Rally for a Constitution - DRAFTING

[afleitch]

Citizens of South America.

(I'm being purposely bombastic here. However I do think we need something base, constitutionally, before we actually get going)

We have suffered and will continue to suffer from a parliamentary junta that in the name of a fresh start, a blank slate, has chosen to neglect the rights of the citizen.

Our courts are empty, our statute books are blank or rights nothing but spectres.

We are a democracy that established a provisional parliament based on the order in which people joined. They worked for you. They established a whole system; a skeleton country. The junta established it's own offices and it's own rules. But it overlooked the rules that it should be accountable to; and that is to protect the rights of the citizen.

When this election is over, regardless of whether I find myself amongst it's number, the first parliament will still not have the right to command the will of the people because the people are without rights.

It is therefore important that we establish through our will and our spirit a constitution, a bill of rights for this nation.

We seek.

1. To establish a base constitution confirmed by the people.

2. To establish the jurisdiction and limitations of Parliament.

2. To establish the means by which to ensure a fair and independent judiciary.

3. To establish a bill of rights that defines human and civil rights from all citizens

4. To protect the rights of citizens from discrimination and harassment.

Above all, while parliament may be a cradle in which these truths may be secured, these must be birthed by the actions of the people, free and independent of parliament.

Viva!

Afleitch

[Türkisblau]

This is of course a ridiculous over-reaction.

I thought not having a constitution was one of the best parts about being a parliamentary system!

[afleitch]

This is of course a ridiculous over-reaction.

I thought not having a constitution was one of the best parts about being a parliamentary system!

'Not having a constitution' is not the same as being unconstitutional

Most parliamentary systems are checked. On paper, you've set up a interim parliament by decree. Which has made decisions by decree. There's no template in which you operate. No courts, no rights. On paper, it's a junta. You are only legitimate to yourself.

The decision has been taken in this game to 'set apart' people who aren't in the parliament from those who are which is not what I expected but is fine. But you haven't defined the relationship between them. You're just asking people to 'go along' with what parliament does.

You're running an election where there will be a possible test of what right you have to admininster them. And you don't. You should; there should be a right for you to administer elections and a process by which decisions can be appealed. But there isn't one.

And electing a new parliament won't solve that because you haven't set out proper guidelines for how outside the parliament should be run.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Its fairly clear that the limits and structure of governance and parliamentary authority need to be dealt with in the first proper parliament (note that in countries 'without' a constitution all of this exists via a mixture of precedent and individual pieces of law). A workable framework can be established without degeneration into Atlasian style legalism.

[afleitch]

Its fairly clear that the limits and structure of governance and parliamentary authority need to be dealt with in the first proper parliament (note that in countries 'without' a constitution all of this exists via a mixture of precedent and individual pieces of law). A workable framework can be established without degeneration into Atlasian style legalism.

Of course. Absolutely agree. This was a post that was inflected in such a way as is the person I'm playing on here.

I don't think there was anything remotely wrong with establishing a constitution in Atlasia; it was the tinkering of it, rather than governing by law that was the problem. We don't need a cut and paste job, we need something very sparse. But it's the first thing we should have done on here; this is the parliament, this is the court, these are the base principles. That would be the 'inheritance' if you will of what we left behind.

What we've ended up with a provisional parliament establishing itself and then having elections for what is going to be another provisional parliament establishing the other structures. Something like that, particularly as it would be nice if this game had a long shelf life, should be more dealt with on a much wider scale.

As I said, if we're playing the game, then clearly the situation now if it was on the ground, is one of the most undemocratic nation building exercises in decades and you would therefore expect some third party mobilisation.

[Simfan34]

Unwritten constitution and parliamentary supremacy or death!

[afleitch]

Unwritten constitution and parliamentary supremacy or death!

There's no judiciary to sentence people to death

[Simfan34]

Unwritten constitution and parliamentary supremacy or death!

There's no judiciary to sentence people to death

Then we'll hire some Chileans until Parliament passes the Judiciary Act 2015

[afleitch]

Drafting a Constitution.

There are three principles of good governance on which a Constitution must be rest;

Government is consensual when power is shared between cabinet and parliament, parliament and people.

Government is constrained when those holding office are unable to manipulate the rules under which they operate and are subject to scrutiny and control by independent agencies.

Government is constitutional when all powers are subject to a written constitution enforced by an independent judiciary and can only be amended by special majority or by referendum.

The draft constitution is tasked with ensuring three things; that the parliament can function widely and freely in its legislative programme, that the citizenry are enfranchised and protected and that an independent judiciary/civil service functions to ensure accountability.
Here is a draft of the First Three Articles

Article I – Foundations of the Republic

(1) The Republic of South America is a free, sovereign and independent commonwealth. Its form of government is a constitutional, representative parliamentary democracy.

(2) Sovereignty resides in the People of South America, who shall exercise their powers indirectly through the election of Parliament and directly through referendums.

(3) This Constitution is the supreme and fundamental law. Any law, order, regulation,
treaty, or other instrument, which is incompatible with this Constitution is null and void.
Article II – Citizenship and Franchise

(1) All persons lawfully resident within the jurisdiction of the Republic of South America  on the
date when this Constitution comes into force shall be citizens of the Republic.

(2) Every citizen of the Republic shall be enfranchised. As such, they shall have the right to vote in referendums and in elections for the Parliament, serve as jurymen and to hold other public offices, according to law.

Article III – System of Government (to be expanded)

(1) The Republic of South America is a parliamentary democracy.

1. Head of state (defined in law)

2. Parliament (defined in the constitution so much as it is allow to make its own rules except with respect to:)

3. Civil Service

4. Independent Judiciary

5. Elections and Franchise

Article IV – Bill of Rights (to be expanded)

[afleitch]

In fact; here's the rest!

