(07-23-2022, 07:05 AM)Pronoun Wrote: 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.

This oversimplifies my points a lot. "Efficiency" is only one way of ensuring effective governance, although it is an important one. Governance is also about outreach, setting and meeting goals, ensuring next generations are available to take on leadership, and being responsive to the concerns of the citizenry. All of these are goals better accomplished via an appointment-based system, for the reasons I explained above. Of course, you acknowledge some of that later, but your broad framing of "well, you only said efficiency, and democracy > efficiency" is inaccurate.

(07-23-2022, 07:05 AM)Pronoun Wrote: 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?

1. Why should we have an 'executive' at all? Glen actually floated a proposal a while ago via Discord as a thought experiment to simply transfer all governance to the Assembly and abolish the Cabinet and the executive. Then, democracy can flourish. Ideas can flourish. Individual parts of the government can be tweaked at will. The reason not to do this is mass inefficiency and lack of a singular vision, infighting or just apathy begins to consume government, and as a result people become disengaged and apathy sets in. Of course, elected Ministers is a mid-point between these extremes, but the extreme example demonstrates that efficiency does matter.

We don't prioritize efficiency over everything. The Prime Minister should still be elected and their Ministry appointments should still have to be confirmed. The Prime Minister should also be able to be recalled for neglect, abuse of power, etc. However it's silly to say efficiency doesn't matter. The executive identifying and then accomplishing its tasks is the primary goal of the executive, otherwise there's no reason for it to exist.

2. An effective executive is key to the long-term success of the region. What is the goal here? From my perspective, the goal of everything we do is to create a South Pacific that is sovereign, strong, free, fun to be in, able to identify its own goals, and then advocate for them interregionally. Every piece of that is important. Sovereign and strong institutions bounded by liberal democratic ideas is the baseline thing that must be protected at all costs, but beyond that things are about allowing the region to not just survive but thrive. A fun region, with clearly identified goals, and the capability to advocate for them interregionally requires a unified executive, with a single agenda, and all the pieces working in unison. Right now, that is impossible. With a singular head of government, it is at least possible, and then its failure to exist can allow someone to be held accountable.

(07-23-2022, 07:05 AM)Pronoun Wrote: 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.

I think you overstate the burden that this would impose on new members. Inside of Ministries, staffers can say "what if we organized things X way". If it's an idea that is compatible with the Prime Minister's broader vision, it may get implemented! If it's not, then they have to wait for the next election when they can raise that question to Prime Ministerial candidates. There's not as many disjoints or disconnects as you think. The same step (waiting for the next election) exists under your system as well and people can still post or advocate ideas as a member of the public, regardless of if they're legislatively based.

Also, I'm considering floating an 'Assembly Committees' idea that may address some of this issue. Watch this space ™

(07-23-2022, 07:05 AM)Pronoun Wrote: 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.

This is the problem. The Prime Minister is honestly less powerful than individual Ministers because they have no authority over specific areas. They have communication responsibilities and a vague mandate to serve as head of government. But they are not actually the head of the government. They do not pick the government. They do not pick the government's agenda. They have little to no recourse if Cabinet Members do not do their jobs.

You say the Prime Minister can serve as "primus inter pares". If that's the case, the PM can be selected from within the Cabinet rather than being a separate elected position. If their role is only clerical, it does not actually need its own person in the Cabinet. Beyond that, it assumes the Cabinet should be a body of equals rather than a body with hierarchy. That introduces all of the inefficiencies we've seen weighing down TSP's executive government for years.

I also can't say I really want a political dynamic where the executive is constantly shifting blame between one another. That's internally divisive and doesn't actually accomplish things. Not to mention, it's not how the position is framed to work now, as it's in contrast to the PM as head of government or the notion of Cabinet collective responsibility.

I'll be very blunt: I have a term and a half as PM under my belt. I don't think it's too much ego to say I was a fairly strong PM, both in terms of accomplishments and in terms of my willingness and ability to use the role as a "bully pulpit" of sorts who attempts to take genuine leadership over the Cabinet. I don't know why anyone would want to be PM and I sincerely doubt I'd run again under its current set up. It's a job where you have to deal with every problem in the region but don't actually have the tools to do so. The only power you have to shape the region is to be proactive and loud in discussions and do communications and paperwork. In effect, however, you have very little power to shape the outcomes in the region during your term because you don't set the agenda or the team who will accomplish it.

We often bemoan the lack of candidates in our elections. Have we considered it's because the jobs we're electing people for aren't worth running for and therefore people don't aspire for them? No seriously. What new member of the region thinks to themselves "some day I'd like to be PM, that person seems like they get to get things done and implement their vision for the region"?

The answer is none. Because the PM is a useless toothless job in the status quo. And that fact is hurting the region's growth and ability to function.