A Federation of "Equals" - A Danubian Federation Interative AAR

[Revan529]

(secondary character so Keperry will stop complaining)

​

Yehoshua Rabinov
Date of Birth: 30 May 1860
Place of Birth: Ternopil, Lodomeria
Religion: Orthodox Judaism
Culture: Ashkenazi/Ukrainian
Party: Danubian Imperial Party
Position: Deputy for Lodomeria
Biography: Yehoshua, the son of a craftsman, was raised in a working class environment, and he from a young age gained an appreciation for liberal politics; as he matured, however, the policies of the long-leading leftists left him longing for something new, and he adopted a more centrist position on most issues (albeit with a moderately liberal tilt). It was during the Lilican regime and the Faberian Terror, however, that convinced him that the present political status of the Federation would lead to only civil war and ruin, he was swept up by the rising anti-Banik and anti-Faberian revolt, but was one of the many who disarmed following Franz Ferdinand’s plea for peace; he became so impressed by the young Emperor he quickly formed his own imperialist club in his hometown, and following the rise of the Imperial Party, quickly formed and became the chairman of the Lodomerian chapter. Shortly thereafter, he was one of the many imperialists elected to the lower house in the midterms; representing part of the moderate, even left-leaning wing of the Imperial Party, Rabinov hopes becoming more active in the political arena will help in the cause to crown the Rightful Emperor.

“We must set over ourselves a king, an Emperor, for the hope and the good of the People. The Emperor Franz has been sent before, like manna from the Almighty, to lead this nation into Providence, to cast aside the shadows of oppression, the horrors of Terror and Tyranny, and to defend the rights of all His children!” ~ Rabinov, 1887

 

[Nax24]

*One of the biggest Propaganda things the United Islamic Front uses in its campaign for equality is a picture made by an un-named Turkish Artist. The Picture is off three boys, holding hands together, walking down a street. The thing is, they wear features of a Catholic, a Muslim, and a Jew. Each boy represents a different religion. Below is the caption "This is our Goal."*

 

[sealy300]

“We must set over ourselves a king, an Emperor, for the hope and the good of the People. The Emperor Franz has been sent before, like manna from the Almighty, to lead this nation into Providence, to cast aside the shadows of oppression, the horrors of Terror and Tyranny, and to defend the rights of all His children!” ~ Rabinov, 1887[/SIZE][/FONT]

He is a traitor to Zion, and my brother Abraham will hear of this!

David I. infuriated

 

[Scrapknight]

There is no left-leaning part of the Imperial Party. It is a beast that is Reactionary from its head to its tail, and at all points between. Voters must realize this. When they do, they will leave the Imperials in droves. This was not a reactionary nation five years ago, and it is not one today.

- V. Sikorsky

 

[99KingHigh]

There is no left-leaning part of the Imperial Party. It is a beast that is Reactionary from its head to its tail, and at all points between. Voters must realize this. When they do, they will leave the Imperials in droves. This was not a reactionary nation five years ago, and it is not one today.

- V. Sikorsky

Some moderate economist stands up

Well maybe our population has just turned reactionary. Common syndrome I hear. And largest party in the Federation? Well, quite the outbreak. I'm quite sure that maybe the largest proportion of our people will just randomly heal from such an affliction in time for the next election.

 

[Kunarian]

Medardo Graffaro makes his way to Austria. Meanwhile a friend manages the situation in Padua.

GRAFFARO SPEAKS IN GRAZ, AUSTRIA

Having arrive just yesterday, the Paduan politician settled quickly into the city. The territory was not his usual, not the lowlands of the Po Plains in the Venetian mainland nor Venice herself. Instead this was an Austrian land. His sashed men had donned sashes of black and yellow in place of their ordinary red and gold and he made his way to the market square with men with streaming banners of black and yellow, the colours of the Federation. I saw that he had also recruited a few locals, as to even out his stock of men. His appearance was greeted by hard looks from locals, suspicious of his rally marching around him.

