Do We Really Need Chancellors?

[Calvin Coolidge]

If you're like me, than you know what it feels like to sleep through a perfectly good Saturday morning and regret it for the rest of the day. You also have been pondering the purpose of our most esteemed office: The Chancellery. We know them as the user group that gets to be purple, and sometimes we know them as the people that give inspiring speeches around election time (those quotes don't always do it for me). However, in a region known for its legislative efficiency and all-around republic-ness, where does the mostly ceremonial role of Supreme/Vice Chancellor fit in? In this article I will be examining the legal role of the Chancellery as well as the answer to the question I just asked. Stay tuned.

First, let's look at the law. According to the Constitution, Supreme Chancellors have three powers:

EA6. (1) A Supreme Chancellor shall have the power to appoint any person or persons to be their deputy or deputies, and in that capacity, during the pleasure of the Supreme Chancellor, exercise such powers, authorities and functions as the Supreme Chancellor deem it necessary or expedient to delegate to him or them, subject to any limitations expressed by law, but the appointment of such a deputy or deputies shall not affect the exercise by the Supreme Chancellor themselves of any power, function or authority;

EA6. (2) A Supreme Chancellor shall have the power to call and administrate elections and referenda as defined and directed by this and other Acts; and

EA6. (3) A Supreme Chancellor shall have the power to administrate any Oath of Office required by other Acts.

These can be simplified as: appointing deputies, running elections and referenda, and handling any needed oaths of office. The first power is pretty boring, and doesn't really do anything by itself. A Deputy only has as much power as its superior, so the power to create a Deputy adds no power to the position. The second power is the main meat here, since it is the only real power that Chancellors are given. Sorry oaths of office, but you are rarely used in modern Europeia, and have no real relevance anymore. The real power of the Chancellery is in administering elections and referenda. If 70 days have passed since the last Presidential term, you need a Chancellor to open new elections. If someone just got kicked out of office and we need to elect their replacement, you better call a Chancellor. Want to put some legislation to the vote of the masses? You know what to do.

Admittedly, this power is pretty limited, and does not have a lot of flash to it, but this is an important job. Can you imagine the region without elections? Of course not, then we wouldn't be a republic anymore, and we'd have to change the name on the header. Chaos. However, we technically don't even need Chancellors to run elections, as we see in the Elections Act:

(2) Elections shall be administered by a Supreme Chancellor or their designee, which by default is a Vice Chancellor. Should they or their designee be unable to administer elections, the Chief Justice shall administrate elections.

We could just have the Chief Justice run the election instead, and this has happened several times before. Clearly, the region isn't tied to the Chancellors in this way, so why do we need them? Even the Referenda Act allows for some leeway:

(4) The administrator of a referendum may reasonably delegate the whole or any part of the administration of the referendum to any competent individual, as long as said delegation does not violate any applicable laws. Regardless of any delegation, overall responsibility remains with the primary administrator.

As long as they find somebody reasonable, we're in business. It's almost like the Supreme Chancellors aren't integral to the region at all. At least, not in a legal sense.

To understand where the Chancellery fits in the modern-day region isn't an easy thing to do. While writing this article I spent at least an hour searching the forum to find something in the Palatium Manor (home of the Chancellors) or the Newcomers' Handbook that would explicitly point to the role that the Chancellors play in the region beyond simply a legal interpretation. The closest I found was this snippet in "Overview of Europeia", the first section of the Newcomers' Handbook, under the question "So who's in charge?": "The Heads of State are the Supreme Chancellors". Yeah, my search didn't turn up much. Maybe that's because this role is not so easily defined.

However, that at least gives a start. What is a Head of State? Oxford defines it thusly: "The chief public representative of a country, such as a president or monarch, who may also be the head of government" the dictionary then goes on to give an example, which states "a ceremonial head of state". Now, we know that the Chancellery aren't the head of government, so we can ignore the last half of that definition. That leaves us with a mostly ceremonial role, which is what I think our legal analysis has left us with anyway.

