What will this look like? What does “engaging with Assembly members” and “holding [yourself] accountable to them” mean?
To me, this means that I will provide regular updates to the Assembly on the work of my government and actively seek their valuable input. It also means that if the Assembly expresses strong opposition to a policy or action taken by my government, I will listen to their concerns and refrain from implementing that policy.
What will this look like? What’s wrong with the current style for OWL recommendations? What needs strengthening?
As I recall, OWL recommendations used to include a rationale explaining why a certain vote was being recommended. However, currently, the OWL recommendations simply state “For” or “Against” without offering any supporting argument. As a result, I, along with many other nations in TSP, often vote differently from the OWL recommendation.
If the OWL recommendations were more detailed and included a clear rationale, I believe more nations would be inclined to align their votes with the recommendations. This would not only improve the effectiveness of the OWL but also strengthen our collective voice in the World Assembly.
This is certainly a new idea–touching on Griffindor’s point, judicial systems throughout NationStates are typically less active than other aspects of government. Do you think this Minister of Justice will be ‘used regularly?’ If not, why would need a Minister of Justice?
I think it would be great to have a more active judiciary (though, admittedly, that’s partly because I’m a legal nerd 
)! I believe the Minister for Justice would be a regularly used position. They would be responsible for overseeing all government activities in the legal sphere, including advising the government on legal matters, submitting amicus curiae briefs to the High Court, and assisting in the drafting of government backed legislation in the Assembly. Being appointed Minister of Justice could also serve as a stepping stone toward becoming a justice on the High Court,
This is an interesting idea. I like it.
The concept of a “basic structure doctrine” is an AFK constitutional principle that is used in some former British colonies, most notably in India, where the term was first coined in the Supreme Court case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. The doctrine asserts that some rights are so fundamental to the constitution that they cannot be repealed, altered, or amended in a way that would change their core substance.
In other words, while the rights enumerated in Article III of our Charter could be edited or modified in a technical sense, they could not be repealed, altered, or amended in a way that would fundamentally undermine their core principles. This principle is also present in other legal systems, often referred to as an “entrenched clause” or “eternity clause.”
This feels like the duty of an everyday judicial system or a legislative watchdog. I believe all Legislators are watchdogs in their own nature, so why do we need this new Ombudsman office? Did any event influence your thinking as to why we needed this office? Do you think this new office will be used regularly?
You also mention that you’ll “work with the Assembly to establish [this] new office.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re implying that we would amend a current law or pass a new law establishing this office? Or perhaps, would this similar to a deputy chair of the Assembly whose special focus in “ensuring all government institutions comply with [our] laws?”
The Assembly Ombudsman, while reporting to the Assembly, would be an independent office tasked with ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and ensuring that government institutions comply with the law. This position is modeled after the Parliamentary Ombudsman found in the Nordic countries. Ideally, the Ombudsman should have subpoena powers and some form of sanctioning power.
If an individual feels their rights have been violated, they should be able to file a complaint with the Ombudsman, who would then launch an independent investigation. The Ombudsman should also have the authority to initiate investigations sua sponte.
The value of this office is that it would provide residents and citizens in TSP with a mechanism to seek redress if they feel they’ve been treated unfairly by government institutions. The Ombudsman would also help enforce compliance with existing laws, such as the Sunshine Act, and exert pressure on government institutions to abide by them. I believe this office would be used regularly.
Although there was no specific event that led me to the conclusion that an Ombudsman is needed, the regular non-compliance with the Sunshine Act and the Citizenship Committee’s application backlog, I believe highlights the need for an independent body to ensure accountability.
In some ways, the Ombudsman’s role could be seen as similar to that of the Deputy Chair, but the Ombudsman would have a fundamentally different responsibility in investigating complaints and ensuring government actions follow the law. The Ombudsman would not only play a role in investigating issues but also make legislative recommendations based on their findings.
To establish the Ombudsman’s office, we would need to pass new legislation. While I hope the office will one day be constitutionally protected, I believe it would be best to begin by establishing it in regular law and see how it works out.
Ok. This has been tried time after time. I think Griffindor’s tried it and I’ve tried it (this is a survey which was supposed to kickstart a mentorship scheme). And you can guess why you probably haven’t heard of those attempts: they weren’t too successful. It takes a lot of energy to hash out a mentorship program.
How will your mentorship system come to fruition? How will it be different from previous attempts?
I will copy a bit of my response to @Griffindor here since the question is similar:
I envision this as an institutional program with an informal approach. By that, I mean the program would be formally established under the executive branch, but without micromanagement from the executive.
From what I’ve seen, Europe has something similar with their Education, Europe. While I’m not familiar with how that operates in practice, I imagine a program with a similar structure: experienced nations volunteering to guide newer members. These mentors would help newcomers navigate TSP, learn about our regional culture, engage with the forum, and understand how the government works.
In addition to what I wrote in that comment, I found your survey to be very interesting. I hadn’t come across it before. I’m not entirely sure how my mentorship program would differ from previous attempts as I’m not too familiar with them, and I don’t want to discredit the efforts of others. Before launching the program, I think it would be beneficial for my administration to discuss our ideas with more experienced users like yourself to better understand what hasn’t worked in the past. One thing I might do differently is appoint a minister dedicated to bridging the gap between the game side and off-site TSP.
In general, I like the fresh energy and the new ideas I’m seeing here. Past attempts at bringing in or back new ministerships, offices, and programs haven’t worked too well recently. In the time I’ve been active in the South Pacific, I’ve witnessed a substantial shrinkage of political roles in order to make our government more efficient. Your platform will expand the government. In your opinion, why do we need these new offices? Why should the government be expanded? Will this increase efficiency?
I believe expanding the government would be beneficial for the region. A small government is not always in the best interest of the South Pacific. For instance, not having a Minister of Foreign Affairs undermines our influence. By increasing the number of ministers, we would reduce the workload on each individual, leading to greater efficiency. Additionally, a larger government could make participation in regional affairs less burdensome and more appealing. More offices would also create opportunities for less experienced members to get involved, which would lower the barriers to entry. This approach would align with my envisioned cursus honorum, making it easier for new nations to rise through the ranks.