Constitutional Monarchy: Yeah or Neigh?

Total number of votes: 135

17.8% Yeah

82.2% Neigh

Can 16, 01 / Jun 5, 17 11:17 UTC

Asgardia Cannot be a Constitutional Monarchy  

I firmly believe that Asgardia should refrain from a Constitutional Monarchy. The proposition should be withheld from the final Constitution. The proposed system is far too outdated, and has no place in the state of the future. Rather, we should shift our focus to a technocratic governmental system. As we see in modern Britain, a monarch is but an unnecessary formality that only remains today because of conservative and sentimental views. Not efficient or logical, at all, and not fitting of the world's first space nation. I am sure most citizens agree from what I've seen. This is not what Asgardia was meant to be, and I hope we can change that before it is set in the Constitution. I will leave a poll going so people can share their opinions on this matter in a clean and easily review-able format. Thank you, hoping the best for the future of Asgardia. Our first mistake cannot be our last.

**Mod Edit** Moved to the Constitution forum from General Discussion. Zahira, 05/06/2017, 11:37 UTC

  Last edited by:  Jewell Ledoux (Global Admin, Asgardian)  on Can 16, 01 / Jun 5, 17 11:37 UTC, Total number of edits: 3 times

Can 16, 01 / Jun 5, 17 11:32 UTC

Yes, let us create a the nation of the future based on freedom, knowledge and equality with the goal to take humanity to space... under a system of government first developed in the Bronze Age.

There is a serious disconnect between the stated concept and what is proposed in the draft constitution.

Can 16, 01 / Jun 5, 17 15:36 UTC

The only problem I can see, into "we should shift our focus to a technocratic governmental system", is: who will put the money into it?
'Cause of, if you haven't been aware, something is "to speak", something other is "to do it". Second choice will require old (bad) money: will you fund it?

Can 17, 01 / Jun 6, 17 02:34 UTC

Once again repeat the theses of the other discussion:

  • - The Head of State is the "Operator of Asgardia". The period of  performance of Operator duties by the head of state is called "duty". (Thus, the Head of state – not an autocrat and a temporary duty of the responsible state).

  • -  The operator is elected by the citizens of Asgardia for the period of  the next duty of the citizens of Asgardia , by universal online voting  using a standard qualification mechanisms Asgardia to determine the fair  value of each voice. 

  • -  For the period of the duty Operator may not combine political,  economic, scientific, cultural or other functions of Asgardia or other  Nations and communities of the Earth that can cause a conflict of  interest.

  • - The operator holds a position with the  appropriate professional and personal qualities, experience and  qualifications, physical and mental health necessary to perform its  responsibilities defined at the stage of nomination of candidates on the  basis of testing using standard qualification mechanisms Asgardia (as  defined by the relevant legal acts). Before the testing phase, the  candidates (including self) is not restricted to any qualification (age,  education, ect.).

  • - A routine procedure is the  election of the Operator for the calendar period of duty defined by  relevant legal act. In extreme circumstances, require special skills,  allowed early termination of duty of the incumbent Operator and elect a  new Operator on short-term duty to resolve operational problems through  universal Express election with respect to the use of typical  instruments of conformity. After solving operational tasks resumed the  practice of duty in a routine manner. 

  • -  Duty of Operator may be terminated in connection with the deterioration  of his physical or mental health, excluding the possibility of  qualitative execution of obligations of the Operator.

  • - A citizen of Asgardia can take the position of Operator unlimited number of times, but not more than one duty in a row.

  • -  Any change in the Constitution or other legal acts, involving changes  in the status and powers of the Operator taken in period of duty  incumbent Operator, will come into effect only with the next duty.


I propose to consolidate the concepts of "Operator" and "duty" as a neutral and technocratic.


The option of a presidential republic is not very good too. If the President is strong and effective as we have at home - it's just very reminiscent of the monarchy, just with different trappings. And if the President weak and ineffective (as in some formally independent states, where presidents are essentially appointed supranational structures as the EU, NATO etc.) - this is just a misunderstanding.

Can 17, 01 / Jun 6, 17 08:52 UTC

@Elwe Thor: money is completely out of the question here. The topic in question is if a Constitutional Monarch is right for Asgardia. The most agreed upon answer seems to rightfully be no.

Can 17, 01 / Jun 6, 17 23:20 UTC

I'm sorry to say, @Xaphyr, that money is "the core" of the asgardian's monarchy project: in my humble opinion, the AIRC's CEO is trying to "translate" a company into a State, and the only way he can do it is via a monarchy, where the actual properties of a CEO will become properties of the crown.
You simply can't do anything against that but, if you'll pour money enough in this project you'll be awarded of some title, I bet... maybe "chamberlain". ;-)

Worth remembering that, whoever will vote "no" (so me also) won't pass the L3 check, so no citizenship.

Can 18, 01 / Jun 7, 17 04:41 UTC

It's a classic.

 "This person just "king" because that other people refer to it as "subjects". Meanwhile, they themselves consider themselves to be "subjects" because he is "king". Karl Marx

Can 18, 01 / Jun 7, 17 06:30 UTC

@Elwe Thor from the poll attached it is becoming apparent that the majority of Asgardians do not want a Constitutional Monarchy. As this is a democracy, I would not be surprised if the draft constitution is amended. It is not a matter of "if you disagree you can't be a citizen" until it is actually in the final Constitution. 

Can 18, 01 / Jun 7, 17 13:11 UTC

@Xaphyr

I agree. 

This is why I support a direct democracy instead. Constitution choices thread

I personally am the proponent of the Democratic Parliamentary System, which is actually the closest to a direct democracy (amongst the choices presented). 

  Last edited by:  John Skieswanne (Asgardian)  on Can 18, 01 / Jun 7, 17 13:12 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Can 18, 01 / Jun 7, 17 18:05 UTC

Good stuff Xaphr.

