The Montfort Plan - Experimenting with Parliamentarism

[Lumine]

MONTFORT PLAN:

Named after the famed English baron Simon of Montfort, who once instituted a brief dominance of Parliament against the English monarch in the XIII Century, the Montfort Plan purports in its ambition to reform Atlasia away from the all too known Presidential system - of the “Imperial Presidency” sort inherited from the United States -, and into a Parliamentarian system. Rather than attempt reform of the current system, the guiding ideal behind the Montfort Plan is that our Republic requires experimentation of a different system to explore different dynamics, gain a needed sense of reform and offer something different – but still similar to a point – to players in order to encourage more interest in the game.

Fourteen years of Atlasian history have seen the continued existence of a Presidential System for no apparent reason other than to provide a direct link with the United States, even as the proper dynamics regarding the US have been explored and exhausted all the way into a legislative and context reset. Why then, should we keep an outdated system when we have already recognized so many other elements ran their course and had to be restarted? Does a Presidential System offer Atlasia real advantages in gameplay? Do we keep this system because of nostalgia or because it truly helps the game? The call for a Parliamentary system is not new, and detailed plans featured some months ago particularly thanks to Clyde.

Furthermore, a Semi-Parliamentary System has been implemented and tried in the Commonwealth of Fremont, providing a different, exciting and interesting dynamic into a Region often known more for inactivity and a crisis of governance. Polls have shown that, at least, there are many players who believe something different is needed for the game. In the interest of reopening discussion as we find ourselves in the crossroads, I have taken the liberty of reconsidering past proposals for a Parliamentary System and redraft a new plan for an experimental switch to Parliamentarism.

Welcome to the Montfort Plan.

[Lumine]

1.- Constitutional Framework:

Evidently, it is no particularly easy to amend the Constitution. To achieve the reset – even as we kept most structures of the game in place – it took a Constitutional Convention to achieve it, and one which had the natural problem that, as we all have different ideas on what Atlasia looks like, discussion can take a while. Two roads are offered to us: Road A, constitutional amendments until the framework is complete and voted upon, and Road B, a new Constitutional Convention with the sole purpose of shifting to Parliamentarism, subject to a gentlemen’s agreement of sorts that such Convention is not to be hijacked for different purposes.

Both have evident flaws: amending the constitution is a lengthy, painful process in which amendments will be passed and enacted days or weeks from each other, confusing the transition unless we were to set a definite date upon which all amendments are made law. It also does subvert the current purpose of the Constitution, which is based on Presidentialism. A Constitutional Convention, on the other hand, requires immense effort only to get one started, let alone going through one. And yet, if there are enough signatures to start a Con Con, this will mean the public interest on Parliamentarism is very much real and not just the dream of a few of us.

That is why I will also draft the Sulla Plan this week, a guiding framework for reform of the constitution to improve our current institutions while keeping Presidentialism, a road which will be pursued via constitutional amendments. For the Montfort Plan it would seem a Constitutional Convention will have to do, but it is a matter up for discussion.

2.- National Government:

Who Governs?

Not an easy question to answer. The immediate answer would be that via the combination of the executive and legislative into a single power, Parliament becomes sovereign and led by a Prime Minister – our Head of Government -  that must hold the confidence of said Parliament to retain office. There is also a higher authority that changes from system to system, a Head of State (Monarch, Governor-General, President) that ensures the correct functioning of government, steps in should there be an emergency, and appoints the Prime Minister on the advice of Parliament.

The proposal would be as follows:

A.- A President, elected by the people every four or six months – with a special popular election whenever there is a vacancy – to serve as a guardian of the Constitution and serve the ceremonial functions of the Head of State. Said President, much like a Monarch, has the right to warn, encourage, counsel, and the powers to appoint/dismiss a Prime Minister on the advice of Parliament, and to grant or deny permission for a snap election should a Prime Minister desire to call for one. The presence of a President would help to keep a degree of balance of power, and hopefully prevent abuse.

