Constitutional Review

[Cormac]

The State Code of Osiris has served as our constitution for three months now and we've had a chance to experience how most of it will work in practice. Some of these experiences have led to amendments both minor and major, but I thought it might be a good idea to have a full review of the State Code and see if there are any other changes we think would be beneficial to the region.

Here are some questions for consideration, though if anyone has anything else to bring up feel free. These are just some suggested food for thought:

• Are we satisfied with how the State Code is organized, or would we prefer a system like Balder's, as an example, in which the constitution is separated into multiple, shorter laws that have constitutional status?
• Are we satisfied with the Executive overall, the Pharaoh serving as Head of State, Head of Government, and WA Delegate? Would we prefer to separate any of these roles into another office?
• Now that we have abolished the Executive participation requirements for the Deshret, should we further define the role of the Vizier in the State Code or should we leave that to the discretion of each Pharaoh/Vizier team?
• Are we satisfied with the Hedjet? Should Scribes of the Hedjet be more or less autonomous than they are now? Should we have an elected Hedjet?
• Are we satisfied with the Atef? Should Guardians of the Atef continue to be appointed and confirmed or should they be elected? Are we satisfied with the Atef's endorsement limit, 66% of the Pharaoh's endorsement count of ten less than the Vizier, whichever is lower?
• Are we satisfied with challenge elections for the Pharaoh or should we implement scheduled elections? Should the Pharaoh's term -- either under the challenge system or scheduled elections -- remain at three months or should it be shorter or longer?
• If we do maintain challenge elections, are we satisfied with them or are there ways we could improve that system?
• Are we satisfied with a directly democratic Deshret that is open to all citizens or would we prefer a representative Deshret comprised of elected legislators?
• If we continue to have a directly democratic Deshret, are we satisfied with the way in which citizens are admitted to the Deshret, i.e., acceptance or rejection by the Keeper which can then be put to a vote of the full Deshret if any Councilor moves for a vote?
• Are we satisfied with Elders of the Pschent being appointed by the Pharaoh and confirmed by the Deshret for an unlimited term of office, or would we prefer elected Elders? Would we prefer an alternative judicial system altogether?
• Are we satisfied with the Attorney General (Scribe of Seshat/Justice) being appointed by the Pharaoh and confirmed by the Deshret, with the ability of the Pharaoh to remove the Scribe from office, or would we prefer an elected Attorney General? If we maintain appointment, should we remove the Pharaoh's ability to remove the Scribe of Justice from office?
• Are we satisfied with the limited requirements for attaining citizenship in Section 6 of the State Code? Should more citizenship requirements be defined in the State Code or should we continue to leave such requirements to statute?
• Are we satisfied with the rights of citizens? Should any rights be added? Should any rights be restricted or removed?
• Are we satisfied with the broad power granted to forum administration to choose administrators and to enforce the forum terms of use and service? Is the limited review of ToS enforcement granted to the Pschent sufficient?
• Are we satisfied with the process for amending the State Code? Should the Pharaoh continue to have veto power over amendments? Should the Deshret continue to be able to pass amendments on its own, or should amendments be put to all citizens in a referendum?

There we go! I hope others will contribute their thoughts and I will contribute my own over the next couple of days.

[Vaculatestar]

I am satisfied with all of those items except I would like to see amendments be put to a public referendum.

[War Wombat]

I think more rights should be added, because you can almost never have too many rights

[Severisen Montresor]

Now that we have abolished the Executive participation requirements for the Deshret, should we further define the role of the Vizier in the State Code or should we leave that to the discretion of each Pharaoh/Vizier team?

I say leave it to the team. I would like the Deshret to establish a clear line of succession, however.

Are we satisfied with the Hedjet? Should Scribes of the Hedjet be more or less autonomous than they are now? Should we have an elected Hedjet?

I would not like an elected Hedjet. The Pharaoh needs the ability to choose the team he/she will work best with.

Are we satisfied with the Atef? Should Guardians of the Atef continue to be appointed and confirmed or should they be elected? Are we satisfied with the Atef's endorsement limit, 66% of the Pharaoh's endorsement count of ten less than the Vizier, whichever is lower?

I think there should be a codified minimum number of Atef. The endorsement limits are fine. I think I would like to see an elected Atef, if only because they do provide a check against the Pharaoh, and if appointed by him/her may not serve their purpose.


Are we satisfied with challenge elections for the Pharaoh or should we implement scheduled elections? Should the Pharaoh's term -- either under the challenge system or scheduled elections -- remain at three months or should it be shorter or longer?

