Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Anything that is not directly related to the game or its community.

Re: Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Postby Lizard250 » Tue Aug 11, 2015 7:11 pm

Arizal1 wrote:The idea behind the use of elective democracy (which would have been aristocracy for ancient greeks) is to give a voice to everyone.


I disagree. I would say that modern democracy is half-way between mob-rule and aristocracy; a system in which the majority elects an elite to impose their values on all members of society.

There is also another problem I have with modern democracy, vote equality. The fact that modern democracy considers the vote of a dishonest, lazy and idiotic citizen equal to that of an honest, hard-working and intelligent citizen. Encouraging the worst form of demagoguery where politicians stress the importance of absolute equality whilst pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Arizal1 wrote:I don't find it particularly idealistic, if we say that every other system is vulnerable to corruption.


I find the idea that you can allow all members of society to have equal political power, without creating a bland soft-dictatorship in the process, to be extremely idealistic.

Arizal1 wrote:A "good" absolute monarchy or a perfect system seems to me far more idealistic than a bland democracy.


I would say they are just as idealistic as democracy.
There's no such thing as a "perfect system", you can only have an "optimal system" (which may be considered perfect on a subjective basis).

Arizal1 wrote:Why is realizing what most of the population wants "dictatorial"?


Imagine you're a gay person, living in a democratic country with a large population of religious fundamentalists who believe gays should be stoned to death. Would you not consider such a system to be dictatorial, considering how much power it gives to people who want to harm you?

Arizal1 wrote:Those policies have been decided by elected representatives or judges nominated by them, so why would they be illegitimate?


Policies are illegitimate when they limit the rights and liberties of those subjected to them in an arbitrary (i.e. subjective and irrational) or disproportionate (i.e. excessively harsh) manner.

Democracy, by it's collectivist nature, fosters an "us vs. them" mentality. Such an "us vs. them" mentality is worsened by partisan politics, to the point where the main objective of politics eventually becomes "we must hurt them at all cost" rather than "we must help ourselves".

Arizal1 wrote:Science, especially social science, is very unstable. One paradigm can be replaced by another very quickly.


Indeed. The supremacy of objective science over subjective morality stems from the inherent "changeability" of science; scientific paradigms can easily be questioned and changed in light of new information, whilst moral paradigms cannot.

Arizal1 wrote:I wasn't proposing to elect them in the sense of a representative democracy, altough I would like that. What I was proposing was to proceed to the draw more than one time per 10 years.


I have four alternatives;
What if half of it's members (selected randomly) were to be replaced after 5 years?
What if it were to be elected every 5 years, with half it's members (selected randomly) replaced after 3 years?
What if it were to be elected every 5 years?
What if it were to be elected every year?

Arizal1 wrote:Your question raises an interesting issue, however. What would in fact guarantee that those regulators who wouldn't be chosen by the people would be more competent than those who would be elected? What if all of them are functionaly illiterate? You told me about the "toss of a coin" perspective, but at least in an elected democracy you have some kind of assurance that your candidate ha some basic skills (or is surrounded by people having those skills).


This would be easy to solve with mandatory constitutional literacy (i.e. persons who can't understand the Constitution can't participate in political affairs).

Arizal1 wrote:I don't really know what purpose have governors in your country


They would have a few, including:
- Determining how legislation should be implemented within their Province (e.g. how to control smuggling within their Province, in accordance with a law on imports).
- Performing Provincial-level duties required by laws (e.g. issuing certain types of permit)
- Appointing the heads of various Provincial institutions.
- Controlling the public services of their Province.
- Representing their Province, nationally and internationally.
Lizard250
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Postby Arizal1 » Wed Aug 12, 2015 6:20 pm

Lizard250 wrote:I disagree. I would say that modern democracy is half-way between mob-rule and aristocracy; a system in which the majority elects an elite to impose their values on all members of society.

There is also another problem I have with modern democracy, vote equality. The fact that modern democracy considers the vote of a dishonest, lazy and idiotic citizen equal to that of an honest, hard-working and intelligent citizen. Encouraging the worst form of demagoguery where politicians stress the importance of absolute equality whilst pandering to the lowest common denominator.