I am all for the notion of a Technocracy. For too long countries of the world have voted in incompetent individuals into various offices of political power. This form of government aligns with all the core values of Asgardia.   

Can 18, 01 / Jun 7, 17 21:12 UTC

I respectfully disagree. 

Technocracy is in my opinion just another form of autocracy. Candidates to government positions should not be subject to any discriminations, may it be royal lineage or certificate in engineering. 

The most awesome ideas and leaders don't always come from engineers. 

Can 18, 01 / Jun 7, 17 21:16 UTC

@skieswanne

I completely agree with your statements on where the ideas come from. That being said, ideas can still be proposed and voted on, even if they aren't coming from the heads of these programs/positions. I don't think I could support the argument that these roles should not have a technical background/education/certification simply because I would be worried that they won't provide the best ideas.

Once the ideas are presented, be it by those in the role, or from the general population, it is up to the people in the roles to enact them. Having someone with the formal background of these roles will greatly help in their ability to implement, as well as potentially flesh out ideas that are just in the ideal state and not ready for the challenges of the real world.

In work, I often find myself listening to other people's ideas and working to help determine the best way to implement them, or combining multiple ideas together, or weeding out ideas that are infeasible. In addition, I often propose ideas that won't work for some reason or another and it's important to have someone who has great knowledge in these fields to help do this.

As always, just my personal thoughts here :)

BloodyClean

Can 19, 01 / Jun 8, 17 09:20 UTC

I thought it was pretty straight forward.

  • In a representative democracy you can easily end up with a merchant banker being the Minister for Science.
  • In a technocracy, only a well regarded scientist can be the Minister for Science.

I know which I prefer.

Can 19, 01 / Jun 8, 17 10:09 UTC

@Protean I definitely understand your concerns, however a technocracy executed correctly is merely a democracy in which specialised politicians are replaced with specialised scientists or technicians. This includes specialists in law, doctors, humanitarians, physicists, mathematicians, etc.. A technocracy doesn't have to be oligarchic. Like I said, it can easily be a system in which politicians are replaced with people who have a deep understanding around the workings of society and the universe. A group of doctors, humanitarians, and law specialists will be vastly better when it comes to handling people and their needs on a large scale than a group of politicians, who are really only trained to debate. Mathematicians can work together to come up with accurate predictions for the direction of society, and can finance for an entire nation: much better than a group of people (as I said) only really trained to debate and campaign. These are just a few examples. I just don't see why anyone thought politics, the art of persuasion essentially, was the best way to go about running a country.

Yes our current system works, in which we employ large numbers of politicians to debate on the best direction for a country. However, it could be so much better. All we need to do is replace the politicians with specialists in their fields that, instead of debating, can work together to come up with the objectively superior decision for a nation. Right now it is very hit-or-miss, but it doesn't have to be. 

It seems your main complaint is that certain people (such as those working in the arts or other non-scientific/non-specialist areas) will not be able to achieve power. Well, of course. I see no problem with that. What does an artist or an actor have to offer when it comes to technical analysis of the intricate workings of an entire society? What will they do? Even in our current system people need a lot of training in politics to be eligible for a leadership position. Just because someone doesn't get the chance to be involved in directly running the country doesn't mean they don't have a say. That is what voting is for. What I don't think you're seeing is that voting would still be a very present aspect of a technological society, so no one is barred from having a say.

The main difference with a technocracy is that instead of speculating and blindly steering the country, the leaders will make sure their moves are carefully calculated and thought through before putting any plan into action. The people in question are called specialists for a reason: they have invaluable insight into what effects certain decisions can have and in today's society they are often ignored. We see this in President Trump's recent withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, for example. Scientists have been ignored for too long and we are now seeing the negative effects of this. Look at climate change. Scientists have been predicting this would happen for about a century now, but it is only recently that they have been taken seriously. It is ridiculous, and could have been avoided if the scientists in question were given more power to begin with. Look at all the economic crashes predicted by professional analysts that happened because no action was taken.

It is simply better to have a group of dedicated specialists working on the ideal course for society. Yes, there is the possibility of a corrupt government. But, isn't there always? Measures can be taken to a void this. People need to stop condemning new ideas with the argument that it could go wrong. Of course it could go wrong. The first moon landing could have gone very wrong. That doesn't mean it wasn't a worthwhile pursuit. Any political system inevitably has the chance to run into a bad government. Stop using it as an argument, it is invalid.

  Last edited by:  Lachlan Souter (Asgardian)  on Can 19, 01 / Jun 8, 17 10:29 UTC, Total number of edits: 3 times
Reason: EDIT: I realise President Trump has literally no political or scientific training. Look where that's headed.

Can 19, 01 / Jun 8, 17 10:20 UTC

Specialists will simply band together to protect each other's interests. They declare themselves experts, and decide what's mainstream and what's fringe. This is only the first step. The next step: they make the topic of their expertise hard to comprehend by mere laymen, so to discourage underdog-type competition. Remember that those on the top are not always keen on giving up their positions, or on having to re-think their fields of expertise. As such, they soon form a closed circle of people whose only purpose is to protect their own interests. So, they become increasingly deaf to laymen's inputs, and at one point they reject any suggestions based on excuses such as "the proponent has no qualifications", "the proponent just doesn't understand our field of expertise", etc. 

I've experienced this first-hand in Physics. With both my ideas in subatomic particles structure and my discoveries on Dark Matter. Even a friend of mine, dr. Delbert Larson, PhD, has experienced the same. He had a PhD so mainstream physicists couldn't reject his ideas based on "no qualification". Do you know what they did instead? They rejected his idea based on the facf that he "had made too much suggestion", basically they found him annoying.