The whole point of us writing it into the Charter is so that we can cement it for future generations. I'm glad you recognized that, Belschaft. Because that's exactly what I want to happen. The question is, what exactly do we want the future to look like? What kinds of people and alliances will help preserve the democracy, yes, democracy, of the Coalition for years to come?

I'm pretty sure it ain't the ones whose whole existence is based on infiltrating, securing power, and overthrowing lawful regimes to install their own dictatorships. I'm also kinda tired of the word "undemocratic" being thrown around as a response to a proposal someone doesn't like. If the legal democracy of the Coalition votes to approve an amendment to the Charter that says the South Pacific is defender, then it is indeed a democratic proposal.

But I know where this is coming from on another level, so I'll return to what I said before that. Historically, defenders and defender regions have been champions of democracy and self-determination. They've been stable and true to their word. They reach out and protect regions when they're in trouble instead of aiding plots to overthrow them for a laugh. So in that sense, it's undemocratic for us not to write it into the Charter.

And to your point about a Cabinet in two years, that's actually another reason we should write it into the Charter. If we make it clear and legally binding that we are defenders and that's the policy we pursue, then I think it would lessen the chance that we get a Cabinet that doesn't want to adhere to those values. The kind of people we attract into government and activity is just as important for the stability of the region. Attracting disinterested folk and folk who go around subverting regions for a laugh doesn't seem like something we're interested in doing.

Idk, I guess I'm just of the opinion that TSP should be the good guys here.