Well, if you consider everyone, or a big chunk of the citizens in a democracy, to be highly influencable, you can talk of a mob rule in the sense that much of the population can swing its vote pretty quickly. And yes, the fact that we choose representatives clearly means that there is an aristocratic component to elective democracy.

About vote equality, how would you discriminate against those people? Again, it is your own judgment, and another person can judge one person to be fit to vote while you would judge it unfit. Another problem is that if you decide that a part of the population is unfit to vote, as we did in the past with the cens (which was on a property basis), then you are encouraging those who are in power to ignore the needs of those who are ostraciced. You create a cast.

Lizard250 wrote:I find the idea that you can allow all members of society to have equal political power, without creating a bland soft-dictatorship in the process, to be extremely idealistic.


Well, if elective democracy is a soft-dictatorship, or even a "soft-totalitarism", then which system wouldn't be dictatorial or totalitarian (I prefer the term totalitarian, since dictatorship seems to me to relate to one person governing people in an authoritative way)? Your system would be more democratic in the greek sense in regard of the Board of Regulators, but the Supreme Court is an aristocratic/oligarchic body (because its members are taken from a privileged meritocratic group). And we could argue that this body is the very center of your republic.

In that regard, I think your point is that some dictatorships can be good, but you seem to dislike "bland dictatorship" because it is driven toward the need to satisfate the common denominators wish. You want an elite. But who will get to determine what is this elite and what are its goals?

Lizard250 wrote:I would say they are just as idealistic as democracy.
There's no such thing as a "perfect system", you can only have an "optimal system" (which may be considered perfect on a subjective basis).


Optimal based on which criterium?

Lizard250 wrote:Imagine you're a gay person, living in a democratic country with a large population of religious fundamentalists who believe gays should be stoned to death. Would you not consider such a system to be dictatorial, considering how much power it gives to people who want to harm you?


No. In my mind, such a system would be democratic. But I understand what you mean when you say that it would be dictatorial, since the population would try to "dictate" me what to do.

Lizard250 wrote:Policies are illegitimate when they limit the rights and liberties of those subjected to them in an arbitrary (i.e. subjective and irrational) or disproportionate (i.e. excessively harsh) manner.

Democracy, by it's collectivist nature, fosters an "us vs. them" mentality. Such an "us vs. them" mentality is worsened by partisan politics, to the point where the main objective of politics eventually becomes "we must hurt them at all cost" rather than "we must help ourselves".


I disagree again because you could say much rights and liberties are subjective and don't exist in all cultures. Arbitrary, subjective, irrational, disproportionate and harsh can mean different things to different people, so legitimacy of policies is also changing depending of the person who think about those, if we follow this line of reasoning.

Partisan politic is factionalism : it is only those who share sufficient common interests bonding in order to advance some common interests/beliefs. Us vs them exist in all political system you can conceive : it is as simple as "I agree with your idea" and "I disagree with your idea". Of course, the indeterminacy coming from the random nature of much of your system seems to alleviate this, but only before those people begin to talk. Once they do, you will see that your judges and your Regulators have some preconceived ideas and they should join those thinking like them in order to apply their values.

Lizard250 wrote:Indeed. The supremacy of objective science over subjective morality stems from the inherent "changeability" of science; scientific paradigms can easily be questioned and changed in light of new information, whilst moral paradigms cannot.


This is a very interesting point. But you were seemingly claiming that people should vote with others you have "objectively good ideas". If science changes over the time, then where are your objectively good ideas? From which data do they come? I see nothing, and even if I saw some date which would seem firm, it could always be reversed by some other person. This idea that I am as faillible as someone else regarding my judgments pushes me into thinking that every idea is at least possibly right. For me, there is no objectively good ideas and I cannot require everybody to follow me on my impressions of what is right and wrong.

Lizard250 wrote:I have four alternatives;
What if half of it's members (selected randomly) were to be replaced after 5 years?
What if it were to be elected every 5 years, with half it's members (selected randomly) replaced after 3 years?
What if it were to be elected every 5 years?
What if it were to be elected every year?


