I know this was posted a couple months ago, but Amicia, you are missing some key points here that I feel I need to bring to light.
Firstly, yes, the Federation has a hierarchy. Every state, nation, and Empire needs one, else you would have nothing but anarchy. Anarchy does not offer safety or protection of freedoms. As you put it, there are more qualified individuals making decisions on behalf of less qualified individuals in the Fed. However, you overlook the fact that these more qualified individuals were chosen by the majority of those that they make decisions on behalf of. This is quite opposite to the system you are used to, where the vast majority has absolutely no say in who leads them, and therefore no input towards what happens to them.
Second, and to my first point, you canât just assume that the entire population is against something. There will always be those who advocate for and against any action or policy. You are responding to one capsuleerâs opinion and blanketing that across the entire system full of member states. While this suits your argument itâs disingenuous.
Lastly, I will add that I can to an extent see why you yourself are seduced by an ideology that purports to be for the greater good. But make no mistake that the Amarrian empire is not without its own hypocrisy. Your leaders also tell lies knowing full well that they are hypocritical. While I cannot claim that bad leaders never make it to office in the Federation, I can say that there are processes in place to rectify it. I can say that those being ruled over have the ability to remove those abusers of power. In the Empire⌠That ability doesnât exist. Those who are abused can do nothing to better their situation in the face of their abusers. This is no way for a proper society to function.
And therein lies a contradiction. If the âqualifiedâ are chosen by the âunqualifiedâ, how can one be certain that the âqualifiedâ are truly qualified to make decisions for the majority? That is the failure of the democratic system. It gives power to those who do not understand the issues at hands, and dumps the responsibility of decision making into their hands. That is not to say democracy is a failure: I have trialed a democratic system of governance in my holding in Venal. But the responsibility of governing cannot be shifted upon the ignorant masses, at least not completely. There must be a group of educated leaders, not beholden to the shifts of an ignorant society, who hold the reigns. Those elected by the masses must simply advise to the best of their ability. In practice, this means that they can dictate most local laws and regulations, but major regulations, and foreign affairs, must be left to the truly qualified. The masses deserve a VOICE, but they do not have the ability to GOVERN. If they had the ability, they would not be a member of the masses: they would be in a higher class, one where they do have an ability to govern.
Perhaps. But those same processes can be used to benefit bad leaders, by removing good leaders from office. After all, Iâm sure your leaders are manipulative, and can convince the masses of good leaders being bad, and bad leaders of being good. Of course, there must be processes for the removal of a bad leader, but preventative measures must also be put into place for the protection of good leaders.
While I cannot speak for the Empire, I can speak for my own holding: one can petition for the removal of a leader. If the petition gains enough support, in the form of signatures, the petition is handed to a council of the leaderâs peers for review. And here, the process branches. We have two types of leadership: a council of nobility, and a council of elected representatives. The process is similar, but slightly different for each group of leadership. In each, the council of peers first appraises the petition. If a petition against an elected representative is deemed to be significant enough, an impeachment hearing will be brought against the leader, with the leaders of both councils in attendance to vote. Similarly, if a petition against a noble is deemed significant, an impeachment hearing will be held by the council of nobles. Finally, the issue is brought before my desk for final judgement. If the leader is truly deemed criminal, a list of potential criminal charges can be brought against the leader during the hearing. The list is also subject to my approval. If the charges are approved, the leader will immediately be arrested for trial following approval of the impeachment. Fortunately, this process has never been used, and I sincerely hope it never will be.
Given that the first step is a self-selected pool of âpeople who want the jobâ, the results tend to be at least as reliable as say, an hereditary aristocracy where the only ones evaluating the fitness of candidates for authority are the pool of candidates themselves.
Right, because then you know theyâre fit to lead. After all, they said they were.
Well, preferably, they would show that they are fit to lead through their actions. For example, the trader who helped negotiate construction contracts to build my holding and used their personal vessels to take settlers across the cluster despite the risk of piracy, or the arms trader who helped arm my security forces and hired contractors to train them.
You mean by doing the exact same things that self-selecting group of commoners among the masses can do? ZOMG, itâs almost like youâve undercut your whole argument.
If they have contributed to society in such a way, then they would be of a higher social class. As it is, most of the elected representatives are actually simply complainers. They complain. They complain about militarization. They complain about trade deals with the UNF. They complain about being ruled by capsuleers. They complain that they are not nobles, but they do not contribute as much to society as the nobles. It is, quite frankly, annoying, but it is the price to pay for giving the majority a voice in society.
In most democratic arrangements, most elected representatives first have to make the case of âwhy me and not the other guys who are saying the exact same things?â And usually, that involves establishing their qualifications. Now, it looks like youâre talking about the advisory parliament you established in your own holdings, and for that, I have to say: then I think you did it wrong.
As for âdo not contribute as much as the noblesâ⌠nobility, in general, contributes are less than they think they do.
People can always find new leaders. You need the masses infinitely more than they need you.