We don't need the Chancellors to run the elections, we have many people to turn to for that. No, we need Chancellors to lead our region, not like a President would, with a Cabinet, or a platform, but with their words. During her Senate confirmation back in July for the position, Mousebumples was asked what she viewed as the most important job of being a member of the Chancellery was, and this was her reply (lightly edited):

In some ways, it's a "ceremonial position," but I still view it as a leadership position that's outside of the day-to-day regional operation procedures... From personal experience, when you're in Cabinet, in the Goldenblock, sometimes you miss the forest for the trees. You get so caught up what's going on each day, what's on your tasklist, etc., that you can lose sight of some of the bigger picture items. Hopefully, we can be of assistance to the region by putting a spotlight on things that may have otherwise been overlooked.

Now once again asking the question in this article's headline, do we really need Chancellors? In short: no. They perform very little in terms of responsibility that could not be performed by the Court, or any other reasonable designee. However, this position should not be judged that way, because this is not like every other position in Europeia. Success is not measured in election opening and closing; that's the easy part. Success is measured in the enlightened hearts and spirits of our Europeian populace. Until next time, this is Calvin Coolidge, looking for a good quote.

 

[Altmoras]

We could just have the Chief Justice run the election instead, and this has happened several times before. Clearly, the region isn't tied to the Chancellors in this way, so why do we need them? Even the Referenda Act allows for some leeway:

We just had an election where the Chief Justice was a candidate didn't we?

 

[Notolecta]

We could just have the Chief Justice run the election instead, and this has happened several times before. Clearly, the region isn't tied to the Chancellors in this way, so why do we need them? Even the Referenda Act allows for some leeway:

We just had an election where the Chief Justice was a candidate didn't we?

We've also had elections with an SC running. Ultimately I've long believed the chancellorry serves no real purpose. Most of it's tasks are only dedicated to it because it's conveint and none of those tasks can't be moved or even occur too often. Although I will note there are a few powers given to the chancellor in other acts, not just the constitution.

 

[Skizzy Grey]

The Chancellery is, at its core, a nod to the real-world prerogatives of the holder of the founder nation and root admin account. HEM and Lethen are, in a very real sense, the guardians of the Republic. We've dressed that up with pomp and circumstance, and given them certain largely ceremonial duties (and given them the power to delegate those duties to others), but it all comes back to the real-world position of trust that they hold. That's why we have a position that sorta looks like the British monarchy in a constitutional system that otherwise is mostly styled after the American political system.

 

[HEM]

I find it difficult to respond to this article without appearing to be giving myself excessive praise, but I will try to explain the intrinsic value of the Chancellery as a former member of it.

The Chancellery, as an institution, was created with no practical objective. It was purely a political station, created for me, essentially as a reward for abdicating the monarchy. When it was founded, I intended to withdraw from politics (ha!) and take a back seat in the region. The position was totally emeritus and had virtually the same legal powers we see today.

However, what the Chancellery quickly became was an anchor for the region. It was an institution that perpetually existed through every election, and helped guarantee the continuity of government. This is why the Chancellery has the unique power to declare martial law — something you miss in your analysis. The institution is a guardian of the region's traditions, and an executive enforcer of the democratic promise between the founder (who has absolute power, ultimately) and the contracted democratic government.

In Nationstates regionbuilding (a topic that I will humbly consider myself an expert in) there is a balance between activity and stability. That is to say, the more stable the region's core institutions, the less active it tends to be. This is why the New Pacific Order has existed for ten years but has a very low typical activity. It's also why new Republics have high initial activity, but tend to fizzle out within 6 months to a year.

A traditional Republic, with no central figure: Very high activity because citizens have 100% the initiative and power to shape the direction. Very low stability because there is no central institution to keep the region rooted.

**We are here**

A constitutional monarchy: Moderately high activity because citizens have MOST of the initiative and power to shape the direction of the region. Moderate stability because there is a central institution to keep the region rooted, but this institution can often be "power hungry" and lead to the downfall of the region.

A pure monarchy: Low activity because citizens have very little initiative and power to shape the direction of the region, and most core decisions are made by semi-permanent officials. High stability because the central institution can carefully guard regional institutions and prevent conflict.

