A Council of Executive Appeal

[Drychnath]

This stems in part from the discussion on a Presidential Council (acknowledgments to Dave), and my own thoughts on feudalism and a hereditary elite.

Suppose the following: the head of a country wields broad executive and legislative power. There is an independant court system, and a special governmental council, popularly elected, and a constitution defining their powers.

For the sake of the example, we'll call the head of state the Consul. The Consul is responsible for making the laws, commanding the military, declaring martial law, taxation, distribution of funds, etc. There are limitations on his power, such as; the authority to command the military to operate offensively outside the nation's borders, cannot alter the constitution, can only levy special taxes or perhaps not on certain things, may not interfere with the functioning of the court system, etc. The purpose of the court system is simply to process the transgressors of the law, and there should probably be a second set of courts akin to our civil ones, for much the same purpose. The special council (we'll call it a Constitutional Assembly) can be addressed by the Consul for a temporary expansion of his powers; for example, the power to attack another country, to levy a special tax, perhaps to set commute or expedite the sentence of a singularly important individual, etc. The Assembly would also hold the supreme loyalty of the military; given contravening orders, the Assembly is to be obeyed, even if the Consul exercises day-to-day command. The Assembly would also have the power to change the constitution, by some voting system or other and likely approved by referendum.

These specific examples are, of course, just what I thought might apply and by no means all-inclusive; but what do you think of the concept? Could a country function with this system? A powerful head of state with certain limitations, and an avenue to have them removed in times of need or opportunity?

[Arcadian]

Yay for acknowledgements!

Though I think semantics are making it difficult for people to reply to this concept at first.

It seems to me that it's a system capable of functioning, as most are, but I'm not positive it would last without some form of testing. And actually being able to -enforce- such a structure is another deal entirely.

Hrmm.

[AeroStrategos]

Maybe it would work... but could you imagine something like the Congress we have now with ultimate power over the military? *shudder...*

[johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt]

*shudders* indeed that is a scary thought.

except i do not think that that's what Blough had in mind when he posted this. it seems he gave the consul primier power of the military, he just simply gave the congress ultimate authority of WHEN to use it for foreign policy.

this idea seems to me that it would hold some water, however, it appears to resemble remarkably the current station of the US president/congress.

in other posts i've stated that a country in which conflict is an integral part of the the government would be a strong government. I have since realized that, although violent conflict would seem to polarize the nation, weaken it, there are ways to have conflict without weakening. I believe we live in that sort of nation right now. the US political system is just that sort of system, creating animosity, even anger between the two parties, thus we have a system with conflict as an inherent part, and yet there is no reason for violent struggle because of the rules in place. I believe the system would work more effectively if we were to make it easier to start up more parties, each able to cater to different parts of the population, thus creating a coalition government. This sort of government can be more representative of the peoples' views, due to the more widely varied parties, and while they are able to still represent the views of their constituents(sp?) they must compromise in congress in order to accomplish anythign resembling their goals. this creates 'conflict' on every level, and yet allows for compromise and unified fronts to foreign powers. many countries have accepted this form, and i don't really see any glaring weakness to it, save for the fact that coalition governments generally don't last more than 1 or 2 elections.

I do not believe supreme power in a ruler can accurately represent the will of a nation, they CAN create a stable state, they CAN create a just state, they even have incentives for continuing the state's power. they cannot, however, create a participatory state which caters to the needs of an educated public. we have seen in the past(Iran is a great example) that as a population is educated, its need for political involvement increases, perhaps this is due to their increased understanding of the world, perhaps they simply enjoy reading newspapers and want to do something about it, either way, in order to have a highly educated population, there must be particiapation to some extent int eh affairs of the state. perhaps as simple as a congress of experts, though experts are generally fanatical about their own field and would therefore be rather unwilling to compromise to create any sort of over arching policy regarding anything contrary to their goals.