NationStates Jolt Archive


My Government- Would it work?

Commnista
05-12-2004, 18:08
A King is selected from one of the four prominent families of the kingdom who area all banned from interfering in politics. The King has limited powers and cannot disband parliament or run the country alone. His duties are mainly ceremonial though he is influential in parliament and is normally respected among the people and so has a lot of popular support. The King is chosen by the Lords of the country, who set challenges of Kingship to each of the candidates of the four families. Each family can only present one candidate and each losing candidate, as long as he is approved of by the Lords are all given the title of Prince and this quells infighting between the families.

In times of crisis, with the approval of two thirds of parliament and two thirds of the Lords a "Dictat" can be created. This is when the King presides over a council of 5 individuals: The Commander-in-chief of the armed forces (who advises of the military capabilities of the country), the Chairman of the Royal Intelligence Executive (who gives information that the R.I.E have collated), the Lord Chancellor (who advises on legal matters and the finances of the state), the Chief of Policy (who gives the governments stance on the matter and what policies it should enforce, basically he speaks for the government) and the Proletariat Commisioner (who represents the workers and the ordinary people). The King is the most influential member of the council yet he still needs the vote of 3 members of the council to pass any resolutions he needs while to overrule the King all but one of the members must vote against him. However the King should be prepeared for government after his test of Kingship.

The Proletariat Commisioner is elected from one of the spokespeople of the main industries: Oil (there are abundant oil reserves in my country), Munitions, Metalwork, Coal and Agriculture. These are all labour intensive industries and all are banned from funding or interfering in politics to minimise corruption, therefore a spokesperson elected from the heads of these industries will speak for many many workers and ordinary people. Also to encourage better worker pay the head of one of these industries can only earn 20 times as much as the lowest paid worker. The government demands that all high paid members of society publicise their accounts to public scrutiny to minimise corruption, this normally produces an effective and fair Proletariat Commisioner who is elected once every 3 years and sits on a "Dictat" council, if the council overruns and coincides with a Proletariat election then the commisioner will not change until the crisis is over.

A crisis can be declared over by the King in agreement with 4/5 of his council, by 4/5 of the council without the King, or by a resolution by 2/3 of parliament with 2/3 of the Lords in agreement. When the country is not in crisis, it runs along the lines of the strong British democracy with two main parties (which are actually fairly similar) in the form of the Moderate Centre Party and the National Democratic Union Party, with the Peoples National League and the Workers Democracy parties fighting it out for third place. Proportional representation is NOT in place. The Head of Policy is the real force behind the party who basically decides in which direction the party is going and has lots of influence in foreign affairs, while the Party Leader (who becomes the Prime Minister when in power) is the public face of the party and takes care of much of the domestic duties along with the Home Secretary.

I call this the Direct Demo-Monarchic system and invite others to try it but with their own moderations. For example substitute the names of you're major industries and of the people who sit on you're Dictat, or whatever you wish to call it. If you do not have a monarchy you could substitute the monarch with other influential members of you're own governments.

Anyway cant be bothered to write any more for now and I'm fairly new to this whole thing in general so I would appreciate any input given i.e whether it would function and any suggestions. Thanks.
The Tribes Of Longton
05-12-2004, 20:08
I'm probably going out on a limb here, but: yes in the short run, no in the long run. Soon people discover ways to corrupt and control anything. I'd give it 100-150 years, then people would be sick of it. The best possible scenario is that it is recognised early as being corrupt and is disbanded quickly and replaced. The worst possible scenario is mass revolt from repressed proles.


But what do I know? I thought communism had a chance :D
Commnista
05-12-2004, 21:04
I take you're point but I feel that it has many restrictions on the power of individuals, for example with big business not messing with politics and the Proletariat Commisioner being the peoples spokesperson. Anyhow I think that nearly all systems are corrupted eventually. Any other thoughts?
Armandian Cheese
05-12-2004, 21:17
The problem is, the King would probably try to keep his "Dictat" powers and make them permanent. And you say that the four families should not be engaged in politics, but there are no specific boundaries. There are a lot of sneaky ways to influence politics...
Commnista
05-12-2004, 22:05
Yea I see your point, probably have to revise that to specifically hold down the power of the four families. Im trying my best to restrict a back door route to power but I think that in any system as Cheese said there are many ways to influence politics. Wise words, wise words. Heed the Cheese. That should really be you're motto lol.

Still open to suggestions and I've taken that one on board. Thanks for that. Any others?
The Tribes Of Longton
05-12-2004, 23:18
Yea I see your point, probably have to revise that to specifically hold down the power of the four families. Im trying my best to restrict a back door route to power but I think that in any system as Cheese said there are many ways to influence politics. Wise words, wise words. Heed the Cheese. That should really be you're motto lol.

Still open to suggestions and I've taken that one on board. Thanks for that. Any others?
Money makes the world go round. Even in anti-capitalist states. Poor people are attracted to it. I myself feel a strange force towards the television whenever a stack of cash is shown.

Seriously, though, bribery and flattery would control this state. The proletariat comissioner would either be corrupted beyond belief and become an upper-class puppet, or their power would be removed. No system is perfect, but kingdoms are fundamentally flawed
Commnista
06-12-2004, 12:41
You are forgetting that the Proletariat Commisioner is only effectively a member of parliament in peace time and has little power other than when he is on the council, even then he is only one member. Also it takes a lot of democratic decision making to call the council and a swift democratic decision can end it just as easily. Also as he is in public office he has to declare his accounts (not sure if I mentioned that already, think I have) and so this will limit his corruptability.

Along the lines of limiting the power of the family I was thinking that NO member of the families are allowed to hold public office but are allowed to retain their estates. Also they cannot donate to or pledge allegiance to any of the political parties and cannot speak at public rallies in support of them. This will sufficiently limit their power as they are already rich and powerful enough to not be able to be bribed and not being in public office will keep them from corruption by other politicians.