This is as you wish, but to meet my idea that there should always be some experimented people in the Board, the two last ideas would have to be scrapped. My impression is that such a Board would benefit to have a longer mandate than the normal chamber since they are supposed to represent some kind of memory. If that is the case, then the first idea would probably be the best one.

Lizard250 wrote:
Arizal1 wrote:Your question raises an interesting issue, however. What would in fact guarantee that those regulators who wouldn't be chosen by the people would be more competent than those who would be elected? What if all of them are functionaly illiterate? You told me about the "toss of a coin" perspective, but at least in an elected democracy you have some kind of assurance that your candidate ha some basic skills (or is surrounded by people having those skills).
This would be easy to solve with mandatory constitutional literacy (i.e. persons who can't understand the Constitution can't participate in political affairs).


I think "constitutional litteracy" is much harder to demonstrate than "litteracy". The questions could be written in such a way that only supporters of the regime as it is would be allowed to vote and to be represented in all your bodies. I understand that it doesn't trouble you much, but such a system could suffer from a lack of legitimacy from those who don't have the time or the will to study it and who anyway are subject to its decisions.

Lizard250 wrote:[The governors] would have a few [purpose], including:
- Determining how legislation should be implemented within their Province (e.g. how to control smuggling within their Province, in accordance with a law on imports).
- Performing Provincial-level duties required by laws (e.g. issuing certain types of permit)
- Appointing the heads of various Provincial institutions.
- Controlling the public services of their Province.
- Representing their Province, nationally and internationally.


So depending on their interpretation of the law, there could be wildly different ways to administrate the land. This is interesting and it goes with what I would expect from federalism. It seems for me that the only feature of federalism you don't have are regional assemblies. But if the governors are nominated by members of the legislature, then you have their counterweight. Each group of legislators from one province can virtually make laws for their provinces, and force the governors to follow them (if they can remove their governor, or else since they can nominate people who please them).
The Social-Liberal Caucus (Ibutho) (Inactive) (Particracy Classic)
Demokrat Konservativen Partei (DKP) (Narikaton and Darnussia) (Particracy Classic)
The Federalistische Partij (Laaglanden) (Particracy Dev)
Arizal1
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:48 am

Re: Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Postby Lizard250 » Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:15 pm

Arizal1 wrote:About vote equality, how would you discriminate against those people? Again, it is your own judgment, and another person can judge one person to be fit to vote while you would judge it unfit.


How about having the Constitution establish an exhaustive lists of individuals who may not vote or be voted for.

E.g:

The right to full suffrage shall be stripped from all citizens convicted, by a competent tribunal, of one or more of the following:
- Crimes of a violent or inhumane nature (e.g. assault, murder, rape, child abuse, terrorism, robbery, ...).
- Inciting the commission of crimes of violent or inhumane nature.
- Promoting hatred and/or discrimination towards individuals on grounds of their race and/or gender.
- Promoting hatred and/or discrimination towards individuals in the name of religion.

Arizal1 wrote:[...] which system wouldn't be dictatorial or totalitarian (I prefer the term totalitarian, since dictatorship seems to me to relate to one person governing people in an authoritative way)?


