Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Anything that isn't part of the game or its community goes here. KEEP IT CIVIL!

Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Postby Lizard250 » Sat Aug 08, 2015 11:42 am

What sociopolitical effects would the following political system produce within a nation?

1. There are 867 seats in the unicameral legislature (Parliament); 680 proportional seats and 187 direct seats.
2. During elections, citizens cast 2 votes;
- For the proportional seats: The nation consists of 17 provinces, and each Province of the nation forms a single constituency with equal representation (there are 17 constituencies which each elect 40 MPs). Each citizen casts two sequential votes. They first cast a vote for the political party of their choice (party preference vote), then cast a vote for the party member of their choice (member preference vote). Within each Province, each party's members are ranked by the number of "member preference votes" they receive in order to rank them in order of popularity. Parliamentary proportional seats are then allocated to each party proportionally to the percentage of "party preference votes" each party has received (i.e. a party which has received 26% of votes in a Province will receive 10 seats from that Province), with members being given seats by order of their popularity (i.e. if a party wins 10 seats, it's 10 most popular members will each receive a seat). Seats which cannot be allocated will be left empty (thus blank vote = vote to remove seats). The party with the most votes (plurality of party preference votes) within a Province appoints the Governor of the Province in question. Only legally-recognized parties may participate in proportional seat elections.
- For the direct seats: The nation consists of 17 provinces, and each Province of the nation forms a single constituency with equal representation (there are 17 constituencies which each elect 11 direct seat MPs). Each citizen casts a single vote. Each province is divided into 11 districts, with each district electing a single MP by plurality. Only independents and legally-recognized political parties may participate in direct seat elections.
- The Parliament appoints the President.
- The Parliament (and, de facto, the government) is elected for a term of 10 years.
3. The President has the power to appoint and remove Ministers. He may not appoint individuals with whom he has a personal connection (i.e. family members, friends, etc...) to the Office of Minister. Ministers assist the President in determining and conducting the policy of the Nation. There is no obligation for the President to appoint Ministers.
4. There are 10 Judges of the Supreme Court. Judges of the Supreme Court are elected every 10 years. They are elected at random by a public ballot, from amongst all the Nation's Judges aged 45 and over.
5. Only the President, his Ministers and the Parliament can propose Laws. Only the Parliament can propose Constitutional Amendments. The Parliament debates and votes on all legislation. Laws can only be passed with the approval of at least half of the Parliament and a quorum of at least three-quarters, whilst Constitutional Amendments can only be passed with the approval of at least three-quarters of the Parliament and a quorum of at least nine-tenths. Legislation comes into effect once passed by the Parliament and promulgated by the President. The Supreme Court can declare a piece of legislation to be unconstitutional, effectively instantly repealing it.
6. Ideologies based on the following are illegal;
- Religion.
- Cultural Marxism.
- Pseudoscience.
- Discrimination on grounds of natural factors (race, gender, handicap, etc...).
- 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.


Example of a government this system could produce:

Image

Top = Direct Seats
Middle = Ministers + President
Bottom = Proportional Seats
Last edited by Lizard250 on Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Lizard250
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Postby MichaelReilly » Sun Aug 09, 2015 5:02 pm

It's certainly a bizarre ultra-authoritarian nightmare anyway. It quite simply wouldn't work.
Down with this sort of thing
User avatar
MichaelReilly
 
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:39 pm
Location: The boy from the County Hell

Re: Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Postby Arizal1 » Sun Aug 09, 2015 6:15 pm

I find this very top-down, after a first read. The idea to ban ideologies seems really strange to me. How do you decide that what someone is saying is about "pseudo-science" or "cultural marxism"? I suppose the judges would decide, those judges which are randomly chosen between people which we would have to hope they are competent.

From what I see, the whole "Parliement" is an electoral college. Once it has voted for the president, it only has to vote for the laws this president is pushing. With such a system, I doubt the president would want a constitutional amendment, so the power the Parliement has to do constitutional amendment wouldn't be that important. All the decisions would be taken by the president, which would be counterbalanced (occasionally) by an unstable Supreme Court. In fact, this Supreme Court seems to be the only branch which isn't in the total control of the president, and its efficacity is dubious. Or rather, it is the trump card of the system. How would those "judges" react with the powers they would have to censor many things and to decide which bills are constitutional and which aren't?