Having participated in one, I think the system needs reform. I get the three month term, because three months can be a long time with an ineffective government. On the other hand, it can disrupt the flow of a really effective government. So I thought about a new system. Like sports figures who get an "extension" on their contracts. Perhaps we could elect a Pharaoh to a minimum three month term. At the end of that time, automatically, a vote of confidence is called. Should the vote go his/her way, the Pharaoh gets three more months. This could either go on indefinitely, or have term limits imposed. If the vote goes against, then nominations/declarations and elections go on as scheduled. And idea that would allow an effective Pharaoh to continue his/her work, and would be less confrontational than the current system.

I was in favor of the challenge system when we designed it, because that's the atmosphere we had back then. Founded in war. Challenge seemed natural. I don't know that we're in that frame of mind anymore.


Are we satisfied with a directly democratic Deshret that is open to all citizens or would we prefer a representative Deshret comprised of elected legislators?

On one hand, an elected Deshret would encourage activity. On the other, I think our system is pretty nice, since it has been reformed. I'm ambivalent.

If we continue to have a directly democratic Deshret, are we satisfied with the way in which citizens are admitted to the Deshret, i.e., acceptance or rejection by the Keeper which can then be put to a vote of the full Deshret if any Councilor moves for a vote?

I see it as pretty fair.


Are we satisfied with Elders of the Pschent being appointed by the Pharaoh and confirmed by the Deshret for an unlimited term of office, or would we prefer elected Elders? Would we prefer an alternative judicial system altogether?

I'm not sure about the unlimited term in office.

Are we satisfied with the Attorney General (Scribe of Seshat/Justice) being appointed by the Pharaoh and confirmed by the Deshret, with the ability of the Pharaoh to remove the Scribe from office, or would we prefer an elected Attorney General? If we maintain appointment, should we remove the Pharaoh's ability to remove the Scribe of Justice from office?

I do like the idea of an elected AG.

Are we satisfied with the limited requirements for attaining citizenship in Section 6 of the State Code? Should more citizenship requirements be defined in the State Code or should we continue to leave such requirements to statute?

I go back and forth. I'd like to see forum activity as a requirement, but how many posts/month is reasonable?

Are we satisfied with the broad power granted to forum administration to choose administrators and to enforce the forum terms of use and service? Is the limited review of ToS enforcement granted to the Pschent sufficient?

I think forum administration should be more or less left alone.

Are we satisfied with the process for amending the State Code? Should the Pharaoh continue to have veto power over amendments? Should the Deshret continue to be able to pass amendments on its own, or should amendments be put to all citizens in a referendum?

I feel like the veto power is good, and the current Deshret set up I would say it is fine as is. If the Deshret becomes elected, then a referendum would be preferable.


Thanks for spearheading this movement, Cormac. It's important to visit these issues regularly as we grow as a region and discover what works or does not work.

[Charles Cerebella]

I'm not a fan of a challenge system. It is inherently confrontational and divisive. Scheduled elections provide certainty and can allow political debate take place in a more structured format and make it much less personal.

That aside I'm quite content with what we have now elsewhere.

[Cormac]

Now that we've got confirmation of the Pharaoh's appointments underway, I want to give my thoughts on the questions I posed:

Are we satisfied with how the State Code is organized, or would we prefer a system like Balder's, as an example, in which the constitution is separated into multiple, shorter laws that have constitutional status?

I think a system like Balder's may be preferable. The State Code has already become very lengthy, but we keep finding areas that we think should be further clarified or fleshed out. I think we've hesitated to flesh out those areas to avoid making the entire document so long it's unreasonable. If we divide parts of the constitution into separate laws, that allows us to flesh out each section more fully without making one, gigantic document that is difficult for citizens to read and to find what they're looking for.

Are we satisfied with the Executive overall, the Pharaoh serving as Head of State, Head of Government, and WA Delegate? Would we prefer to separate any of these roles into another office?

I'm mostly satisfied with the Executive. I don't think we should divide the roles of Head of State/Delegate from Head of Government. That may end up working very well for Balder, but Balder has a historically very different political culture than we have -- one that is much more consistent with the political cultures of monarchist UCRs. Osiris, by contrast, has had a somewhat contentious political culture and despite calling our Delegate the Pharaoh we have always been a solidly republican region. I don't think a transition to a monarchist dual executive system would be an organic transition and I think it would be problematic.

Now that we have abolished the Executive participation requirements for the Deshret, should we further define the role of the Vizier in the State Code or should we leave that to the discretion of each Pharaoh/Vizier team?

I think, unless we find that we have Viziers who are frozen out of meaningful roles in the Executive, we should leave this to the discretion of each Pharaoh/Vizier team. There really is no role to give the Vizier that wouldn't transfer some of another official's power to the Vizier, such as making the Vizier chair of the Atef or making the Vizier the presiding officer of the Deshret. I think our system is already working well in this regard and doesn't need a change.

Are we satisfied with the Hedjet? Should Scribes of the Hedjet be more or less autonomous than they are now? Should we have an elected Hedjet?