Once in the square, his sashed men formed a display around him, their banners fluttering ever so slightly. A man stood next to him, a translator as I later discovered. He began to speak to the market. He told them that he was not hear to wear caps or force songs into their ears nor shove papers into their hands. He stated that for too long they had not controlled their destiny, for too long the true people of the federation had been sidelined by a misguided acceptance of every single man who placed his foot within the federations borders. At this point they had begun to listen, with curiousity and less suspicion.

He continued saying that they, the Austrians, should choose their rulers in Austria, not whomever happens to be inhabiting Austria. The same, he said, should be done with all states and all true peoples in turn should choose the rulers of the federation. He went on to say that he knew many people supported and opposed the monarchy, and said that they had never gotten to voice their view though. The current government in Medardo's eyes was covering its ears to the need to settle the matter while the monarchists became more and more aggrivated by this ignorance of their voice.

He continued on, talking of other matters, and in the end he finished with a cry to the Austrians to spread the word, that democracy is coming, soon or late and the people will be heard. A few cries of approval came but most were in silent consideration. Medardo, stern faced and composed, then left the square with his troop and retired to his rented home in the city.

*****​

"Things are calming down..." the tall man said looking across the street where it happened.

"The police help that, most people are more irritated by them than by the republicans but they fear them more," the sitting man said.

"I'll send a telegraph to Medardo, he'll want to know." The tall man walked to the other side of the upper room, to a table with various modern office equipments upon it and began to work away at the telegraph machine.

The sitting man looked at his desk, piled high with newspapers from across the federation, "Why do we have to keep all these papers? They clutter up my desk and stink after a few days." He looked over at the tall man, who did not respond.

A few minutes later, he turned around and answered. "We don't, you are supposed to be reading them yourself and then writing a report. Why do you think Medardo hired you? to collect his post?" His tone was calm but lined with accusation.

"A report? Why can he not read them himself?"

"Normally he does, at least he ones he can, the rest he just reads the headlines of with help from the books you should be using."

"So I get this job while he goes across the Federation?"

"Yes, Medardo will want to know."

"I suppose he will," the sitting man said with a grunt and a grimmace. He leaned over his desk and started looking over the papers. The first one he picked up held the headline "Cisalpina Monarchists Attack Republicans". "Monarchists and Republicans, pah! I don't think this reporter has even set foot in Padua let alone Cisalpina."

The tall man replied with a tone of glee in his voice "No, I do not think they have. Have you read the paper that suggests this could be the work of Italian Pan-nationalists, most riveting I think. That and the one that thinks Franz had cured Padua of its troubles."

The sitting man gave a guffaw and continued his work "So many diversions from the actual happening, it'd be a wonder if they even remember what started all this debate by the end of it!"

"It would be." The tall man replied.

((Not sure if this is allowed, but I did it for the RP, to add flavour to the event and also to introduce the tall man who I plan to make into a secondary character if that is allowed))

 

[Revan529]

He is a traitor to Zion, and my brother Abraham will hear of this!

David I. infuriated

Why would you be enraged? Sure as the Almighty told us place a King over ourselves in the Promised Land, we must do so here; have you not seen the results of our course otherwise?

There is no left-leaning part of the Imperial Party. It is a beast that is Reactionary from its head to its tail, and at all points between. Voters must realize this. When they do, they will leave the Imperials in droves. This was not a reactionary nation five years ago, and it is not one today.

- V. Sikorsky

I would ask Pan Sikorsky what makes him believe there are no liberals within in the Imperial Party, for that assumption is well and truly wrong. I would know, I am one.

~ Yehoshua Rabinov, Imperial Deputy

 

[Otto of england]

There is no left-leaning part of the Imperial Party. It is a beast that is Reactionary from its head to its tail, and at all points between. Voters must realize this. When they do, they will leave the Imperials in droves. This was not a reactionary nation five years ago, and it is not one today.