A completely non-totalitarian system would have to meet all of the following criteria:
1. It must acknowledge, respect and uphold it's subjects' fundamental right to self-ownership (their right to have complete sovereignty over their own bodies and minds, from their birth until their death).
It must protect this right from all violations, other than limitations which are necessary (justified by rational concerns over national security, national independence, national productivity, ...), proportional (not excessive relative to the goal pursued) and a last resort (other options which do not violate this right have been tried first).
2. It must acknowledge, respect and uphold all individual rights and liberties which stem from the right to self-ownership (right to life and physical integrity, right to liberty / freedom from slavery, right to freedom of thought, right to freedom of belief and conscience, right to preserve life and liberty / right to self-defence, ...).
It must protect these rights from all violations, other than limitations which are necessary (justified by rational concerns over national security, national independence, national productivity, ...), proportional (not excessive relative to the goal pursued) and a last resort (other options which do not violate these rights have been tried first).
3. It must acknowledge, respect and uphold all individual rights and liberties which serve to counterbalance the power of authority (right to petition, right to freely disseminate and access information / freedom from arbitrary censorship, right to criticize the government, ...).
It must protect these rights from all violations, other than limitations which are necessary (justified by rational concerns over national security, national independence, national productivity, ...), proportional (not excessive relative to the goal pursued) and a last resort (other options which do not violate these rights have been tried first).
4. It must prioritize the repeal of laws, or parts thereof, which are discovered to violate rights and liberties unnecessarily (either from the beginning or due to having become obsolete) and/or disproportionately.
5. It must acknowledge that criminal laws are no more than socially sanctioned violence and oppression used to compel certain behaviours, and that they must thus;
- Be considered a necessary evil, to be kept to a minimum.
- Serve liberty and civilization rather than the moral codes of bigots.
- Apply equally to all persons, regardless of race, gender, wealth, ...
6. It must prevent the creation of impulsive, knee-jerk legislation.
7. It must make the Law accessible to all;
- All laws must be written in layman's terms. The use of "legalese" by authorities, whether public (i.e.the state) or private, should be banned.
- It must prevent the establishment of elitist legal professionals.
8. It must produce strong leaders.
9. It must be subject to rationalism and the rule of law.

Arizal1 wrote:In that regard, I think your point is that some dictatorships can be good, but you seem to dislike "bland dictatorship" because it is driven toward the need to satisfate the common denominators wish. You want an elite. But who will get to determine what is this elite and what are its goals?


My point is that the only system which can provide liberty and justice to all it's subjects would be a benevolent dictatorship which;
- Consists of a large number of individuals with various world views, selected based on the merit of their ideas.
- Is restricted in it's ability to make laws and regulations.
- Is completely accountable to a rationalistic, non-partisan institution.

Arizal1 wrote:I disagree again because you could say much rights and liberties are subjective and don't exist in all cultures.


Which is why I am anti-multiculturalism. I believe that cultures who exert less control over the bodies and minds of their members are inherently superior to others.

Arizal1 wrote:Us vs them exist in all political system you can conceive [...]


True, but I believe that there is a way to control it.

Arizal1 wrote:If science changes over the time, then where are your objectively good ideas? From which data do they come?


I believe that objectively good ideas are those which would provide the highest level of liberty, justice and progress according to the currently accepted scientific paradigm.

Arizal1 wrote:The questions could be written in such a way that only supporters of the regime as it is would be allowed to vote and to be represented in all your bodies.


Unless the questionnaire must be approved by at least nine-tenths of Parliament, with a quorum of at least three-quarters of each party, to ensure it's neutrality.

Arizal1 wrote:Each group of legislators from one province can virtually make laws for their provinces, and force the governors to follow them (if they can remove their governor, or else since they can nominate people who please them).


This is my intent.
Last edited by Lizard250 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lizard250
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Postby Arizal1 » Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:23 pm

I personally think everybody, even the worse criminals, should be able to vote, but I think a system barring people to vote on the basis you give can work.

Lizard250 wrote:A completely non-totalitarian system would have to meet all of the following criteria:
1. It must acknowledge, respect and uphold it's subjects' fundamental right to self-ownership (their right to have complete sovereignty over their own bodies and minds, from their birth until their death).
It must protect this right from all violations, other than limitations which are necessary (justified by rational concerns over national security, national independence, national productivity, ...), proportional (not excessive relative to the goal pursued) and a last resort (other options which do not violate this right have been tried first).
2. It must acknowledge, respect and uphold all individual rights and liberties which stem from the right to self-ownership (right to life and physical integrity, right to liberty / freedom from slavery, right to freedom of thought, right to freedom of belief and conscience, right to preserve life and liberty / right to self-defence, ...).
It must protect these rights from all violations, other than limitations which are necessary (justified by rational concerns over national security, national independence, national productivity, ...), proportional (not excessive relative to the goal pursued) and a last resort (other options which do not violate these rights have been tried first).
3. It must acknowledge, respect and uphold all individual rights and liberties which serve to counterbalance the power of authority (right to petition, right to freely disseminate and access information / freedom from arbitrary censorship, right to criticize the government, ...).
It must protect these rights from all violations, other than limitations which are necessary (justified by rational concerns over national security, national independence, national productivity, ...), proportional (not excessive relative to the goal pursued) and a last resort (other options which do not violate these rights have been tried first).
4. It must prioritize the repeal of laws, or parts thereof, which are discovered to violate rights and liberties unnecessarily (either from the beginning or due to having become obsolete) and/or disproportionately.
5. It must acknowledge that criminal laws are no more than socially sanctioned violence and oppression used to compel certain behaviours, and that they must thus;
- Be considered a necessary evil, to be kept to a minimum.
- Serve liberty and civilization rather than the moral codes of bigots.
- Apply equally to all persons, regardless of race, gender, wealth, ...
6. It must prevent the creation of impulsive, knee-jerk legislation.
7. It must make the Law accessible to all;
- All laws must be written in layman's terms. The use of "legalese" by authorities, whether public (i.e.the state) or private, should be banned.
- It must prevent the establishment of elitist legal professionals.
8. It must produce strong leaders.
9. It must be subject to rationalism and the rule of law.