B.- A Parliament, elected by the people to serve a three or four-month term and comprised of fifteen Members of Parliament – MP’s for short -, six of them elected by the Regions serving as two-member constituencies, and nine of them via national vote as the current House of Representatives, serving as at-large MPs. With fifteen MP’s in said Parliament we have a streamlined legislative power that only deals with a single chamber, allowing efforts to be better focused and retain representation of both the popular and regional will, Regional MP’s elected with FPTP, and National MP’s through STV.

C.- A Prime Minister, appointed by the President and serving as our executive Head of Government. The innovation here is that the Prime Minister should not necessarily be an MP – allowing for talent outside Parliament to be exploited -, but must absolutely enjoy the confidence of Parliament and survive a Vote of Confidence to take full control of the office. A Prime Minister would therefore govern the country by promoting and working on legislation in Parliament, and working with executive power through his Cabinet.

D.- A Cabinet, appointed solely by the Prime Minister and open to all Atlasians while keeping a tough ban on dual-officeholding, only allowing MP’s to serve in two offices at the same time – as MP’s and as Cabinet Ministers -. Should cabinet would be left open on its number and nature of officers to allow for great flexibility, leaving it open for a Prime Minister to appoint, say, a Chancellor of the Exchequer/Treasury Secretary to handle economic affairs.

E.- A Civil Service, retaining the important jobs of Game Moderator/Game Engine, the Registrar General and the Secretary of Federal Elections as crucial to the Republic. These officers – perhaps with different names – will enjoy special circumstances, appointed by the President and subject to the approval of Parliament to ensure responsible individuals continue to be chosen and to remove any involvement of the Prime Minister on this matter, helping to prevent conflicts of interest and giving the office of the Presidency further powers to exploit.

3.- Regional Government:

Regional Governments have often been a crucial part of the game that should be protected, particularly as they often prove to be the “training grounds” of players which can show their skill and then rise into national politics. I myself spent well over a year on regional politics before going national, and the experience was rewarding and helpful for a future career. Therefore, our Regional System would remain very similar:

A.- Each Region (Fremont, Lincoln and the South) would start at a given point in a devolution settlement, entrusted with clear powers while Nyman would keep others, allowing for an interesting devolution dynamic and different powers being gained or lost for each region as time goes by. Each Region would be allowed to keep most of their present constitutional framework, giving autonomy to each of them can decide whether they prefer full Parliamentarism, semi-Parliamentarism, or to retain the Lincoln/South system of a Governor and a Legislature.

B.- Be clear on the number of offices. Excessive officeholders can be a problem even as limits are set for legislative seats to increase according to the number of candidates, so it might be helpful to set a top limit of five legislative seats for each region and no more. This would make elections slightly more competitive, and hopefully make the task of governing each region somewhat easier.

4.- Elections:

Clearly elections would be different under a Parliamentary system, which is why I propose to change the usual times we use for them. While each region could easily retain a model of elections every three months, I believe expanding the maximum time to each Parliament to four at most would be helpful in allowing a greater degree of work to get done for the particular dynamics of parliament to be exploited to the full. And there would always be the expectation on whether a Prime Minister would call a snap election or be forced into on, or whether he or she would attempt to keep Parliament going to the last moment.

Guided as they would be by a SoFE or its equivalent, it wouldn’t be necessary to go for something as radical as GM-simulated elections (which I understand is heavily disliked by many), allowing elections much like we know them but with the different consequences for their results. Electing MP’s, evidently, would matter very much. The same applies to choosing whether you want to stand for a constituency or for the national vote, which may or may not include allowing people to stand on both or to use a party list depending on the electoral law which ends up being enacted.

Any General Election would probably require a period of two weeks, that is to say, a week to determine candidacies and who will stand, and a week of campaigning to concentrate the process into an engaging number of days.

[Lumine]

5.- Legislative Process:

It is understood Parliament would be sovereign in choosing its own rules, but it would be important to have a Speaker elected with a majority of its peers. The office would have to be somewhat partisan rather than non-partisan as in the UK, but given the relevance of Parliament its powers would make any Speaker more of a protagonist in government. Since the Government would be unicameral – unless we were to create a Senate or House of Lords -, my recommendation is to set thresholds for particular laws like a budget, a VONC or a constitutional amendment rather than mere majority rule for everything, forcing parties to compromise from time to time.