- V. Sikorsky

Pan Sikorsky, I think you are a little miss informed as, I myself are most definatly a leftist politician and I'm not the only one in the party. Unless of course you believe being a Monarchist overrides every other political belief and makes you reactionary. Yet if that's the case it's pointless to even discuss the matter with you.

- Krysztof Czarnowski

 

[Keperry]

Why would you be enraged? Sure as the Almighty told us place a King over ourselves in the Promised Land, we must do so here; have you not seen the results of our course otherwise?

You are twisting Scripture and lying. Monarchy is contrary to God and it is blasphemous. All men are equal. It is blasphemous for any one man to raise himself up above all others as all kings must necessarily do, and it is the height of blasphemy to claim, as most kings do, that God somehow approves of this, to presume to know the will of God and to co-opt it for yourself. I could go on and on, but others have said it better before me, I refer you to the words of the American revolutionary Thomas Paine, in his writing that I find rather brilliant, Common Sense:

As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. "Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's" is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.

Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases, where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of Kings, he need not wonder, that the Almighty ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven.

Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to.

The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched against them with a small army, and victory, thro' the divine interposition, decided in his favour. The Jews elate with success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, Rule thou over us, thou and thy son and thy son's son. Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you. THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU. Words need not be more explicit; Gideon doth not decline the honor, but denieth their right to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive stile of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of heaven.

About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons, who were entrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us like all the other nations. And here we cannot but observe that their motives were bad, viz. that they might be like unto other nations, i. e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory laid in being as much unlike them as possible. But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even unto this day; wherewith they have forsaken me and served other Gods; so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them, i. e. not of any particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth, whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still in fashion. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a king. And he said, This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you; he will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots (this description agrees with the present mode of impressing men) and he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his ground and to read his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots; and he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks and to be bakers (this describes the expence and luxury as well as the oppression of kings) and he will take your fields and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants; and he will take the tenth of your feed, and of your vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants (by which we see that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are the standing vices of kings) and he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid servants, and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put them to his work; and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY. This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do the characters of the few good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially as a king, but only as a man after God's own heart. Nevertheless the People refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, I will call unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being in the time of wheat harvest) that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, IN ASKING YOU A KING. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING. These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchical government is true, or the scripture is false.

 

[unmerged(718634)]

Name: Benito Carli
Born: February 7, 1841; Roma
Residency: Via di Santo Steffano del Cacco, Roma
Culture: Italian
Position: Tribune
Political Affiliation: Independent

Bio: Born to a flourishing family of Cultural and Intellectual Figures in Rome, much of Benito Carli's life was spent surrounded by the sights and sounds of the city of Rome. From youth he led an impassioned interest in literature and the world of politics. Himself then a resident of the Papacy much of his exposure to politics came from foreign lands. As a youth he studied many works from The Prince to The Communist Manifesto and had a particular focus and interest in the field of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations, his ideology forming as quite leftist though certainly not socialist. As Italy unified under her autonomous status in the Federation, he quickly jumped into the burgeoning political environment, standing as an independent. Although certainly enjoying strong debate, he is known as a Great Compromiser and quite enjoys the freedom from party association that he has.

((I'm Back ))

 

[Revan529]

You are twisting Scripture and lying. Monarchy is contrary to God and it is blasphemous. All men are equal. It is blasphemous for any one man to raise himself up above all others as all kings must necessarily do, and it is the height of blasphemy to claim, as most kings do, that God somehow approves of this, to presume to know the will of God and to co-opt it for yourself. I could go on and on, but others have said it better before me, I refer you to the words of the American revolutionary Thomas Paine, in his writing that I find rather brilliant, Common Sense:

I'm not entirely certain how "You shall set him king over you" can be readily misinterpreted; it is as the Almighty willed for the People to do in Israel, so it must not be contrary to His will. If there is someone hear speaking for the Almighty with no basis, it would be you, Sir.Your Pan Paine may say all that he wishes, but it does not refute the word of the Torah, which uttered, as I noted just moments ago, referred to the emplacement of a King over Israel; that is no imagining of mine.

