Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jan 20, 2016 14:03:51 GMT -6
Here is a radical thought: Why should the Prime Ministry only be applicable unto Party Leaders? Why can't we think of other Members of the Cosă — or even an independent non-Ziu member? I thought it was by convention within parliamentary systems that the leader of the largest party or coalition gaining the largest support within a legislative body becomes or is appointed Prime Minister. Usually when this convention is not followed it is either during emergencies such as wartime or grand coalitions necessitated by high levels of interparty strife. In the Netherlands this is usually the case, but certainly not always. In Belgium afaik it is often not the case, but I don't know that for sure.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jan 20, 2016 14:05:35 GMT -6
It doesn't matter if a Ziu majority support any constitutional changes... until we remove the King's autocratic power. That's silly. Just look at how many changes and reforms have been implemented in the previous years, because they received the support of a (super)majority in the Ziu. Removing the Kings absolute veto power is soon going to happen anyway.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jan 20, 2016 14:20:03 GMT -6
As a dual-citizen in a land with an independently elected Executive, let me tell you it doesnt fucking work here. My fantasy conception of Parliamentary democracy is that it's better at getting people together and actually getting things done. When you're in power in a PD, you can govern. Here in the US, when you have the White House but not the Congress, all you can think to do is spend your time killing people in other countries. I thought your party was aiming to form a government even without a Ziu majority? Well anyway, I don't think the comparison to the US is very fair. The situation in the US seems to be broken in more than one way (the same goes for various parliamentary democracies as well I'm afraid, but often for different reasons.) Talossa would not neccesarily have a two party system for example, or primaries, or gerrymandered districts, all of which tends to increase polarisation in its parliament. And in the US, the president has actually more authority than the PM here already, at least in practice (PDs are usually only used for non controversial issues, personally I would be in favour of further limiting PDs actually, a framework for such legislation is in place already I think.) And the issues are very different too. War is not an issue. Budgetary issues are not nearly as divisive as in countries with a real economy. The most ideologically divisive issues here are much more (not all of it, but still) in the Zius compartment already. Money is usually one of the main roadblocks in the relationship between executive and legislative powers. Thankfully though, we do not have a lot of money. (Getting a bit sidetracked here, but I was just thinking: can anyone imagine the hell Talossan politics would be if the Ziu had say a million dollars yearly to invest? ) And, let's face it, the PM having too much time on his hands is really not a problem here either.
|
|