Delegate Supremacy vs. Government Supremacy

It's the same old argument, really.

A: "No, the Delegate is supreme!"
B: "No, Delegate is a servant to the region!"
A: "No, you're ignoring game mechanics!"
B: "No, you're being reductionist!"
A: "No, you're setting endorsement policy by oligarchcal fiat and thereby subverting the one true democracy!"
B: "No, you're ignoring inherent sociological factors, the power granted inherently subverts democracy of that kind!"
...etc...

Person A is a Delegate Supremacist, that is somebody who believes that the Delegate of a region has the say over all matters irrespective of any other governance (based on off-site forums or whatever else). Person B is not a Delegate Supremacist; I'll call them (for lack of a better term) "Government Supremacist". They believe that the Delegate is not supreme but rather that the government, usually established on an off-site forum, is supreme.

These two camps have been arguing and disagreeing since 2003. Here's my opinion. If you're a Delegate Supremacist, you're wrong. If you're a Government Supremacist, you're also wrong.

The Pacific has been operating under a Delegate Supremacy paradigm since at least August 2003 (probably before that too). The South Pacific has been operating under a Government Supremacy paradigm since early June 2003 (starting with the founding of the Coalition). The paradigms are deeply entrenched in regional culture in both cases. Both have their pros and cons, and both have worked quite well for them. TWP and TNP are another pair of regions for which the respective paradigm is entrenched and long-seated and has worked well for them.

So, tell me, dear Delegate Supremacists, why do you think it's proper for you to just ignore regional structure in favor of what is, in context, a reductionist view based on pure game mechanics? To just proclaim loudly that coups can't exist by definition, while Gameplay history is filled with discussions and battles over precisely these things (ironically, in some cases committed by the very Delegate Supremacists that are now yelling).

So, tell me, dear Government Supremacists, who says that a supreme Delegate must be, by definition, tyrannical? Or unfair? Or not conducive to democratic elements? All of these can be trivially disproven with historical context from TP and TWP. Those sociological factors that you claim that the Delegate Supremacists ignore exist just as much in a place with a Delegate Supremacy paradigm, they just manifest in a different form.

If you're a fundamentalist Delegate Supremacist or Government Supremacist, then all I can say is that you are (willfully or not) ignorant of historical context that shows that you're just as much wrong about one side as you are right about the other side. These are (mutually exclusive) paradigms for operating a founderless region, each with their pros and cons, nothing more.

These aren't fucking religions.