| Interview with Awe - Part 1 |
"Judicial reform is indeed on the cards, possibly electoral reform and the local council as well."
Interview with Awe - Part 1 Awe -short for Awesomiasa- is the Deputy Chair of the Assembly. Having become active in the South Pacific in April 2013, he has since served as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Regional Affairs and Justice of the High Court. He is also active in Treasure Island, where his nation is a member of the Southern Cooperation Organisation and the Western Alliance. He recently agreed to talk with the Southern Journal, in a two-part interview that will explore his thoughts on the current state of the region and what can be done to constantly improve. He discusses recent events at the High Court, plans for judicial and electoral reform, his experience in the roleplay arena and the dangers of one group believing it should always be in control of the government. Thanks for joining us this morning, Awe. Hello, thanks for having me here Kringle. Our average newcomer might not that all that familiar with your name, but you have been involved in the South Pacific for a while now, and have seen it change throughout the years. Indeed. While I cannot remember exactly when I got involved in TSP's off-site government, I recall it was shortly before the elections and Milo's coup. More specifically, 2 GCs [Great Councils] prior. I would like to begin by discussing a topic that was the source of much controversy a few weeks ago, the High Court. Some say it has recently become more dismissive of proper procedure, others say that it was never an effective branch of government. Do you think the Court is in good shape? As a former Justice, I would agree that the manner in which the Court handled the appeals process and the resulting aftermath of the Legal Question that you had submitted was disheartening and deviant from proper procedure. The Court is regarded as the authority to interpret and enforce the law. However, this would definitely not be the case when sitting Justices brazenly run afoul of procedures. In terms of being an effective branch of government, however, it still has a long way to go. I am happy that under the term of former Chief Justice Farengeto, the other Justices and I have codified a set of Rules and Procedures for the High Court. In particular, the section on the Principles of the High Court and its Justices would be something I will defend that must always be upheld. Unfortunately, the Court under former Chief Justice TAC had failed in that aspect. In the long term, I do believe that the Court does have the ability to become a respectable branch of government, but it is only with competent Justices, well-versed in TSP's laws and legal processes, and the support of the community to desire for a independent, sovereign judiciary that this can be made possible. I will acknowledge at this point in time that the previous attempt at reform of the High Court with regards to the High Court Charter has failed, mainly because it was non-consultative and perhaps controversial, but I do believe that further reforms that will be undertaken by CoA Farengeto, in conjunction with current Justices will take a more consultative approach. With regards to whether the Court is in good shape, I must say that I lack confidence in the current bench of Justices, whom have shown that they are rather incapable of adhering to the laws and rules that they are supposed to uphold. Of course, part of this lies in the fact that our Justices are popularly elected at present, rather than elected based upon their judicial expertise, which only led to campaign slogans for 'a shiny new gavel', obviously only fulfilling the popularity aspect, while lacking judicial expertise. You raise an interesting point. I assume from the above that you believe the current environment in the region is not conductive towards an unbiased legal profession. What kind of changes, both in terms of our laws and our mindset as a region, do you think are necessary to improve the state of our judiciary? This is where I suppose perhaps that we can take a leaf out of the book of other regions, and perhaps publish a series of essays or commentaries from various respected individuals in the region that could help shape the foundations for the judiciary, given that the judiciary's functions have only been expanded not too long ago with the addition of the power to answer Legal Questions. With little materials and past cases to refer to, I suppose it may be viable idea to use these essays or past cases in other regions as a point of reference, albeit factoring in the differences between respective judicial systems. Furthermore, it is rather unfortunate that my plans for a judicial academy of some description did not come to fruition, given that it would possibly make a good breeding ground to build up on the legal expertise of the judiciary and other legal professionals. With regards to the region, I'd reiterate the need to respect the independence of the judiciary, to accept that the judiciary will rule on the legal basis of what is set out in law, albeit I'd admit that Justices, myself included, have failed in this aspect on some occasions. That is to say that, one should not expect the judiciary to rule in one's favour, and respect the decision of the judiciary, as is outlined in the section on Principles in the Rules and Procedures. What would your idea for a judicial academy have involved? A few prominent TSPers in the legal field would perhaps need to draft articles and commentaries that will help shape the foundations of the judiciary, given that TSP's judiciary had only expanded its powers not too long ago with Legal Questions, thus we'd have little in terms of legal basis and precedent to follow. Perhaps we'd need 'lecturers' as well, on common judicial principles like reasonable doubt and the rule of law. People who graduate from the academy shall be admitted to a TSP Bar Association, which certifies their legal expertise. The Bar Association shall be where TSPers implicated in a criminal case can seek legal representation from, that is to say, legal professionals must be certified