So here are your rights, liberties and values. I see you have a much higher requirement than me for your perfect system. I'm generally content that the right to participation is uphold, and I leave the rest to the people, since not doing that could make it difficult for them to live together. Seen like that, I am the champion of bland democracy.

Just to recapitulate your criteria :
1. No problem with that, understood in the way I understand this, which is : no slavery (and I'm not talking about wage, as I see this as perfectly adequate).
2. Well, in the general idea, I agree with you until now, but I wouldn't try to make a system which prevents someone to hurt those values. I would rather try to make it so that people wouldn't want to hurt them. Or else I would be imposing my views.
Lizard250 wrote:It must protect these rights from all violations, other than limitations which are necessary

There is the Pandora's box... Once you said that, your rights are inevitably violated, because every reason to do so can be seen as "necessary". In order to fight against "terrorism", your government can arrest people because of what they think, for example.
3. I very much agree with these, but again the limitations you put, while they are very honest and done in good will, reflect that those values aren't that protected after all, except by people awareness of them.
5. So you think criminals are who they are because of the situation in which they have been put and that people shouldn't be punished because they did wrong, but because they unfortunately violated social norms? Me too.
6. I guess your Board of Regulators could try to prevent these, but keep in mind that those people are also subject to mob movements.
7. Interesting, but I wonder what is "legalise" and what is not. I can see the picture, and I agree with you on principle, but if a law is written badly because it "suffered" many amendments, it would be difficult to say that it is easily readable.
8. I don't understand this requirement at all. Collegiality can certainly be good. Of course, for that you must have a certain organization, but not necessarely a leader which put shadow on everyone else.
9. What this sentence means is very nebulous. Many people pretend to be rational and you would probably disagree with them. Historical materialism is apparently objective and rational for some people, for example.

[quotee="Lizard250"]My point is that the only system which can provide liberty and justice to all it's subjects would be a benevolent dictatorship which;
- Consists of a large number of individuals with various world views, selected based on the merit of their ideas.
- Is restricted in it's ability to make laws and regulations.
- Is completely accountable to a rationalistic, non-partisan institution.[/quote]

I like that you take into account the input a large group can have. About restriction... by whom? The judges? They are part of this system too. As soon as you have a mildly "negative" view of humanity, you cannot say that they will auto-restrict themselves. I think what you can try to do is to divide the power in order for each body to limit another one, which multi-cameralism and federalism can do. But even then, if an overwhelming majority of your people, and thus your institutions, want to make a certain change, this change will happen. Then, about "reason and non-partisanship", I doubt very much this is achievable. As soon as "reason" pushes to action, the body which manage accountability will no longer be non-partisan.

Lizard250 wrote:
Arizal1 wrote:
Lizard250 wrote:Policies are illegitimate when they limit the rights and liberties of those subjected to them in an arbitrary (i.e. subjective and irrational) or disproportionate (i.e. excessively harsh) manner.

