Following your logic we can also:
- Why don’t we forgo democracy and declare ourselves an empire or kingdom? For stability? We have good examples such as NPO and Balder just to name a few. Because why not? And I quote “There are already good examples that it works and there shouldn’t be a good enough reason to say we shouldn’t try new things. No one is saying change will be easy, but rather that we need to do it if we wish to further our regional goals”
Or
- Still following your logic of having “examples”. We have TNP(Just to name the best example) that have a WAD who is also the head of state. Why can they make it work while we can’t?
The reason I brought up the examples is to show that this system has worked in other regions. I’m not really supporting it because other regions use it. As I’ve stated, I generally agree with Altys that the modern day Delegate is oftentimes too busy to endotart, so splitting that duty will help us gain a Delegate more focused on fostering endorsement culture.
Your hypothetical doesn’t really work anyways, because it equates the importance of having a one-leader Delegacy with the importance of TEP remaining a democracy. Clearly, the former isn’t as important to some TEPers in comparison to regional goals like stability or WA power. TEP being a democracy itself, however, is placed a great deal of importance - maintain democratic processes due to community preference - which is why we’re a democracy even though indeed, we’d be more stable as a monarchy (due to the examples you stated). It’s not acceptable for us to lose our identity as a democratic region to chase the regional goal of stability, so we don’t. It is possibly acceptable for us to lose our identity as a region with a unified head Executive to chase the regional goal of stability and WA power, which is why we’re now discussing splitting it.
As for TNP, I don’t know. That’s a question probably every single TEP Delegate, much less every regional leader ever, asks themselves at night. What I can say is that TNP is a great testament to why the unified Delegate structure works. But clearly, after 10 years - we haven’t been able to figure it out (and I’d be floored if previous TEP Delegates haven’t tried asking that question on what TNP is doing differently before). So maybe we should try out another well-proven system and see if that works any better for us.
If we’re talking about regional identity. TEP started off as dictatorship similar to that of an “empire” or “kingdom” with “elders” as the core leadership team. It is only in modern times that we’ve accepted democracy. Going back to a “dictatorship” or “empire” or “kingdom” isn’t really losing our identity but going back to our roots. Well I’m saying this not because I feel like we should go back but I’m just basically nitpicking your logic.
And even if the regional identity you speak of is our modern democracy which have our elected WAD also as the head of state. Isn’t splitting the roles also changing our regional identity?
Anyways, as a former TEP delegate I really didn’t question why TNP can do it and not us. Because I know we are able to do it and can even do better. It’s just that we need to be more united as a region. Having a solid foundation and a regional culture that encourages and rewards the endorsement culture. We used to have a dedicated team that regularly remind people to endorse. It’s just that we keep changing directions every now and then, changing laws, changing and amending something that hasn’t really found it’s solid foundation. In essence, what I’m trying to say is we are not consistent and consistency is the key to success. No matter how many times we changed directions and if we are not consistent as a region, we cannot find and mould a solid foundation. We have to have a clear direction and goal and work consistently towards it and not keep changing direction at the slightest hint of failure or worst still, paranoia.
Indeed, splitting roles is changing our identity. What I’m saying (as I said earlier), is that we don’t really view it as an integral part of our identity - so we’re willing to change it. But we do view our democracy an extremely integral part of our identity, and keep it for that reason amongst others.
In any case, it’s been two plus years since the coup happened. We have been quite consistent in our Delegacy structures. We know the general trends of our Delegacy - it has found its footing. And the findings are clear: 40% of Delegates simply don’t prioritize WA stuff, and therefore we lose WA power because they don’t. That WA endorsement culture you mention - that’s the Delegate’s job to foster it. And when it’s clear a near majority of office-holders aren’t doing their job… maybe it’s the job itself that needs changing.
This isn’t the slightest hint of failure. This is not something that hasn’t found it’s footing. It has found its footing as a chronic failure of a system proven over time, a failure rate that’s seemingly rising (considering you, me, and lib did well with endos and stuff only went downhill afterwards), and we’re seeking to fix it.
In any case, it’s pretty clear we ain’t convincing each other so feel free to reply to this, but I probably will not reply back at least until Libertanny’s creative Magi thing comes up with a substantial proposal.
I didn’t know you speak for the whole region. Anyways 40% of statistics that delegate doesn’t focus on WA isn’t a high enough conclusion.
If we start from me post coup, delegates that prioritises WA:
Marrabuk: Yes
Libertanny: Yes
Zuk: Yes
Atlae: No
Aurora: Yes
Aiv: In between
Shadow: No
Disregarding Aiv who was in between only 28.57% of delegate does not focus on WA. I wouldn’t count that as significant nor is it actually 40% as you mentioned.
However, having said that, yes the elected delegate plays a huge role whether they want to be WA focused or not. But I’ve seen during Yuno, Fedele and my time. There are people besides the delegate that helped to get the delegate endorsements on a regular basis in the form of dispatches, telegrams and RMB posts. So yes, the region itself can play a part as well.
Sort of gravedigging this thread but want to throw in here that I’d never in a thousand years advocate for (1) in a GCR and think (2) would be an unmanageable overcomplication of TEP’s government. (3) and (4) are something that have crossed my mind in the instance that F/S causes us to enter some kind of influence death spiral.
I don’t hate (4) without the influence death spiral, but it would effectively transform the region into a constitutional oligarchy.
Foreshadows me turning EM into an unwilling permanent WAD during a time of crisis. 
He’d be a benevolent dictator.