A potential pitfall to avoid would be to grant all the power to the majority, which could be detrimental to enthusiasm from any minority in Parliament. Which is why all bills introduced by MP’s should reach the floor for debate and for a vote – like our current Congress -, ensuring those voices are not shut out of the process. There could also be “Whips” instituted by each party to open a new dynamic of party discipline or dissidence.

6.- Westminster Dynamics:

As you can see, under the Montfort Plan some key elements related to the US Heritage in Atlasia are retained for simplicity and familiarity as to not turn Atlasia into a simple UK simulator, but that is not to say we could not or should not adopt some of the Westminster dynamics. There would have to be a Leader of the Opposition from the largest political force not in government which would be a key figure both in Parliament and the Media, as well as an important part of any General Election campaign. It would be interesting if a given Opposition would adopt the model of a Shadow Cabinet, for example, promoting alternative policies to encourage ideological diversity and more battles of ideas rather than just personalities.

Thus, we would move into a model in which every political party has at least two key positions: a Party Leader which acts as the voice/face of its party – and its Prime Minister-designate -, and a Party Chairman evidently in charge of organization or even electoral efforts. Thus, Elections would feature parties with a clear candidate to become the next Prime Minister, a manifesto or platform – should they desire it – and a slate of candidates for the different ways of electing MP’s.

7.- Post Election:

The new MP’s would take office within a couple of days of the General Election, and the task of forming the next government would take place. The outgoing Prime Minister would retain the job as a caretaker PM and would have – via the advantage of incumbency – the first shot at forming a government, to be followed by the Leader of the Opposition and so on until the President is informed a determined individual can command the confidence of Parliament. A Vote of Confidence would follow, and with a single majority approving of the new Prime Minister he/she would immediately assume the powers of his/her new office.

8. Regret:

You know what this is one is about. What if Parliamentarism does not work out? What if we end up preferring Presidentialism? Are we doomed forever? And so on. Clearly I recognize this switch would be a major one in the context of the Game’s history, so it would necessarily have to come with what I call a “Regret Mechanism”. That is to say, we pass a bill/amendment/provision which clearly states that A. Within six months or a year under the new system there will be a fully binding and public binding referendum on whether to return to the old system or to retain the new, and B. That should a number of signatures be reached at any point after that initial process a new referendum can and will be held. Consider it a public panic button to return to what we had before should the people ever wish to do so.

9.- Conclusions:

There is a lot to work on here and some details to consider, I should be making a more comprehensive list of the changes that will be necessary should the Montfort Plan ever be implemented. As any reader might note it is not exactly impossible to implement it without a Con Con and only using constitutional amendments and comprehensive legislation. A lot of it is actually flavor that the parties and players will be able to promote or lead the way in, and while I would like to think this could be a reasonable compromise between those who wish to keep elements based on the US and those who prefer full-scale reform, I’m aware it is by no means perfect. Let’s hope it can at least restart debate on Parliamentarism.

The Sulla Plan will also be released soon.

[Lumine]

My sincere thanks to Leinad as well, for reminding me that I should probably focus on crafting more policy.

[wxtransit]

I would support this. Atlasia needs a change, and this would definitely make it interesting.

[TheSaint250]

Listen, I'm all for a good parliamentary system, but why do we need this? Sure, it would add a new dynamic, but nothing would really change in regards to inactivity.

I will say, though, that this is a very well-thought-out plan.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Centrality 9 Regionality 6


It is great to give the regions promises of power now, but if the system then tips the scales long term, there is nothing to protect those immediate gains.

While I am very short on time and will need to expound on this later on. My biggest concern with Parliamentarianism is that you will have the upsurge in the immediate short term, the boost of enthusaism similar to what we had with the reset. But once it settles back down, it will be a system that appeals to a niche, and thus leave the game a with a smaller base of support.

The biggest and most critical thing this game needs is a strong, vibrant and large base of players. Every proposal needs to be considered in the context of how it will affect that, improve that and preserve that long term.

Anyway I have to go to work.

