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

[Scrapknight]

Riddle me this, Deputy Rabinov: How can you assert that Franz Ferdinand will not involve himself in political debate in his position as monarch while simultaneously doing all his supposedly great works of negotiating with rebels and touring the country in support of monarchy, thereby involving himself in politics? Herr von Hababurg's supporters cannot say he is apolitical while turning their backs on his clearly political, whether positive or not, actions. How is he any less political than any other man who has renounced all parties and seeks high office?

- V. Sikorsky

 

[Revan529]

Riddle me this, Deputy Rabinov: How can you assert that Franz Ferdinand will not involve himself in political debate in his position as monarch while simultaneously doing all his supposedly great works of negotiating with rebels and touring the country in support of monarchy, thereby involving himself in politics? Herr von Hababurg's supporters cannot say he is apolitical while turning their backs on his clearly political, whether positive or not, actions. How is he any less political than any other man who has renounced all parties and seeks high office?

- V. Sikorsky

Is negotiating a peaceable end to a rebellion a political act in and of itself? Is it even an act worth being called remotely divisive? Or are there radicals mad enough to desire the death of thousands, even millions, who would lambast him for that great work? There is no controversy surrounding that heroic act on his part, and there is no hatred generated towards him for it, save apparently for a radical revolutionary fringe that does not deserve any attention being brought to it in regards to public policy.

As for speeches and meeting the public, is that a bad thing? A man cannot give a speech or declare his love for the people without stirring controversy? His Imperial and Royal Majesty has done nothing to warrant any assumption that he will act in an unseemly manner as monarch, for he has, with surprising uniformity, remained wholly neutral on his feelings of every single political issue, from reform to the Italian situation, or any number of policies you could bring up, save two; the desire he, and millions of others, has to reclaim his throne (in a democratic and constitutional manner, no less), and he remains adamant in his desire for peace between all sides, as evidenced by his actions during the rebellion and in Padua only weeks ago.

He has remained almost wholly apolitical during his time in the Federation, unlike President Banik, or any other political figure in the Federation, who have gone on at length over the multitudes of issues that affect this Federation; is it apathy? Surely not, for he empathises with the people, who he has met and talked to from every corner of this nation, save for the colonies at this time. Is he without opinion or bias? No, he is a man and he holds them surely, but all men do, as would a president; the key issue here is that we will have a host of presidents, who may or may not scheme with others or engage in fraud, or possess so little power that a Lilic could still emerge.

Answer me this, Pan Sikorsky; what would ensure that a president, elected as some have proposed, with limited to no power, be of any use to the federation? Will he provide constancy, with but a single term? Will he resist a Lilican figure effectively, with his complete lack of power? How can we assure he isn’t an ally of tyrants and dictators?

~ Yehoshua Rabinov, Imperial Deputy

 

[Nax24]

Riddle me this, Deputy Rabinov:

((

))

 

[Somberg]

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.

If we create a powerless constitutional monarch, then is the position even necessary? And if we give the monarch limited powers, could a constitutional monarch not create divisiveness if they are given the power to veto? Could a constitutional monarch not veto a popular proposal, or one of great controversy? The simple fact is that it can go both ways, there is no reason why a constitutional monarch cannot be as divisive as an apolitical president. But, of course, we cannot assume that an apolitical president would have the power to veto in the first place, as would also be the case with a constitutional monarch. And even if we did, its use should be limited so as to prevent it from causing disunity. Such a matter would be determined if and when the creation of a parliamentary republic is discussed in detail.

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.

If it is a battle of personalities would people really be so disappointed if their candidate is not elected that they would use it as a dividing factor? The fact is elections means that people will have differing opinions and preferences, as is expected in a democracy. It is also true that it would divide people during the election season. But the fact is that if policies are not being discussed, then what is there to divide people after the election is over? If they have no serious issue with whoever is elected other then personality, then what is there to stop them from standing behind that person afterward? An apolitical president, by nature, cannot be discussing policies of any sort. Those opinions would be kept private in the interests of unity.

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.

You base your assumption on the fact that an apolitical president would have the power to enforce any proposal. The fact is that they most likely would have no power to enforce anything as that would rest with the elected government, led by a prime minister of some sort. They would have no reason to be compelled by either side to support anything, as the position is not political and is not intended to serve as a vehicle for either the right or the left to advance their own proposals and ideas. The same things that you point out, the station of chief minister and the government, along with the nature of the position, would act as natural checks on power. If need be explicit checks can also be placed into the Constitution if it so worries the monarchists.