by the Bar Association. The Bar Association might also serve as a sort of ethics and accountability committee, serving a similar function to the General Corps in the SPSF. There will be 3 classes of graduates from the Bar Association: Paralegals: normal people; Barristers: Lawyers/attorneys; and Judges. Nothing about the Bar Association and the Judicial Academy is set in stone yet, but I want to know what the community thinks. You served as Justice under the Farengeto Court. How would you describe the interactions between Justices, when considering legal questions? I'd say that we had similar opinions most of the time, otherwise the Justices managed to convince each other to lean towards a certain opinion. I drafted most of the judgement texts, seeing that the other Justices were busy. Unfortunately, this includes the infamous Apologies case, where I had to help draft the initial judgement as well as the resulting appeal as a result of the Justices not being available, which was regrettable as it did not follow procedures, although Farengeto approved it. The resulting appeal, however, was obviously a mistake on my part as I did not bother to run the text past my fellow Justices, as I would normally have done, which resulted in some backlash even from the Chief Justice. You handled the appeal to a ruling you had drafted? Yes, through basically summarising the opinions of my fellow Justices, in no way was I directly involved in the case until that point. On hindsight, this was probably not the best decision. Given the recent controversy surrounding Apad, I suppose I will have to submit myself for public scrutiny as well. Should any individual wish to level charges of Miscarriage of Justice against me, they should be within their rights to do so, and I will attend to any proceedings that may follow. Do you feel this affects your position to be criticising Apad, or does the experience reinforce your authority on the matter? I think the experience reinforces my authority, Kris. I know some might think of this as being hypocritical, but at the same time, it is through past mistakes that we improve and have foresight for the future. I do regret what was done, but it was perhaps a necessity considering the circumstances at that time, as well as the need as enshrined in law for 'a timely response'. Still, I’d like to reiterate my point that I submit myself for public and judicial scrutiny, should any individual wish to level charges against me. What do you think differentiates your experience from what Apad did? I'm obviously not entirely clear of the circumstances under which Apad became involved, nor the extent to which he was involved. However, on my end, I can say that I only was involved in drafting the text for the judgement. At no point in time was I involved in forming an opinion towards the issue, that being the work of my colleagues. All four Justices in the current Court are entirely new to it. Do you have any advice for them? In terms of advice, I'd say read and understand the High Courts rules and procedures, and do not run afoul of it, as some of them have already done, whether intentionally or otherwise. There is zero tolerance for hijinks, games and politics in such an important institution, and I hope they know better and do nothing that may dishonour the sanctity of the institution. If I am being critical of the Justices, it is because that is how it is. As Justices, we live by the rules, and we should also defend them to the death, and I hope they'd understand and appreciate this. I now want to move on to your tenure as Deputy Chair of the Assembly. You have been incredibly active in that position, as opposed to former Deputy Chairs. Indeed, I'm just helping Farengeto tie up loose ends. But I'll not be as active in the months ahead, unfortunately, due to RL commitments. I have offered to resign the position, however, Farengeto had rejected my resignation, so I might still pop by from time to time. Especially with regards to the reform of the Charter and Judiciary, which I am immensely passionate about. What kind of relationship do you have with Farengeto? Do you just manage votes in his absence, or do you also discuss with him issues on the legislative agenda? Both actually. I had advised him to lock threads that were getting heated previously. We have also began discussions upon Charter and Judicial reform, although I'd say that we haven’t made much progress in that aspect. Moving forward, I'd want to assist him in completing these reforms, as it'd bring substantial change to the TSP community. In a recent issue, SPINN suggested that a Great Council might be held soon, and then described the various topics that might be on the agenda. How accurate was it? We've actually considered a Great Council, but decided against it, as we did not want the issues of the GC to dominate this term of the Assembly. However, I can confirm that judicial reform is indeed on the cards, possibly electoral reform and the local council as well. Although I must point out that I do not think issues with the forum administration will be appropriate to discuss as part of a GC. Still, being in-charge of a institution with long standing democratic traditions, I believe that neither Farengeto nor I will seek to prevent the occurrence of a session of the Great Council should it be the will of members of the community. Have there been any inner discussions on what those reforms could look like? Not at this time. At least, not for the other reform efforts, other than judicial reform. I have also conveyed the ideas to Feirmont, who is supportive of them. Part 2 of this interview will be published on Friday. In it Awe will describe his experiences as part of the roleplay community and his thoughts on what the South Pacific can do to be a successful region. Disclaimer: Southern Journal does not necessarily share the views or opinions, nor endorse the actions or suggestions, contained or otherwise described in this interview. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
*throws up hands and storms off*
Darkstrait :ninja:
Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek "Hats is very fashion this year."
I think a Great Council is necessary. It's unfortunate that Farengeto doesn't feel that way, but I think that may have a lot to do with him lacking the time to put a lot of attention into it. The great thing is that Great Councils are a community event-- they don't rely on the government to be held.
We really do need wholesale change of our laws and constitution. Perhaps even how we construct our government altogether.
(08-27-2015, 12:31 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: We really do need wholesale change of our laws and constitution. Perhaps even how we construct our government altogether. How so? I'm not inherently opposed to the idea, I'm just curious about what change you have in mind that couldn't be done while also keeping the current structure in place. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
I think there are too many holes in our laws and Charter-- it's a patchwork quilt. And I think that's in part because we weren't ambitious enough with the last Great Council. We operated under the assumption that we would keep the Charter and Code of Laws. But it would be good for the region, in my opinion, to create something totally new. Like the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution in the US.
I also think it's worth reconsidering the structure of our government. Changes in how the judiciary works and is selected. Clarification of the Cabinet as a collective body. Maybe even debate moving towards a prime minister system. I just think our existing laws and constitution have proven to be lower quality than what we expect, and that an opportunity to change the government for a new era is a good idea.
One idea I've always found interesting is the idea that the Delegate does not necessarily have to be the head of government.
Darkstrait :ninja:
Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek "Hats is very fashion this year."
I don't think we need a GC and I think we've kinda lost the point of a GC. A GC should be a rare event and it should be sweeping in nature and urgent in its need.
A GC should not be used for a minor reform or as a means to get the region active. I think that's s mistake. We can have major debates in the assembly about these topics without a GC. I don't really think there is anything wrong with our system that it needs to be scrapped right now.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
That's the thing SB-- I think we need radical change. The last Great Council was purposefully limited in its scope, because the only real agenda item was trying to get through a bicameral legislature. Everything else was secondary to the people holding it, which is why it was so strictly structured.
I don't think the regular amendment process is where we should be making the kinds of radical changes I think we should make. And that's partly because I think we should redo the Charter and Code of Laws altogether. The great thing about Great Councils is that starting one doesn't need majority support. But once one is started, the ideas start flowing and debate starts happening.
I don't know if it's what we need, I'm willing to consider it because the way our system is functioning is not working for our regional culture.
I think every person who has been here long term can agree this is becoming a major problem and maybe a system focusing on more collective rule could change that. Everytime there are strong decisions that are made without community input this region becomes toxic. It doesn't matter what the decision is, and I am even a party to this. Just examples off hand. When Hile banned Unibot, when we had the admin shake up, Milograds Parole, how Bel's situation was handled. The recent court decision. Every time this happened this made the region toxic for extended periods of time and not people are leaving over it. What to all of these have in common? They are decisions by minority that impacts the majority, and people feel disenfranchised over them. Then the people who made the decision feel defensive. It's all normal behavior. I feel like I've seen more ideas than I ever have in TSP recently, yet almost no discussions. People are almost talking at each other and not with each other, and I feel that this has to do again with our system where if you lose an election you have no involvement with your favorite part of TSP. The winner dictates if you can even be involved. Call me crazy, but we've had much more bitter arguments in this region in the assembly that once everything was voted on, people dropped the issue because they accepted it as a community decision. This may not be the answer to this but I don't think we need a cabinet or justice system as we have it now. I think we need to take the CSS as an example of how we can do foreign affairs. Where we nominate committees to handle relations, and the assembly has to approve it. Yes things will be a little slower and it's just a shell of an idea, but I think it would help this region remember we are a community first and a government second and actually put us on a path of shared purpose.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
I seriously don't think empowering the Assembly even more is the answer. In the end some decisions just have to be swift and not necessarily approved by the whole region. We elect an executive body because we need one, and while it is legitimate to criticise its decisions (yes, it is legitimate), we can't call for greater anarchy whenever politicians do what politicians do.
Toxicity is part of the political process. We can diminish it, we can talk to people and try to keep it at a minimum, but I think it is being portrayed as a bigger problem than it already is. You said it yourself, SB. We have this big arguments when there is a big decision being taken. However, we are not in a permanent state of toxicity, nor is our whole government dysfunctional. We need to improve where improvement is needed, but without making it sound like we are in a terrible shape, because we really aren't. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should keep the region out of all big decisions, nor am I saying we should let toxic arguments run their course. I'm all for political accountability and civil debate. However, in the end we just need to remember that this is a political simulation, and that involves some trade offs. We will have to let an executive branch make certain decisions, and we will see from time to time toxicity in our legislature. As long as that doesn't become a regular thing (which it isn't), then we need to be calm and see things in perspective. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
RP Info
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |