| Political Parties: A Discussion |
|
I don't think they're saying everyone is doing it in the sense that they are doing it right this minute, or even necessarily during a particular recent election. I think they're saying everyone has done it. You surely aren't going to deny that you have done it before.
Regardless, what is your proposal then, Belschaft? Ban political parties? Prohibit them from endorsing candidates? Isn't it time, after eight pages of discussion in which the same points have basically just been repeated, to put forward a proposal that the Assembly can either approve or reject?
No, I'm not denying that in the past I've engaged in political factionalism, nor that I've put together "blocks" of candidates. But at the same time, this time last year we all sat down and agreed to not engage in factional behaviour and try to work together for the betterment of TSP, and I've been keeping to that agreement.
My proposal is that if political horsetrading and naked factionalism is bad - and I think everyone here agrees it is bad - then we don't do it. It's that simple. Political parties keep existing, but they don't make the kind of back-room deals that they simultaneously admit is bad but defend because it's them doing it this time. I don't get how people can simultaneously condemn this kind of activity when it was a historical occurrence, but then argue for it now. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png) (02-13-2017, 04:27 PM)Belschaft Wrote: No, I'm not denying that in the past I've engaged in political factionalism, nor that I've put together "blocks" of candidates. But at the same time, this time last year we all sat down and agreed to not engage in factional behaviour and try to work together for the betterment of TSP, and I've been keeping to that agreement. I'm not sure everyone here agrees that what you're describing as "political horsetrading and naked factionalism" -- which is an exaggeration -- is bad. It appears there are some who think this is pretty par for the course in democratic politics, and that public political parties united around public platforms and with public membership rosters are a much healthier avenue for political organization than the cloak and dagger, exclusionary avenues of the past. The reason some people can condemn past events while not having a problem with current events is because they aren't the same. The equivalence being drawn is false. This is not the same thing as bringing in foreigners to stack an election so the Cabinet can ban one's political opponents. This is not the same thing as uniting around a clearly unqualified candidate who had demonstrated no commitment at all to this region just because he was not the other guy. This is not the same thing as the Cabinet plotting in secret to switch to a new regional forum in contravention of the Charter and then to ban regional security officials to prevent them from taking action to enforce the Charter. This is not subversion; this is politics of a completely normal nature. That's the difference, and it is not only possible, but healthy, to condemn past subversion while defending the normal political processes of today. If the only goal of this discussion was to apply pressure to prevent the parties from agreeing to endorse candidates so early in the future, it appears that enough members of both parties have felt that pressure and won't be interested in such endorsements in the future.
Bel, you do not want to insert your history into this debate. Nobody even needs to point out the facts about your electoral shenanigans.
Anyways, people do engage in political behavior in TSP. They do get together and form strategies during elections. They do coordinate. You guys aren't fooling anybody when you say you don't or haven't. Just own up to it. And, no, this isn't "other people do it too"-- it's "this is how politics functions." Like-minded people band together to achieve their preferred outcomes. That's democracy 101. This isn't a technocratic meritocracy. And those who decry how much of politics revolves around the personal have no room to separate themselves from it. Much of the problems in our community stem from the personal desires of powerful people-- Hileville, Tsu, yourself, me. Just because Tsu puts forward an image of the most reasonable person in the room doesn't mean he hasn't acted on personal politics, both to the benefit and detriment of the community. He knows that, deep down. The bottom line is that Tsu's or Bel's personal distaste for formalized parties doesn't make it okay for him or anybody else to start using the government to control the system. I saw this in the original draft of the Political Parties Act, which would've introduced very heavy-handed laws about when parties can still exist. It turns out my concern over the slippery slope of legislating on parties at all wasn't so overblown. I mean, ffs, I was called treasonous for creating TIL's offsite forums, when the only reason we had an offsite forum was because people didn't want party subforums here! How would you all be reacting if I counter-proposed monitoring all PM conversations and requiring candidates to submit their Discord conversations, in order to make sure that individuals aren't engaging in "electioneering" that ends up stacking an election? It would be a massive violation of democratic rights. So, too, are the ideas being espoused in this thread. Yes, it is 100% unreasonable to demand that parties stop being parties until there are more parties around. Shall we also say you aren't allowed to engage in political strategy, until