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.

Once again, the position of president would be apolitical and not affected by party politics. The only place coalitions would be found is in the legislature. And your second point takes into account a hypothetical scenario where the president is limited to one term. There is no reason to assume that is how it would be set up. I personally believe that an apolitical president should not be limited to one term, simply because there needs to be some continuity, and that terms should be longer than however long the term for members of the legislature would be, more specifically the lower house. But as is expected of a democratic position the president would not serve for life. A suitable successor will be elected who will be expected to maintain the integrity and apolitical nature of the office. If not, then there certainly should be some sort of mechanism to allow the election of a new president who will do just that.

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.

The problem is that this unifying figure is not accountable to the people and only reached their position because of their birth, nothing else. An elected figure, while not as constant as monarch, is still able to be above politics and, with a longer term than the lower house of the legislature, acts as a constant figure in the face of the rise and fall of coalitions during their time as president, however long that may be.

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.

What would a powerless constitutional monarch do in that event? And I do not understand why an apolitical president would have anything more than limited powers that would in no way allow them to be Lilican in nature, as they wouldn't have the degree of power to become a tyrant of any sort. Why would someone commit fraud to gain a position with limited powers? Why would someone try to corrupt a president that couldn't do anything more than a constitutional monarch could? If need be a separate entity can be tasked with overseeing the election for president than does for the legislature, but we must have some faith in the ability of our democratic system to not be easily corrupted by outside influences. Also more likely than not, the powers of an apolitical president would be identical to that of a constitutional monarch. Thus, I do not see how they would be any less able to resist a tyrannical chief minister as a constitutional monarch would, unless you are suggesting that any man elected to the position would be a coward unable to stand up for the Constitution.

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?

You once again are implying that an apolitical president would be powerless and not notable in any sense, as well as implying that our nation would be so politically unstable that no prime minister would hold office for more than a few months. These are both baseless assumptions with no facts backing them up. The best sort of person to represent this nation is one elected by the people. Whether or not the world chooses to make note of our apolitical president or our prime minister is not something I wish to speculate on as, as I do not know what the answer to it would be. The simple fact is that there is more than just our head of state and head of government that foreign peoples would use to perceive the Federation.

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

It is unfortunate that you see it this way, as I very much see it as one. A parliamentary republic is the republican equivalent of a constitutional monarchy that you are simply unwilling to accept as such because it isn't a monarchy and doesn't align with your interests. There must be some sort of compromise, if not then this issue will never be resolved and our nation will be stuck with its current form of government for years to come as both sides are unwilling to compromise with the other. I continue to believe that a parliamentary republic is the best way to resolve the issues that our current presidential republican form of government causes. The only way we will solve this issue is through consensus on both sides; otherwise we will not be able to change the constitution in anyway. The question is whether the monarchists are willing to give my proposal some thought rather than scoffing at it because it isn't a monarchy. I am perfectly willing to work with the monarchists to address their concerns and come up with an agreement that both sides can accept. The question is whether they are willing to do the same.

~ Lukáš Banik, President of the Danubian Federation

 

[Revan529]

If we create a powerless constitutional monarch, then is the position even necessary? And if we give the monarch limited powers, could a constitutional monarch not create divisiveness if they are given the power to veto? Could a constitutional monarch not veto a popular proposal, or one of great controversy? The simple fact is that it can go both ways, there is no reason why a constitutional monarch cannot be as divisive as an apolitical president. But, of course, we cannot assume that an apolitical president would have the power to veto in the first place, as would also be the case with a constitutional monarch. And even if we did, its use should be limited so as to prevent it from causing disunity. Such a matter would be determined if and when the creation of a parliamentary republic is discussed in detail.

Why would we create a powerless monarchy? Giving the monarch some limited powers, such as the veto and the power to appoint the chief minister would be a pragmatic policy. I would also ask why a monarch would simply dismiss a controversial policy? Unlike a president, who could very well be up for election, the monarch would have no true reason to, unless of course he felt morally opposed to it; you yourself voted against the monarchical referendum (despite proposing one yourself), because you were morally opposed to it; you were, of course in the wrong for denying the people the right to express their will regarding their governance, but you had some other valid concerns. Some of us, I admit, neglect that, though I remain firm in my opinion that you erred there. But as you said, a monarch would very likely have the same powers as a president; the key issue here is that the presidency is inconstant, and susceptible to great corruption, whilst a constitutional monarch provides stability and is resistant to the latter.