Throughout much of Nationstates history, a "constitutional monarchy" has long been the most desired form of government because it gives opportunity to citizens while also having a reasonable amount of stability. A monarchical post is also keen inventive for a central figure to invest in the region early, because start-up costs for the founder are very high in new regions.

The problem with a constitutional monarchy, however, is that the "central figure" (say, a king) who allows the region to reap the benefits of stability and activity can easily become a contentious figure in the region. In a typical constitutional monarchy, the king is allotted some type of "veto" powers — ranging from a literal veto, to the power of executive order and policy-making. Debates over these powers, and the tendency of a king to become protective of them, can often be the downfall of a constitutional monarchy. The perception that the game is "rigged" by citizens, robs the constitutional monarchy of their perception that they shape the direction of the region, and can lead to a quick decline. So while constitutional monarchies were the longtime gold standard of Nationstates regions, they also had some key flaws in their construction.

When Europeia was founded, I don't think there were any functional Republics in operation (Onder or Anumia can certainly fact-check me here). Republics were just too volatile, with no central figure to root the region and ensure its continued success past the term-to-term victories.

And so in Europeia, we unintentionally created an innovation — a middle ground between a pure Republic and a Constitutional Monarchy. We have a region where the Chancellery has approaching zero political influence (as this article rightly points out), but still guards the region's processes and serves as a continued, rooted, institution in the region. Our system has all the perks of stability, with essentially no disenfranchisement (or threat thereof) of our citizen's political power.

And this isn't all theoretical. In 2010, it came to my attention (as Chancellor) that a large portion of the region within Falconias' National Conservative Party was planning on leaving the region. Falconias had convinced many of them to depart for his region of Equniox, because the party wasn't doing great politically. These citizens would have included Carracalla, Swakistek, Modern Sin, and many other Europeians who went on to contribute tremendously to our region. When I realized this, I immediately appointed Carracalla as a Vice Chancellor in a speech with lavish praise and honor. This appointment was a key instrument to defeating the potential schism. Had this situation unfolded in a constitutional monarchy, it is almost certain that the NCP would have felt the political game was "rigged" against them, and left. Had this happened under a Republic, there would have been no failsafe institution to make the necessary correction, because in a Republic there is no semi-permanent figure tasked with the longterm survival of the region.

I have much more to say on this topic, and feel like I've only scratched the surface here, but alas I must go back to work!

 

[Anumia]

HEM beat me to it with his post, but I wanted to say that every good region has a failsafe, and we have managed (largely through HEM's temperament and wisdom) to hold what I consider the best regional failsafe I have ever known.

To answer the fact-check HEM, there were some other Republics about but as you noted, they were volatile and did not last nearly as long.

 

[Notolecta]

I think Hem misplaces credit into the position of chancellor things that are really due purely to the efforts of a dedicated and respected individual. To me the chancellory didn't provide stabiliy, but a conveint way to recognize and facilitate the role Hem played in creating stability.

 

[Anumia]

Without the official position he had as Chancellor, HEM would not have been empowered to be nearly as stabilising a force as he was. Yes, as a mere citizen he would have done well also, and shall no doubt continue to do so as a mere citizen into our future, but the added gravitas, the necessity to remain active and somewhat visible in public affairs, as well as the real powers like appointing a Vice Chancellor as he noted above, these came from the position of Supreme Chancellor.

Not just any Supreme Chancellor, of course; the role itself is competence-neutral (just look at Lethen ), but consider that in the role, HEM was more like HEM+, empowered to act and officially looked towards for leadership.

 

[Calvin Coolidge]

I would like to apologize, it seems there was a rather significant power of the Chancellery that I overlooked when writing this last night, as has been pointed out by the readers of this paper. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. For the record, here is the relevant section from the Emergency Powers Act, which references the Chancellery:

(3) Should the Executive and the Senate fall inactive, and should there be less than seven citizens active and able to participate in regional governance, the Office of the Supreme Chancellor shall be empowered to declare a regional emergency for inactivity.