I cannot say what this would give sociopolitically, altough I guess the regime would be secular, anti-communist, closed-minded and would enjoy censorship. It has great chances to be autocratic.

This is a intentionally pessimistic view based on how I think those provisions would work in real-life. If this is your idea of a perfect system, I would be glad to discuss it with you.

Actually, this isn't so far from the Westminster system (except for the judges), and it is a great tought experiment to think about it.
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 » Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:18 am

Thank you for your answer, Arizal1.

Arizal1 wrote: [...] those judges which are randomly chosen between people which we would have to hope they are competent.

The Judges are chosen randomly from amongst all serving Judges in the Nation who are aged 45 or over.

Arizal1 wrote:From what I see, the whole "Parliement" is an electoral college. Once it has voted for the president, it only has to vote for the laws this president is pushing. With such a system, I doubt the president would want a constitutional amendment, so the power the Parliement has to do constitutional amendment wouldn't be that important.


This is intentional, my aim being to preserve constitutional stability by ensuring that changes to the Constitution are rare and minor.

Arizal1 wrote:All the decisions would be taken by the president, which would be counterbalanced (occasionally) by an unstable Supreme Court. In fact, this Supreme Court seems to be the only branch which isn't in the total control of the president, and its efficacity is dubious. Or rather, it is the trump card of the system. How would those "judges" react with the powers they would have to censor many things and to decide which bills are constitutional and which aren't?


What if there was an additional check under the form of a Board of Regulators? The 187 members of this Board of Regulators would be elected randomly from amongst the population (11 members from each of the 17 Provinces) simultaneously to, and for the same term as, the Parliament. This Board would have to power to monitor the government and call for Votes of Approval. Votes of Approval would take the form of a referendum in which all citizens vote whether or not to approve of the government; If there is a turnout equal to at least three-quarters of elective votes (the number of votes cast in the election of the government in question) and more than half of all votes disapprove of the government, new elections must be held within 30 days.

Arizal1 wrote:I cannot say what this would give sociopolitically, altough I guess the regime would be secular, anti-communist, closed-minded and would enjoy censorship. It has great chances to be autocratic.


What if the Constitution was to strictly prohibit arbitrary censorship, requiring that all acts of censorship be approved by the Supreme Court and justified by the fact that the censored material would pose a significant danger to national security if disseminated.

Would the regime still have great chances of being autocratic if the Constitution was to guarantee a large number of rights and liberties to all citizens? With the government's ability to limit rights and liberties being highly restricted and subject to approval by the Supreme Court. Such protection of citizen's rights would take the form of three constitutional clauses; The rights of citizens may only be limited by Law, and, The rights of citizens shall not be subject to arbitrary limitations, and, The rights of citizens shall not be subject to such limitations which impede their lawful exercise.

Certain parts of the constitution, such as the rights of citizens and restrictions on government power would be inviolable, protected by an eternity clause.

Arizal1 wrote:If this is your idea of a perfect system, I would be glad to discuss it with you.

It's close to my idea of a perfect system, but it's still a work in progress. I think that it still requires additional checks against the government (such as the Board of Regulators).



What would change if the President and the Ministers were combined to form a Praesidium, with the Parliament forming the Praesidium by appointing both the President and the Ministers?

