#Parliamentary Affairs | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

anghraine · 5 months ago

Text

Speaking of the social context of P&P and Austen in general, and also just literature of that era, I'm always interested in how things like precisely formulated hierarchies of precedence and tables of ranked social classes interact with the more complex and nuanced details of class-based status and consequence on a pragmatic day-to-day level. I remembered reading a social historian discussing the pragmatics of class wrt eighteenth-century English life many years ago and finally tracked down the source:

"In spite of the number of people who got their living from manufacture or trade, fundamentally it was a society in which the ownership of land alone conveyed social prestige and full political rights. ... The apex of this society was the nobility. In the eyes of the Law only members of the House of Lords, the peerage in the strictest use of the word, were a class apart, enjoying special privileges and composing one of the estates of the realm. Their families were commoners: even the eldest sons of peers could sit in the House of Commons. It was therefore in the social rather than in the legal sense of the word that English society was a class society. Before the law all English people except the peers were in theory equal. Legal concept and social practice were, however, very different. When men spoke of the nobility, they meant the sons and daughters, the brothers and sisters, the uncles and aunts and cousins of the peers. They were an extremely influential and wealthy group.

"The peers and their near relations almost monopolized high political office. From these great families came the wealthiest Church dignitaries, the higher ranks in the army and navy. Many of them found a career in law; some even did not disdain the money to be made in trade. What gave this class its particular importance in the political life of the day was the way in which it was organized on a basis of family and connection ... in eighteenth-century politics men rarely acted as isolated individuals. A man came into Parliament supported by his friends and relations who expected, in return for this support, that he would further their interests to the extent of his parliamentary influence.

"Next in both political and social importance came the gentry. Again it is not easy to define exactly who were covered by this term. The Law knew nothing of gentle birth but Society recognized it. Like the nobility this group too was as a class closely connected with land. Indeed, the border line between the two classes is at times almost impossible to define ... Often these men are described as the squirearchy, this term being used to cover the major landowning families in every county who were not connected by birth with the aristocracy. Between them and the local nobility there was often considerable jealousy. The country gentleman considered himself well qualified to manage the affairs of his county without aristocratic interference.

"...The next great layer in society is perhaps best described the contemporary term 'the Middling Sort'. As with all eighteenth-century groups it is difficult to draw a clear line of demarcation between them and their social superiors and inferiors. No economic line is possible, for a man with no pretensions to gentility might well be more prosperous than many a small squire. There was even on the fringe between the two classes some overlapping of activities ... The ambitious upstart who bought an estate and spent his income as a gentleman, might be either cold-shouldered by his better-born neighbours or treated by them with a certain contemptuous politeness. If however his daughters were presentable and well dowered, and if his sons received the education considered suitable for gentlemen, the next generation would see the obliteration of whatever distinction still remained. The solid mass of the middling sort had however no such aspirations, or considered them beyond their reach.

"...This term [the poor] was widely used to designate the great mass of the manual workers. Within their ranks differences of income and of outlook were as varied as those that characterized the middle class. Once again the line of demarcation is hard to draw..."

—Dorothy Marshall, Eighteenth Century England (29-34)

(There's plenty more interesting information in the full chapter, especially regarding "the poor," and the chapter itself is contracted from a lengthier version published earlier.)

#anghraine babbles #long post #dorothy marshall #eighteenth century england #austen blogging #eighteenth century blogging #also thinking about this in terms of elizabeth spending so much of pride and prejudice /acutely/ conscious of a social divide #between her family (as in the bennets and mr collins) and darcy's status - so her claim to equality with him w/ lady catherine is- well #not a dry sociological statement but an important character moment for elizabeth (and lady catherine!)#realistically darcy's lifestyle politics and interests ARE far more allied with ppl like the fitzwilliams than ppl like the bennets #and elizabeth is not at all ignorant of that - it's why she initially thinks he's too much of a great man to be interested in her #even before she knows of his close connections to literal nobility #and that is probably the more ... normative? understanding of their respective positions.#so her later claim to equality with him - in a way that forces ly c to acknowledge elizabeth's own status - is not a simple neutral truth #but weighted in a way that's important thematically and for elizabeth's development - something that the pure sociological take misses imo #anghraine's meta #austen fanwank #sorta

160 notes · View notes

stereo-91 · 3 months ago

Text

WIP - Almost there now!