I think Scribes have the right level of autonomy now. They can choose their own deputies, thus allowing them some autonomy over the management of their department, but the Pharaoh can remove Scribes that are inactive or taking things in the wrong direction. The Pharaoh should be firmly in control of the Executive's direction, while allowing Scribes some degree of autonomy in implementation.

Are we satisfied with the Atef? Should Guardians of the Atef continue to be appointed and confirmed or should they be elected? Are we satisfied with the Atef's endorsement limit, 66% of the Pharaoh's endorsement count of ten less than the Vizier, whichever is lower?

I don't think an elected Atef is a good choice. I do think it may be beneficial to have periodic re-confirmations for Guardians of the Atef so that the Deshret can take a look at how Guardians are performing, though the Deshret already has the power to recall Guardians so mandatory re-confirmation may be an unnecessary step. I would be interested in hearing others' thoughts on this.

Are we satisfied with challenge elections for the Pharaoh or should we implement scheduled elections? Should the Pharaoh's term -- either under the challenge system or scheduled elections -- remain at three months or should it be shorter or longer?

The challenge system has already proven too confrontational and controversial. We've tried it, and I think we've found it detrimental to our political culture. It encourages an incumbent Pharaoh to take a challenge personally and for the same reason discourages others who may be interested in running for Pharaoh from doing so, which leads to political stagnation. I would favor scheduled elections with three month terms and a term limit of four terms, which is more than generous as a term limit -- we shouldn't have a Pharaoh serving for more than one year.

If we do maintain challenge elections, are we satisfied with them or are there ways we could improve that system?

I'm not in favor of retaining them at all, and I don't have any suggestions for improving them. The Pharaoh's suggestion of mandatory confidence votes may be workable, but that is still somewhat confrontational -- it would require the Deshret to vote no confidence in order to trigger an election, which has the potential to at best hurt and at worst anger an incumbent -- and I'm not sure it provides any benefit that scheduled elections wouldn't also provide without the confrontational drawback. If proponents of challenge elections have other suggestions I would be interested in hearing them.

Are we satisfied with a directly democratic Deshret that is open to all citizens or would we prefer a representative Deshret comprised of elected legislators?

I think this system has its issues, including that most Councilors thus far don't seem interested in actually drafting legislation. I also think that more elections could lead to more political interest in the region. On the other hand, I personally witnessed the stagnation of and lack of interest in the elected Sepatarchy under the KRO. We had trouble filling seats, let alone having competitive elections. It seems to me that Osiris has never been a region all that interested in legislation, and that this system actually lends itself better to those circumstances than an elected system. Those who are interested in legislating can do so under this system, but the system is more open and any citizen who wants a vote and a say gets that. This system also eliminates the problem of finding people to fill an artificially mandated number of elected seats.

If we continue to have a directly democratic Deshret, are we satisfied with the way in which citizens are admitted to the Deshret, i.e., acceptance or rejection by the Keeper which can then be put to a vote of the full Deshret if any Councilor moves for a vote?

I think our current system will probably work well. I would like to at least try it for a while, given that we just implemented it, before making any changes.

Are we satisfied with Elders of the Pschent being appointed by the Pharaoh and confirmed by the Deshret for an unlimited term of office, or would we prefer elected Elders? Would we prefer an alternative judicial system altogether?

I'm increasingly dissatisfied with this. I think we need our judiciary to be completely independent of the Executive. Our current system does grant some independence, in that Elders can only be appointed but not removed by the Pharaoh -- only recalled by the Deshret. Still, this system enables a Pharaoh to appoint yes men to the Pschent if the Pharaoh also has a compliant Deshret. To his credit, Lord Ravenclaw appointed probably the three most qualified legal minds in the region but there's no guarantee a future Pharaoh will be so apolitical in his appointments. Elected Elders would eliminate that problem while also giving us more elections.

I would favor Elders elected to terms of six months, without term limit.

Are we satisfied with the Attorney General (Scribe of Seshat/Justice) being appointed by the Pharaoh and confirmed by the Deshret, with the ability of the Pharaoh to remove the Scribe from office, or would we prefer an elected Attorney General? If we maintain appointment, should we remove the Pharaoh's ability to remove the Scribe of Justice from office?

I'm similarly dissatisfied with this. Under our current system, the Attorney General has no independence that is not granted to the office by the Pharaoh. This becomes a very serious problem if the Attorney General is called upon to prosecute the Pharaoh, Vizier, or Scribe. It's also a problem if the Pharaoh wants to use the office to pursue political ends, particularly political prosecutions. It's a lesser but still significant problem if the Attorney General is asked to address questions related to the Executive in advisory opinions. While those opinions are non-binding, for our legal culture we should want those opinions to be as unbiased as possible.