[Sestak]

The plan does seem well thought-out. However, I have a major grievance against parliamentary systems which I would like addressed. My number one issue is civil liberties, and I take some comfort in the fact that any government infringement of those liberties needs to pass three separate groups: House majority, Senate majority, and President. In this system, however, any authoritarian anti-Liberty policies could be passed with just 50.001% of the unicameral Parliament.

Also, I feel like the Shadow Cabinet system would discourage newer members, as party leaders would have a tendency to only pick longtime members and personal friends for those positions. And I also fear that being an Independent politician would be much less feasible in this system.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

In this system, however, any authoritarian anti-Liberty policies could be passed with just 50.001% of the unicameral Parliament.

Well, that's what the Bill of Rights is for, yes? Anyways, as I've said before, you cannot create activity without also creating opportunities for the government to make mistakes—from a purely mechanical standpoint, given how ossified the party system has been of late, I think we could use a power-hungry prime minister to rally against.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not really how things have ever worked in practice here; there simply aren't enough "old hats" to run a government on their own (the last attempt at this occurred in the summer of 2015, and it failed spectacularly). Anyone who's ever been involved with party leadership in Atlasia will tell you that successful party machines are those which are constantly recruiting and promoting new members.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We currently have, what, one incumbent officeholder who was elected as an independent? Unaffiliated candidates have always struggled to get their foot in the door under presidentialism; I don't see why a transition to parliamentarianism should elicit a significant change in either direction, especially since under this plan the prime minister would not need to be a member of parliament (thus arguably making it easier for independents to achieve high office, even if they don't have a strong electoral machine behind them).


Anyways—speaking as the first person to successfully implement parliamentary democracy in Atlasia, I must say this is a very intriguing possibility (though I also agree with Yankee that it is doubtful how this will address the fundamental problems at the heart of our present malaise). While we're on the subject, for those interested in experimenting with parliamentary politics outside an Atlasian context, I hope you will forgive a shameless plug for the most recent mock parliament revival proposal.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Thanks for the idea. Don't call us, we'll call you.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I am quite interested, I think a Parliament system could function well given the present party structure.

[Kingpoleon]

I think a federally-elected Prime Minister and a Monarch or Governor-General elected by Parliament every six months - who cannot serve consecutive terms - would make far more sense.

[Lumine]

Listen, I'm all for a good parliamentary system, but why do we need this? Sure, it would add a new dynamic, but nothing would really change in regards to inactivity.

I will say, though, that this is a very well-thought-out plan.

Well, precisely because it would add a new dynamic after fourteen years of doing the same one. I won't pretend a shift to any system will solve inactivity, but I will argue that the shift into a different dynamic would promote a surge in activity and interest which I feel we lack right now. And since I do not believe in Atlasia running in auto-pilot and in managed decline (as it did in 2015), I feel this is a good time to consider the merits of parliamentarism.

It is great to give the regions promises of power now, but if the system then tips the scales long term, there is nothing to protect those immediate gains.

I'm sorry, Yankee, but after years of hearing the same argument (or a similar variant) I'm a bit skeptical about potential harm to the regions. The plan is built on respecting their own institutions and in those regions having a clear voice in Nyman, and I fail to see a single instance in this game in which having more national-elected representatives than regional ones has led to the regions losing power or somehow falling victims to some sort of opression.

If anything, the American brand of Presidentialism we have adopted for so long also has some serious flaws (particularly regarding gridlock and what can be an excessive separation of powers) which are not necessarily appealing to a large part of the powerbase as well. If there's substantial numbers of players who would refuse to play in Atlasia if it became parliamentary I'd like to know it. I'm tempted to believe few (if any) would not play, but then again I could be very wrong.

[Lumine]

Thanks for the idea. Don't call us, we'll call you.

No offense, but for being the nation's leading diplomat you spend an interesting amount of time cheerleading and snarking at will. Thanks for reading the Montfort Plan!

I think a federally-elected Prime Minister and a Monarch or Governor-General elected by Parliament every six months - who cannot serve consecutive terms - would make far more sense.