What would change if a Council of Work was introduced? The council of work would be a Parliament-like assembly which deals exclusively with laws affecting labour issues such as working hours and salaries. It would consist of 340 members (170 workers and 170 employers, with 10 of each elected randomly from amongst the population of each of the 17 Provinces). All laws affecting labour issues must be passed by the Council of Work. The council of Work would pass laws with the approval of at least three-quarters of it's two groups (i.e. at least three-quarters of workers and three-quarters of employers in the Council of Work must vote in favour of the law for it to pass).
Lizard250
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Postby Arizal1 » Mon Aug 10, 2015 2:44 pm

Thank you for your kind and complete answer. I will do my best to answer it :

Lizard250 wrote:What if there was an additional check under the form of a Board of Regulators? The 187 members of this Board of Regulators would be elected randomly from amongst the population (11 members from each of the 17 Provinces) simultaneously to, and for the same term as, the Parliament. This Board would have to power to monitor the government and call for Votes of Approval. Votes of Approval would take the form of a referendum in which all citizens vote whether or not to approve of the government; If there is a turnout equal to at least three-quarters of elective votes (the number of votes cast in the election of the government in question) and more than half of all votes disapprove of the government, new elections must be held within 30 days.


You seem to like the idea of randomly electing people. Maybe this would work, but in my mind it is also introducing a great uncertainty in your system. This could end up as something representative of a certain "state of mind" of the population, but it could also be horribly unbalanced from the viewpoint of the population ideologies. Still, I find an improvement in the fact that you create a second chamber, even if this is just a kind of anti-government.

Usually, what is checked by second chambers are the legislations which are about to be voted by the first one. Your model seems interesting, however it could be drowned under many government actions and could also be unable to act after some actions from the government. If your government declares a war, for example, there is hardly a turning back. A referendum takes time to organize and to conduct (altough with new technology it could be done more quickly), and a deliberation on whether or not it would be opportune to make a referendum also takes time.

If your second chamber has some kind of recommendation power, it could also substitute itself to the "real" government, by barring it to do anything else than what the second chamber says it can do. However, such a possibility is very improbable since this second chamber will likely rarely have a majority in favour of such actions. After all, they are randomly chosen. What could happen however would be a relative strenghtening of its power over the time of its mandate, as people would know each other more and factions would arise... factions which could find common interest in curbing the president's power.

So if I understand clearly, you would have this chamber which would mirror the executive and which could, in your model, cancel its actions, and you would have the Supreme Court, which would be able to cancel legislations. The actions of the Second chamber would probably still have to be checked by the Supreme Court occasionally, but this could be minimal. Interesting.

What if the Constitution was to strictly prohibit arbitrary censorship, requiring that all acts of censorship be approved by the Supreme Court and justified by the fact that the censored material would pose a significant danger to national security if disseminated.

Lizard250 wrote:Would the regime still have great chances of being autocratic if the Constitution was to guarantee a large number of rights and liberties to all citizens? With the government's ability to limit rights and liberties being highly restricted and subject to approval by the Supreme Court. Such protection of citizen's rights would take the form of three constitutional clauses; The rights of citizens may only be limited by Law, and, The rights of citizens shall not be subject to arbitrary limitations, and, The rights of citizens shall not be subject to such limitations which impede their lawful exercise.

Certain parts of the constitution, such as the rights of citizens and restrictions on government power would be inviolable, protected by an eternity clause.


The problem with all those guarantees is that they are words. They can be interpreted, that is manipulated (whether intentionally or not) in order for them to adapt to the real situation. Those rights and those liberties could be restrained in the name of counterterrorism, for example, or more simply to help to fight crime or because of "necessity". "Reason" or "common sense" could also be against their usage in some cases. An "eternity clause" would insure the words would be the same, but the way they would be interpreted could change much over the time. The fate of your country's rights and liberty would probably be under the randomly chosen Supreme Court, which, as soon as it would organize, would probably take its own course.

Lizard250 wrote:What would change if the President and the Ministers were combined to form a Praesidium, with the Parliament forming the Praesidium by appointing both the President and the Ministers?


I am not sure of the effects, but I have some questions I have to ask in order to understand better your suggestion. Would the Parliement still consist of only one chamber, or of both chambers and how? If it consists of both chambers, then by which mechanism would the Praesidium be voted? I mean by that, would both chambers vote at the same time in a joint assembly, or should there be an agreement between them? Also, do you mean by that there would be no president nor ministers anymore, but a Praesidium which would exclusively manage the administration? Would the "president" and "ministers" function be already decided in the bill forming the praesidium, or would the praesidium get to choose which person would be president after being nominated?

