in several form.
The new constitution outlines a strong centrality of Congress in the institutional system and to the disappointment of the hardest core of monarchical conservatives, as had already emerged during the debates of the last year, the most important amendments that under the first Empire had modified the first constitution were incorporated into the new fundamental law, namely the role of the President of the National Assembly who will be the institutional figure in charge of conducting the post-electoral consultations between the political forces of the Assembly and therefore of identifying and appointing a candidate Prime Minister to form a Government who then will have to present himself in front of the Assembly for the vote of confidence.
The constitution derogates the fixing of various details of the various State institutions to the law, such as the number of members of the two Houses, the duration of the legislature, the methods of election of Deputies and Councilors, of the designation of the Presidents of the Houses and their powers, and so on, to be adopted with constitutional laws obviously and therefore with a strengthened majority.
Regarding the role of the Emperor, the constitution clearly delineates the status of ceremonial Head of State, a symbol of the unity of the State and the highest protective figure of the Constitution, of the democratic nature of the state and of the values and principles of Istalia. As Head of State he will assume the role of the highest representative of the Istalian Empire in international relations and of Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, although also on the latter point this role will be effectively ceremonial given that, as usual for constitutional and parliamentary monarchies, all the acts and duties that the Emperor must perform must be countersigned by the Prime Minister and by the Cabinet and/or by the competent ministers.
Precisely with regard to the figure of the Emperor, in response to the street demonstrations organized by the anti-monarchist movements, the member of the Constituent Assembly Casimiro Del Debbio intervened before the journalists, a well-known jurist and constitutional expert formerly full professor of Constitutional Law at the State University of Castiell 'e Sciorenza and then at the prestigious Scuola Normale Superiore (Superior Graduate School) of Villanedria, which together with 20 other renowned academic experts conducted a comparative study which led in 5062 to the book "Monarchical Governments in Modern Democracy". Del Debbio defended the parliamentary constitutional monarchical state form, underlining how indeed this form of government can function better within a democratic system and contribute to its stability and permanence:
First of all, let me say you that democracy is perfectly compatible with constitutional monarchy. The history of the world has shown us how countless of nation having such kind of monarchical form of government proved to be among the most stable and prosperous democratic state. Just to mention some? The first Istalian Empire itself, the Kingdom of Kazulia, the United Kingdom of Lourenne e previous monarchical predecessors, the Kingdom of Rildanor, the monarchical Commonwealth of Hutori, recently re-established, the Septembrist monarchy of Hulstria and Goa-Soto, the millennial and pacific Empire of Sekowo and there are a lot of other examples I can provide. What they have in common? Well defined and established democratic rules and proceedures with clear system of counterbalance between all the powers of the state, what the Constituent Assembly is introducing now in voting to this new Constitution.
It is true, the history gave us also a lot of other examples of tyrannical and authoritarian monarchy, but we have to consider and analize how these regime were established and on what basis. Most of the "nastier" and most tyrannical and undemocratic monarchical regime where established through coups d'etat, through the size of power by part of anti-democratic movements or by part of dictators and authoritarian rulers, without any truly democratic process and in most of the case without a constitution or with foundamental laws that had nothing of democratic, that were emptied of any real democratic limitation or that indeed underlined openly an undemocratic form of government. Some examples? Many of the monarchical regimes established in Selucia, with the traditional selucian emperors, most of the times, recognized openly as a true political rulers like in ancient times; virtually all of the monarchical regimes established by the Thallers, originated by violent and authoritarian seizure of power; the numberous majatran monarchical regimes in Kafuristan, where almost as a costant the foundamental laws established huge degree of powers to kings and sultans; the Hessexian kingdoms establishe here in Istalia, where behind the facade of a costitutional monarchy to the monarchs were always recognized great powers and, most important, where truly the expression of specific political parties aimed by a clear mission.
The benefits of a parliamentary constitutional monarchy are indeed numberous:
A monarchy is justified on the grounds that it provides for a nonpartisan head of state, separate from the daily political struggle of executive government, and thus ensures that the highest representative of the country, at home and internationally, does not only represent a particular political party, but all people. It offer a disinterested support for civil society that is beyond the reach of partisan politics. An elected although cerimonial Head of State is always electoral expression of only a part of a people and, if elected by the parliament, expression of political parties and/or result of political agreements behind which there cannot be particular interests. Such Head of State regularly have been involved in daily politics before assuming the post, they are typically former politicians.
It is their symbolic importance that arguably represents the most valuable aspect of monarchs. Such a symbol can be a powerful weapon against corruption and disunity. Indeed monarchy can unite people more than any politicians who tipically represent only their party. Although could seems just glittering things, events like jubilees and coronations give us not only days off (yay!) but also bring us together in national pride. It isn’t very often that crowds gather in such away like in similar events when a politician is in town.
