Resignation statement

Fellow members of the South Pacific,

In a few moments I will be submitting my resignation from the Assembly. Many of you will not have realised I was here in the first place. I have not been the most active of participants in my time here - almost four years. Nonetheless I wanted to put on record a few words about my reasons, in case they are of help to anyone thinking about the future of the region.

TSP is rightly proud of its heritage as NationStates’ oldest democracy. In NS, as in the real world, democracy is the best system of government. I make no apology for saying this. It is much of the reason I chose to join this region in the first place. But democracy isn’t just a thing you say - it’s a thing you do. A strong democracy empowers as many people as possible, in the knowledge that the collective wisdom of its members is greater than the sum of its parts.

Since I joined TSP, however, the trend has generally been in the opposite direction. Many constitutional and legislative changes that I have seen during my time here have had the effect of concentrating power in the hands of an ever-decreasing number of players. From restricting the pool of players who are eligible to stand for election as Delegate, to abolishing the Local Council, the cultural instinct of the region has been to hoard power, not to share it. To be sure, each of these changes had their own rationale, and might even have seemed sensible in isolation, but viewed as a whole the pattern is clear.

The most recent change in the law, raising the bar to participation in the Assembly, is another unwelcome step in this direction. The debate on these proposals even came close to suggesting that certain ways of playing the game are somehow less legitimate than others.

Those that would respond that the new requirements for Assembly membership are not especially onerous, or that the reforms will open up executive voting rights to a new group of players, are missing the point. In TSP’s constitution it is the Assembly that holds the executive to account, and these additional barriers will reduce its ability to do so. Taken together with other centralising reforms over the last few years, the erosion of democracy in this region is a clear and present danger.

It is unlikely I will meet the new enhanced requirements for participation in the Assembly, and I would rather leave now than be pushed, or play a disinterested part in executive elections purely for the sake of maintaining legislator status.

As such, I will be submitting my resignation in a moment. I hope those legislators that remain will consider the implications of my words, and think about how TSP can move forward in a way that strengthens democracy, rather than weakening it. If not, then no hard feelings - it’s only a game, after all.

I will continue to maintain a WA nation in the South Pacific, to make whatever small contribution I can to regional security. I wish you all well.

May I ask what exactly this means? I was not aware that the bar for participation in the Assembly had been raised, but admittedly I have not read the bill in detail so I might have missed something.


There is nothing in the law change that made participating in the Assembly any more difficult. The only thing that changed was voting (every three months) in elections measures citizenship vs. making more than half the votes in a given month.

Arguably, the bar to participate was lowered rather than raised.

To your next point on executive accountability… Assembly supremacy is still very much a thing. The Assembly still holds exclusive legislative authority, still holds confirmation authority over all nominees, maintains whatever oversight abilities it had before the changes, even maintains the ability to recall any official in the Coalition, and is still the only authority the CRS cannot lawfully interfere within a state of emergency.

The only thing the Assembly lost were the nations that voted and did nothing else (and they haven’t even been lost yet) to maintain overall citizenship in the region.

We, as a region, must always be vigilant of attempts to undermine democracy in the region, but we shouldn’t do so in a way that makes us not try new things. If it doesn’t work, we can always try another path.

Also, not to throw your voting record out here, but you did vote for the PM appointment omnibus, which is arguably a lot more dangerous a change than a tweak to where activity is measured. :stuck_out_tongue:

I am sad to see a legislator resign over what I believe is a misinterpretation of the law, but I must give credit to being principled about it! I truly do hope you remain active within the region and provide your voice to the debate! (You do not need to be a member of the Assembly to debate, only to vote!)


Just to confirm, you stated that you will be removing people that only vote and do nothing else. What is the criteria on that and how will you determine that? I might just be blind but I can find anything on that in the bill.

I will guess that this was directed at me. :stuck_out_tongue:

I personally will not be removing anyone’s citizenship or legislator status; that responsibility rests with the Citizenship Committee and the Chair of the Assembly, respectively.

Further, my statement was in reference to what was the status quo. Since access to the regional government was tied to being a legislator in good standing (i.e., voting), many legislators voted to maintain their legislator status and not actively participate in the business of the Assembly.

Now that the Assembly has moved to measure activity by voting in elections rather than voting in the Assembly, the idea is that only those who want to participate in the Assembly actively will do so, while those who do not will not be jeopardizing their overall status within the region.

Thanks, also yeah I know you won’t be, the "you"s were referencing the coalition, I probably should have made that more clear lol