Truthfully, I woul prefer to give the elected chamber the responsibility to nominate ministers and to demote them and to both chamber the possibility to nominate (and perhaps also demote or impeach) the president. I find that your system relies very much on randomness, and this makes it difficult to support it, but it is interesting to think about it.

I would also really remove the censorship, as those ideologies you don't seem to like can bring good ideas. Misinterpreting what they are could also lead to ideas you would find perfectly valid and interesting to be censored.
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 » Mon Aug 10, 2015 6:22 pm

Arizal1 wrote:You seem to like the idea of randomly electing people.


Indeed. I believe that randomly elected non-partisan officials serve as an effective countermeasure against partisan politics and demagoguery.

Arizal1 wrote:Usually, what is checked by second chambers are the legislations which are about to be voted by the first one.


The Board of Regulators could be required to examine all legislation presented to the Parliament.
In such a case, the Board of Regulators would also be vested with the power to:
- Appoint boards of experts to assist it in determining the social, economic and political effects of legislation.
- Recommend changes to be made to pieces of legislation.
- Send legislation to the Supreme Court for examination.

Arizal1 wrote:What could happen however would be a relative strenghtening of its power over the time of its mandate, as people would know each other more and factions would arise... factions which could find common interest in curbing the president's power.


This could be prevented by limiting the power of the Board of Regulators to what is strictly necessary, imposing restrictions upon it's members aimed at preventing partisan and self-serving behaviour (e.g. they are not permitted to communicate outside of their sittings), and subjecting Votes of Approval to the consent of the Supreme Court (i.e. the Board of Regulators may call for a Vote of Approval, provided the Supreme Court consents thereto).

Arizal1 wrote:The problem with all those guarantees is that they are words. They can be interpreted, that is manipulated (whether intentionally or not) in order for them to adapt to the real situation.


What if the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution were legally binding and structurally protected? thus, such interpretations could only be changed by the Supreme Court with the consent of the Board of Regulators (i.e. the interpretation of a constitutional article or part thereof can only be changed if the Board of Regulators calls for the Supreme Court to re-examine it).

Arizal1 wrote:I am not sure of the effects, but I have some questions I have to ask in order to understand better your suggestion. Would the Parliement still consist of only one chamber, or of both chambers and how? If it consists of both chambers, then by which mechanism would the Praesidium be voted? I mean by that, would both chambers vote at the same time in a joint assembly, or should there be an agreement between them? Also, do you mean by that there would be no president nor ministers anymore, but a Praesidium which would exclusively manage the administration? Would the "president" and "ministers" function be already decided in the bill forming the praesidium, or would the praesidium get to choose which person would be president after being nominated?


Praesidium system:

1. The Praesidium would be two-tiered (President -> Council). The Council would consist of 25 individuals.
2. The Parliament would be unicameral. There are 867 seats in the Parliament; 680 proportional seats and 187 direct seats. It elects both the President and the members of the Council.
During elections, citizens cast 2 votes;
- For the proportional seats: The nation consists of 17 provinces, and each Province of the nation forms a single constituency with equal representation (there are 17 constituencies which each elect 40 MPs). Each citizen casts two sequential votes. They first cast a vote for the political party of their choice (party preference vote), then cast a vote for the party member of their choice (member preference vote). Within each Province, each party's members are ranked by the number of "member preference votes" they receive in order to rank them in order of popularity. Parliamentary proportional seats are then allocated to each party proportionally to the percentage of "party preference votes" each party has received (i.e. a party which has received 26% of votes in a Province will receive 10 seats from that Province), with members being given seats by order of their popularity (i.e. if a party wins 10 seats, it's 10 most popular members will each receive a seat). Seats which cannot be allocated will be left empty (thus blank vote = vote to remove seats). The party with the most votes (plurality of party preference votes) within a Province appoints the Governor of the Province in question. Only legally-recognized parties may participate in proportional seat elections.
- For the direct seats: The nation consists of 17 provinces, and each Province of the nation forms a single constituency with equal representation (there are 17 constituencies which each elect 11 direct seat MPs). Each citizen casts a single vote. Each province is divided into 11 districts, with each district electing a single MP by plurality. Only independents and legally-recognized political parties may participate in direct seat elections.
3. There will be a Board of Regulators. This Board of Regulators will have 187 members who are elected at random by a public ballot (11 members from each of the 17 Provinces) simultaneously to, and for the same term as, the Parliament. It would have the power to:
- Remove the President and Members of Council from office (with the consent of the Supreme Court).
- Examine legislation and recommend modifications thereto.
- Appoint boards of experts to assist in determining the consequences of legislation.
- Send legislation to the Supreme Court.
4. There are 10 Judges of the Supreme Court. Judges of the Supreme Court are elected every 10 years. They are elected at random by a public ballot, from amongst all the Nation's Judges aged 45 and over.
5. Only members of the Praesidium (President and Members of Council) can propose legislation. Only the Parliament can propose Constitutional Amendments. The Parliament debates and votes on all legislation. Laws can only be passed with the approval of at least half of the Parliament and a quorum of at least three-quarters of it's members, whilst Constitutional Amendments can only be passed with the approval of at least three-quarters of the Parliament and a quorum of at least nine-tenths of it's members. Legislation comes into effect once passed by the Parliament and promulgated by the President. The Supreme Court can declare a piece of legislation to be unconstitutional, effectively instantly repealing it.