A powerless monarchy however, compared to a powerless presidency, would still prove to be more useful, if only for the stability and constancy provided; the monarch may be powerless yes, but at least it he would be the face of the nation and symbol of the nation, unlike a president of five or six years, elected by a small majority, and uncared for by most.

An apolitical president, by nature, cannot be discussing policies of any sort. Those opinions would be kept private in the interests of unity.

If the president it powerless, then those opinions are of no use at all, and therefore the elections themselves are naught but a waste of resources that could be spent improving infrastructure and the like; if the president is powerful, then perhaps they are not apolitical and suffer from the same flaws of a biased monarch, as Pan Sikorsky is keen to point out; even then, I once against point to my previous defence regarding the lack of constancy and the resistance to corruption.

You base your assumption on the fact that an apolitical president would have the power to enforce any proposal. The fact is that they most likely would have no power to enforce anything as that would rest with the elected government, led by a prime minister of some sort. They would have no reason to be compelled by either side to support anything, as the position is not political and is not intended to serve as a vehicle for either the right or the left to advance their own proposals and ideas. The same things that you point out, the station of chief minister and the government, along with the nature of the position, would act as natural checks on power. If need be explicit checks can also be placed into the Constitution if it so worries the monarchists.

If the president then is so impotent, what exactly is the put in having in office? He will not provide the constancy of the monarchy, nor will have a shred of influence in maintaining some semblance of order; is he merely an empty suit, devoid of intellectual power meant to occupy a seat and give the republicans the good feeling that they accomplished something? If the president is merely that, without the ability to veto, without the power to enforce, and without the benefit inherent in monarchy with constancy, then that is, in all earnestness, a waste of an office and a needless drain on resources.

Once again, the position of president would be apolitical and not affected by party politics. The only place coalitions would be found is in the legislature. And your second point takes into account a hypothetical scenario where the president is limited to one term. There is no reason to assume that is how it would be set up. I personally believe that an apolitical president should not be limited to one term, simply because there needs to be some continuity, and that terms should be longer than however long the term for members of the legislature would be, more specifically the lower house. But as is expected of a democratic position the president would not serve for life. A suitable successor will be elected who will be expected to maintain the integrity and apolitical nature of the office. If not, then there certainly should be some sort of mechanism to allow the election of a new president who will do just that.

You “hope” it won’t be affected by party politics, but can we be assured of that? The Election Committee was “supposed” to be free from corruption and was tasked with justly determining the elections of the Federation, and yet, somehow, those laws, and that grand ideal, was corrupted; we cannot take, on the merit of it being codified in law, or accepted upon by all parties, that the president will remain, or in frankness, ever –be- a neutral, apolitical force; there will be, quite naturally, underhanded agreements, the part chairman of one party assuring support in exchange for this or that (unless of course, the presidency is powerless, than it serves no purpose at all other than to be, as I said, an empty suit, whilst a Lilic emerges from the Congress). Also, if the presidency is not limited, and the president is not powerless, then what will prevent that president from forming some cabal with party leaders to ensure support in exchange for policies? There is absolutely nothing to prevent it; the maintenance of integrity becomes increasingly difficult when, as we have seen before, one party is dominant and fraud abounds; an unelected, constant head of state, with at least some modicum of power, can act to prevent such corruption and abuse, or at the very least, serve to deter or undermine it. These mechanisms, and this hopeful desire, stem from little more than wishful thinking that has no basis in the recent history of the Federation; we have seen immense corruption, from elected officials, and their appointees, and there was nothing to stop it, save for the risk of civil war and violence (and when it was narrowly prevent in the form of a war between yourself and President Lilic, it emerged still in the shape of Faber and the rebellion). A monarch can ensure that will not happen, or at least make it less likely to occur.

The problem is that this unifying figure is not accountable to the people and only reached their position because of their birth, nothing else. An elected figure, while not as constant as monarch, is still able to be above politics and, with a longer term than the lower house of the legislature, acts as a constant figure in the face of the rise and fall of coalitions during their time as president, however long that may be.

The problem with an elected official is that they still have no true accountancy, particularly when corruption is involved; and what politician is above politics? Is it yourself, or de Palma, or Lilic, or Spiros, or Liberalen, or any other president save perhaps the venerable Metternich, who died only a month in his office in a horrific manner? Even still, there are likely those who despise him for his role in the Revolution. Perhaps a lower level politician? Who is notable among them to be remembered by the majority and admired for their actions near-universally? Who among monarchs, though, stands admired? Is not Queen Victoria respectable? Is not William III admired?

A president cannot provide the constancy in any way that a monarch can, even given as many terms as possible; they are still beholden to an electorate, and if they have power, could very well bow to undue pressure, the wiles of hysteria, or to the pressure of the government in exchange for support in the elections (covertly, of course); a monarch has no such tie, and no such coercion is at feasible with him.

What would a powerless constitutional monarch do in that event? And I do not understand why an apolitical president would have anything more than limited powers that would in no way allow them to be Lilican in nature, as they wouldn't have the degree of power to become a tyrant of any sort. Why would someone commit fraud to gain a position with limited powers? Why would someone try to corrupt a president that couldn't do anything more than a constitutional monarch could? If need be a separate entity can be tasked with overseeing the election for president than does for the legislature, but we must have some faith in the ability of our democratic system to not be easily corrupted by outside influences. Also more likely than not, the powers of an apolitical president would be identical to that of a constitutional monarch. Thus, I do not see how they would be any less able to resist a tyrannical chief minister as a constitutional monarch would, unless you are suggesting that any man elected to the position would be a coward unable to stand up for the Constitution.

I do not believe in a powerless constitutional monarch; however, is it unreasonable that he would be able to rally support against such a tyranny? Would not a monarch in power for two or three decades have at least some modicum of support to undermine such a regime? And a monarch some power obviously has greater power than an elected president to challenge such a figure, as that chief minister has but to wait until a more pliable president is elected to enact their plans. This further stands that a brave man could indeed challenge a tyrant, be they president or Emperor; but the Emperor has longevity, whilst the president has only until his term ends before he, and the Federation, runs the risk of a sympathiser of that tyrant rising, and the dissolution of liberty.

Why would someone commit fraud for an office of limited powers? The promise of greater power? The promise of wealth, or prestige? There are many reasons why.

You once again are implying that an apolitical president would be powerless and not notable in any sense, as well as implying that our nation would be so politically unstable that no prime minister would hold office for more than a few months. These are both baseless assumptions with no facts backing them up. The best sort of person to represent this nation is one elected by the people. Whether or not the world chooses to make note of our apolitical president or our prime minister is not something I wish to speculate on as, as I do not know what the answer to it would be. The simple fact is that there is more than just our head of state and head of government that foreign peoples would use to perceive the Federation.

Yes, they are assumptions; I believe I said as much; but they are not baseless. My concerns are valid, as we have multiple parties within this Federation, with no one side maintaining a great majority; your own party recently experienced a seismic split, and should a third party rise, that could further lead to greater division in Congress; is it so unreasonable then to assume that our chief ministers may rise and fall like the tide?

As for the head of state and his notability, surely it would be beneficial to the Federation if we had a notable leader, someone who could, like the Tsar of Russia or the King of the Netherlands, be noted around the world and respected.

It is unfortunate that you see it this way, as I very much see it as one. A parliamentary republic is the republican equivalent of a constitutional monarchy that you are simply unwilling to accept as such because it isn't a monarchy and doesn't align with your interests. There must be some sort of compromise, if not then this issue will never be resolved and our nation will be stuck with its current form of government for years to come as both sides are unwilling to compromise with the other. I continue to believe that a parliamentary republic is the best way to resolve the issues that our current presidential republican form of government causes. The only way we will solve this issue is through consensus on both sides; otherwise we will not be able to change the constitution in anyway. The question is whether the monarchists are willing to give my proposal some thought rather than scoffing at it because it isn't a monarchy. I am perfectly willing to work with the monarchists to address their concerns and come up with an agreement that both sides can accept. The question is whether they are willing to do the same.

A compromise is surely possible, if the left would at least consider the possibility that a constitutional monarchy is a feasible and reasonable system of government, as it seems many are wont to never do; that you argue a parliamentary republic is an equivalent of this system is erroneous; they have their similarities, but the constitutional monarchy provides far more stability and constancy than this “equivalent” system ever could.
You say you are willing to work with us, but only if it is on your terms, with your republic ultimately triumphing; would you have answered calls of negotiation with Lilic, if he offered to redemocratise the system, so long as he or an ally held power?

~ Yehoshua Rabinov, Imperial Deputy

 

[Nax24]

((TOO MANY LONG POSTS!!!!! :wacko)

 

[Scrapknight]

A compromise is surely possible, if the left would at least consider the possibility that a constitutional monarchy is a feasible and reasonable system of government, as it seems many are wont to never do; that you argue a parliamentary republic is an equivalent of this system is erroneous; they have their similarities, but the constitutional monarchy provides far more stability and constancy than this “equivalent” system ever could.
You say you are willing to work with us, but only if it is on your terms, with your republic ultimately triumphing; would you have answered calls of negotiation with Lilic, if he offered to redemocratise the system, so long as he or an ally held power?

~ Yehoshua Rabinov, Imperial Deputy

Apparently, your definition of compromise is "agree with everything I say." How on earth is accepting a constitutional monarchy a compromise in any sense? What, would you rather have absolute monarchy, and thus constitutional monarchy becomes the meeting point?

- Sikorsky

((damn, Naxhi found out Sikorsky's secret identity ))

 

[Nax24]

*Oighrig Kanelos was sitting in a Cafe in Heraklion one day, discussing some things with a member from the Cretan Parliament who is a Monarchist, and a Turkish Republican who was in Oighirg's former unit.*

Turk: Do you remember Yemen Oighrig?

Oighrig: Why yes I do, twas my first major assignment as an officer. Those Bedouin Men hardly put up a fight!

Turk: Bloody hell I think I passed out from the heat of that dam desert!

Parliament Member: Must have been an interesting area to visit indeed. I hear the Bedouin culture is very different from what we find in Europe.

Oighrig: Well Rasmus, they did have one thing, they could stand that bloody heat!

*They all laugh.*

Oighrig: Well, it seems like his Imperial Majesty is making quite a name for himself. Already has half the Congress following him.

Rasmus: Indeed he has. What does your side think about all this Ekrem?

Ekrem: I feel as if the "Emperor" is going to have a long fight ahead of him if he ever wants to get his birthright back. This Federation just celebrated 40 years of democracy. A lot of people would feel uncomfortable if this democracy just stopped. I would understand a parliamentary republic.

Rasmus: I do appreciate President Banik for stating his intentions to make the Federation as such.

Ekrem: We just want to make sure the people have a say in government, which is kinda what a parliamentary republic would do. It is only the fact that a King is taking over as head of state instead of an elected President that has disdained many people. Especially that Mendel character.

Oighrig: He has been a fighter for as long as I remember. He would die before a king received his crown.

Rasmus: I just hope if the government is to change, nothing too violent happens in this country. Im sure the Jaegers do not want any trouble, right Oighrig?

Oighrig: I have already received word that their training is going along very well in Trieste. 12,000 of our best soldiers.

Ekrem: They certainly will be better off then the guard units run by the traitor von Tripitiz.

Rasmus: Yes indeed. Ekrem, I have received word that a party was created for religious equality? Something your people would enjoy?

Ekrem: I have a cousin who is in that party. I feel it would help bring stability among the faiths. Isn't your friend in that party Oighrig?

Oighrig: Good old Alp. He has been disdained by what he saw in Milan with the CU primaries. I do not know the founder though.

Ekrem: I do however, not appreciate the comment from the Regent of Albania. It does not make sense that a fellow muslim would disdain his brothers in a cause like this. Maybe the King will be a bit better, but you dont know with Kings.

Oighrig: My wife is sympathetic with the Emperor. She does have some hopes for him. I just hope that this issue doesn't run off on my kids.

Ekrem: How are your children Oighrig?

Oighrig: The Twins? They are doing fine. Katerina and Alexandros have just turned 4.

Rasmus: Sometimes, change is what a country needs good friend. What are your views on this Oighrig?

Oighrig: Bloody hell Rasmus I want to stay as far away from this debate as possible! That is why I took this job in the first place!

*They all laugh again as food is served. They eat and then part ways.*

 

[G.K.]

