(08-03-2022, 05:33 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: How would you suggest we change the language to fix that?

A rough draft, but something along the lines of—

(3) The Prime Minister shall, upon their election as Prime Minister, nominate other Ministers to assist in the execution of the region's government. The responsibilities and portfolio of each appointed Minister shall be at the discretion of the Prime Minister, but must collectively include, at minimum, the region's foreign affairs, military, cultural activities, and outreach and integration efforts. Before assuming office, Ministers must be confirmed by the Assembly in a vote lasting not longer than 48 hours.

(4) The Prime Minister and their appointed Ministers shall collectively form the Cabinet.

(08-03-2022, 05:33 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: Generals aren't Cabinet ministers. They're Officers in the military. Civilian oversight of the military is conducted already by the Prime Minister and the Minister appointed for military operations. From my perspective, there's no need to compromise professional military leadership and advice by adding an unnecessary layer of civilian oversight to General confirmation.

"Adding" more civilian oversight is one way to frame the issue. Another way to look at it is to note that we currently have Assembly confirmation, and this proposal would remove it. So yes, I'm not sure why this step is currently compromising our professional military leadership.

Once appointed, Generals are already insulated from the political process (and rightfully so!) by protections against unjust dismissal by the Prime Minister. There's no questions about whether they'd be reappointed when we have new Prime Ministers. And even if they're not confirmed, they can just be officers? Like, part of the "corps of Officers" that, in your proposal, would lead the military alongside the Prime Minister? In general, I'm just not sure why this is an issue of whether we compromise professional military service.

(08-03-2022, 05:33 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: I don't really think it should be required that the PM consult. I think it is likely they will. There's a key difference. Ultimately, you're overrating how important the "process of participating in discussions" is to player growth and underestimating the extent to which the Assembly will at times debate and discuss PM actions regardless.

I think it would be good practice! And I think it benefits our laws in the long run to codify reasonable best practices into law. This isn't just about player growth — there are bigger and broader differences in our viewpoints here.

To me, if I'm going to get behind an appointed Cabinet, then it at least has to be one designed as a collaborative entity. The Prime Minister chooses people they think would be able to carry out their agenda, yes, but hopefully also to hear good advice and make better decisions. As you have pointed out, maybe they'll choose someone who they believe has potential, even if that person maybe doesn't yet carry the confidence in themselves to run for office.

I don't think we should stop at "well, it's likely to happen" (or, worse, "it's possible") for everything. If we write our laws about ministers exclusively describing them carrying out government functions, that's the intent that will be captured in law.

You argued that an appointed Cabinet would make our executive more dynamic. I want a more dynamic executive too! But when I think of a dynamic executive, I think of one that generates more ideas, more actively — not just one that carries out functions of government more efficiently or responds to crises more quickly. That can come from the Prime Minister being able to implement a broader agenda, sure, but it can also come from real-time feedback from Cabinet Ministers as they implement that agenda. That doesn't preclude the Assembly debating and discussing actions taken by the Prime Minister. It just allows the Cabinet to respond to feedback faster.

Saying all of this could and likely would happen anyway is great, but I'd much prefer to see that intent down in writing. Once a proposal is adopted, that proposal becomes the law. Whatever intent we convey here will not become law.