Arizal1 wrote:Truthfully, I woul prefer to give the elected chamber the responsibility to nominate ministers and to demote them and to both chamber the possibility to nominate (and perhaps also demote or impeach) the president.


I agree that the Parliament should appoint the Ministers on grounds that it would somewhat mitigate corruption. However, this could increase the chance of the parliament forming unreasonable coalitions (e.g. Liberal / centre-right + Socialist / centre-left + Nationalist / right-wing) to preserve power.

Arizal1 wrote:I find that your system relies very much on randomness [...]


I believe that the randomness is a positive feature. One of the few advantages of monarchies is the chance of getting a good monarch who genuinely cares about his nation and it's people, and can make rational improvements free from the shackles of idealist opponents, partisan politics and demagoguery. This system would grant such an advantage to a republic.

Arizal1 wrote:I would also really remove the censorship, as those ideologies you don't seem to like can bring good ideas. Misinterpreting what they are could also lead to ideas you would find perfectly valid and interesting to be censored.


Such ideologies tend to do a lot more harm than good;
Religion has given us oppression, arbitrary discrimination, ritual child-abuse, opposition to modern science, terrorism, ...
Cultural Marxism has given us victim culture, "reverse racism", "reverse sexism", cultural relativism, political correctness, ...
Pseudoscience has given us homoeopathic medicine, "spiritism", ...
Discrimination on grounds of natural factors gave us oppression, genocide, slavery, ...
Violation of constitutional rights and liberties gave us the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, ...
Lizard250
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Postby MichaelReilly » Tue Aug 11, 2015 12:16 am

Aren't you aware of the glaring irony in stating certain 'ideologies' should be banned in this utopia, and at the same time warning of the precedent of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union?

And are you also aware 'cultural Marxism' is simply a bizarre right-wing conspiracy theory that was only dreamt up relatively recently in order to attack social liberalism? There is no such thing as 'cultural Marxism'.
Down with this sort of thing
User avatar
MichaelReilly
 
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:39 pm
Location: The boy from the County Hell

Re: Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Postby Arizal1 » Tue Aug 11, 2015 2:42 am

Lizard250 wrote:The Board of Regulators could be required to examine all legislation presented to the Parliament.
In such a case, the Board of Regulators would also be vested with the power to:
- Appoint boards of experts to assist it in determining the social, economic and political effects of legislation.
- Recommend changes to be made to pieces of legislation.
- Send legislation to the Supreme Court for examination.


Ok, this "Board of Regulator" would be a step before the Court. As I understand it, it wouldn't have the power to change legislations or to reject them by itself, but it could recommend the court to strike down some laws. It could also go against some actions from the administration by starting referendums.

