[DRAFT] Protecting Republics and Monarchies

Daarwyrth

In light of Imperium Anglorum’s proposal draft on the forums to unceremoniously split up countries that are anything but a purely ceremonial monarchy, I have come up with the following draft for a proposal that will hopefully thwart that. I have no idea what category this would fit in, so please do offer comments and remarks on that! Of course, all feedback is welcome, as always 🙂

—

Protecting Republics and Monarchies

Category: Political Stability(?) | Strength: Significant(?)

Celebrating the diverse nature of member nations by recognising the right of member states to organise their system of government as either a republic or a monarchy; and

Adamant that this precious and unique diversity among the member nations of this august body should be encouraged to flourish and prosper;

The General Assembly hereby:

Describes for the purposes of this resolution:

a. a ‘monarch’ as a crowned individual who either only reigns over a sovereign territory, or also rules over it with varying degrees of strength of that rule; and

b. a ‘republic’ as a form of government where a monarch is not the head of state; and

c. a ‘monarchy’ as a form of government where a monarch is the head of state;
Reserves the right to member nations to freely practice and maintain their preferred form of government as either a republic or a monarchy, without interference from other member states or future legislation regarding republics and monarchies as forms of government, and within the confines of World Assembly resolutions,
Clarifies that the right reserved under Clause 2 also applies to a member nation freely changing its form of government from a monarchy to a republic, or vice versa, should there be a national will to do so,
Declares that member states are not allowed to discriminate against other members nations or states outside the World Assembly on the basis of their form of government as either a republic or a monarchy,
Requires member states to allow their citizens to freely express their thoughts and opinions as well as vote or protest in accordance with them, regarding the organisation of a member nation’s system of government as either a republic or a monarchy, and within the confines of World Assembly resolutions,
Strongly recommends that member nations continue to celebrate the diverse nature of this international body by maintaining and promoting the rights granted and reserved by the Articles of this Resolution.

Middle Barael

For Article 3, I would recommend changing the wording from “act upon them” to “vote or protest in accordance with them”

Sayin “act upon them” sounds sort of ominous and may be taken in the wrong way to mean that you are promoting monarchist or republican uprisings or grey markets etc

Daarwyrth

Middle Barael

Done! Thank you for catching that one, as I agree your proposed phrasing sounds much better!

As a general comment, I’m also contemplating changing up Clauses 2 and 3, and the use the category Civil Rights and strength Mild. Would that work to solve the issue of categorising this?

Daarwyrth

I’ve made a few changes to the draft, and also included a new Clause 3. I think this could fit under Political Stability with a Significant strength, but I’m open to suggestions!

EDIT: Albeit I do admit I am starting to doubt whether there would be any sense in trying to put forward this particular draft, so I am not sure whether I will be going through with this.

Bananaistan

It’s a hard call in fairness.

But there are factors in favour. Tinhampton intends to full poison well regarding electoral proposals. If she has a submission and at vote of a slightly edited version of the current at vote in short order, I can’t see it passing. Voter fatigue is a thing and I believe is already evident in the increased margin of defeat of this version versus the first. If a third gets to vote and fails by an even bigger margin, I believe voters will be receptive to a blocker, while most GAers do not seem to like IA’s current bs proposal.

Speaking of blockers, what would you and others think of adding an election blocker to this?

I tried but failed numerous times to get such a blocker passed - hiding it here might be workable. OTOH it might only increase opposition.

Daarwyrth

Bananaistan

If there would be a way to add in a blocker into the resolution base that way on this topic, I am willing to try it out that way 🙂

And as to an election blocker, I am more than willing to consider it and hear out your idea. I do think after Tin’s proposals there will be indeed a bit of voter fatigue regarding that subject, but if there is a way to cleverly work something into this, I am all ears.

Ninvoth-Times

Do you mind explaining what a blocker is?

Daarwyrth

Ninvoth-Times

A blocker is essentially a Clause or article that prevents future legislation from being passed on the subject. For example, if I passed this resolution before Imperium Anglorum submitted his proposal on monarchical inheritance, he would not be able to pass his law, because his proposal would contradict existing WA legislation.

That’s how I understood blockers to work, at least. As Imperium Anglorum pointed out on the NS forums, I’m not that well-versed yet in the workings of the WA 🙂