Krejčí, disgruntled by the lengthy and completely pointless debate, finally puts down the stock market reports and rises:

I fail to understand how anyone can put any hope in restoration of the monarchy. For hundreds of years under the Habsburgs, Austria was just a bunch of poor peasants ruled by clergy and a bunch of so-called nobles. Truth to be told, those of us old enough to remember the years before Metternich's revolution would call the Habsburg Austria medieval, at best. Yet, in half a century, republican Danubia rose from the age fo darkness to the age of liberty, progress and industry. Danubia became the true center of civilized Europe, a shining example that even European nations can put aside their rows and mutual hatred - which happened to blossom under the Habsburgs - and work together to create a new nation of free men.

I admit - the democracy in Danubia suffered in the last decade. There were wars, internal struggles, and even a conservative attempt to strangle our democracy, which only failed thanks to all good men devoted to Danubia and everything it stands for. Yet, the same elements who used to back Lilic now seem to shift their support to the Imperials, again seeking to destroy Danubian democracy. Restoring the Monarchy solves absolutely none of our current problems - Democracy will neither be restored nor strenghtened, quite the opposite if you ask me, our allies and enemies will see us as even weaker than now and common Danubians will not see their miserable situation getting better. What is a solution is a sane, responsible and respectable government of the Federation - And I am sure that Mr. President, myself and all members of Mr. President's cabinet did their very best to acheive so, despite both chambers of the Congress are now being crippled by these nonsensual debates rather than actually doing something to help our people.

I therefore ask our representatives to put these debates aside. Even if Danubia became a Monarchy, and I believe it never will, the people will not benefit. We can only help them by shifting our attention to reconstruction of the country rather than this pointless bickering.

Krejčí then sat down. He leaned to one of his FDP colleagues and, as one of the Imperial deputies happened to overhear, whispered to his ear:

- Anyway, Danubia will always regret the day when that Habsburg entered Danubian soil and wasn't thrown into the nearest cell.

 

[Scrapknight]

Herr Vice President, not only are you correct, but it is clear to me that the DIP has no interest in liberty, progress or industry whatsoever, just like Lilic's gangsters years ago. The similarities are most striking.

- Valentyn Sikorsky

 

[Revan529]

Yes, the true centre of civilisation would have its citizenry rounded up and imprisoned for merely thinking the wrong political thoughts; and yes, this “putting aside of mutual hatred” has truly applied with Russia and France… and perhaps “free men” should only apply to those who were not imprisoned or executed under Faber, and those who still see their ideas mocked and berated time and time again… as Pan Sikorsky expertly demonstrated for us all.

It seems to me that all the republicans in this body have learnt civics and government from Pan Mendel, for they all seem to make the egregious, and frankly fallacious, mistake of assuming that a constitutional monarchy is in any way an attempt to supplant democracy and progress; they further wish to make some logical stretch of a connection bonding the old autocracy of the ancient regime to the present plight of the imperialist movement, which has expressed its disdain of that tyranny multiple times and has instead suggested, once again, a liberal, limited, constitutional monarchy.

Furthermore, I would ask of Vice President what he feels of this parliamentary republic; surely it would solve none of our problems, if, as our illustrious President claims, it is the republican equivalent of constitutional monarchy, and indeed, have even more failings than either the present system or our proposed system. Would the Vice President endorse the move to that ineffectual form of governance, or does he regard that too as a non-solution? And if he does indeed support it, why? What makes it so superior.

As for the campaign to rebuild this Federation, I’m afraid you all are quite late to its rallies, as His Imperial and Royal Majesty has been calling for it since his return to the Federation… when you all, I believe, were discussing where a new capital should be placed. I do, however, agree that this nation must be rebuilt; perhaps when this government decides to take that programme of reconstruction seriously, we can actually discuss it.

I would also ask the good Vice President to refrain from calling the Lilicans conservative, as the conservative movement has suffered greatly and unfairly during the course of this presidency, and needs no more bad, and inaccurate, press against it.

Pan Sikorsky’s assertions are nothing but inflammatory, false, and dare I say, ridiculously foolish, so much so that do not even deserve a rebuttal. It’s a pity, though, that the “champions of democracy” have been reduced to such… I don’t believe arguments would be the proper term… perhaps lies is more fitting. The only thing striking about that statement is its ignorance.

