Recently, many of us have shown some concern over the state of government in the South Pacific. In examing their state of affairs, in conjunction with the candidacy for the delegacy of a nation not supported by the current government of TSP, several proposed initiatives have been made public. The Conservative party has listed the full text of two proposed TSP initiatives in this thread.

As a preface to my comments about TSP's proposed initiatives, everyone should keep in mind that I personally don't care whether or not they adopt any or all of them. They are a sovereign region and can do as they wish. As a Canadian, it is to our advantage that they adopt some of these more draconian measures - it will make our ability to get immigrants from that region far easier. Ultimately, we benefit from the mismanagement of other regions, and I look forward to potentially benefitting in this case as well.

Secondly, I must caution that these measures are all just proposals in TSP. They are not yet law, and may be amended or be dropped altogether. We must keep that in mind when discussing this issue.

Succession Law
One proposed initiative, called the succession law, will, in its currently proposed form, impose strict time limits on any challenger to the TSP delegacy to achieve the delegacy. Where, after ten days of campaigning the challenger has failed to achieve the delegacy, he or she will be punished to the extent of being ejected from TSP until the next update, so that the challenger is purged of several hundred hard earned endorsements.

I am the view that this law is designed solely to crush dissent, insulate the delegate from any possibility of being toppled (given the impossibly tight deadlines imposed on a challenger to the delegacy) and punish anyone foolish enough to try to gain the delegacy through ejection and elimination of hundreds of endorsements.

I have made TSP's Vice President aware of my concerns, and to her credit, led me to believe that she seemed receptive to amending the law to make it less oppressive.

Referendum on Ejection of Challenger
Another initiative calls for a referendum calling for capping the current delegacy challenger's endorsements at 80% of the delegate's total. I have challenged the Vice President of the TSP to provide me with legal justification for such a move, as I see none in TSP's laws allowing for such a referendum. Though I was told I'd get a response on Saturday, none has yet arrived (which isn't surprising given that they are in the midst of an election campaign).

My main concern was with the following passage of the resolution:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT if Implied Mercenaries continues to collect endorsements, which for the purpose of this resolution shall mean exceeding 80% of the endorsements collected by the current Delegate, within 24 hours of the instruction issued by the Secretary of Justice, that Implied Mercenaries shall be expelled from the region for one game update;

I am concerned about this resolution, for the following reasons (all of which have been communicated to TSP's vice president:

1. IM (the challenger) has broken no law of TSP- The resolution calls on him to be expelled even in a situation where no law has been broken.

2. There are already laws in place in TSP governing ejection. I see no law allowing for people to be ejected from TSP "on majority vote of the off-site forum".

3. To the best of my knowledge, there is no law empowering the TSP delegate to eject someone based on the preamble of a referendum.

4. Essentially, this course of conduct achieves an end result of "we don't like you, so we are ejecting you even if you follow our laws". Again, I see no legal process or mechanism which allows this course of action or empowers the TSP delegate to execute an ejection order on the basis of this resolution.

Delegate as Symbolic Post
For reasons that may or may not have to do with my points questioning the democratic nature and legality of TSP's proposed actions, the head of the TSP electoral commission has changed course recently and stated that despite the elected nature of the position, the TSP delegacy is actually a symbolic position with no power and which should not be viewed as an elected position at all. The argument is that it is more akin to a ceremonial "Governor General" type position, that should be appointed, and not elected.

This is all fine and dandy, but TSP's laws don't say that, have never said that, and there are no laws being proposed which state that. As such, while this is a nice theory, the suggestion that the delegacy is "ceremonial", non-democratic and should perhaps be appointed by the off-site government has no basis in law.

Democracy and Diplomacy
With TSP now proposing three separate radical departures from current TSP law, all of which have an impact on that particular region's system of government, adherence ot the rule of law and committment to "democracy", a challenge is posed upon Canada.

As a region, we repeatedly tie continued diplomatic relations on the concepts of democracy and the rule of law. With TSP openly suggesting that it will amend its laws in a manner that many in this region don't consider democratic, and with some in TSP adhering a course of action that appears to be contrary to the rule of law, Canada may be put in the unenviable position of determining whether TSP, our oldest existing diplomatic relation, is still democratic and legally sound enough to warrant continued diplomatic relations.

Criteria
However, it occurs to me that in a changing world, Canada should be backing its "democracy for diplomacy" pledge articulated criteria, so that potential and existing democratic relations know what minimums Canada requires in order for diplomatic relations to continue between this region and other regions.

I propose the following tests:
-Free elections for all cabinet level positions, complete with reasonable maximum term limits (i.e, no elections to elect a "President for life");
-The reasonable ability for any nation to become eligible and qualified to run for any cabinet position and/or the delegacy;
-A system that would allow eligible nations to have a fair chance at gaining a cabinet position or the delegacy;
-A system that does not unfairly punish unsuccessful candidates for office.
-No evidence of abuse of laws, favouritism, or double standards by the sitting government or its officials.

In administering these tests, we must remember that democracy takes many different forms. Just because a system is not at all like our system, or is a system that we wouldn't like over here, doesn't mean it is not democratic or not a good system for the given region. It is not our place to impose our brand of democracy on other regions. It is only our place to ensure that when choosing diplomatic relations, that we choose to associate with those who meet a minimum level of democracy and adherence to fairness and the rule of law.

Assessments
An example of a system that I don't necessarily favour, but which would likely pass the above tests is The West Pacific's system. They have a full functioning government, elected to terms much like ourselves. However, the eligibility requirements for Cabinet positions is more restricted (must have a nation that is fairly old, must have a minimum post count on the off-site forum etc.). The requirements get even tighter for the ceremonial delegacy position, of which all candidates must have a minimum amount of government experience, and the successful candidate is elected to a three month term as delegate.

I may not really like that system as I find its electoral requirements are too restrictive for my liking, but it may still pass the democracy and rule of law threshholds I have listed above.

I believe that my approach achieves the desired result of flexibility in recognizing a wide array of democratic systems, setting minimum democratic requirements and requirements to adherence to the rule of law, and gives all regions reaonable notice of these requirements so that if they make changes to their systems, they can anticiapte the Canadian reaction.

When using the criteria to assess TSP's proposed actions, it is my view that they fall short of the bar in both level of democracy and adherence to the rule of law. However, I do still hope that future amended versions of proposed TSP laws and courses of action may well find acceptance within my proposed criteria.

Conclusion
I therefore ask the Canadian government:
1. will it adopt simple yet defined criteria for determining acceptable minimum levels of democratic activity and adherence to the rule of law?
2. If so, what are those criteria?
3. How would those criteria apply to some of the propositions that are coming out of TSP at this moment?

*edited to remove one point that was irrelevant*

FYI - I posted proposed amendments to TSP's succession law in this thread.

My suggestion for a rough and ready criterion:

1. Any legislative/executive/judiciary power is wielded by either an elected official, or an official appointed by an elected official.
2. The terms of any and all government officials is finite and has a definate upper bound.
3. Elections are open to all residents of a region, and all residents have equal voting privileges. This is sensitive to laws enacted to prevent election abuse by nations with multiple puppets.
4. There is an appeals process to any and all judicial decisions.

What do you think? Clearly not definite, but I think that term "democracy" is necessarily fuzzy, and so the criterion cannot get too precise.

The following is my first pass at the points that should be included in our diplomatic gudelines:

I agree with Daemon - we have to be flexible, but need basic limits. It's a tough balancing act, but I think Daemon is on the right track.

With respect to point 1, I'd want assurances that the electorate would have some kind of say in who the elected official appointed to the delegacy, like some kind of disclosure requirement, so that people wouldn't be misled in voting for someone who promises "A", and instead appoints "Z". Something like "in consulatation with the electorate" or "in consultation with other elected official". Alternatively, an entire government voted on it (thereby making the delegate "elected")


By "elections open to all residents," I agree with that so long as it is clear that the region has
-The reasonable ability for any nation to become eligible and qualified to run for any cabinet position and/or the delegacy;
-A system that would allow eligible nations to have a fair chance at gaining a cabinet position or the delegacy;
-A system that does not unfairly punish unsuccessful candidates for office.

I also believe the fairness of the application of laws ought to be audited:
"No evidence of abuse of laws, favouritism, or double standards by the sitting government or its officials."

All in all though, I think Daemon and myself are sharing common ground here.

I really like that. Very broad, inclusive, but has limits. I'd support it.

Including this criterion would make Canada not fit the definition of "democracy"--under our laws, the regional delegate may assume the position in perpetuity if not challenged. Thus there is no term limit. It may also be argued that ministerial positions don't have an upper bound, as they be re-elected for as long as they are able.

It should probably be left off, but I like the other three as general guidelines.

