I find myself very split on this proposal.
Philosophically speaking, I do not distrust cosmopolitanism, and I think the line of thought of “commitment to TEP should be full time” is… harsh. I don’t oppose being in multiple regions the same way that I don’t oppose having multiple citizenships in real life. Yes, of course we want our people to be focused on helping us and building our region up, but I would be more satisfied if we earn that from people than if we force it by fiat. It’s undeniable that people with multiple citizenships have made incredible contributions to our region. We would close off a potential source of talent if we make this change without care.
I won’t support the change without a clearly laid out process by which the Praesidium can grant an exception to the WA rule. I think we cause more harm than good by closing our doors to people whose WA nations are in other regions simply because of that reason. Security is very important, and our region has most certainly faced threats. But making ourselves too insular is also a threat—if not to our security than to our efficacy, as people burn out or we lose input from new perspectives and new ideas.
I already posted this on Discord, but I did a cursory analysis of all the GCRs in how they deal with this issue:
“Local WA req’d” means that in order to have citizenship, you must have a WA nation in that region. Of 11 GCRs, only 4 currently have this requirement, and of these, only one—The Outback—has no provision for an exception. In fact, even requiring WA membership at all (which we do, just not locally) is a minority, 5 of 11. (I am fairly sure it is not required in Balder, just recommended.) I was surprised by these results. I expected to find that requiring a local WA was the rule, not the exception.
That all said, so long as there is a healthy and strong provision for exceptions from the WA rule, I find it hard to outright oppose the change. Non-citizen residents have a very strong basis of fundamental rights in TEP. The issue at question is primarily a vote in Delegate elections, a vote in referendums, and a vote in the Magisterium. (A citizenship requirement is implied for Viziers, and contrary to what my above chart says, I actually don’t think it’s required for being on the Conclave.) Residents can even propose and debate legislation—just not vote. Residents can serve in the executive and join our roleplays. What we are protecting here is the leadership of our region, the text of our laws, and membership in the bodies that hold the power to remove officers, and I think it’s reasonable for us to safeguard these things. It strikes me that a candidate for the Delegacy would very likely already have proven themselves enough to earn an exemption from the Praesidium.
I might like the exception provision to be phrased in such a way that granting the exception is the default. Something like “The Praesidium shall issue an exception to this requirement on application from a resident unless it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Praesidium that granting the exception would present a risk to regional security.” In other words, it must be shown that there is a threat, not be shown that there is not a threat. That does represent a significant weakening of the proposal, I admit. But it leaves what constitutes a risk up to the Praesidium, and as I said, personally, I don’t see there being any fundamental issue with cosmopolitanism on its face. Mind you, I’m not saying the proposal has to have this or I walk. But I will be looking to ensure the exception provision is strong.