~ Yehoshua Rabinov, Imperial Deputy

 

[Somberg]

It is becoming clear to me that Pan Rabinov is attempting to use the threat of the emergence of another Lilic to completely discredit the idea of a republican form of government in the Federation. The truth is that no form of government, whether a republic or a monarchy, is immune to forces determined to undermine democracy in the pursuit of tyranny and oppression. There is nothing that makes a monarchy any less vulnerable to corruption than a republic, there is no reason that an apolitical elected president would be any more susceptible to becoming power hungry than a constitutional monarch, and there is nothing inherent about the nature of a monarchy that makes it any more stable than a republic. One form of government cannot magically restore stability to an unstable nation if it does not address the cause of the instability. The Federation is not unstable because it doesn't have a monarchy; it is unstable because of the constant infighting between different groups within this nation, whether they be republicans or monarchists, reactionaries or radicals, federalists or confederalists. A diverse nation such as ours is always in a constant struggle to maintain order and balance between all of its competing interests, if one gains the upper hand the opposing one reacts to it, often in a violent manner.

This debate is more a symptom of the Federation's nature rather than a means to a solution to all of its problems. I do not doubt that Franz Ferdinand has good intentions and wants stability, for that is what we all want. But at the same time his allies in Congress are dividing the nation by forcing people to take either the side of a monarchy or a republic and pressing for a solution that really isn't a solution at all. Our problems cannot be fixed simply by changing our form of government, especially if attempting to do so causes more problems than it solves and divides us more than it unites us. If we wish to reform how our government functions, then that is fine, but at the same time it cannot be done without a consensus on how to do so, and at this point we are far from agreeing on anything, let alone coming to a consensus on it. I do understand that the monarchists wish to use a referendum to come to a consensus, but the problem is that there are many people who couldn't care less about what form of government we have. The only thing they desire is a government that can work to solve the problems facing this nation. There is also the fact that violence would most likely erupt between the most ardent supporters of a monarchy and the most ardent supporters of a republic, if past evidence is anything to believe. This, added to the fact that the last attempt at a referendum resulted in the will of the people being ignored, does not bode well for the ability of a referendum to solve anything. More likely is that a referendum would only further exacerbate the problem and lead to further instability and violence on the part of those dissatisfied with its result.

I am tired of the rhetoric from both the monarchists and from my own side. It does nothing to help the situation nor does it bring us any closer to a solution than we were before. This toxic atmosphere is off- putting to those of us who actually wish to work toward a solution. So too is the inflexibility of either side to at least recognize some legitimacy in the claims of the others. This does not at all mean an endorsement of their viewpoints, but at least having a shred of decency to see the truth in the lies and biased statements coming from both sides. Frankly, it is disappointing to see so many blinded by their personal biases and opinions that refuse to believe a word that anyone on the opposite side is saying. Squabbling between each other is not conducive to getting things done and it distracts us from more important matters, such as reconstructing this nation not just physically but metaphorically as well. The Lilican regime has damaged the fabricate of our society, it has undermined the confidence within our republican form of government, and it has forever altered the trust we place within each other to do what is best for this nation rather than what is best for ourselves. To tackle these issues and others as well we must not fall into the same ruts as countless others have in the past, we must not let our own selfishness and personal ambitions get the best of us. We must not allow Lilic what did to destroy our nation from within succeed in the end.

Now if anyone wishes to discuss a serious solution to this situation am I fully willing to listen to them, I have already made it clear that I want nothing more than to see a compromise on this issue so that we can move on to other matters. But I will not waste my time arguing over the merits of a parliamentary republic with someone who could not care less about it, who would rather find whatever flaws he can in it whether they are true or not, rather than trying to come up with an adequate solution to the problem at hand.

~ Lukáš Banik, President of the Danubian Federation

 

[Keperry]

Noting his zealous devotion to his extreme ideals, steadfast refusal to compromise, numerous stretches of truth and logic, and general rabidity (and certainly noticing that they are both of the same religion and the same state), some leftist wags begin referring to Yehoshua Rabinov as the "Monarchist Mendel".

 

[Dadarian]

Noting his zealous devotion to his extreme ideals, steadfast refusal to compromise, numerous stretches of truth and logic, and general rabidity (and certainly noticing that they are both of the same religion and the same state), some leftist wags begin referring to Yehoshua Rabinov as the "Monarchist Mendel".