(4) Upon declaration of a regional emergency for inactivity, the Office of the Supreme Chancellor shall be vested with complete executive, legislative, and judicial power over the region, and a Supreme Chancellor may, at his discretion, create and fill positions to assist in the operation of the region.

Now, this greatly increases the potential power of the office from merely an election runner, but only in the case of almost total regional collapse. If the region doesn't even have seven citizens able to run the government, something has gone terribly wrong, and it makes sense to turn to one of the few people left in the region who can be trusted with power, and the Chancellery is one of the obvious options of trust, due to their unique role. Ultimately, I don't think this changes my assessment of the role, since there are many options we could turn to in this time of crisis, as the law outlines:

(5) Should all Supreme Chancellors also be inactive, the powers granted to the Office of the Supreme Chancellor for a regional emergency for inactivity shall pass to the first active citizen in the following order:

a. the World Assembly Delegate;
b. the Chief Justice;
c. Justices of the High Court, in the order in which they were appointed;
d. Honoured Citizens, in the order in which they were honoured.

Though this is certainly worth mentioning, so I once again thank those that brought this to my attention.

 

[Rach]

I don't think the points HEM brings against constitutional monarchy negatives are fair. There could easily be a Republic with a Chancellor that has the exact same issues. In essence, the difference between a constitutional monarchy and what Europeia has is a difference of cultural flavour.

 

[Trinnien]

I don't think the points HEM brings against constitutional monarchy negatives are fair. There could easily be a Republic with a Chancellor that has the exact same issues. In essence, the difference between a constitutional monarchy and what Europeia has is a difference of cultural flavour.

As Queen of Balder and it's Delegate, you have a much more formalized role in a constitutional monarchy. Nothing wrong with that, and you've kept it your mission to be a guardian of Balder in its development.

But I think what works here in Europeia is that we know even if things were to somehow go to shit (a treasonous President or an exodus of members) we have a system and individuals in place to maintain and rebuild the ideals of Europeia.

We recently signed an agreement with the Kingdom of Alexandria, which is a constitutional monarchy though albeit with greater powers. But more relevant is that while currently Queen Hyacinth (McMasterdonia) governs, Joshua Racenclaw oversees the forums, holds the founder nation, and has been quite open about removing those that would do actual harm to Alexandria. It is a position that HEM had to take here in Europeia, and sometimes can't see left to the hopes of democracy since anyone, with enough persuasion, can get elected.

Anyhow, it's one thing I've never questioned nor felt was a detriment to Europeia, but in truth one of its most stabilizing and worthwhile features alongside it's willingness to partake in intellectual debate and it's rule of law.

 

[Rach]

I`m not sure what your point is in bringing up Balder or what you are trying to counter. The point was simply that HEM`s role is identical to that of a constitutional monarch in NS. Your argument on formalization as a point of differentiation (what I took it as) is obviously incorrect as HEM`s role is formalized. Perhaps you thought I was being negative… but that is not true. I think it`s obvious that the Supreme Chancellery has been a good system. So I was not calling it a detriment, only saying that its no different from a monarchy except in flavour. That flavour of course is important but in other ways.

In many ways, the concepts of democracy in Constitutional Monarchy and Republics are not well translated to NS. Rather we mimic, especially Republics for flavour reasons. A lot of other concepts such as citizenship also do not really reflect reality but are more attempts at mimicry. After all, the concept of citizenry does not have the basis that it has in real life where citizenship in many cases was not only the result of liberalism but also pragmatism in the sense of gaining taxation, economics & military benefits. None of these concepts with the exception of military truly exist in NS and even in the sense of a military citizenship isn`t really geared towards its benefit.

 

[Lethen]

Short answer? No we don't Calvin. The long answer has been addressed already up-thread, and I agree with HEM, Anumia, et al.

I`m not sure what your point is in bringing up Balder or what you are trying to counter.