Democracy, by it's collectivist nature, fosters an "us vs. them" mentality. Such an "us vs. them" mentality is worsened by partisan politics, to the point where the main objective of politics eventually becomes "we must hurt them at all cost" rather than "we must help ourselves".
I disagree again because you could say much rights and liberties are subjective and don't exist in all cultures. Arbitrary, subjective, irrational, disproportionate and harsh can mean different things to different people, so legitimacy of policies is also changing depending of the person who think about those, if we follow this line of reasoning.

Which is why I am anti-multiculturalism. I believe that cultures who exert less control over the bodies and minds of their members are inherently superior to others.


I think I answered poorly to your affirmation. You said that policies were illegitimate when x. I just tried to say that "x" are indeterminate, and once you recognize this, it is really tough for you to determine what is legitimate and illegitimate.

Now, you said, in answer to my first sentence, that you are anti-multiculturalist because you want cultures who '"exert less control over the bodies and minds of their member". What I want to know is : does that mean that you would favorize such cultures (by making them official, for example) or that you would repress the others. If you repress other cultures, then I fear you are trampling on the rights you said you wanted to enforce to your citizens (of physical integrity and of free toughts). If you do not repress them, then there is a chance that some people would still follow their faiths, as happens in France despite its official secular policy. If those people exist, there would be, in effect, many cultures in your country. How would those people be treated?

Lizard250 wrote:True, but I believe that there is a way to control it.


Quite simply put, how?

Lizard250 wrote:I believe that objectively good ideas are those which would provide the highest level of liberty, justice and progress according to the currently accepted scientific paradigm.


What if freedom contradicts what you believe is just? For example, if it is just to have a social ladder helping people to go from poverty to wealth, but "liberty" would require for this ladder to be scrapped because of whatever reason, then you would have an ethical choice to do between to of your final values.

Lizard250 wrote:
Arizal1 wrote:The questions could be written in such a way that only supporters of the regime as it is would be allowed to vote and to be represented in all your bodies.
Unless the questionnaire must be approved by at least nine-tenths of Parliament, with a quorum of at least three-quarters of each party, to ensure it's neutrality.


I don't know how you can make a quorum per party, as those are not fixed institutions in your system. If a party has 4 mps, and another 100, and those 4 mps don't show themselves, then the legislation wouldn't pass. Those quorums are also a great mean to paralyse the institution.

But about the main subject : 9/10 of the Parliement. That is great... but all of those people already have the right to vote and are elected by people who have this right. They might not care about the vote of those who currently don't have the right and reject it. I agree however that this scenario is not that believable. With 9/10 requirement to change the questions, they would probably stay the same during a long time, but at least some people would want universal suggrage... depending on the country's culture.
The Social-Liberal Caucus (Ibutho) (Inactive) (Particracy Classic)
Demokrat Konservativen Partei (DKP) (Narikaton and Darnussia) (Particracy Classic)
The Federalistische Partij (Laaglanden) (Particracy Dev)
Arizal1
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:48 am

Re: Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Postby Lizard250 » Sat Aug 15, 2015 10:58 am

Here's an updated version of my system:

I.
- The President is elected by the Parliament. He is elected by a simple majority of at least 50% + 1.
- The President appoints his Commissioners. He has no obligation to appoint Commissioners.
- The Republican Vanguard has the power to remove the President, Commissioners and Governors from office by it's Votes of Disapproval. The Republican Vanguard must vote on whether or not it approves of the President, Commissioners and Governors every 2 years, without exception. An Official is disapproved if at least half of the Republican Vanguard, with a quorum of at least three-quarters of it's members, votes to disapprove of them. The Republican Vanguard must openly inform the Official in question of it's reasons for disapproving of them. If an Official has been disapproved twice in a row, the Official in question will be removed from office immediately.
- The Provincial Groups shall elect the Governors of their respective Provinces. Governors shall be elected by a simple majority of at least 50% + 1.
- Each new Parliament must hold a special session within 30 days of being elected, during which it elects the President and Governors.