But if wish to believe in something other than the truth, far be it from me to judge you.

~ Yehoshua Rabinov, Imperial Deputy

 

[Keperry]

I'm not entirely certain how "You shall set him king over you" can be readily misinterpreted; it is as the Almighty willed for the People to do in Israel, so it must not be contrary to His will. If there is someone hear speaking for the Almighty with no basis, it would be you, Sir.Your Pan Paine may say all that he wishes, but it does not refute the word of the Torah, which uttered, as I noted just moments ago, referred to the emplacement of a King over Israel; that is no imagining of mine.

But if wish to believe in something other than the truth, far be it from me to judge you.

And when God himself comes down from heaven to personally anoint a king, on that day, and on that day alone, then I will accept that king, but until then monarchy is blasphemy. And perhaps in this case God gave a command, but where is God now? God has given no such command. He has not commanded us to appoint Franz Ferdinand or anyone else as our emperor. And in the absence of a direct command from the Lord, the Bible makes it most abundantly clear that monarchy is an unacceptably blasphemous sin. I am not sure how you could possibly misinterpret everything I have quoted to you, but if you wish to continue to believe in lies, and to continue to spout those lies... well, then you should not be representing the people of Lodomeria. Please resign.

I would ask Pan Sikorsky what makes him believe there are no liberals within in the Imperial Party, for that assumption is well and truly wrong. I would know, I am one.

If you are a monarchist, then you are not a liberal. There can be nothing so profoundly reactionary as seeking a return to monarchy, the tyranny and oppression that crushed and terrorized Danubia and indeed the whole world for so long and from whose darkness we only recently and gloriously emerged. The defining characteristic of the right in this country is the refusal to accept the Revolution of 1848 and the democratic republic that it brought, and you display that in spades. The Revolution was the foundation of our country. You wish to knock that foundation down, and when you do the whole country will collapse. The Revolution was a glorious dawn for liberty and equality and you wish to plunge Danubia back into the night. Monarchy has been the single greatest enemy of freedom in history, and monarchy in Danubia has been thoroughly discredited time and time again, in the Revolution, the Civil War in which we defended ourselves and our democracy against monarchist traitors, the DRB Crisis in which the people clearly demanded the end of all monarchy, the most recent rebellion which once again showed that all monarchists are traitors, and every action of the monarchists in between. Monarchism is incompatible with Danubia on every possible level. It is utterly contrary to our democratic ideals of liberty and equality, and it simply does not work. Claims that a monarch will bring unity or stability are either delusions or bald-faced lies, since monarchism has wreaked more havoc and brought more chaos and destabilized this Federation more than any single other force in its entire history. Monarchism is wrong, and has been proven wrong, and yet you and your ilk continue to believe in the lie. Monarchy cannot coexist with democracy, and a monarchist is necessarily the enemy of freedom.

 

[Somberg]

The monarchist assertion that a monarch is the only individual who can act as an impartial, apolitical stabilizing figure is completely false. As I pointed out in the speech I gave not that long ago, there is an alternative that does not require establishing a constitutional monarchy. That alternative is to give most of the powers currently held by the president to a head of government responsible to the legislature who comes from the legislature itself. The head of state would be a popularly elected president who is bounded by the Constitution to act as an apolitical and impartial figure representing the Federation on the international stage. He would be a stabilizing figure who's powers are largely ceremonial in nature and so limited that acting in a partisan and political manner would have no benefit and would in fact be detrimental to the stability of the nation. There a few differences between this and having a constitutional monarch, as they would most likely hold similar powers. However, unlike in a constitutional monarchy, we would not be having a hereditary head of state who largely is not responsible to the people and who is, in fact, treated as being above the law. Instead, we would be having a democratically elected head of state who is responsible to the people and who is treated equally under the law to any other citizen of the Federation. While my colleagues in the DRSL may be taking the assertion that a constitutional monarchy is undemocratic too far, it is still true that it is less democratic than what I have proposed by the simple fact that the people have no choice in who the monarch would be.