Ok, the way the parliament works in my holding is: we have a house of elected representatives, the House of Commons, and a house of nobles, literally called the House of Nobles. The Commons pass domestic legislation and regulations, with some limits. The nobles pass foreign affairs legislation. I have tried to allow the Commons a say in foreign affairs. They stonewalled a trade bill with the UNF for a couple months before I gave up and rescinded their authority. Didnât open dialogue about what was wrong with the agreement, didnât suggest amendments, nothing. Maybe Iâm doing it wrong. I donât think so, but if youâre confident in that conclusion, Iâd like to hear suggestions about what Iâm doing wrong, and how I can fix it.
Perhaps, when you have a centuries old empire, with centuries old noble families. Here, however, the nobility built this world. The nobility are the reason this colony exists.
I never said we didnât. I am simply contending that the masses cannot rule effectively. Let me posit this: do you think anybody in Luminaire cares about what is going on in Intaki? Probably not. And therefore, their representatives donât care about what is going on in Intaki. When the leaders are not beholden to the interests of the masses, they can prioritize better.
I will address only this point because it is the premise of your entire argument.
A ship mechanic is qualified to repair a ship. Which ship mechanic you take your ship to is your choice. What makes you decide to choose one mechanic over another? Is it the color of their logo? Is it their magnetic personality? Perhaps itâs the great reviews theyâve received from other customers?
Ideally you would check their credentials, ask for reviews from other customers and compare the quality of their previous work to your expectations.
Whatever criteria governs your eventual selection one truth remains: you will reap the consequences of your choice, good or bad.
This is the same principle behind democracy. Iâm not suited to governing the Federation but I know what issues are important to me and I know what qualifications I would look for in a candidate. I use the resources at my disposal to select the candidate I believe most closely represents my desires and I vote for them.
For the record, candidates are also required to have met certain qualifications to be eligible to run for office. Qualifications that demonstrate at least passable competence in the office theyâre running for.
Itâs not perfect but itâs certainly not as haphazard as you may be suggesting.
Well, I grew up in the Amarr Empire. Obviously, it is not a democracy. I base my conclusions off the results of my attempt at democracy in my holdings. As Arrendis has stated, I may be doing it wrong. My conclusions may be flawed as a result. However, I will still explain my conclusions. In my experience, who is voted into office? Is it the military veteran who runs a battalion of the Dark Wolf Legion? Or is it the businesswoman whose slaughterhouses produce 3.7% of the meat consumed by the citizens of Beseth Dunijia (my holding)? Or is it the bartender, who ran to eliminate the enslavement of dangerous convicts? Which is most qualified? Which was elected?
The bartender was elected. The least qualified, at least in my eyes, was the one elected. Why? Because he was charismatic. He attacked his opponents as backers of the nobility, and claimed that they would siphon power from the representatives upon taking office. He attacked the government for âmanipulating the electionsâ. He cultivated a persona of âfighting for the peopleâ and rode the wave of popular support to an overwhelming victory. So, perhaps he is qualified. He is qualified in that he is an excellent orator. But is he an excellent ruler?
Well, letâs analyze his voting record. First thing he proposed, two days after election: cut taxes for the lower-income citizens. Fine. Didnât pass, but good idea. Three days after the election: proposed to remove the tax on alcoholic beverages. Some suspect it is related to his previous bartending activities. Maybe? Maybe not? I donât know. Moving on. A month later: voted down a bill to allow mining in a previously restricted part of the Great Teeth, a major mineral-rich mountain range near my holding. Why? Because slaves made up the majority of the work force in other mines. Fine. Iâd think the increased economic output would be more important, especially since most of these slaves are convicts, but I digress. Half a month later, voted down a bill to allow two factories to be built to process minerals from the Great Teeth. Why? Because the owner was a noble who already owned three factories, and âadditional factories would result in additional profits for her family, while stealing funds from the good working peopleâ of the district where the factories would be built. I have no idea how he got to that conclusion, but fine. A week later, voted down a bill to grant the government more funding for hiring Gurista mercenaries for protection and paying off other Guristas to stop raiding after spreading a conspiracy theory that the payoffs were to purchase slaves, a conspiracy that has been debunked multiple times, to the great annoyance of the employees of the Ministry of Information. Finally, three months later, spread a conspiracy theory that the UNF were pirates seeking to steal Beseth Dunijiaâs resources, despite evidence to the contrary, and used the theory to back his decision to help stonewall diplomatic agreements with the UNF, which is part of the reason why I decided to rescind the House of Commonsâ power to vote on foreign agreements. All in all, no votes to further society. Many votes to restrict development. Spread false conspiracy theories to paint the government in a negative way. Definitely not qualified.
A) The desires of the masses are not the interests of the masses. It is in our interest to maintain a balanced diet and a level of activity that promotes good health. Most of humanity desires ease and comfort. These things are not in any way mutually exclusive, but they are also not the same thing, nor even aligned with one another.
Leaders are always beholden to the interests of the masses, for exactly the reason cited. If you donât look after their interests, you end up with no masses. No masses = no leading. To that end, I think plenty of the representatives in Luminaire are acutely interested in what happens in Intaki.