NOW AVAILABLE!!!

Just some more tweaks and edits and we will have this set released. I hope you guys like it. ALMOST THERE NOW!

We are SO sorry for the hold-up. We have had so much going on in our daily lives. We are a little slower than usual!

It is finally here and now available at last!

Have you ever wanted to build a historical debating arena and make your sims to go head to head in a heated debate??? Well, now you can with this Stately Affair set.

We are aware that political fever is sweeping various nations across the world. It was because of this that we decided to create a politically-inspired set.

As you all may be aware by now, we mainly focus our CC on historical items. We, therefore, decided to create a set based on the old British House of Commons for our historical simmersto enjoy!!!

The items in this set are based on the old House of Commons as it was during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries before it was reduced to ashes in the fire of Westminster Palace in 1834.

This set contains 22 matching items with multiple swatches.

This set includes...

1 Speaker's Chair/Throne

2 Parliamentary Benches

1 Functional Debating Station (Needs Discover University Pack to work)

1 Very Large Fireplace

2 Friezes

2 Tall Wall Panels

1 Small panel

2 Window Panels

1 Railing

1 Banister

1 Banister/Railing Post

1 Triangular Panel For Stairs

1 Wall Column

1 Column With Candlestick Holder

2 Fake Balconies

1 Over Door Head Panel

1 Door

Each item is an original mesh. All items are in the base game except for the debating station.

NOTE: The debating station requires Sims 4: Discover University Expansion Pack.

We can't thank you enough for all of your support!

LINK:

#sims4 #sims 4 cc #sims 4 #the sims 4 #thesims4 #sims4cc #historical sims #sims 4 historical #sims 4 creations #historicalsims

65 notes · View notes

allthecanadianpolitics · 2 months ago

Text

The text of the motion — presented in a closed-doors session of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee — calls for the government to find the quickest way toward recognizing a Palestinian state and asks the committee to dedicate four study sessions toward the matter, sources said. CBC News has agreed not to identify the sources as they were not authorized to comment publicly on the matter. CBC News reached out to several MPs on the committee across party lines, but none agreed to offer a comment, citing the confidentiality of its in-camera sessions. The sources said the motion found approval with the committee's NDP and Bloc Québécois MPs, but did not go to a vote because it was filibustered by Conservative members.

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland

#free palestine #palestinian genocide #state of palestine #liberal party of canada #ndp #bloc quebecois #conservative party #parliament #cdnpoli #canadian politics #canadian news #canada

67 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 months ago

Text

A well-known Georgian transgender model has been murdered, local officials said, a day after the government passed legislation that will impose sweeping curbs on LGBTQ+ rights in the country.

Georgia’s interior ministry said Kesaria Abramidze, 37, was believed to have been stabbed to death in her apartment in suburban Tbilisi on Wednesday.

Georgian media later reported that a man had been arrested in connection with the crime.

Abramidze was one of the country’s first openly trans public figures. Her death follows controversial legislation on “family values and the protection of minors” that will allow officials to outlaw Pride events and censor films and books.

The law, which was approved by the Georgian parliament on Tuesday in its third and final reading, includes bans on same-sex marriages and gender-affirming treatments. It is expected to be another point of contention between Georgia and the EU as the country seeks to join the bloc.

Critics argue that the bill, initially introduced by the ruling Georgian Dream party in the summer, mirrors laws enacted in neighbouring Russia, where authorities have implemented a series of repressive anti-LGBTQ+ measures over the past decade.

Although the motive behind Abramidze’s murder remains unclear, her death was swiftly cast by Georgian civil society as part of a state campaign against minorities in the country.

Under the Georgian Dream party, which has taken an increasingly anti-liberal stance, the country has seen a rise in violence against LGBTQ+ people.

Last year, hundreds of opponents of gay rights stormed an LGBTQ+ festival in Tbilisi, forcing the event to be cancelled. This year, tens of thousands of people marched in the capital to promote “traditional family values” at an event attended by the ruling party amd the deeply conservative and influential Orthodox church.