There is nothing that makes a monarch any stronger than an apolitical president. I am aware that some monarchists believe that an apolitical president would be distracted by being concerned about re-election, but the reality is that politics would not be what determines who is elected to the office. It would be who is best suited to act in an apolitical manner, to not stray outside of their power, and to adequately serve as a stabilizing and unifying figure for the nation. Thus, an apolitical president would only be concerned with fulfilling the duties of the office to the best of their ability, which means remaining impartial in any political disputes that may arise and in attempting to maintain peace and stability within the nation. This is no different than what a constitutional monarch would be concerned about.

I recognize the failings of the current set up of our government. For too long has the Federation seen instability caused by the concentration of so much power into a single partisan individual. That is why I am proposing that we reform our government to a model that would be more stable while remaining true to the ideals that have been guiding the nation since the Revolution, those of freedom, democracy, and equality. The debate so far has been framed over whether to keep the current model of our government, that of a presidential republic, or to create a constitutional monarchy, when it should be about whether we should reform our republican form of government along a parliamentary model or if we should establish a constitutional monarchy that would also follow a parliamentary model. As such, I ask my colleagues, instead of focusing squarely on the flaws of a constitutional monarchy, to also focus on the alternative to a constitutional monarchy that follows the same basic model but in a republican form. In the end there is largely no significant difference between how these two models of government would function; the debate is one of principle and politics more than it is of what is best for the Federation, as much as either side would claim to the contrary. Let us treat it as such rather than pretending that either one of them would be significantly detrimental to the Federation.

~ Lukáš Banik, President of the Danubian Federation

 

[sealy300]

In your bible it is written In the 17th Chapter of St Luke it is written: “the Kingdom of God is within men”, Interesting it doesn't say one man, but with-in men, interesting...


Also, It is true, the members of the DRSL do want a Parliamentary Republic, and there is a way to fix the re-election issue, make it so Presidents can only have one term, it is simple and effective, so effective that the fist true republic in the western world, Rome, Had the same system.

~David Ibrahimovic

 

[Revan529]

If you are a monarchist, then you are not a liberal.

I support a secular, or at the very least, a pluralist approach to religious; I have no qualm against social reform, nor do I oppose political reforms. I prefer to see the economy free from undue government influence. Are those not liberal policies? And yet... I am an Imperialist; I hold that the Faberian Terror and the Lilican Tyranny were allowed by the present system of government, and that this republican government, which has granted the presidency undue power, must be ended, in favour of the balance provided by a monarch and a chief minister.

There can be nothing so profoundly reactionary as seeking a return to monarchy, the tyranny and oppression that crushed and terrorized Danubia and indeed the whole world for so long and from whose darkness we only recently and gloriously emerged. The defining characteristic of the right in this country is the refusal to accept the Revolution of 1848 and the democratic republic that it brought, and you display that in spades.

That is fundamentally untrue; first and foremost, not a one of us support the return to oppression, tyranny, and absolutism of the old regime, for such a position is entirely untenable in the eyes of everyone; that you continue to insist that desire is to establish some absolutist state shows a profound lack of understanding on your part, for the Imperial Party has, time and time again, expressed a desire for constitutional monarchy, akin to the British model. If you continue to insist that the desire of the Imperial Party is to install an autocratic regime, then you will be compelled evidence for such a claim, and of course, you will be found lacking.

The Revolution was the foundation of our country. You wish to knock that foundation down, and when you do the whole country will collapse. The Revolution was a glorious dawn for liberty and equality and you wish to plunge Danubia back into the night. Monarchy has been the single greatest enemy of freedom in history...

Where to begin with this one? Yes, the Revolution was important, no one can deny that, and I believe that the liberty and equality codified in it are vital to this nation; however, to say we Imperialists want to "plunge Danubia back into the night" again shows a towering level of ignorance, almost to such a degree that one could call it willful, about the beliefs of the Imperial Party, which is entirely democratic, as constitutional monarchy is at its core a liberal form of government that provides stability and electoral freedom.