They donât want another potential schism like the Caldari, that undermines the legitimacy of the Federal government in the eyes of the outflung polities, and thus threatens their position, power, and income.
They donât want an internal crisis that begins to have economic effects, and so threatens to cause problems for their constituents⌠and thus, threatens their position, power, and income.
Should Intaki become a protracted crisis, people will begin looking into what various parts of the government are doing, that theyâre failing to solve that crisis. And politicians, especially in the Senate, donât really want investigations. They hold power because, remember that first step⌠they sought power. Which means a large portion of them are inherently corrupt, and are acutely interested in avoiding the sort of investigations that might expose that corruption and (you guessed it!) threaten their position, power, and income.
B) If the representatives elected to your House of Commons donât first need to establish why theyâre better qualified than someone else, and all they have to do to get elected is complain loudly, maybe you need to establish more competitive processes for your election. Any time, for example, you have someone running unopposed for a seat? Something went wrong. Thatâs especially true if this is a relatively new arrangement: in an older, longer-established voting system, you have more time for loyalty to political parties to become a valued qualification in its own right. Identity politics takes time to settle in and establish the tribalist voting patterns that are usually required for people to get into office without demonstrating actual qualification.
This sounds to me like you need to look into why the majority of voters in that particular district were so concerned about the enslavement of dangerous convicts. Next, you note that heâs an excellent orator. Ok, so he knows how to get people doing what he wants. Why havenât you tapped that resource yourself? From your extended description, itâs clear heâs after person gain and power. Use that corruption. Buy him off.
But moreover, all of what youâre saying about him? As soon as heâs up for re-election, if his opposition is at all competent, theyâll be using all of that. And if your people are that easily-swayed and that completely feckless and stupid over an extended period of time⌠well, theyâre getting what they deserve. And maybe you need to improve the baseline level of education in your holding.
Well, personally, I saw the qualifications as:
Military veteran: knows how the military works, knows the threats the duchy faces.
Businesswoman: understands economics, knows the status of the food supply.
Bartender: excellent orator was the best thing I could think of at the time. Now? I donât know what people saw in him.
Yes, that would work. But then, heâs not representing the people anymore, is he? It goes against the purpose of this initiative: I want the people to have a voice. The nobles largely support my initiatives. Thereâs some dissent, but not much. I want to hear the masses as well. I want to hear their dissent, not the pandering of a corrupt politician.
âWhat are the minimum qualifications that the law requires for someone to become a candidate for that office? Are there age restrictions, required amounts of property or wealth owned, professional or educational requirements⌠or can anyone say âIâm running!â and be allowed to take office?â
As an officeholder interested only in his own advancement, heâs already not representing them. Just because he was hired to represent them doesnât mean heâs doing it.
Besides, think of how funny itâd be to buy him off and then turn around and provide his opponents with evidence that heâs being paid by the very nobility he decried. They donât need to know where the information came from.
A Caldari mercenary may understand your situation better than you think Senator Aristide. What a megacorp wants it will get. It doesnât let inconveniences or dissenting opinions get in the way. The same goes for your Federation. Your President could ask nicely, listen to your concerns, and potentially change her mind. Ultimately she wonât because she has a plan with a time table that doesnât leave any room for your questions. As Naava Edios implied, Aguardâs convinced sheâs doing it for your own good anyway.
You will find that backroom deals are much like boardroom deals. The bargains struck between Celes, her Naval advisors, and the cabal of Senators she has assembled were intentionally designed to leave you and your people out of the loop. We may face eachother on opposite sides of the battlefield, but I wish you good fortune all the same. The shadow of Triglav looms over us and our war. From one clone to another: Prepare for the worst.
So⌠âsuccessful scam artists whoâve been at it a while without being caughtâ?
Maybe consider adding a requirement for prior public service in some form? I dunno, Iâm not a big fan of democracy in the first place, but it seems to me that you basically need to always expect the worst possible way to meet your criteria will happen, sooner or later.
There is some truth to this but the counterbalance to this in the Federation is lobbyists and interest groups. With the proper exercise of a lobbyist or interest group, even a minority in the Federation can have its voice be heard in political circles and attract others to their cause.
I will add on to what Imrik has already stated above, and note that it is not quite a majority group of people âdrowning outâ a minority group of people. It is a majority opinion that overrules the minority opinion. And to this I say, when a group of people want two opposing things, is it not the best outcome to satisfy as many people in that group as possible? Why should it be the opposite?
This, of course, does not apply so well to situations where the outcome is that the minority group gets oppressed and abused. However this is where the legal system comes into play. This is why we need more than just a majority opinion to make decisions. We need laws to keep the policies we are deciding upon in line, and a judicial system to give an opportunity for those who may have suffered some form of oppression to rectify it.
If you would like to sit down together to discuss the intricacies of the Federal system further, I would be happy to do so. I promise it would become clearer to you how the Federation functions, and how problems are addressed in as fair of a manner as possible. I am just wary of steering this thread into a full on discussion of Federal politics, because it would surely derail. It may be easier to address your concerns and explain any misunderstandings in a quieter environment.