II.
- The Parliament consists of 952 members belonging to official political parties (56 members from each of the 17 Provinces), whose seats are allocated proportionally to the number of votes each party receives (with a threshold of 0.5%).
- The 56 members of Parliament elected by a Province are referred to as a Provincial Group
- The Council consists of 408 persons elected at random (24 from each of the 17 Provinces), by a public ballot, from amongst all citizens aged 25 to 65 who are eligible to vote.
- The Labour Congress consists of 170 members, 85 workers and 85 employers (aged 25 to 65), elected at random (5 workers and 5 employers from each of the 17 Provinces), by a public ballot.
- The Republican Vanguard consists of 170 persons elected at random (10 from each of the 17 Provinces), by a public ballot, from amongst all members of the National Republican Congress. The National Republican Congress is a multi-party organization whose members are dedicated to preserving Republicanism and Individual rights. All citizens aged 25 or over are welcome to join the NRC, regardless of their political views, provided they are in favour of Republicanism and Individual rights, and demonstrate sufficient knowledge of Constitutional Law (nationalists, liberals, liberal socialists, right-libertarians, libertarian socialists, conservatives, etc..., would all be welcome).
- The Parliament and the Council are elected simultaneously, for a term of 10 years.

III.
- The Supreme Court consists of 15 Judges.
- 10 Judges are elected at random, by a public ballot, from amongst all Judges aged 45 or over.
- 5 Judges are elected by the Parliament, from amongst all Judges aged 45 or over. Judges are elected by a simple majority of 50% +1.
- The Supreme Court makes it's decisions with the approval of at least 12 of it's Judges.

IV.
- The President determines and conducts the policy of the nation, with assistance from his Commissioners.
- Only the President and the Commissioners may propose Laws and Constitutional Amendments.
- Laws and Constitutional Amendments are voted on by the Parliament once they have been approved by the Council. A piece of legislation is considered approved by the Council if it is approved by at least half the members of the Council, with a quorum of at least three-quarters of it's members. Members of Council may comment on legislation, regardless of whether they approve it or not, such comments must be public.
- Laws and Constitutional Amendments which affect matters of labour (such as wages, working hours, ...) must also be approved by the Labour Congress once they have been approved by the Council. Members of the Labour Congress may comment on legislation, regardless of whether they approve it or not, such comments must be public.
- Laws are passed with the approval of at least half of the Parliament, with a quorum of at least three-quarters of it's members. Whilst Constitutional Amendments are passed with the approval of at least three-quarters of the Parliament, with a quorum of at least three-quarters of it's members, and the approval of at least three-quarters of the people in a referendum, with a turnout of at least three-quarters of all eligible voters. Essential parts of the Constitution (basic structure of the state, rights and duties of citizens, citizenship, ...) are protected by an eternity clause, to provide an additional line of defence against abuses.
- The Governors determine and conduct the policy of their respective Provinces, in accordance with National Law and Policy.
- The Supreme Court may declare a Law or Constitutional Amendment to be Unconstitutional (contrary to the Constitution or the values thereof), with the effect of immediately repealing the Act in question.

V.
Ideologies based on the following are illegal;
- Religion.
- Cultural Marxism.
- Pseudoscience.
- Racism.
- Sexism / Misandry / Misogyny.
- Violation of constitutional rights and liberties.
No legally recognized party may base all or part of it's platform upon the aforementioned ideologies, and individuals may be expelled from the Parliament for supporting them.
Last edited by Lizard250 on Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Lizard250
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Postby Darkylightytwo » Sat Aug 15, 2015 3:42 pm

A very interessing and complexe system.

The first fact I find very strange is that Cultural marxism is illegal, while it does not threaten freedom, or democracy. hoverer, I would believe marxist would still be legal, which raise question, when is a idea marxist and a idea cultural marxist. And sorry, i don,t really remember the theory of cultural marxist, but it was criticism of our mass culture objectable, because this lead to a domination of the Western (american) culture. I don't remember much..

When you say, people aer elected at random, it means, people who are voting, don't know who they are voting for ? I don't know if I am fond of it, or very skeptic of it, on the plus side, it certainely represent a strong point, in the fact we can have random public members in the parliament that may be hard to corrupt, but at the same time, long time in power, will leave those are target for corruption, andnthose would be very rewarding targets. Naybe you just need a way to remove a corrupt politician from office.

the surpreme court can be weird, on the flipside it structure encourage discussion among judge, but the fact that parliament elect 5 judges give them the power to lock any resolution that may go agaisnt the interest of their parties and I don't think this is very good for a society.

