Post

Hey Folks, bill author here to answer a few questions. I'm going to preface this by saying I have a very clear conflict of interest here, as I'm expected to be elected as PM in a few days, but my stance on Ministerial Confirmations goes all the way back to me joining this region.

Orang Moku wrote:

So, ministers appointed by the PM no longer have to go through a vetting process by the Senate, should this pass? Does sub-section II just render it obsolete/redundant, since a simple majority of the Senate can remove a minister from office, or would it be better if the Senate could remove bad candidates before they even enter office? I'm not necessarily putting forth a viewpoint, more just trying to get a discussion rolling.

You are correct in saying that Ministerial nominees would no longer go through a vetting process before entering office, and given when a Minister is appointed/what we currently do as a nomination there would be no pre-emptive recall ability, but a Minister could be removed via popular recall, the Prime Minister or Senate recall once they assume office.

The Bigtopia wrote:

Even if they aren't always used, confirmations are a good check on the Prime Minister and on his ministers, even if the check isn't always used how it probably should. The Prime Minister already has plenty of power and time to get stuff done, and it's not that much of an inconvenience so long as you confirm the more important ministers first.

I don't like the idea of Prime Ministers being able to appoint whoever they like. The current system's accountability is good; it makes the ministers take their job a little more seriously and the prime minister too. Senate removal of a minister seems like a much bigger deal than a confirmation, and I would imagine that removals would be way more rare than candidate rejections are. There's a stigma there - being removed by the senate is a much bigger deal and more upsetting than a failed confirmation. I'd also remark that this bill removes what I'd consider necessary consideration and pressure on the Prime Minister to pick someone who is going to be competent and active.

Hi Bigtopia, firstly welcome back to the region given your absence for my nearly 3 years in it.
It is not a matter of the check sometimes isn't used, it's a case of it isn't ever used. I've been in Thaecia for nearing if not over 3 years at this point, and have been in the Senate for a not insignificant amount of that time. In my time in Thaecia, I have seen a single (if my memory serves me correctly) Minister rejected, The Ambis, as Legal Affairs for a reason that still haunts them to this day.

Fact of the matter is we've had some diabolical Ministers confirmed, and we've had the Ambis, who went on to be an excellent member of the executive, rejected. The Senate has never appropriately done its job. Add onto this nothing forbids the renomination of a Minister after a rejection, and there is absolutely no way for a Senate to force a Prime Minister into a different pick if they don't want to.

I don't know what it was like back in 2019, but whatever confirmations were used for back then aren't true to this day. We also have more checks on executive office than ever before with the introduction of citizen recalls, the Senate is no longer the only possible check on Executive power.

Pair that with the fact that Ministers in and of themselves have no power that the Prime Minister doesn't already have, and allowing the PM to appoint whoever they want doesn't actually hand them any power. Acting Ministers still exist from the prior term, Secretaries have been used in the past to bypass confirmations for non constitutionally mandated offices (e.g. Xernon & ICH as Secretary of Communications), and all having a Senate confirmations do is slow down the start to an executive term and provide the incredibly small chance of a small speedbump in the road for an incoming administration.

We've been doing confirmations in bulk batches for a while now, so while the time they actually take up has been dropping, that also means the quality of the confirmations has been dropping. They may have once been viewed as important, but they are nothing more than a rubber stamp now.

Any Senator that attempts to block a confirmation is going to be labelled as obstructionist (source: I have tried) and be slammed for it, the sheer amount of political blowback for attempting to block 99% of confirmations will get a Senator is not going to be worth it. The Prime Minister was elected with a direct mandate from the citizenry to carry out their portfolio, why we believe the Senate has a right to overrule the popular vote is wild to me.

Confirmations may act as a block to further experience, they may act as a method by which a Senate can attempt to control executive policy despite public support for the elected Prime Minister, but more importantly they haven't actually acted as a check for the past 3 years.

The Bigtopia wrote:

Basically, I'm for more accountability and less executive power, even if it's not as convenient, and the senate loses some of its senate vibes without minister confirmations.

It's clear we stand on the opposite site of the line, you're more used to a Thaecia of old which was a hyperpolitical beast, but that is no longer this Thaecia.

I will also borrow a line from my good friend Brototh and just point out that "vibes" is an exceptionally dumb reason to keep bureaucracy and imo just highlights a fact that you have no strong argument for confirmations, you just think "senate" must have "confirmation".