Furthermore, Monarchy is not the enemy of freedom; tyranny is, and tyranny can come in all shapes and forms, from a crowned king to an elected president, as Lilic amply shows.

...monarchy in Danubia has been thoroughly discredited time and time again, in the Revolution, the Civil War in which we defended ourselves and our democracy against monarchist traitors, the DRB Crisis in which the people clearly demanded the end of all monarchy, the most recent rebellion which once again showed that all monarchists are traitors, and every action of the monarchists in between.

I don't quite follow your reasoning that monarchy has been discredited, as I and many others are now sat in Congress who hold great admiration and support for the idea of constitutional monarchy as being the superior form of government; that argument is further weakened by the millions of votes we received in the midterms, and the support Chancellor von Reuss has thus far received, not even mentioning the broad love felt for His Imperial and Royal Majesty. One of these alone could discredit your argument; taken together, your argument ceases to exist.

I would also take issue with your lumping our movement with the "imperialists" of the Civil War, amongst the others; first and foremost, many of us were not even alive when Kremvera was campaigned for the establishment of an absolutist state, and whilst I will not speak for my fellows, I would never have supported him; he had no claim, and he was seeking to establish a tyrannical government, not a constitutional monarchy, through force of arms, and not the democratic process. Your connecting us to them is therefore complete and utter nonsense. As for the DRB crisis, I must once again point to the support of the Imperial Party these past few years as undoing any claim that can make. Lastly, the "monarchical" rebellion that we most recently suffered from was caused primarily, I would even go so far as to say near-exclusively, by the Faberian Terror promulgated by the Banik administration, and that not a single leader of the Imperial Party, not a single one, supported that rebellion; His Imperial and Royal Majesty even went so far as to request they stand down, which many of them did.

Your desperate attempts to link this movement with these others is, frankly, sad... though not surprising.

Monarchism is incompatible with Danubia on every possible level. It is utterly contrary to our democratic ideals of liberty and equality, and it simply does not work. Claims that a monarch will bring unity or stability are either delusions or bald-faced lies, since monarchism has wreaked more havoc and brought more chaos and destabilized this Federation more than any single other force in its entire history. Monarchism is wrong, and has been proven wrong, and yet you and your ilk continue to believe in the lie. Monarchy cannot coexist with democracy, and a monarchist is necessarily the enemy of freedom.

This is mere hyperbole, conjecture, and your usual spiel against the Imperial movement, devoid of any semblance of logic or fact; you continually attempt to place all the faults of the Federation upon the shoulders of His Imperial and Royal Majesty, and any man who would call assign him that honourable title, and you've done so for so long, you've actually have begun to believe your madness to be sanity, your hatred to be love, and your any tyrannical nature to be democratic. To quote you, "please resign," if not for your health, then for the good of the Federation; we have no need for the madness of Mendel.

~ Yehoshua Rabinov, Imperial Deputy

 

[Nax24]

((I am so confused right now at this dialogue :wacko)

 

[Keperry]

I support a secular, or at the very least, a pluralist approach to religious; I have no qualm against social reform, nor do I oppose political reforms. I prefer to see the economy free from undue government influence. Are those not liberal policies? And yet... I am an Imperialist; I hold that the Faberian Terror and the Lilican Tyranny were allowed by the present system of government, and that this republican government, which has granted the presidency undue power, must be ended, in favour of the balance provided by a monarch and a chief minister.

Then why do you not remark upon the proposal for a parliamentary republic with an apolitical elected president, which would solve the problems you point out?

 

[Otto of england]

((I am so confused right now at this dialogue :wacko)

((Well ever since Silesia became a Monarchy there's been this continual Monarchy debate, for about the entire game and every time it comes up it looks and sounds likes this.))

 

[Revan529]

What are my feelings on a parliamentary republic? I feel we must discuss the “apolitical presidency” as said by Pan Mendel, as I feel calling any elected official apolitical errant; all offices, especially the presidency, are inherently political and divisive. Whether it be over policy or personality, there will be discussion, argument, and debate over the position. It can be noted quite well between Pan Mendel and myself, as well will enjoy support from some parties and utter hatred from others; we all understand this, and we acknowledge it, but do we continue to desire our head of state to so divisive?