I like better the idea of a second chamber actually having a power similar to the one the first has, but I welcome the fact that your random chamber has less power than I tought afterall. I understand your point about randomness, but I disagree with it. A king has an education to support him. If by an extreme badluck none of your the person on your Board is competent, you would be stuck with them for quite a few time. Same with the judges. Elections at least ensure somehow, those people have had the support of a part of the society.

Lizard250 wrote:This could be prevented by limiting the power of the Board of Regulators to what is strictly necessary, imposing restrictions upon it's members aimed at preventing partisan and self-serving behaviour (e.g. they are not permitted to communicate outside of their sittings), and subjecting Votes of Approval to the consent of the Supreme Court (i.e. the Board of Regulators may call for a Vote of Approval, provided the Supreme Court consents thereto).


The rule about communicating outside of the sittings is interesting, but I wonder how it could be implemented in real life. There is always a friend of a friend. The idea to request the consent of the Supreme Court again adds power to this institution, but maybe it is circumcised enough to not be that grave as a powergrab.

Lizard250 wrote:What if the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution were legally binding and structurally protected? thus, such interpretations could only be changed by the Supreme Court with the consent of the Board of Regulators (i.e. the interpretation of a constitutional article or part thereof can only be changed if the Board of Regulators calls for the Supreme Court to re-examine it).


I said before that all of those are words, and I continue to believe it. The cross-power between the Supreme Court and the Board is interesting, but then what? You would need a gigantic rule-book to be able to fit all the interpretations. Justice is at heart the ruling on individual cases. You would have a new constitutional rule each time a "difficult case" would arise, which kinds of fit the way many modern courts do judicial review. If you make the Board of Regulators second-guess some of the Supreme Court judgments, then your Supreme Court is no longer... supreme. Your Board of Regulators would turn into the supreme judicial organ, only there would need to be two bodies approval in order to accept a judgment touching constitutional principles. They would probably have to be interpreted narrowly if your system were to not implode under its own weight.

Just proposing, but one thing which could help keeping some sort of coherency in the Board of Regulators could be to make multiple "elections", a little like the US Senate. That way, those who just got elected wouldn't be so lost. Given their important functions, it would be a must.

Lizard250 wrote:The party with the most votes (plurality of party preference votes) within a Province appoints the Governor of the Province in question.


So your country is unitary and each "section" of the Parliement get to nominate the person which will be charged of... what exactly? A governor usually serves either because there is a State around him, which would mean that your country would be a federation, or because it is delegated by the central power to administrate the area in accordance of the rules set above him. I suppose it would be the latter in your example, since you gave no indication you thought about sub-level of legislations. I'm confused about that. I'm not sure to understand why you would need to have a governor nominated by the party which had the most seats in a region if it has technically no real power of decision.

About the Praesidium, the President and the Council are both nominated by the same people, but have different powers. If the President has to promulgate legislations, I assume he has a veto on them, since he could choose to not promulgate them. He doesn't seem to have much utility beyond that, because all the powers he theoratically had have been transfered to the Council. We would have a chance to have an honorary presidency, but this would be without counting the fact that the president is nominated at the same time than the council members. Who would then be the leader of this country? My guess is that it would be one of the member of the Council. Since as I understand it the Council gets to divide the administrative tasks, this guy could still basically run the country, just not on the President chair.

I also have to add that the fact that there would need to be 25 ministers kind of removes some flexibility to the system.

Lizard250 wrote:I agree that the Parliament should appoint the Ministers on grounds that it would somewhat mitigate corruption. However, this could increase the chance of the parliament forming unreasonable coalitions (e.g. Liberal / centre-right + Socialist / centre-left + Nationalist / right-wing) to preserve power.


My concern was rather about the democratic legitimacy of all of this. The anti-corruption nature of this provision doesn't seem so evident to me. About "unreasonable coalitions", I don't see why it should be a problem to try to be practical while recognizing the country's divided nature.