As Queen of Balder and it's Delegate (you are both of these things), you have a much more formalized role (official role that you are used to playing with more rigid and clearly-defined guidelines than the Chancellery) in a constitutional monarchy (you are a Queen and Delegate of a region that is this form of government). Nothing wrong with that (there is nothing wrong with that), and you've kept it your mission to be a guardian of Balder in its development (you've gone above and beyond to protect Balder's development and Trinn is affirming that fact). Trinn is commending your work in Balder and explaining that you are more well-versed in constitutional monarchies than we are, but he is going to politely - albeit indirectly - disagree with your commentary that he is quoting.

I hope that clears it up

 

[HEM]

I`m not sure what your point is in bringing up Balder or what you are trying to counter. The point was simply that HEM`s role is identical to that of a constitutional monarch in NS.

I think what you're missing here is that it isn't the "titles" per se that matter, it is mostly the powers and the institutions (though titles can certainly signal certain behavior). You could rename "Supreme Chancellor" to "King" (not that we should) and the arguments I made here wouldn't become null and void.

A constitutional monarchy, in this context, is a semi-permanent official who retains various "veto powers" upon the elected government. These powers could be the ability to unilaterally call elections, issue executive orders, issue pardons, veto legislation, fire officials etc. etc. The Supreme Chancellery does not have these powers, setting it apart from the "constitutional monarch" system.

 

[Rach]

I`m not sure what your point is in bringing up Balder or what you are trying to counter. The point was simply that HEM`s role is identical to that of a constitutional monarch in NS.

I think what you're missing here is that it isn't the "titles" per se that matter, it is mostly the powers and the institutions (though titles can certainly signal certain behavior). You could rename "Supreme Chancellor" to "King" (not that we should) and the arguments I made here wouldn't become null and void.

A constitutional monarchy, in this context, is a semi-permanent official who retains various "veto powers" upon the elected government. These powers could be the ability to unilaterally call elections, issue executive orders, issue pardons, veto legislation, fire officials etc. etc. The Supreme Chancellery does not have these powers, setting it apart from the "constitutional monarch" system.

But you could have a chancellor or another titled position with those powers you listed just as you could have a monarchy with the chancellors powers or less.

 

[HEM]

I`m not sure what your point is in bringing up Balder or what you are trying to counter. The point was simply that HEM`s role is identical to that of a constitutional monarch in NS.

I think what you're missing here is that it isn't the "titles" per se that matter, it is mostly the powers and the institutions (though titles can certainly signal certain behavior). You could rename "Supreme Chancellor" to "King" (not that we should) and the arguments I made here wouldn't become null and void.

A constitutional monarchy, in this context, is a semi-permanent official who retains various "veto powers" upon the elected government. These powers could be the ability to unilaterally call elections, issue executive orders, issue pardons, veto legislation, fire officials etc. etc. The Supreme Chancellery does not have these powers, setting it apart from the "constitutional monarch" system.

But you could have a chancellor or another titled position with those powers you listed just as you could have a monarchy with the chancellors powers or less.

You're focusing too much onto the titles, Rach. It isn't necessarily about the "title" it is about the system.

Maybe I need to expound on this more. I can't now, but I see your point and will go deeper later.

 

[Rach]

I`m not sure what your point is in bringing up Balder or what you are trying to counter. The point was simply that HEM`s role is identical to that of a constitutional monarch in NS.

I think what you're missing here is that it isn't the "titles" per se that matter, it is mostly the powers and the institutions (though titles can certainly signal certain behavior). You could rename "Supreme Chancellor" to "King" (not that we should) and the arguments I made here wouldn't become null and void.

A constitutional monarchy, in this context, is a semi-permanent official who retains various "veto powers" upon the elected government. These powers could be the ability to unilaterally call elections, issue executive orders, issue pardons, veto legislation, fire officials etc. etc. The Supreme Chancellery does not have these powers, setting it apart from the "constitutional monarch" system.

But you could have a chancellor or another titled position with those powers you listed just as you could have a monarchy with the chancellors powers or less.

You're focusing too much onto the titles, Rach. It isn't necessarily about the "title" it is about the system.

Maybe I need to expound on this more. I can't now, but I see your point and will go deeper later.

Well, I did say the difference wasn't about title but about cultural flavour so it's highly possible we're both saying something very similar.