I would favor an Advocate of the Deshret elected to two month terms without term limit. If we decide not to go this route, at minimum we need to eliminate the Pharaoh's power to remove the Scribe of Justice from office, subject to recall by the Deshret.

Are we satisfied with the limited requirements for attaining citizenship in Section 6 of the State Code? Should more citizenship requirements be defined in the State Code or should we continue to leave such requirements to statute?

I think we should define citizenship requirements more fully in the State Code, but only if we decide to divide the sections of the State Code into separate laws. If we flesh them out too much in the current State Code it will become absurdly long and difficult to read.

Are we satisfied with the rights of citizens? Should any rights be added? Should any rights be restricted or removed?

I can't think of any that should be added, but I'm open to suggestions. I would be interested to hear any suggestions from War Wombat, given that he indicated he thought more should be added. One right we could add is a non-discrimination clause; while this has never been a problem in Osiris before, adding that kind of clause would send an affirmative message about the kind of region we want to be that may broaden our appeal to prospective citizens who are looking for a community they're sure will be welcoming.

Are we satisfied with the broad power granted to forum administration to choose administrators and to enforce the forum terms of use and service? Is the limited review of ToS enforcement granted to the Pschent sufficient?

I'm satisfied, but I'm a bit biased as an admin. If anyone is dissatisfied, please feel free to say so.

Are we satisfied with the process for amending the State Code? Should the Pharaoh continue to have veto power over amendments? Should the Deshret continue to be able to pass amendments on its own, or should amendments be put to all citizens in a referendum?

I think the Pharaoh should continue to have veto power, subject to override as with any other law. I don't think we need public referendum, especially now that we've changed Deshret admission requirements. It's now much easier for any interested citizen to join the Deshret, which to me eliminates the need for a public referendum. On the other hand, not all citizens have chosen to join the Deshret and it's conceivable that some will be rejected for membership in the Deshret, though that will hopefully be rare.

One possible solution is to allow amendments by the Deshret, but if an amendment is vetoed by the Pharaoh it goes to public referendum requiring the support of two-thirds of all citizens who vote in the referendum. The Pharaoh's veto would indicate that an amendment is controversial enough to require the input of the broader citizenry. Thoughts on that?

[Severisen Montresor]

I am responding on my phone, so I will be brief. Your suggestions are very sensical and you provide one of the great legislative minds to the region. Thank you for your input, Cormac.


Edit: I would be in strong favor to having the hedjet appointed without need for confirmation. The deshret voted on a pharaoh who they felt would do the best job, including in the appointment of a hedjet. Right now I feel like this is really a 2 week process to get the executive fully functional. The system works if you have a fully functioning cabinet, perhaps, but obviously that is not the case here.

[Cormac]

Thanks Sev, I appreciate that.

The confirmation issue is tricky. On the one hand we don't want to hold up a fully functional Executive, on the other hand we don't want an Executive with little or no popular oversight. Our current process takes a minimum of five days (if we go straight to a vote) or a maximum of eight days (with the three day discussion period before a vote). I personally don't think five days out of a minimum twelve week term is unreasonable, but we could shorten the number of days to three, which should still give Councilors enough time to vote while reducing the time it takes to get the Hedjet confirmed.

I could potentially support removal of the confirmation process for Scribes if the threshold for recalling the Pharaoh is reduced to 2/3 and the threshold for recalling a Scribe is reduced to simple majority. I couldn't support eliminating confirmation for Guardians or Elders at all, but I don't think you were suggesting that unless I've misunderstood.

[War Wombat]

One right I was thinking that we could have would be a Right to Colonize. I'm not quite certain if this is at all feasible, but it would mean basically this:

If (Conditions):
1: a citizen of Osiris is the Founder or Delegate of a region consisting of at least 5 non-puppet nations
and
2: The Osiris government is made aware of this status by the above citizen

Then:
a) The above citizen will be able to request that his/her region be made an official colony of Osiris. (exact process of how colonial applications are approved or denied has not yet been determined)

OR

b) If no colonial application is made or a colonial application is denied, but conditions 1 and 2 are still met, then the region of the aforementioned Osiris citizen will have a right against invasion by the Sekhmet legion of Osiris.

IF B IS VIOLATED, THEN (possibly, although this is the most extreme part):

c) If an Osiris citizen holds a founder or delegate post for a region consisting of at least 5 non-puppet nations, and has informed the Osiris government of this, but is invaded by the Sekhmet Legion, then that citizen will have the right to eject or ban the invading nations without facing a charge of treason against the Osiris Fraternal Order.

[Severisen Montresor]

No, Cormac. Specifically the hedjet confirmations. Like I said, the issue is probably a non-issue should there actually be an outgoing hedjet which can work in the interim.

I suppose I am just chomping at the bit to get going.