The quorum of three-quarters is problem, cause if we are both leaders of parties, I am minority, you are government, but I still have power to prevent you from passing anything by ordering all my mps to skip the vote, you won't get the quorum. The same way, that constitution is locked, it is too hard too modify, because of three-quarters, this would only lead to political discontent and political apathy, peolpe would not vote for us of us anymore, cause we are capable of passing anything. that is my pessimiste side. cause on the other side, it is truth that is encourage discussion among the members of parliament, so, if the political contexte is good, it will be benefit, bit if it is the same as the US, it will be horrible.
Darkylightytwo
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:27 am

Re: Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Postby MichaelReilly » Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:38 pm

Again, part V wouldn't work.
Down with this sort of thing
User avatar
MichaelReilly
 
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:39 pm
Location: The boy from the County Hell

Re: Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Postby Arizal1 » Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:15 am

I read your new system, and there are some interesting things in it.

I'm pleased to see that the president is no longer an Übermensch able to bypass all the mechanism : he simply no longer has enough legitimacy nor power to act as he wants (except if his partisans infiltrate other bodies, which seem less and less possible). You also finally have a proper elected Parliement, altough it is supplemented by three bodies destined to restrict its ability to do anything. About the Parliement, I must say that I do not like the fact that the parties get to choose who is elected first (who is on the top of the list) in each of them and that the people has no saying in who of each party is elected, but if you want an Israel-like system burdened by other bodies, as you wish.

About your special groups, the most striking thing is how you created a whole institution about labour and overrepresented the employers in it (since there are normally less employers than employees, unless you are in an economy where everyone is its own employer). This might suits your needs, however I would invite you to have a clear idea of who is an employer. You postulates an economy like what I underlined above, but what if most of your companies become cooperatives? Or if your workforce becomes more and more robotized? Or if they are all self-employed or artists? But then again, let's assume we are roughly in a late XXth century society. Then, the Council is basically your old Board of Regulator and the Republican Vanguard has the interesting feature to be what I would call a "supra-party". It is a special clique available only to those who agree with the party in power and which can, apparently. This organism can strip of their responsabilities the most important figures of the government if they do not behave, but they don't seem to have the power to block laws, which is good since if they had it, I would have yelled that they were the new legislative power. Since the Republican Vanguard is elected at random, unless it has extremely restricted admission criterium, there doesn't seem to have a way to determine in advance exactly or roughly who will sit in it. There is the opposite "threat" to your system, however : if the RV is too broad, then it wouldn't be an effective counterweight to anything. This remark can also be said about the Council and the other "elected at random" bodies.

There is still the issue of the Court, which, once it has some consistency, can act as a legislative body by using judicial review, but the fact you made it mixed between election and randomly elected people is intriguing. Now, I see one problem with the way you set things up, however. If a decision must have the approval of 12 judges out of 15, 80% of all the judges, how are cases going to be decided? And wouldn't this put a strain on the appearance of impartiality that the judges must have? I mean, I understand the idea between this, but as much as I say the Supreme court can act as a legislative body, forcing them to have such an high approval to pass an appeal could be very detrimental to the administration of justice itself. It can certainly not be all the decisions which should have this harsh rule, however maybe the judicial review decisions, the ones where the Court actually removes parts of the law, could be subjected to this mechanism.

About the part V., I guess I will never like it, whatever you write in it, because it hurts so much my beliefs on liberty of thought, but its your system. I however feels like MichaelReily : ultimately, words like that would be meaningless because the very fabric of your society could go against them and they would find all ways to circumvent them or interpret them differently.
The Social-Liberal Caucus (Ibutho) (Inactive) (Particracy Classic)
Demokrat Konservativen Partei (DKP) (Narikaton and Darnussia) (Particracy Classic)
The Federalistische Partij (Laaglanden) (Particracy Dev)
Arizal1
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:48 am

Previous

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests