(08-08-2018, 09:08 AM)Roavin Wrote:

(08-08-2018, 09:04 AM)Belschaft Wrote: Strongly opposed; this fundamentally changes our system of government, and makes the separate election of Ministers redundant and incongruous.

How would you suggest I had addressed the issues in my last term then?

Gesendet von meinem SM-J320F mit Tapatalk

(08-08-2018, 10:12 AM)sandaoguo Wrote:

(08-08-2018, 09:04 AM)Belschaft Wrote: Strongly opposed; this fundamentally changes our system of government, and makes the separate election of Ministers redundant and incongruous.

The Prime Minister is elected as the leader of the Cabinet, per the Charter. When a minister’s only portolfio is “leadership,” what does that mean? Drugged Monkeys ran the Cabinet in a hands off manner. Roavin ran it highly involved in foreign affairs, where we basically had 2 MoFAs. That’s just a sample of two, which I don’t think establishes a tradition. There has been disagreement about the role of the Prime Minister in every election. It’s an open debate still. So if we codify a true leadership role, that doesn’t quite rise to the level of a fundamental change to our government.

Every cabinet in our history has had deal with this problem; of how to merge multiple political agendas and platforms into a coherent whole, and to reconcile potentially quarrelsome egos and personalities. The level of success has varied, as has the methods used. I think your earlier terms were sucessfull, but the final one less so due to the inability to reconcile the personalities.

This is no different to when the Delegate acted as head of government; in my second elected term I had problems relating to Foreign Affairs, due to my desire to take a stronger position on Lazarus than the Minister of Foreign Affairs did. I believe that history vindicated my posisition, but at the time I lost the debate on the issue. We moved on and got on with other business.

The job of our head of government has always been to reconcile these differences, and produce an effective platform for government. On occasions this has not been possible, but I don’t think we should alter the collaborative nature of our executive - which otherwise functions well, and prevents the cronyism and “yes men” we see in other GCR’s with appointed ministers - due to the minority of cases where it doesn’t work well.

Ultimately I think the reason why your last term ended up so problematic was due to political deadlock; two cabinet members vs. two cabinet members on most issues. The solution may be to create another Ministry, so that such issues would resolve themselves on a 3/2 basis.