there are enough people in TSP that your influence doesn't stretch far? This whole debate is f*king ridiculous and embarrassing for this region. We're supposed to front ourselves as NationStates's oldest democratic GCR government, while trying to censor people and ban assemblies, just because you don't like that they're influential? Coming from people who wield an inordinate amount of power and influence in the region, who can literally sit in their positions for years if they wanted to? Y'all telling me I need to do some soul-searching-- you need to do some of your own. Sit down and think about how our current environment was shaped by your own decisions. I took a shitty environment of forced cohabitation with people who literally conspired twice to ban me from TSP (because "unity!"), and created a party that has delivered a new Charter and new laws. We have created an incubator for new players, giving them support and a friendly environment to develop their own skills and propose ideas. APC has done the same, and goes to great lengths to attract the newest of the new. What, so far, has everybody else done? Where, exactly, are the new TSPers rising through the ranks coming from, if not APC and TIL? From where I'm standing, the people most hostile to political parties haven't done a whole lot in producing regional activity, but they're the ones now blaming parties for not picking up the slack (a job we never asked for, by the way, but have done more than anything else anyways)... (APC/TIL didn't always account for such a large percentage of the active community. And look at the LC now-- not exactly a bastion of new & upcoming players.) TIL isn't dumb, and neither are APC. We're not going to endorse before seeing campaigns anymore, if official cross-party endorsements happen at all now. Inter-party cooperation is apparently no longer worth it, since it brings the wrath of the heavens down upon us for "stacking" elections. Congrats, you've successfully chilled speech.
(02-13-2017, 01:35 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: It's not very helpful to be purposefully provocative. I'm not sure what it's supposed to "draw attention" to, aside from very anti-democratic ideas flowing about in certain quarters. Let's not forget that it was seriously proposed that offsite party forums be banned and TSPers using them be banned as well. If you were trying to be provocative but not serious, Tsu, it really says something that people are taking you seriously. If you think advocates of parties are being unreasonable, consider that we think you're being dangerously retributive when you say "let's ban parties from endorsing or setting their own rules." Who's taking me seriously beside you — who has decided to take barely anything else I've been saying seriously? The fact remains that — (a) we don't know who these parties work and (b) this cross endorsement scheme tied up a good deal of the vote. You've refused to even acknowledge that these seems shady — which is part for the course of how you've addressed this situation. Saying "people have always done it" and "it's undemocratic" doesn't change the fact of what I'm questioning. Is this how we want our parties to work? That, essentially, they're going to be oligarchies within a democratic process? If so, own that. (02-13-2017, 04:55 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: TIL isn't dumb, and neither are APC. We're not going to endorse before seeing campaigns anymore, if official cross-party endorsements happen at all now. Inter-party cooperation is apparently no longer worth it, since it brings the wrath of the heavens down upon us for "stacking" elections. Congrats, you've successfully chilled speech. This is good to hear. I anticipate one day in the future we'll have enough parties to encourage cooperation which doesn't limit the democratic process. I'm going to go be reasonable somewhere else now.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Own your own shit, too. That's all I'll say.
Sure seems that way to me. Like I said though, I don't attack the times Tsu has been strategic about elections. I do think it's really something to chastise others for it, while acting as if you've never done it yourself!
Anyways, I refer you to Cormac's last post, which completely destroys whatever credibility you have on this issue. To use your own crude metaphor-- one of us has smelly shit, the other is a whole septic tank. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've never claimed that I've never done anything dodgy in the past, or that I've made mistakes though. I own my past and my misdeeds. It's not a question of who's misdeeds outweighs the others, but rather of what kind of political environment is best for TSP.
I would submit that it is not good for TSP that political deals be struck in dark rooms, and that we divide up into squabbling factions. Decisions and debates should happen in the open, among the whole citizenry of the region. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
To be frank, y'all closed that door with the last coup and the response to it. If "squabbling factions" and divides are such a problem, people shouldn't have couped and created them!
Anyways. Plenty of debate happens in public, and indeed pretty much all of the laws TIL members have written in the past several months have been posted individually, not pre-drafted. But we're gonna reserve the right to work among ourselves when we want to. And we'll be supporting ourselves in elections, too, as we always have. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |