The constitutional issue of whether Talossa should elect its head of state or whether it should be an inherited position is a controversial issue in Talossa. It is surprising then that such an important constitutional issue has never really been something that citizens have been required to contemplate their stance on an awful lot. Of course, the core voters of the ZRT are likely to have pondered the issue substantially prior to coming to the conclusion that a republic clearly serves Talossa better. The same can be said for the RUMP’s core voters; however, the votes for the more moderate parties, despite both the Progressives and the Moderate Radicals stating their monarchist credentials, does not in my opinion necessarily reflect their position on the constitutional issue.
The logic then follows that whilst some believe the general election to be sufficient in seeking the public opinion on this, that this simply isn’t the case. For example, in the next election (I’ll jinx things by saying) my own constitutionally agnostic party will garner voters from both republicans and monarchists, just as Citaxhien Vercaria controversially and prominently voted for the CSPP a couple of elections ago – votes for parties prove very little here. As such, it isn’t all that controversial to want to offer citizens the chance to now to agitate officially and to declare their support for one side of the debate or the other in a referendum. Thus far, we have neglected the issue as being one mired in party politics when in truth the issue is far too important to be considered thus. It is time now that we bravely step into the cold waters of this complex constitutional issue, and see how we feel once we adjust to the temperature.
There’s no need for either side to fear the result, of course. It’s an advisory referendum meaning that if the outcome indicates overwhelming support for an elected head of state, it will still require political action before any changes are made. Further, if overwhelming support for the status quo is indicated, then there’s nothing to stop a republican member of the Ziu from proposing a far more controversial amendment to the Organic Law which will likely get shot down by the largely monarchist representation in the Cosa. Of course, the more participatory democracy orientated MCs and Senators might be tempted to take heed of the will of the electorate on the issue. ZRT leader Miestra Schiva already indicated that defeat of the republican option on the referendum would see the ZRT concentrate more on democratising the institutions under the monarchy rather than overthrowing the monarchy entirely. The consequences of the referendum then, though advisory, might in fact be quite profound.
Regardless, it will provide some interesting analysis for our legislators in addition to enabling the voices of the Talossan people to be heard on the issue, without fear of having to fight and defend their position on the issue. Not all of our citizens are politicians after all, and most would rather sit quietly than have to engage in ceaseless debates on the intricacies of various policy packages. Who could blame them?
I personally believe that Talossa should elect its head of state, but I represent a party as its leader that is constitutionally agnostic. I believe it is for people to agitate as they see fit as to the constitutional state of Talossa, and I think a good way of seeking the views of Talossans themselves first is to officially ask them. If I were to poll privately, I predict that someone would be unhappy with the results concluded, whatever they prove. Allegations of bias, or improper methodology would be banded around – the outcome would be results that nobody trusts. In addition, private polling does not provide an official channel for citizens to register their view on this important constitutional issue. Concerns that because no other institution is capable of conducting this referendum the Chancery should then conduct the referendum are insufficient, I’ll concede. In response then, I would suggest that for an important constitutional issue such as this, it is entirely appropriate for the Chancery to conduct a referendum on a basis which will allow an official state channel for individuals to register their particular preference on the matter. There’s definitely a precedent for that.
The logic then follows that whilst some believe the general election to be sufficient in seeking the public opinion on this, that this simply isn’t the case. For example, in the next election (I’ll jinx things by saying) my own constitutionally agnostic party will garner voters from both republicans and monarchists, just as Citaxhien Vercaria controversially and prominently voted for the CSPP a couple of elections ago – votes for parties prove very little here. As such, it isn’t all that controversial to want to offer citizens the chance to now to agitate officially and to declare their support for one side of the debate or the other in a referendum. Thus far, we have neglected the issue as being one mired in party politics when in truth the issue is far too important to be considered thus. It is time now that we bravely step into the cold waters of this complex constitutional issue, and see how we feel once we adjust to the temperature.
There’s no need for either side to fear the result, of course. It’s an advisory referendum meaning that if the outcome indicates overwhelming support for an elected head of state, it will still require political action before any changes are made. Further, if overwhelming support for the status quo is indicated, then there’s nothing to stop a republican member of the Ziu from proposing a far more controversial amendment to the Organic Law which will likely get shot down by the largely monarchist representation in the Cosa. Of course, the more participatory democracy orientated MCs and Senators might be tempted to take heed of the will of the electorate on the issue. ZRT leader Miestra Schiva already indicated that defeat of the republican option on the referendum would see the ZRT concentrate more on democratising the institutions under the monarchy rather than overthrowing the monarchy entirely. The consequences of the referendum then, though advisory, might in fact be quite profound.
Regardless, it will provide some interesting analysis for our legislators in addition to enabling the voices of the Talossan people to be heard on the issue, without fear of having to fight and defend their position on the issue. Not all of our citizens are politicians after all, and most would rather sit quietly than have to engage in ceaseless debates on the intricacies of various policy packages. Who could blame them?
I personally believe that Talossa should elect its head of state, but I represent a party as its leader that is constitutionally agnostic. I believe it is for people to agitate as they see fit as to the constitutional state of Talossa, and I think a good way of seeking the views of Talossans themselves first is to officially ask them. If I were to poll privately, I predict that someone would be unhappy with the results concluded, whatever they prove. Allegations of bias, or improper methodology would be banded around – the outcome would be results that nobody trusts. In addition, private polling does not provide an official channel for citizens to register their view on this important constitutional issue. Concerns that because no other institution is capable of conducting this referendum the Chancery should then conduct the referendum are insufficient, I’ll concede. In response then, I would suggest that for an important constitutional issue such as this, it is entirely appropriate for the Chancery to conduct a referendum on a basis which will allow an official state channel for individuals to register their particular preference on the matter. There’s definitely a precedent for that.
0 comments:
Post a Comment