“There is a direct correlation between the use of hate speech in politics and hate crimes,” the Social Justice Center, a Tbilisi-based human rights group, said in its statement reacting to the murder.

“It has been almost a year that the Georgian Dream government has been aggressively using homo/bi/transphobic language and cultivating it with mass propaganda means,” it added.

On Wednesday, Josep Borrell, the EU’s top diplomat, called on the Georgian government to withdraw the “family values” law, warning it would harm Georgia’s chances of joining the bloc. The legislation would “increase discrimination & stigmatisation”, he said on X.

After Abramidze’s death, Michael Roth, the Social Democratic party chair of the Bundestag foreign affairs committee in Germany, echoed that call. “Those who sow hatred will reap violence. Kesaria Abramidze was killed just one day after the Georgian parliament passed the anti-LGBTI law,” Roth wrote on X.

The introduction of the law comes just five weeks before parliamentary elections that many see as a litmus test of whether Georgia, once one of the most pro-western former Soviet states, will now drift towards Russia.

The country’s pro-western president, Salome Zourabichvili, whose functions are mostly ceremonial, is expected to veto the law before it comes into effect. However, Georgian Dream and its allies have enough seats in parliament to override her veto.

Earlier this year, the Georgian Dream also pushed through the divisive “foreign influence” law, which western critics argue is authoritarian and Russian-inspired, and has derailed the country’s EU aspirations.

Meanwhile, tributes have started to pour in for Abramidze, who represented Georgia at Miss Trans Star International in 2018 and had more than 500,000 followers on Instagram.

“Kesaria was iconic! Provocative, wise, incredibly brave! A trailblazer for Georgia’s trans rights,” Maia Otarashvili, a Georgian political scientist, wrote on X.

Zourabichvili said the murder should be a “wake-up call” for Georgian society.

“A terrible murder! The death of this beautiful young woman … should not be in vain!” the president wrote on Facebook.

53 notes · View notes

wilwheaton · 2 years ago

Quote

Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority expressed great skepticism at the Biden White House’s debt-relief plan yesterday. What we should note, however, is how the press and opinion-setting conventional wisdom has reacted to that fact. Every reaction I’ve seen sees it as the White House failing, the White House getting its collective knuckles rapped, basically an attempt and a failure. The White House is in a lot of ways complicit in this state of affairs and that traces back to an abiding set of assumptions, ingrained almost beneath the level of conscious thought, that the Court is a legitimate rule-enforcing body which is owed respect and deference and shouldn’t be pulled into the political fray. That’s a mistake. The current Court is an illegitimate force in our current public life. It continues to enforce not only doctrines that were long hobby horses in right-wing judicial circles but new and ready-made procedures customized to block any and all policy decisions a Democratic president might choose to pursue. This week, it’s the limits of executive powers. In the brief windows of time when Democrats secure a parliamentary trifecta and pass new legislation, that’s just as suspect. And, as always, it’s relying on a farm team of right-wing legal activists to churn up novel legal theories to choose from.

Thoughts on the Corrupt High Court

The current Court is an illegitimate force in our current public life. It continues to enforce not only doctrines that were long hobby horses in right-wing judicial circles but new and ready-made procedures customized to block any and all policy decisions a Democratic president might choose to pursue.

#fuck these fascists #scotus

556 notes · View notes

whencyclopedia · 3 months ago

Photo

American Revolution

The American Revolution (1765-1789) was a period of political upheaval in the Thirteen Colonies of British North America. Initially a protest over parliamentary taxes, it blossomed into a rebellion and led, ultimately, to the birth of the United States. Rooted in the ideas of the Enlightenment, the Revolution played an important role in the emergence of modern Western democracies.

Origins: Parliament & the American Identity

In February 1763, the Seven Years' War – or the French and Indian War as the North American theater was called – came to an end. As part of the peace agreement, the vanquished Kingdom of France ceded its colony of New France (Canada) as well as all its colonial territory east of the Mississippi River to its victorious rival, Great Britain. While this left Britain as the dominant colonial power in North America, this newfound supremacy came at a cost, namely a massive war debt. To offset the debt, the British Parliament decided to levy new taxes on the Thirteen Colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America. Much of the war had been fought defending these colonies, after all, and Parliament decided that the colonists should help shoulder the empire's financial burden.

Prior to this decision, Parliament had adhered to an unofficial policy of 'salutary neglect' when dealing with the American colonies. This meant that, despite their royal governors, the colonies were largely left to manage their own affairs, with colonial legislatures overseeing governance and taxation. The influence of these legislatures often equaled if not eclipsed the power of the colony's royally appointed governor. Due to differing foundational and developmental circumstances, each colony maintained its own identity – the Puritan society of New England, the Dutch origins of New York, and the tobacco economy of Virginia, for example, all influenced the formation of their colonial identities. Despite viewing themselves as separate from one another, the colonies were loosely bound by their shared ties to Britain and had united in common defense multiple times during the last century of colonial wars.

At the same time, the American colonists considered themselves Britons, and proudly so. After the Glorious Revolution of 1689, and the constitutional reforms that went with it, the British were viewed as the freest people in the world; they were guaranteed a right to representative government (Parliament) as well as the right to self-taxation. The colonists believed that these 'rights of Englishmen' extended to them, as befitting of their English blood and allegiance to the English king; indeed, many of these rights were echoed in the colonies' own charters. The idea that Parliament could directly tax the colonies, therefore, went against this notion; since no Americans were represented in Parliament, Parliament had no constitutional authority to tax them (i.e. taxation without representation). Parliament, of course, disagreed, arguing that the Americans were virtually represented, as was the case with the thousands of Englishmen who owned no property and could not vote. It was this fundamental disagreement over the Americans' rights and liberties – expressed in the guise of taxation – that lay at the heart of the American Revolution and the birth of the United States.

#History #ValleyForge #StampAct #GeorgeWashington

28 notes · View notes

zvaigzdelasas · 9 months ago

Text

When Haitian Prime Minister Ariel Henry filled the void left by the assassination of the country’s president in 2021, he did so over the protest of wide segments of the population but with the full-throated support of the Biden administration.

Now, almost three years later, Henry’s grip on power is hanging by a thread, and Washington is confronted by even worse choices as it scrambles to prevent the country’s descent into anarchy.

“They messed it up deeply,” James Foley, a retired career diplomat and former U.S. ambassador to Haiti, said in an interview about the Biden administration’s support for Henry. “They rode this horse to their doom. It’s the fruit of the choices we made.”[...]

Stubborn U.S. support for Henry is largely to blame for the deteriorating situation, said Monique Clesca, a Haitian writer and member of the Montana Group, a coalition of civil, business and political leaders that came together in the wake of Jovenel Moïse ‘s murder to promote a “Haitian-led solution” to the protracted crisis.

The group’s main objective is to replace Henry with an oversight committee made up of nonpolitical technocrats to restore order and pave the way for elections. But so far, Henry, who has repeatedly promised to hold elections, has shown no willingness to yield power.

While in Guyana last week for a meeting of Caribbean leaders, he delayed what would be Haiti’s first vote in a decade yet again, until mid-2025.

“He’s been a magician in terms of his incompetence and inaction,” said Clesca. “And despite it all, the U.S. has stayed with him. They’ve been his biggest enabler.”

By any measure, Haiti’s perennially tenuous governance has gotten far worse since Henry has been in office.[...]

But even as Haiti has plunged deeper into chaos, the U.S. has stood firmly by Henry.

“He is taking difficult steps,” Brian Nichols, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, said in October 2022, as Haitians poured into the streets to protest the end of fuel subsidies. “Those are actions that we have wanted to see in Haiti for quite some time.”

When demonstrations resumed last month demanding Henry’s resignation, the top U.S. diplomat in Haiti again rushed to his defense.

“Ariel Henry will leave after the elections,” U.S. chargé d’affaires Eric Stromayer told a local radio station.[...]

The Biden administration has defended its approach to Haiti. White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre, without specifically endorsing Henry, said the U.S. long term goal of stabilizing the country so Haitians can hold elections hasn’t changed.

But in what may be a telling slip that speaks to the neglect Haiti has suffered in Washington of late, Jean-Pierre confused the Haitian president, the country’s top elected official, with the prime minister, who is picked by the president and subject to parliamentary approval.

