[2424.AP] Ministers: Appointment or Election?

[Pronoun]

Roavin, I think we’re talking past each other here because you’re making some good points about how the executive can function in theory, and I have specific concerns about how some folks here are talking in practice. And in theory, I agree! In a world where the Cabinet wants to work together, it might be adequate to just tell the PM to just get better at oversight. It is not clear to me that everybody here is actually advocating for or envisioning that kind of cooperation.

If I may make a comparison: in the debate over that 2018 amendment you linked, you described how Tim as MoFA basically declared, “this is my unilateral authority, I’m deciding it unilaterally, sue me if you don’t like it.” Compare that to this sentiment from last December:

@Legend

I’m not the Minister to be bound to someone elses agenda. If I’m going to serve as MoC, the only way I can do that is my own way, not under the expectations of someone else. Maybe that sounds arrogant, and it probably is, but I believed I was chosen because of my ideas, not to carry out someone else’s.

Okay, big deal, that’s a quote from months ago. I admit it’s also a little out of context (and frankly the context is, well, you can choose your favorite expletive). But it’s hard not see a direct line towards supporting an elected Cabinet: if I want to be a minister but don’t want to have to carry out anyone else’s ideas, then we should have an elected Cabinet so the Prime Minister can’t boss me around anymore.

Or, consider what the law actually said from 2018 (after the amendment you referenced) to 2023 (emphasis mine)…

As leader of the Cabinet, the Prime Minister is responsible for overseeing a collective Cabinet agenda, and may give directions and instructions to the ministers. Disputes within the Cabinet are subject to the majority decision and collective responsibility; where there is no majority the Prime Minister’s vote shall be the deciding one.

…and compare that to the sentiment in this topic (again, emphasis mine)…

@Silva

it is much better to apply for an office and show your project than to simply wait for a PM to choose you and yet you have the chance to have to comply with [the PM’s] agenda, not yours

To me, giving ministers the unilateral right to say “my way or the highway” is not a good reason to have an elected Cabinet. There are a lot of good reasons to have an elected Cabinet — I articulated my thoughts two years ago and mostly stand by them — but a brazen attitude towards ministerial independence is not a good reason. I think Kris had a good description of how things could/should work…

@KrisKringle

My point is that with elected ministers comes the obvious conclusion that ministers should not be ordered around; after all, they would’ve been elected on the merits of their own individual platforms. That said, the PM would’ve also been elected on a comprehensive regional platform and so we should just all recognise the fact that compromise will be necessary, that the PM should probably not micromanage what ministers do, and that ministers should still recognise the authority of the PM to set a common regional agenda even if it means letting go of some of their individual priorities.

…but I am concerned whether there is actually buy-in to that last part about ministers sometimes deferring to the PM.