Opinion Piece: Stay the Course




Opinion Piece: Stay the Course
By Pierce









After days of debate over the executive-appointed senators provisions in the Lazarus Project proposal, a majority of the voters in the Constitutional Convention have voted against the idea. It’s clear that Senators Prim and Kari aren’t pleased with the results. As a result, Senator Kari has motioned to table the proposal in the Senate and requested the Convention Chair to remove it from the floor. This sets the region back to square one in the reform efforts that have already been ongoing since the summer of 2017.

Entrenching himself with Senator Kari, Senator Prim declared on the floor that eliminating the provision in question “diverges enough from our current structure for me to support it”, and wishes to move back to discussing the unicameral proposal. He also asserts that the provision was included when the Convention voted for the Lazarus Project and believes that eliminating it will make the reforms “watered down” as reason not to eliminate the provision.

Let us pause and take a breath. As far as how far the reform goes, everything else in the Lazarus Project is quite different from the system we have now (whether we keep the executive-appointed senators provision or not). The Project constitutes a full bicameral legislature with a split executive that has new dynamics in relation to each other. Hardly watered down, I'd say. The behavior displayed mirrors that of the Brexiteers in RL Britain, condemning Theresa May’s deals with the EU as a "watered down Brexit". The problem that many people- reformists and moderates alike- had with the idea of the provision was that in a Republic, the representatives of a legislature derive their mandate from the electorate, not the President or Prime Minister. To understand this concept, we may read the words of one of the founding fathers of the RL world’s oldest republic, James Madison, in Federalist Papers No. 51:

“In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others

It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”


To summarize that quote, the branches of government should indeed be able to check one another within reason but when those checks become unbalanced, it enables one branch to have more influence over another than what is reasonable; the membership of the legislature must be independent from the authority of the executive in order to duly represent the people in the halls of government to serve as a check by the governed upon the government. I could go on about the fundamentals of a republican model of government, but I will not bore the readers any further with analyses of the Federalist Papers.

The most important problem I see here is that the good Senators are attempting to shut down the discussion over a single issue even though the majority of the Convention wants to eliminate the provision. I have high respect for the members of my own party, but I fear they have allowed their own views to cloud their judgement on what is best for the region per the will of the governed. Senator Prim may argue that the provision was already in place when the Convention forwarded the Project, but passage of the general proposal does not mean that the same proposal is immune to necessary revisions and edits to ensure quality and proper governance that uphold the fundamental standards of a republican style of government that we as a region hold dear. I have high respect for the Senators, but by entrenching themselves in this manner, this debate over reform is no longer a debate between the reformists, the moderates, and the anti-reformists. If history in this region and in real life have demonstrated anything, it’s that establishing constitutional law requires being open to listening to views different than yours and to compromise. Both sides have already given ground, but we cannot allow a single nonpartisan issue to prevent the region from moving on with an effort that has been going on for months. As a reformist myself, I find the constant demonization of the moderate voters to be unhealthy and destructive to the spirit of a political region like ours. As we debate these issues, we should be careful to avoid dismissing and equating the moderate views as “anti-reformist”. The only way we can endeavor to form that more perfect Republic in a proper Constitution is to listen to one another. The type of strategy from our more spirited Senators poorly represents the rest of us and our credibility as the leading voice in the region.

Any reform proposal that does not abide by the will of the people through the Convention is not a legitimate proposal. In order to keep their promises to the citizens of Europeia that voted them in and the confidence of the region, the Senate must stay the course and pass the reforms that the Convention wants rather than stagnating the efforts by the whims of two pertinacious Senators.
 
People seem to forget the very first thing Prim did in Europeia that was noteworthy: propose 3 different drastic changes to the region in the CA. One of them actually made it (the Senate Size voting we do today), but only after Drecq radically altered it. These weren't the actions of someone that became a member of our region, understood our culture, and then tried to solve a problem. These are the actions of someone that just wanted to muck with things.

I think JayDee called it right. Prim just wants change for the sake of change, and wants his name on it.
I mean I think that this charectization ignores a key factor, in that most newcomers show up with the idea to make the system bicameral or something like that. It seems to be the go to to try to make it more familiar to something they know either in RL or elsewhere in NS. Overtime these ideas became tired and were shot down over and over again. The only difference between Prim and someone like Baby GraV (me when I joined) is Prim brought some new interesting concepts to the table, at least one of which has been implemented to arguably the benefit of the region. I think that Prim has a sometimes misguided penchant for wanting change but I think that saying he is only in it for his own glory is wrong.

While I don’t know if I would use the word psycotic. I think the immediate reaction to the appointed Senators being decisively rejected by the citizenry was overblown and a bit absurd. Also I disagree with virtually every comment that suggests that a proposal is not worth it simply because it does not “reform” enough. As I have stated many many times the magnitude of reform is irrelevant. The focus should be on the likely positive impact on the region or lack there of it. It’s pretty well established that Reform alone does nothing for the longevity and health of the community.
 
We will see how this turns out, but now it seems Prim and Kari have both retreated from their motion to table and call to send this back to the convention. Let’s hope they continue to be willing to work with the other senators as opposed to their previous approach which was to simply try to shut it all down when they didn’t get their way initially.

Props to Prim especially for being the first to be willing to engage in further debate. His decision further isolated Kari and really forced her to come back to the table.
 
Last edited:
The Senate should continue to work on TLP - just because two Senators have thrown a temper tantrum because they aren't getting "enough" reform doesn't mean they have the right to hold the rest of the Senate, and indeed the entire reform process hostage. We agreed way early on in the process that slowly introducing reform would not have a positive effect and that we should pass reform at the same time. The Senate should complete its work on the TLP, allow the President to send the legislation to a referendum and then the citizenry can decide if it wants these reforms or not.
 
Back
Top