If, however, this presidency is truly made apolitical, I must raise the question of how it will be done? Will the president be powerless? If so, is the office even necessary, or is it little more than a waste of resources? Or perhaps, the president has limited powers; then again, those powers could create disunion… will the president have power of veto? What if vetoes a popular proposal, or one of great controversy? Then it will, again, create divisiveness.

Let me now ask about the nature of elections, specifically how they would be held? Would the candidates say nothing to preserve neutrality? Then what motivation would there be to vote for them, other than paltry things such as looks or some other vanity? And if they spoke, would it not then become either a battle of personalities or qualities, something still capable of dividing people? And if they spoke of policies, then there would be not the slightest bit of difference, save for a degree of power, between these presidents and their predecessors.

The monarchy however, is something entirely different; the monarchy is not an elected position, of course, so a monarch is not bound to support radical or reactionary proposals that a president could well be compelled to support, due to the public will, or the will of the governing body. The monarch would have biases and preferences, of course, as would all people; however, by the nature of the monarchy, and the station of the chief minister and the government, there would be a natural check on power, and the monarch would, as evidenced by the noble Queen Victoria, would have no true need to interfere in politics, save for when the monarch’s involvement it necessary or beneficent to the people or the nation.

A parliamentary republic lacks in particular any sense of continuity; the chance for byzantine, winding coalitions is a very real possibility, especially considering the sheer numbers of parties within the Federation (even moreso when many of these parties have emerged only in the last decade), and, it stands to reason, that these multi-party coalitions will likely rise and fall with great rapidity; now, let us take into consideration that the presidency may well be limited to but a single term, as some have suggested.
There would be no constancy in government, nothing that the people can find unity in, as one government will rise, only to fall due to some small bickering, with an ineffectual, nameless president holding office for however many years a term lasts, with nothing but that divisiveness to be notable.

Let us now consider a parliamentary system with a monarch at its helm; yes, those partisan politics will still exist, as they always will, and coalitions may (and will) rise and fall, but despite it all, there will be a constant, unifying figure, raised above the din of political clamour, who can provide the nation with some semblance of stability and continuity.

Let us also consider the fact that this Federation was dominated by one party for the better part of two decades, the inverse of my previous concerns of a byzantine government of quickly rising and falling powers. What would happen if that dominant party or coalition, so empowered as it was, was led by a new Lilic? What would a powerless president, or even worse, a Lilican president, do to stop the usurpation of liberty that could well happen? The proposed check on power proposed by Pan Banik does not exist, as it provides no greater assurance against fraud and corruption than this present system. The counter is that the monarchy would not be so easily shaken by the will of a power-mad chief minister and would be more capable of resisting such an event.

Lastly, let us consider foreign politics, specifically the perception of foreign peoples to us; would they make note of powerless, nameless president or a prime minister likely to hold office for but a few months? Or would they note His Imperial and Royal Majesty, the Emperor of the Danube far better? Yes, a monarch would be better suited to represent this nation, at least as its face; the common man of the Danube knows who the Emperor of Russia or the Queen of Britain, but do they know the president or chief minister of this nation or that?

In short, I see no way a parliamentary republic is at all an acceptable compromise between constitutional monarchy and presidential republicanism.

~ Yehoshua Rabinov, Imperial Deputy

 

[DensleyBlair]

[...]and the monarch would, as evidenced by the noble Queen Victoria, would have no true need to interfere in politics, save for when the monarch’s involvement it necessary or beneficent to the people or the nation.

~ Yehoshua Rabinov, Imperial Deputy

I feel I should mention that Queen Victoria, while always a constitutional monarch, and shifted further towards constitutionalism by Prince Albert, has not kept herself fully aloof of the political process during her reign.

~A random deputy, schooled in British affairs