A question to posit: The power of government

The Plaza
1

One of the conflicts during the Constitutional Crisis that Conclave was discussing was where the power of the government actually came from. I argued that it was from the Citizenry. Nociav argued it’s from the game-side. We never actually got anywhere with it, as at that point I kinda suffered a crisis in RL and semi-left TEP.

SO: I’d like to ask you all: Where does the power of the government actually come from? Does it come from the Concordat and the people? Does it come from the endorsements in nationstates? Does it come from Fedele?

That’s about it. I sure hope someone answers.

2

This deserves to be a UTEP Agora.

One could argue that the game-side region and the off-site aspects of the region are separate entities.
“The East Pacific” game-side region is ultimately seen as the (meta-)physical territory that we reside in.

Whereas “The Confederated States of the East Pacific” aka “TEP” is the geopolitical entity that governs the game-side region “The East Pacific”
It’s only because the geopolitical entity itself has held continuous control of the physical region that the two together are seen as the combined entity “The East Pacific”

So where does the power of Government come from? There’s no straight answer to that, but it is certainly multilayered.
The Governance power that “TEP” has is derived ultimately from the Concordat and the people. It is the people that lay out what is defined in the Concordat, and they who giveth, taketh away.

As for the power of Governance of the physical region “The East Pacific”, ultimately, no matter what “TEP” may assert or state otherwise, if we as an entity do not hold the World Assembly Delegate seat, then we do not govern the game-side region.
Yes, our region “TEP” still exists, but it is ultimately not in control at that point, We would be seen as a Government in Exile.

Inter-regional legitimacy of any particular governing entity, be it the entity we call “TEP” or a foreign entity that has seized control of the World Assembly Delegacy will always be affirmed by other regions at large. Nothing can change that, no matter the assertions made otherwise by aspects of our regional government. If we ourselves are not inter-regionally recognized as the legitimate governing entity of the game-side region, then what are we but seditious to the currently recognized “Government”

3

For all intents and purposes, the government derives its power from the Regional Officer positions, the Delegacy, and the high endorsements and influence of the Viziers. It is ultimately the mechanics that support our government. However, that is not the basis of our government, it is simply its tangible control. If we were to accept that the power of the government derived from its tangible control, then all concepts of legitimacy and law are thrown out the window.

To take this theory to its extreme - our Viziers and Delegates would then truly be oligarchs and dictators, and the Magisterium and the Conclave wouldn’t exist, nor would the Concordat or any of our laws. This theory is one our government and many of our citizens have denounced and opposed on many occasions. So it’s not our gameside control that is the basis of governance in TEP.

Could our tangible control theoretically lead to the enactment of this theory? Yes, technically. Nothing really is stopping those who hold gameside power from collectively overthrowing the Confederation. Sure, there might be resistance or liberation attempts, but the support of those who hold gameside control implies the support of some who would otherwise oppose such a move, and ensures the failure of all who attempt to seize gameside control themselves, in order to restore the Confederation.

But if an army of over 600 updaters raided TEP, and took the Delegacy? Cross endorsed each other, piled on an invader Delegate and 12 invader ROs? If that were to happen, the gameside control of the Viziers, ROs, and Delegate would lead to what would certainly be an epic struggle, but would ultimately be a victory for the Confederation. So, gameside control is the security of our regime, but not its basis.

Is it popular sovereignty, then? Does the government derive its power from the will of the people? Kind of. The gameside mechanics of endorsements lend some credence to this idea. The Delegate and ROs can only use their regional powers with influence that come from endorsements. The Delegate is in place solely because the most people endorsed them. The Viziers are Viziers because they are endorsed by such a large number of people. If the entire region unendorsed me and endorsed Free Algerstonia, Alger would be the delegate.

One may see here the parallels between popular sovereignty and gameside control. In fact, they are practically synonymous, I’d say. The Confederation is in place only because of both the consent of the governed and the power of the Viziers, ROs, and Delegate. The power of the Viziers, ROs, and Delegate is only in place because of the consent of the governed. So let’s consider popular sovereignty and gameside control to be the same political theory, for the purposes of this argument, the one discussed above.

I think the basis of The Confederated East Pacific and any NS regime is the suspension of disbelief. Just because the governed and the gameside officials have the control doesn’t mean they have the power. They can still be removed and replaced without any need for tangible action. Why? The RP. The act of considering ourselves a government. Of considering the Concordat and laws of our region to be actually binding, instead of just stories written.

Ultimately, we could ignore both. We could even ignore a ruling from the Conclave saying we’re illegitimate because we used the word repeal instead of amend. But once we start doing that, we may start considering why we even have those corners when we could cut them. We may start to question the very basis of our government. We may lose our suspension of disbelief, and then the basis of our government collapses. It then has to change the very basis of itself in order to survive, to rewrite its foundations to be based on gameside control.

Doing such a thing, then, is a dangerous game. Possibly impossible to do without falling victim to its pitfalls. It would require an extreme case. One in which the survival of the government is contingent on it rising above the RP and using its tangible power to fix whatever it needs to before falling back into its intangible power, the RP. The fourth wall can be broken, but cannot be done much, and the wall must be rebuilt as soon as possible.

Feel free to disagree with me. I can’t say I’m terribly attached to this idea, it’s just a thought I had.

4

I would just like to point to some possibly interesting sources we have in our library, related to this issue:

As to the question, it depends on what kind of power you mean. The legal authority of the TEP government and its institutions derives from the Concordat though.

5

In my humble opinion, the power of government is derived from the Concordat.  However, the power of the state comes from NationStates.  The state exercises its power through government as much as government controls the state.

6

No, not Fedele.

With tongue placed firmly in my cheek, I claim the power of the government comes from me. You are welcome. Instead of claiming the power for my own use, I chose to “gift” it to all those who wanted to create a Concordat, hold elections, and have a balance of power between different branches of government.

Of course, if we hadn’t created it then, it would have been created later. The appetite for such a structure was very strong in TEP, as it still seems to be. And yes, there are also those who are fond of disruption and total control. They appear from time-to-time. I think at one time, Todd argued those moments are good for TEP. They engage more people (activity!) and recommit people to the Concordat. Please don’t take that as a suggestion to become a disruptor.

1 Like
7

What Todd wrote can be found here: The Necessity of Chaos: Order and Disorder in NationStates - The East Pacific - Tapatalk

8

It’s a very common viewpoint, I think, one typically associated with raiders or independents most of all. I mean I feel like it is the entire basis for R/D, and not exactly crucial but definitely important to GP. As someone who is firmly unaligned in R/D but probably pretty defender leaning in GP, I think competitivism is a healthy mindset to an extent. Or I guess everyone thinks that, and the disagreement is “To what extent”.