“It’s the Haitian people — they need to have an opportunity to democratically elect their prime minister,” Jean-Pierre, whose parents fled Haiti, said Wednesday. “That’s what we’re encouraging,” [...] “But we’ve been having these conversations for some time.”

Nichols said he and Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke with Henry on Thursday and urged him to broaden his political coalition. He said the U.S. would work to speed up the deployment of a multinational security mission to combat the gangs led by Haiti under the auspices of the United Nations but that other countries needed to step up their support in the way the world is working together to address humanitarian needs in Ukraine and Gaza [sic].[...]

The U.S. bears much of the blame for the country’s ills. After French colonizers were violently banished in 1791, the U.S. worked to isolate the country diplomatically and strangle it economically. American leaders feared a newly independent and free Haiti would inspire slave revolts back home. The U.S. did not even officially recognize Haiti until 1862, during the Civil War that abolished American slavery.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops have been an on-and-off presence on the island, dating from the era of “gunboat diplomacy” in the early 20th century when President Woodrow Wilson sent an expeditionary force that would occupy the country for two decades to collect unpaid debts to foreign powers.

The last intervention took place in 2004, when the administration of George W. Bush diverted resources from the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq to calm the streets following a coup that removed President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.[...]

Foley said the situation is deteriorating so fast that the Biden administration may have no choice [but to send US troops to Haiti]. He’s pushing for a limited troop presence, like the one that in 2004 handed off to U.N. peacekeepers after only six months. Unlike the U.N. peacekeeping mission, which was hastily organized, Kenya has been working for months on a multinational force to combat the gangs.

“I completely understand the deep reluctance in Washington to have U.S. forces on the ground,” Foley said. “But it may prove impossible to prevent a criminal takeover of the state unless a small U.S. security contingent is sent on a temporary basis to create the conditions for international forces to take over.”

But whether yet another U.S. intervention helps stabilize a desperate Haiti, or just adds more fuel to the raging fire, remains an open question. And given the recent American track record, many are doubtful.

“The U.S. for too long has been too present, too meddling,” said Clesca. “It’s time for them to step back.”

7 Mar 24

68 notes · View notes

thetruearchmagos · 5 months ago

Text

Democracy Manifest

Elected Government In The United Commonwealth

Well, thank you @theprissythumbelina for giving me the kick I needed to get started on this topic, I hope you enjoy what's to come! Otherwise, I'll Tag @athenswrites @caxycreations @hessdalen-globe @nerdexer @the-ellia-west @avrablake @coffeewritesfiction @vyuntspakhkite-l-darling

A/N: This took... so long... But I can't say I'm not happy with it!

The House

The Parliament of the United Commonwealth is the highest legislative body of the UC, comprised of 5,227 elected Members representing the over four billion citizens of that polity. From its seat in Parliament House on the Weslich island of Sudpulau, this body, the single largest legislature in the 12 Worlds, passes the laws of the Commonwealth.

The Vote

Elections to Parliament are held every four years, with the exception of by-elections which occur to satisfy vacancies. They occur on a one-person-one-vote, secret-ballot basis using a 'Single Transferable Vote', and are open to all adult (>18) citizens who have been citizens for at least two months. Elections are overseen by the Electoral Activities Bureau, an independent public body, which manages the continents spanning infrastructure required for elections and draws the term's electoral map prior to every election.

The Member

Seats are open to any adult citizen who wishes to run regardless of any demographic, with the only restriction being if one is currently under a criminal trial or is incarcerated. Members are not bound by any term limits, and the only barrier to their Seat is the vote of their constituency.

The Three

Three individual Members dominate the House.

Firstly is the Chief Minister, Head of State and Government of the United Commonwealth and voted in by a simple majority of members.

Next is the Leader of the Opposition, bestowed with a simple majority of non-Government Members. Their lot is to hold the Government to account at every turn, patiently awaiting their turn on the opposite Bench.

Finally, is the Speaker of the House, approved with a simple majority and presiding over the business and conduct of Parliament in its frequently lively discourse.

No term limits apply on any of these offices, and all can be revoked with a vote of no confidence from the whole House, or the Opposition alone in the LoO's case.

