(07-22-2022, 09:54 PM)HumanSanity Wrote:

(07-19-2022, 02:14 AM)Pronoun Wrote: It doesn't seem like there have been significant arguments put forth in favor of an elected Cabinet, so I wanted to lay out a few of mine.

Let's fix that, shall we.

Well, first of all, I am glad you fixed it

If you'll forgive me for oversimplifying a bit, almost all of your points seem to coalesce around a desire for a more efficient executive. An unified agenda... so the Cabinet can operate more efficiently. More flexible structure... so the Cabinet can operate more efficiently. A faster process for replacing Ministers... so the Cabinet can operate more efficiently. See where I'm going?

Your response to my concerns about emphasizing efficiency over democracy addresses the democracy aspect, but doesn't particularly extoll the virtues of efficiency either. Why is efficiency in particular such a critical virtue for the executive to hold? Why is it so important that the executive always have a comprehensive, singularly-defined agenda to accomplish as effectively as possible? I know it all looks good on paper, but the same could be said of many other virtues. Why this one in particular?

To lay out some of my hesitations with embracing efficiency as our primary goal with the executive, I'll refer back to my previous example of a newcomer who discovers an interest in a particular area of government. They start getting involved, they start forming their own ideas, and they start voicing them. And... then what? Suck up to the Prime Minister? Start criticizing them publicly? There's no direct link between each Ministry and the Assembly. Members of each ministry are held accountable by the Minister, who is held accountable by the Prime Minister, who is held accountable by the Assembly. An appointment system creates an additional level of hierarchy, which one may argue is necessary for more efficient government, but it's another layer of hierarchy that people and ideas have to go through.

An appointed Cabinet implies a top-down mindset, built around established figures: the Assembly elects someone for their overall vision, and that person fills out the rest of their structure from top to bottom. An elected Cabinet implies a bottom-up mindset, built around newer figures: the Assembly elects people for their ideas in a specific area, and those people work together as the Cabinet.

When our newcomer finds themselves at the bottom of a top-down system, their options get limited. They can hope to get plucked out of obscurity and get the kind of mentorship that an elected Cabinet structure can't provide. Or maybe they can go and criticize the Prime Minister in the Assembly, in the hopes that someone else eyeing the Prime Minister position will take note and remember them if they're elected. But you know what's much harder to do? Take their case to the Assembly themselves. They can't simply go to the Assembly, lay out their ideas, and explain why they are the best candidate to lead their ministry. And they can't simply legislate some changes to how their ministry operates, lest that defeat the entire purpose of giving the Prime Minister such broad leeway to determine how ministries are run.

One might argue this is for the better. A newcomer like this might be well-intentioned, but have little understanding of how their particular area of interest is actually interlinked with many other parts of government. And so what? If you ask me, it's much better to let them get more involved and gain more exposure to other aspects of our region than to simply tell them to go get more involved elsewhere first. Only one of these approaches develops interest organically. And don't get me wrong — I do believe that the way some of our ministries are organized are fundamentally flawed. That doesn't mean codifying our ministries into law is a recipe for disunified government. I just think that not every South Pacifican has detailed views for comprehensive government. But our newcomer might be taking their first step towards developing the broader and deeper understanding of regional politics that will lead to a more comprehensive perspective.

Democracy is about more than accountability. It's about ideas. Democracy may be kept in check by voters holding their elected officials accountable, but it's powered by the ideas those voters put forth and, especially here in our community, by those voters being willing to take a leap and seek election themselves.

A more 'grassroots' (I'm using the term a bit broadly, I admit) approach doesn't mean the Prime Minister has no meaningful job. They get to be responsible for "the overall coordination of executive activities, being a liaison between the government and the community, and protecting the Coalition!" No. I'm kidding. I admit that our current Charter can be a bit... unhelpful. But the Prime Minister does have a bully pulpit, a means to make themselves heard. You mention that oftentimes, "we say the buck stops with the PM." But the Prime Minister doesn't have to accept that. If there's anything that the number of people supporting an appointed Cabinet should show, it's that people recognize a primus inter pares may not hold much more power de jure than their counterparts. But it is also true that the Prime Minister holds the greatest visibility in the Cabinet. If they answer to the Assembly most directly, there's no obligation to defend every the work of their Cabinet in every aspect. They can report on the performance of different parts of government and provide insight, from their uniquely high-level perspective, to inform the Assembly of the overall state of the executive. Sometimes, that may include a ministry that is slipping, or a minister who is pursuing their own ideas perhaps a bit too stubbornly without consulting others. It's not a reflection on the Prime Minister — the interplay between ministries is something the Prime Minister is uniquely positioned to understand, and their insight can and should provide valuable insight into Assembly discussions.