I like this exemption just because, as a region, we don't want to back ourselves into a corner with hard and fast rules over a region we like, but may not follow one or more guidelines we end up laying out.

I think Red's point is very important. Once we agree to a set of guidelines we need to make sure we are in compliance ourselves. If not, we should make the required corrections.

If this gets approved after only one pass then I'm BAD, DAMN BAD! :D
* does moon walk back and forth a few times *

Good point - I think this could be worded so that the opportunity to seek a position is given within reasonable periods of time.

In Canada, the PM can change at every update, in theory. The slight rewording would put our system in compliance, and avoid the "President for life" term of election that Daemon was likely trying to prevent.

I disagree: upon re-election, a new term starts. So even if a Minister is re-elected, their terms are still finited and bounded. Basically, the clock is reset when the Minister is sworn in again.

As for the Delegate, because we allows for his/her position to be won/lost at any time, her "term" is basically hard set at one day, because that is the grainularity of the endorsement system.

I agree with Bweezy's suggestions of alteration.

Does Cabinet have any progress to report on setting out basic democratic benchmarks in relation to our diplomatic strategy?

So far I think my draft is the most comprehensive. Does anyone have any suggested modifications to it?

None here.

Negatory.

I'd like to here from Daemon and Red as they contributed a bit to this topic. Assuming they have no suggestions I'm not sure what I need to do to get the rest of the cabinet to take some action. (still a bit new at this cabinet stuff)

That's okay. I wouldn't expect it to be done anyother way.

I'm not sure that having an off-site board is an essential feature of democracy.

Could I suggest this one be reworded - something like "Where an off-site board is used to conduct the business of the region, all members of the region shall be allowed aceess to the general areas of the board."

(You can't specify unrestricted access, since this would rule out virtually every region in the game).

I included the requirement to have an off-site forum to allow diplomacy to happen. Don't see how we can work with a region that conducts all it's business in the RMB.

Overall, it is excellent. If forced to pick at the nits, I would have to say:

1) Good. Maybe redundant though? Could a region pass all the other criteria and fail this criterion?
2) I agree with Al's post, but I don't think that we really know how to have official diplomatic ties with a region that doesn't have a offsite message board. I don't think that the re-wording would hurt, however.
3) Necessary and good.
4) Canada fails this: Deputy ministers and the Roleplay Moderator are both public officials and are not elected. I think that we need to tack on an "appointment by an elected official" rider on that, or change the election procedure. This clearly isn't an exhaustive list, either. Ambassadors might even be considered "public officials".
5) Agreed.
6) Agreed.
7) Agreed.
8) Agreed.

I think that we also need to have a clause that limits the term of elected/appointed officials. I know that there was so controversy with my particular definition as to the limits of a term, but I still believe it to be necessary.

There is a lot of slack in these criteria (as the ought to and has to be), so we need to be vigilant if this document is to have any teeth. If we use its necessary vagueness to worm out of responsibility, it would be better to not enact any criteria in the first place because it will illustrate a lack of potency. The vagueness implies responsibility, and we need the Cabinet, current and future, to commit to this doctrine.

For me the key point for public officials is that they are accountable for their actions. There should be a mechanism for removing them from office, and they should be subject to the legal system if they abuse their powers.


I think we comply with this, even where we have appointed officials. If we try to pin it down as to who can be appointed and who has to be elected and for how long, we are in danger of saying ours is the one true way.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that we have a mechanism for this in Canada either. If we have a rouge Cabinet minister (Red has been looking a little shifty recently), then we have to wait out his/her term. I don't think even if they are ejected can we legally revoke their Cabinet status...

Though I might be missing something in our legal documents. I think that we are screwed until the term is up. In fact, I don't really see any restrictions for Cabinet members at all. Seems like we can vote anyone in, even if they aren't citizens. Not only that, but the requirement that Ministers give up their title is only implied. I personally would like to firm up the exact mechanics of this, if people don't mind me being pedantic.

The removal mechanism is to support another delegate or to fail to re-elect a minister. Not terribly timely, but it exists.

I'm surprised to hear you say a Minister can't be brought to account. I'll have to re-check the constitution.

EDIT - nothing in there either way. I note that the Justice system is not part of the constitution, but was enacted as legislation. This might be something to consider.

It's a good idea, it's just that I'm worried about misinterpretations. If the rule states something like "elections for officials must be provided within an adequate time" or something like that, it gets rid of the ambiguity. Saying the "definite upper bound" line might make someone interpret (as I did) that there is a defined beginning and end of a term, which for PM doesn't really exist--it's kind of an ongoing process.

Given that there's nothing specifically defined, I'd guess that it'd be within the responsibilities of one of the admins to remove the cabinet status or even remove the user from the forum. They can do so with no legal repercussions. The sitting PM, as an admin could do these, and ban the nation as well, under the NS gameplay mechanisms.

Woah... I dunno about that. Sure there is nothing preventing the admins from removing the rouge minister from office, but I think that calling it "legal" is a stretch of the imagination. That smacks of martial law to me. I think that establishing a "recall" procedure would be more appropriate.

Anyhow, because of the fact that there are no elegibility requirements, even ejecting the rouge minister would not erase his Cabinet status, as there is no requirement that he have a nation in the region to be a minister. So we eject and ban the Minister, but that means that we have an unrepresented profolio until we can legally hold elections again.

I would tend to agree, but the problem is the law (or lack thereof) as it stands now. Most governments assume that anything that isn't explicitly designed by the laws of the land is their responsibility. Thus, my interpretation of the current protocol as stated.

We should definitely look into establishing a law that clearly defines such things.

Well, if an admin resets the board user back to "Member" or lower and takes away any mod rights they may have, and the sitting government declares the minister to be, well, no longer minister, that has the effect of removing them from office.

EDIT: Oh, and the presumption is that the deputy (or if there's no deputy, someone appointed by the government or elected in a special election) gets elevated to Cabinet status. Thus, no vacancy.

I don't mean from a board mechanics point of view. My understanding of the system is that a real person gets elected as a Minister. Part of the package of being a Minister is having Cabinet status. Revoking the Cabinet status, in my opinion, does not revoke the "Minister-ness" of the real person, it just means that he is no longer able to exercise his Ministerial power on the board. I mean to say that being a Minister is necessary for belonging to the Cabinet group, but belonging to the Cabinet group is not necessary for being a Minister.

Say that you are elected, but the admins have forgotten to update your board status. Does this mean that you are not a Minister yet? I say no. So being is Minister is not sufficient for belonging to the Cabinet group. Just as clothes don't make the man, board privileges don't make the Minister. They are distinct, but related, concepts.

And we have no laws for a current government to declare a Minister "invalid". Nor, I think, should that be a power of the government. I think that that should be a power of the people. The people need direct recourse against corrupt officials.

Hmmm. That is tricky. I always figured them to be two halves of the same whole, but when you put it that way...

True. So we can work on drafting something that defines this.

Very good catch Daemon.

While I was reviewing the law library, to verify your point, I noticed that the Dispute Resolution law is very vague as well. The bunk of the law is how to pick an arbitrator. How to actually conduct the arbitration is reduced to this:

The consitution says that the MoJ shall:

Yet the way the law was written the MoJ has nothing to do with the process unless all attempts at selecting an arbitrator fail. Then the MoJ appoints one, that is the total involvement by elected officials.

My thought was that the government or any individual within it cannot act in a manner that is contrary to the law, or contrary to the spirit of the law. Unless a Cabinet Minister breaks a law, he or she has the right to remain in that position.

Only once in the history of the region has anyone been suspended from government for breaking the rules (that was me - for when I let out a PM full of expletives to Nintendo Emerates - my punishment was a cabinet suspension).

Had I not broken a law (and insisted that I face a trial for my actions), no one would have had the right to remove my cabinet permissions.

I think that there should be further laws for recalling a minister. If a minister fails to live up to expectation, or ignores his/her duties, I think that people should have a right to call for a by-election.

I'm not saying I'll automatically oppose such a law, but in order for me to support it, someone is going to have to do a dandy job to ensure recall isn't something that can be misused and abused to the point of keeping the government at a standstill. Also, it would be hard to apply to the PM.

though, as a trade-off for a 3 month term limit, a recall law might be in order.

Perhaps that may be the trade-off we're looking for - longer terms in exchange for a good recall mechanism.

Just thinking out loud here - those are my preliminary thoughts.

I support that. I do think that longer terms are beneficial. I think that the mechanism for preventing the abuse of the law is to require a certain number of "signatories" on a recall motion. A recall should probably be phrased as a "negative election".

The question would be "Do you support the recall of X from position Y", and not only must there be a majority supporting it, but there must be a significant number of people casting their vote in a by-election (say 50% of the people that voted in the election where the Minister was voted in, or some such rule).