Monarchs do not rely on a particular political party’s support in order to maintain their office, they are not career politicians who rely on popular votes to maintain their position, the institution extinguishes the hopes of faction by rising above the too much often toxic partisanship of competing parties and vying elected officials. However, although hereditary, the monarchy is accountable, just like any other public institution, we must not forget this.
Demagogic dictators and authoritarian rulers have proved unremittingly hostile to monarchy because the institution represents a veritable limits to their ambitions and for them dangerous alternative to their will of veneration. The need for a Prime Minister to regularly account for themselves to a monarch has important consequences we all can easily imagine.
Constitutional monarchs make it difficult for dramatic political changes to occur, oftentimes by representing principle, values and customs that politicians cannot replace and few citizens would like to see overthrown.
A monarchy lends to a political order a vital element of continuity that enables gradual reform. The rule of law is thus guaranteed by respect for authority and that respect for authority is much more easily granted to a man whose father has had it, than to an upstart, and so Society is more easily supported. The continuity of a family and their different generations attract the interest of all age groups.
About more practical motivations, ceremonial work at home and abroad is taken care of by the crown, meanwhile, the Prime Minister can focus more on running the country and the crown and its members are effective tools of soft diplomacy. By separating the ceremonial and the actual power of government, there is a check on the egomania of politicians, who are not sheltered from the real world to the same extent as are royalty.
Furthermore we can say that monarchs usually have as much money and property as they need, property that indeed in most part belong to the State, and because their wealth is inherited and they do not work for or own private companies, the public does not need to worry about hidden financial motivations. And in the end in any case in constitutional parliamentary monarchies the parliaments and the representatives of the people decides about how many money grant to the monarchs and their use is always under the lens of the democratic institutions.
About some of the most recent critics on the issues of the privileges accorded to the Emperor and the Imperial Family, it is true that they lead lives of great privilege, but we have to underline also the fact that they lack of many fundamental freedoms: the right to privacy and family life which ordinary citizens take for granted, free choice of careers, freedom to marry whom they like. Even the right to vote, one of the most important rights that every citizen detains into a democracy, it is denied to them. The priviliges recognized to them belance these lack of rights recognized to any other citizens. They are constantly subject to scrutiny by part of the public opinion regurlarly in the media: alongside all the fawning coverage and glossy pictures, there is more serious investigative journalism which keeps all the monarchies on their toes, scrutinising their expenditure, their hunting trips, even their choice of friends.
Republicans could respond, although childishly, that hereditary rulers may prove mad or bad but actually in a modern monarchy the monarchs do not rules the nations and the succession is matter where also the democratic government has a voice.
Republicans could say us that it is better when people can choice their rulers because it is the highest expression of democracy. Ok, but into a parliamentary constitutional monarchy indeed they elect their rulers, they elect their representatives and the results of each elections led to the rise and fall from power of their rulers, because, as I have already underlined, the monarchs in moder monarchy don't rule, they reign but don't rule, their representatives do, the politicians do.
And as already underlined, and I'm going to close this digression, it's that sometimes, too much often in my opinion in this world, the politicians, without opposition and without neutral power really above the politics, can easily empty the democratic institution of any power and can affect really negatively the life of their fellow citizens. And we only need to look to the past of our country: what happens when the first Empire was abolished and the Six Republics was founded? For the first years the republic functioned without too many differences with respect to the Empire, it is true, but the National Party slowly, and undoubtedly thanks to the fact that it had held the highest office of the state for so long, has accumulated influence and power, probably working in the shadow also to weaken the other parties, adopting any strategy and means to hold power, regardless of whether these were beneficial to the country, and when the last trace of opposition vanished, the country finally slipped into the hands of that party and of their leaders who did what they wanted with it, with great harm to our citizens, without any counterbalance to their power. Should I recall the clericalism and the restrictive measures on civil and social liberties that were introduced? Not to mention the stagnation and the final fate reserved for Istalia.
In the end, we may easily devise imaginary forms of government, in which the power shall be constantly bestowed on the most worthy, by the free and incorrupt suffrage of the whole community but, alas, experience overturns these airy fabrics.
Thank you
OOC:
source:
https://thecrownchronicles.co.uk/explan ... overnment/https://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9294955/qu ... l-monarchyhttps://blog.hmns.org/2019/04/is-monarc ... democracy/https://constitution-unit.com/2020/09/3 ... democracy/https://theconversation.com/a-radical-t ... racy-96342