Your last comments about ideologies seem to me difficult to follow. Toughts are not so easily discriminated between "good toughts" and "bad toughts".
- Religion can give us a sense of belonging to a group, calm our angsts about death, give us explications about life. (so can spirituality, but where does one begin and where does it become the other?)
- Cultural marxism... On this one I have to ask what it is. I did with Wikipedia (briefly), and... Multiculturalism, misandry and political correctness? The last two ones can also be called feminism and respect. Or rather, for the last one, fear of angering some people / be sued by them (which by the way your system, with its constitutionalized censorship, doesn't seem to prevent.)
About multiculturalism, the idea is to try to not forcefully impose the dominant culture to others (or the least possible). I think I understand how it can be seen as an equalization of all people and a relativistic thought, but I'm not sure I see how it could be constitutionally banned.
- Pseudoscience... Let's just say there have been some changes of paradigms in the world history, and that some of what is right now called pseudoscience could very well be behind one future advance in science.
- Discrimination... gave oppression, genocide and slavery? Isn't it meant to prevent those? In fact, is the fight against discrimination even an ideology? It could be a part of liberalism.

Lizard250 wrote:Violation of constitutional rights and liberties gave us the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, ...


Of course, violation of those rights and liberties are illegal. But what would be those constitutional rights and liberties? Free speech wouldn't be one of the liberties, that's for sure. And I very much like this one.
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 » Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:30 am

Arizal1 wrote:Elections at least ensure somehow, those people have had the support of a part of the society.


The problem I have with this, and with democracy in general, is that it's founded on an idealistic view of humanity.
In real life, humans tend to be hypocritical, irrational, self-serving and petty. Most of them are obsessed, to a certain extent, with feeling morally superior to, and getting ahead of, others. Few of them care about liberty, justice, economics and nations, in fact most are willing to trample these concepts without hesitation.

Unrestrained democracy encourages "beige dictatorships". Such dictatorships are the result of political parties drifting towards socially authoritarian and economically centrist policies over time, primarily due to the following:
- Democratic political parties tend to chase votes by attempting to appeal to greater demographics, which usually results in a system dominated by two very similar "big-tent" parties (one social-liberal or "compassionate conservative" party and one social-democratic party).
- Most people will vote for someone who shares their moral values, rather than someone who has objectively good ideas. Thus, unrestrained democracy tends to give power to various groups of moralistic authoritarians who can only unite in their desire to restrain civil liberties. Consequently, democratic systems tend towards restricting freedom rather than expanding it.

Arizal1 wrote:Just proposing, but one thing which could help keeping some sort of coherency in the Board of Regulators could be to make multiple "elections", a little like the US Senate. That way, those who just got elected wouldn't be so lost. Given their important functions, it would be a must.


How would you make sure that they are elected based on their competency rather than their views or their personality?

Arizal1 wrote:A governor usually serves either because there is a State around him, which would mean that your country would be a federation, or because it is delegated by the central power to administrate the area in accordance of the rules set above him. I suppose it would be the latter in your example, since you gave no indication you thought about sub-level of legislations. I'm confused about that. I'm not sure to understand why you would need to have a governor nominated by the party which had the most seats in a region if it has technically no real power of decision.


The state is unitary.
What method of appointing Governors would you suggest?

Arizal1 wrote:Who would then be the leader of this country? My guess is that it would be one of the member of the Council. Since as I understand it the Council gets to divide the administrative tasks, this guy could still basically run the country, just not on the President chair.


The President is the leader of the country, as he is the one who determines and conducts it's policy and performs most administrative tasks. The members of Council assist the president in determining and conducting the policy of the nation, but they have no other powers except proposing legislation.

Arizal1 wrote:Toughts are not so easily discriminated between "good toughts" and "bad toughts".


Which is why I believe ideologies with a tendency to produce significant numbers of "bad thoughts" should not be tolerated. If a bad idea becomes law, the consequences can be extremely severe and hard (or impossible) to reverse.

Arizal1 wrote:Free speech wouldn't be one of the liberties, that's for sure. And I very much like this one.


People would have the right to freely disseminate and access information, with few limitations*. They would have the right to criticize the government and it's members.