I think a President/Governor/Monarch elected by Parliament could work as well, but my concern is that having a federally-elected Prime Minister would make the system a bit too similar to presidentialism, removing a large part of the Prime Minister's accountability towards Parliament.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm sorry, Yankee, but after years of hearing the same argument (or a similar variant) I'm a bit skeptical about potential harm to the regions. The plan is built on respecting their own institutions and in those regions having a clear voice in Nyman, and I fail to see a single instance in this game in which having more national-elected representatives than regional ones has led to the regions losing power or somehow falling victims to some sort of opression.

If anything, the American brand of Presidentialism we have adopted for so long also has some serious flaws (particularly regarding gridlock and what can be an excessive separation of powers) which are not necessarily appealing to a large part of the powerbase as well. If there's substantial numbers of players who would refuse to play in Atlasia if it became parliamentary I'd like to know it. I'm tempted to believe few (if any) would not play, but then again I could be very wrong.

That is because we have fought like hell for last nine years to avoid such an imbalance with good reason.

The respect for institutions you cite is nominal and hollow over the long term. You cannot predict what will happen down the road, who will get elected. There is a natural desire on the part of some to respond to a given problem with solutions handed down from on high by the centralized state. We may not have experienced an imbalanced legislative branch, but we have exeperienced a unicameral system. We had it for 12 years and the end result was that the regions were strip mined of responsibility and importance. Why would you want to go back to a model that has arguably already failed for the legislative branch? Bundling it with a parliamentary umbrella is not going to change that fundamental flaw.



Here is something else, why is it that just like Healthcare, that the model everyone fawns over is the British Westminster system? There are other parliamentary systems out there, including a rather glaringly obvious one, that comports itself well with a Federal model of diving gov't between regional and central states. The British setup is fundamentally a unitary state, therefore there is no reason to think there won't be a gradual erosion of the regions and the formation of a unitary centralized state down the road. Of course the problem here is that the German model is bicameral, isn't it?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And for the record Lumine, I have been hearing the same argument by Parliamentarists for nine years. It doesn't get any better or more convincing with age.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think a federally-elected Prime Minister and a Monarch or Governor-General elected by Parliament every six months - who cannot serve consecutive terms - would make far more sense.

Or if one is willing to go for keeping two Chambers. Have the Prime Minister elected by the lower House (popular Chamber) and the President elected by the Upper Chamber (More Institutional Chamber).

[Kingpoleon]

I think a federally-elected Prime Minister and a Monarch or Governor-General elected by Parliament every six months - who cannot serve consecutive terms - would make far more sense.

Or if one is willing to go for keeping two Chambers. Have the Prime Minister elected by the lower House (popular Chamber) and the President elected by the Upper Chamber (More Institutional Chamber).

I think this might be best:
- Legislative terms last for four months(elected with PR/list)
- Chancellor elected at a federal level
- Legislature elects Governor-General every 8-10 months
- Governor-General will allow Chancellor to attempt to form a coalition; if they fail to do so within one week, another week will be offered to anyone to form a coalition; if this fails, the Governor-General will call for another legislative election in two weeks but keep on the Chancellor and go through the same process, acting as Chancellor during the election process
- if any two of the three - the Legislature, Chancellor, and Governor-General - agree on a bill, it will be passed, and the Governor-General may veto any bill that does not receive the support of at least three-fifths of the Legislature

[Blair]

I like this idea, and hope that there's a concrete effort to move the game towards this.

I haven't been at all as closely involved as I was in 2015/2016, but as someone who's seen almost every side of Atlasia I think it's a good route.

Mainly because it centralises action/debate/activity around one central column; we've only had two era's in Atlasia over the last two years when the entire game has worked; in early 2015, and then during the end of Leinad's second term. Both of these era's had a large player base, active and experienced players running each of the regions, and a very active government.

The problem with the current system is that it's rather like a body; but where each limb is a different branch of the game. So even if we have the House working; we still not going to get anywhere because one of the regions is completely dead, the Senate may be struggling and the other regions are on auto-pilot. Sure during election period the body is able to spark to life, and stagger forward, but beyond that it's always going to struggle because any success is only isolated to certain parts of the game.

[wxtransit]

The Alliance Party officially endorses the Montfort Plan as part of its platform.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I kind of like a German system tbh