Head of State

A President is to be Head of State (note: in manner defined by x). The functions of the President are (note: to be defined by parliament or referendum)

Parliament

1a. Legislative power to make and modify the law is vested in Parliament.

1b. The Parliament’s power is subject to the constitution.

2a. Executive power to administer and govern is vested in the Government.

2b. The Government’s power is subject to the constitution.

Judiciary

1. All members of the judiciary are to be independent, and free from any external influence or control, in carrying out their judicial functions.

2. The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in civil matters, criminal matters and matters concerning electoral law and enfranchisement. (note: this still allows Parliament to make law basically unconstrained; there will be a Supreme Court to arbitrate on matters of disagreement)

Elections.

1. Elections are to take place in a manner determined by Parliament.

2. Electoral Law and all matters of enfranchisement are determined by Parliament.

Bill of Rights (here’s where it get’s political)

Equality.

1. Every person is equal before the law and has equal entitlement to its
protection and benefit.

2. Every person is entitled to be treated—
(a) with respect regardless of status or personal characteristics,
(b) without unfair discrimination on the basis of personal characteristics.

(3) In this section, the references to personal characteristics include (as well as other
characteristics)—
(a) age,
(b) disability,
(c) gender reassignment,
(d) marriage or civil partnership,
(e) pregnancy or maternity,
(f) race,
(g) religion or belief,
(h) sex,
(i) sexual orientation

--------

And that’s it.

This is a very stripped down constitution and takes some cues from the draft constitution should Scotland; a potentially new parliamentary democracy with a legal and legislative inheritance several hundred years old have become independent. It was only a few pages long and was deliberate in that it did not constrain Parliament and the tradition of parliamentary democracy.

Parliament can do effectively what it wants but is constrained by the constitution in that; the judiciary are independent, whatever powers given to the president are unalterable (except through amendment) and protections given to the people are also unalterable.

If there is disagreement over an action taken by Parliament, the Supreme Court acts as court, civil service and scrutiniser of law.

[Talleyrand]

This looks fantastic, although I think it's best if we cement the president's role and powers in the constitution. Perhaps constuitional amendments could take place via referenda?

[afleitch]

This looks fantastic, although I think it's best if we cement the president's role and powers in the constitution. Perhaps constuitional amendments could take place via referenda?

It's not clear what any of the roles are so I left the Head of State fairly blank. I had hoped to champion this had I got elected but meh. So i've posted it anyway. I think that the new parliament will have to be a Provisional Parliament Mark II, to sort of some of these issues.

[Хahar 🤔]

This looks fantastic, although I think it's best if we cement the president's role and powers in the constitution. Perhaps constuitional amendments could take place via referenda?

It's not clear what any of the roles are so I left the Head of State fairly blank. I had hoped to champion this had I got elected but meh. So i've posted it anyway. I think that the new parliament will have to be a Provisional Parliament Mark II, to sort of some of these issues.

This was always the plan, as I understand it. The task of the Provisional Parliament was solely to determine the means by which a representative body would be elected.

[Barnes]

This looks fantastic, although I think it's best if we cement the president's role and powers in the constitution. Perhaps constuitional amendments could take place via referenda?

It's not clear what any of the roles are so I left the Head of State fairly blank. I had hoped to champion this had I got elected but meh. So i've posted it anyway. I think that the new parliament will have to be a Provisional Parliament Mark II, to sort of some of these issues.

This was always the plan, as I understand it. The task of the Provisional Parliament was solely to determine the means by which a representative body would be elected.

That is exactly right.  There is nothing wrong with the way that we are going about this.  We are building this game and this country together.  However, continuing with an un-elected rump with no executive government would have been unacceptable.  We needed the election to put some drive into the game and form a government that will be tasked with establishing our institutions ASAP.

[afleitch]

This looks fantastic, although I think it's best if we cement the president's role and powers in the constitution. Perhaps constuitional amendments could take place via referenda?

It's not clear what any of the roles are so I left the Head of State fairly blank. I had hoped to champion this had I got elected but meh. So i've posted it anyway. I think that the new parliament will have to be a Provisional Parliament Mark II, to sort of some of these issues.

This was always the plan, as I understand it. The task of the Provisional Parliament was solely to determine the means by which a representative body would be elected.

That is exactly right.  There is nothing wrong with the way that we are going about this.  We are building this game and this country together.  However, continuing with an un-elected rump with no executive government would have been unacceptable.  We needed the election to put some drive into the game and form a government that will be tasked with establishing our institutions ASAP.

Are we? What we have now is based on what those who were picked to be in the provisional parliament came to agree on. Now the first parliament continues with the nation building. You have very active and very skilled people now outside of parliament (and I'm genuinely not talking about myself) who don't have a say in that either.

Had the game, as I had first assumed it was going to be, been a universal parliament then that wouldn't matter as it's decisions wouldn't have an impact outside of itself. But those not in parliament have as much a right to 'play' the game yet we're told 'Well parliament will sort this out, parliament will decide this, we don't need a constitution.'

Surely, when the game is starting, you give everyone the opportunity to shape it?

[Foucaulf]

I'd like to see how this initiative works out (indeed, the current lack of rights guaranteed by parliament should be a point of contention). It's better to think of this as playing the game instead of framing it. To that end I hope people cut down on all the meta and critique the actual contents.

Similarly, Afleitch, you know you can lobby for this bill outside Parliament by PMing some people. (I'll also add that I wouldn't mind acknowledging some official interest groups, provided they actually derive some power from it like having time to speak in Parliament)

The reason the game was constructed as quickly as it did to avoid meta, at least for me. Every effort to start the game before this involved everyone wanting to design things, but with no structure and no responsibility.