*They would not have the right to promote the violation of Constitutional rights and liberties, promote social disunity (racism, etc...), disseminate false information with malicious intent or desecrate the Nation and it's symbols (Constitution, flag, etc...).
Lizard250
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: Sociopolitical effects of this political system?

Postby Arizal1 » Tue Aug 11, 2015 3:35 pm

I disagree with much of what you said. The idea behind the use of elective democracy (which would have been aristocracy for ancient greeks) is to give a voice to everyone. I don't find it particularly idealistic, if we say that every other system is vulnerable to corruption. A "good" absolute monarchy or a perfect system seems to me far more idealistic than a bland democracy.

Why is realizing what most of the population wants "dictatorial"? Those policies have been decided by elected representatives or judges nominated by them, so why would they be illegitimate?

Lizard250 wrote:Most people will vote for someone who shares their moral values, rather than someone who has objectively good ideas. Thus, unrestrained democracy tends to give power to various groups of moralistic authoritarians who can only unite in their desire to restrain civil liberties. Consequently, democratic systems tend towards restricting freedom rather than expanding it.


Science, especially social science, is very unstable. One paradigm can be replaced by another very quickly. There is probably "objectively good ideas", but who can proclaim to have found them? I believe Moral values are profund feelings guiding us in what we should do (and many times misleading us). They can give a shortcut to which course we should take. They also link us to those who will suffer or benefit from our ideas, for us to wonder if the effect of those ideas is good or bad. To have an obectively "good" idea is already to make a moral judgment on some idea you have, so you cannot really separate things that clearly between moralistic judgments and objective judgments. You have to know what you want to protect. Those civil liberties you are talking about, you will have to tell me what they are. We might have different ideas on what primes among them.

Lizard250 wrote:
Arizal1 wrote:Just proposing, but one thing which could help keeping some sort of coherency in the Board of Regulators could be to make multiple "elections", a little like the US Senate. That way, those who just got elected wouldn't be so lost. Given their important functions, it would be a must.

How would you make sure that they are elected based on their competency rather than their views or their personality?


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. Nothing would guarantee their competency, but at least each time a new batch of regulators would come in the board, they would be in presence of some others who would ideally already have the ropes of their job. 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).

Lizard250 wrote:The state is unitary.
What method of appointing Governors would you suggest?


I don't really know what purpose have governors in your country, but usually they would be appointed by the Head of State, in a unitary country. In a federation, they would be like a tiny-country inside the bigger one. I just found weird that political parties would get to nominate governors. Maybe at least the majority of the representatives from a region (which would be the same thing, really).

Lizard250 wrote:The President is the leader of the country, as he is the one who determines and conducts it's policy and performs most administrative tasks. The members of Council assist the president in determining and conducting the policy of the nation, but they have no other powers except proposing legislation.


Well, the Queen is technically the leader of the country in both Canada and the United Kingdom, yet it is the Prime minister, whose function isn't even in the Constitution, who takes all the decisions. Having an official roles doesn't at all mean it is really what you do, and I figured that your president doesn't have that much power if he has the same legitimacy than the Council and if the Council gets to share the tasks among itself. The Council seems small enough for a "natural leader", a Prime minister, to emerge in it.

If you would prefer for your President to have some power, he would probably have to be able to enforce his views to the Council. This could mean being able to fire one of its members, or to refuse a nomination.

Lizard250 wrote:Which is why I believe ideologies with a tendency to produce significant numbers of "bad thoughts" should not be tolerated. If a bad idea becomes law, the consequences can be extremely severe and hard (or impossible) to reverse.


But ideologies producing "bad toughts" according to what you believe can also produce good ones. I said it above, but in most cases, you cannot know for sure that an idea is objectively bad.

They would have the right to criticize the government and it's members.


I see, but if the critics they are adressing to the State is that they would like a more equal treatment of cultures their religion recognized (or no longer persecuted), or that they disagree with the way the Constitution is interpreted, then their criticism would be violating the Constitution you made for them and "free speech" wouldn't mean that much. And if those themes are designed to be banned only from Parliement, but the people in general can freely talk about them, then you would be in a bizarre situation where the representatives couldn't even speak about their constituants issues.
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

Next

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests