Apologies for the delay.

(08-04-2022, 12:06 AM)Pronoun Wrote: "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.

From my perspective, in the status quo, Generals are an office with their own power and authority. Their power is actually not derived from any other official who is subject to public oversight or accountability because the General Corps is an autonomous entity with its own decision making prerogatives. Furthermore, right now, Generals are a political office that a Commander of the SPSF can hold.

In the proposal as made, Generals are simply a rank. They're the rank above Officer, for the more experienced and trusted members of the SPSF, but they are ultimately just staff position underneath the Prime Minister, who is subject to public oversight.

(08-04-2022, 12:06 AM)Pronoun Wrote: 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.

I am against making the Cabinet a collective instrument of government which must discuss matters. The Prime Minister needs to be the leader of the region. They will use the Cabinet collaboratively, but if it is about intent, then I'm opposed to an intent which makes the "Cabinet" a deliberative or decision-making body under law, rather than just in practice.

All the things you talk about (i.e. plans being adjusted on the fly, the PM consulting others, etc.), aren't just likely to still happen, they are certain to still happen. The PM will want their agenda to work, so will take input on their agenda from the Cabinet. Similarly, the PM will circulate drafts and debate major decisions internally within the Cabinet. It's going to happen. If it is about perception, then creating the perception they should consult is something I object to, because the Cabinet is an agent of the Prime Minister's will, who is themselves an agent of the citizenry's will. Anything else is the same broken system we have now.

Like, if there's widespread support for this compromise and it will actually result in some "yes" votes, I'm willing to implement. But if it's an attempt to get me to put a skewed 2012-era gameplay philosophy of collective leadership and infinite consultation into a proposal for streamlined executive government with genuine leadership (as opposed to the pathetic and toothless excuse for a Prime Minister position we have now) and then people are still planning to vote "no" on the proposal, I'll skip it. It's reducing how responsive government is to the Prime Minister's agenda in a way that does not actually increase public accountability.