The Benches

The vast majority of Members are, however, not seated in a formally recognised office; Unlike many national Parliamentary systems, at present no further formal Cabinet exists beyond the CM, a state of affairs viewed with increasing skepticism.

Instead, backbenchers on either side are as a rule 'organised' on a highly ad hoc basis, shifting with Party and Coalition tastes and the wider circumstances of the Commonwealth.

First and foremost among these organisations are the Parties.

Parliament's Members are nearly all affiliated with any of numerous political parties, though parties themselves are not recognised organisations in the eyes of the government de jure. They may range in size from a thousand or more members spread across member states, to a dozen or so, and have been founded and internally organised along an infinite number of ideals.

Both the LoO and CM are almost always the 'leaders' of their respective party, though the way appointments to either office are decided on is at every party's discretion. Party leaders outside either office are nonetheless still key elements of the political ecosystem, guiding their members into and between Coalitions.

A universal feature of all major parties are Party Whips, Members appointed within their party's ranks and charged with ensuring that their colleagues cast their vote precisely as their Leader wishes. Though not imbued with any unique power within the House, beyond its chambers they can hold the life and death of any politician's career in their hands, and are commonly seen as the right hands of their respective leaders.

Aside from these two positions, the actual make up and structure of political parties is highly diverse, and often highly fluid, reliant as much on circumstances outside the House as in it. The criteria for membership, its exclusivity, and internal Party appointments differ greatly between Parties, which form, merge, die off, or reform themselves in an unending state of change. One could at any point found a Party of their own for any reason if it suited them, and the only restriction they'd need worry about is the will of their constituents.

However, no Party in history has ever achieved a unilateral majority in the House, and thus forming a government is an exercise in Coalition building and breaking above anything else. Coalitions, like the parties that make them, are not bound or recognised by any rule of Parliament, and so the rules and dynamics that define them change with every government and election. Chief Ministers as a rule come from the largest Party in the largest Coalition who can agree to vote for them, but ultimately no law dictates that a minority Leader could not hold that office.

Finally, comes Committees. As above, Committees themselves are not strictly recognised bodies, but are formed and governed on an as needs basis according to long established precedents and expectations. Typically, Government, Opposition, and House Committees exist simultaneously on any range of subjects, with the latter including Members from both groups. While Committees are never necessary for relevant legislation to pass, deference to their existence and decisions is a political inevitability.

Though Independent Members exist, they are a rare occurrence outside of the most 'recently democratic' member states. Where they do appear, however, they usually rely on a combination of their own extremely great charisma, some specifically and highly localised appeal, and Party apathy to gain and hold their Seats. Still, unseating such Members is often an uphill and unpopular struggle. Once in the House, Independents typically have a very difficult time intruding themselves into the business of Parliament, and where they do tend to make their case on issues distinctly relevant to their constituencies.

In summary, while the Charter of Parliament never established any further positions beyond the Speaker, Chief Minister, and Leader of the Opposition, the House has in the century since built for itself a long and deep institution of customs and traditions with which its internal business is regulated and managed. Such a 'laissez faire' approach to politics mirrors well the UC's generally fluid approach to government at large, and very much conforms with the original intentions of the earliest theorists and politicians who had established the Commonwealth long before. While at times these institutions have faltered in the face of politicial crises in the past, they have survived, and seem set to continue to survive.

The Legislative Process

While Parliament has an absolute and final say on the passing of Bills into Acts of Parliament and thus the law of the land, it is not the only body involved in the legislative process.

The first step in this process is the introduction of a Bill into Parliament. Any Member can introduce any Bill they wish at any time, but this right is also held by both the Commission of the UC, its independent executive body, and the Council of Ministers, comprised of member states governments' cabinet executives.

After this, Bills may legally be immediately passed into law if a majority of Members vote in agreement. Such an event is, however, exceedingly rare, and no Member of any affiliation is likely to cast their vote before a Bill undergoes an intensive debate.

The Bill in question is first submitted to the most relevant House Committee for initial investigation and debate. This might involve summoning and interrogating government or private individuals, alter and negotiate over the details of Bills, or even introducing their own Bills with a complete background onto the floor.

This begins an occasionally recursive loop of Bill debates, failed votes to pass, and returns to Committee for further alterations. Considering the sheer number of Bills on the floor at any given time, most such debate takes place in the numerous sub-chambers housed within Parliament House's vast structure, returning to the main chamber only for final votes.

Assuming a majority of Members vote in favour of it, the Bill passes into the Council of Ministers for a final check. Effectively acting as a 'semi-Upper House', the CoM only rarely invokes its right to dismiss a Bill for further debate with their own recommendations, a power which can only be used on any given Bill once. Typically, though, the Council will have made its intentions known well before this stage, and so Bills which are handed to it usually sail through without alteration.

Thus, as far as 'speed' is concerned, the time it takes for a Bill to pass ranges from days, to years, to, of course, never. The lack of a 2/3rds supermajority requirement for any action at all at least limits that angle, and the intensity of debate and diversity of potential views that exists leads to a long but undeniably thorough and expansive legislative process.

------

Further Details...

On Members

The equity of Parliament's ranks under the law is for the most part well established in reality. Sheer wealth at either a personal or party level is rarely corroborated with electoral success, especially given the UC's wide reaching and strict financial transparency laws. Nonetheless, a number of factors can serve to shape the electability of a candidate beyond how skill and ideological appeal.

More specifically, the tendency to favour candidates based on race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, or gender is more common in regions and their societies which are relatively new to the United Commonwealth and its own brand of social and cultural 'liberalism'. In societies where the UC's social and political culture have become more entrenched, such influences hold less influence than individual charisma, oratorical skill, and of course how they align with the political movements and issues of the day.

On Committees

The fluidity of Committes has at times been both a strength and a weakness, and is always bound by prior traditions more than anything else.

For all intents and purposes, the notion of any Committee's 'legitimacy' relies on the mutual consent of the House at large. The size, partisan diversity, and proportionality of a Committee are never set in stone, and in truth any specific Committee lives and dies within the term it was made in, becoming unrecognisable as changes in the make up of the wider House lead to renegotiations of its status.

In order to prevent the endless expansion of the number of Committees that this anarchic system often threatens to cause, many political Parties have reached agreements outside the House on a list of issues for which House Committees, are to be established on a long term basis. These include those on the Armed Forces, Security and Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs, among other significant issues of government. The size and authority of such 'Standing Committees' is thus largely guaranteed between governments, giving a much needed sense of order and continuity to the whole affair.

Every House Standing Committee is mirrored by Government and Opposition Committees on the same issue, and inter-party negotiations are dominated by the allocation of Committee seats to each represented Party. The latter two represent the interests of their respective halves of the House, and all three have their membership apportioned according to each Party's size.

In addition to these Standing Committees are an ever changing number of Provisional Committees, referring to those which lack the 'official' agreed recognition of the Parties 'in writing' but which nonetheless function with their consent and participation. These may come into and out of existence with time as issues surface or die out, and those of particular longevity may find themselves on the list to become Standing Committees in full. Provisional Committees might include Inquiry Committees, or Regional Committees aligned to areas suddenly facing crises.

Once the proportions of Committee membership have been parceled out, how Parties hand out their Members across roles is left to their discretion, unless the negotiation process prior had specified some limited requirements. Seniority, expertise, and a Member's constituency and its concerns are all regular considerations, amongst others, and of course the internal politics of that Party.

Aside from this, however, Parties and Members are free to associate with each other in whatever groups they wish to. It is, however, generally considered 'bad form', or political suicide, for anyone to declare that any already agreed upon Committee is irrelevant or not recognised, or to attempt to usurp their legitimacy by convincing others to join their cause. The agreements mentioned above universally condemn such activity, and any Party looking to engage in it is liable to find itself ostracised from the business of the House and evicted by their voters, who often are informed enough of political culture to express displeasure at spoiling 'their' vote.

------

And that's a wrap! Depending on if anyone has any further questions, my own actual motivation and time, and whether I get any further ideas, I might write a second part to this post. If I do, it'll either go into the history of how this system formed over time, or maybe a specific case study on some political ideologies, movements, and parties. Or I won't. Who knows.

#worldbuilding #my worldbuilding #writeblr stuff #my writing #writeblr #writing #my wips

15 notes · View notes