On the other hand, noting the satire that Rabinov commits and his quick tongue at the expense of the infamous rhetoricatian, some rightist wags begin referring to Yitzchak Mendel as the "Republican Rabinov"

 

[theAhawk]

((Voting is now over. Suez will not be ejected from the union - no-one at all supported throwing them out. The DIP will be represented by Heinrich von Reuss and the DRSL by Valentyn Sikorsky.

Candidates: In order to stand you must send me a PM detailing your nomination for vice president. A written platform is also appreciated. The deadline for submitting such election material is on Monday at 9pm BST.))

 

[Andre Massena]

Ah yes, a running mate

Eric chuckles nervously

 

[Ignominius]

((What is it with characters in IAARs always chuckling or sneering or snickering? It's getting very cliché people.))

 

[Revan529]

((What is it with characters in IAARs always chuckling or sneering or snickering? It's getting very cliché people.))

((Yehosua sneers condescendingly at Jack118, before chuckling (some would even say snickering) at the poor boy before his attention is turned elsewhere by his republican counterpart, Mendel))

 

[LatinKaiser]

((Yehosua sneers condescendingly at Jack118, before chuckling (some would even say snickering) at the poor boy before his attention is turned elsewhere by his republican counterpart, Mendel))

((Urckarte wakes up, yawns, rubs his eyes, sneezes twice, and then goes back to sleep.))

 

[Qwerty7]

Name: Dominik Jakub
Date of Birth: March 5th, 1855
Place of Birth: Prešov, Slovakia
Culture: Slovakian
Position: Councilor for Slovakia
Bio: On March 5th, 1855, Dominik Jakub was born to a slovak farmer in Prešov. Dominik would never know much about his biological parents, because he was abandoned by them when he was only 4 years old. Supposedly Dominik’s parents couldn’t support a child. Whatever the reason was, Dominik’s real parents were not thought of much by him. He proclaimed them a disappointment, failures. Dominik was frankly glad that his parents abandoned him. He claims that he would live a dreary and un-impactful existence.
Dominik was adopted by a wealthy Slovak merchant, Dušan Citrad. He was brought into a family of 5 other children. He was the second youngest of the family. He was picked by his new siblings and even his parents for several reasons. Dominik was a short-tempered man with different physical features than his siblings. He was also bullied for his origins. His siblings and classmates thought him unclean and dirty.
Dominik would develop an odd relationship with his parents. His mother, Nikola, paid little attention to Dominik, and when she did it was mostly to call him names. His father, Dusan, had an even stranger relationship. Dominik wished to exceed his father in rank and social class, hoping one day to buy his father’s home. He wished to impress Dusan, but all attempts to do so were unsuccessful. Despite superb results in academics, Dusan would always find a way to insult Dominik. “I aspire to exceed the success of Dusan and become the wealthiest merchant in all of Europe. I will then laugh in the face of my father, and sell my siblings into slavery” – Dominik, 1870.
When Dominik turned 17, Dusan realized that there were two options for his estranged adopted-son. He could spend a large sum of money to send him to an academy, or he could take him under his wing. The choice was obvious. Shortly after his 17th birthday, Dominik was sent to “Academia Toledo” in Toledo, Spain, faraway from Slovakia and faraway from Dusan. Dusan had formulated a plan to murder Dominik. At the academy, Dusan had paid several professors and students to help in the plot to assassinate Dominik.
The academy would start a new chapter in Dominik’s life. At registration, Dominik hoped to cut all ties to the Citrad family, by registering under the name, Dominik Jakub. Previously he had used the name “Dominik” only using CItrad when absolutely necessary. Dominik described his family to his students as “a wealthy family of musicians” and his imaginary father, Vit, was the “greatest organ player in all of Slovakia.”
Dominik also found one of the few places he would ever love, the library. “Until I found the library, never had anything or anyone brought so much happiness and intrigue in my life ever!” In the library, Dominik’s thirst for knowledge would never be quenched. He very quickly realized that he would run out of works (due to economic constraints nationwide the library’s selection was limited). He decided to start writing essays and reviews in the books he read, and presenting them to his peers.
His fellow students at Toledo were also bullies to Dominik. They would pick on him for his ‘ill-temperedness, deceitfulness, and his Slovak heritage’. Even some of his own professors would pick on Dominik. Dominik’s misadventures with his peers would not be the worst of his troubles. Dusan very well knew that the political climate in Spain was tense. And in 1793, the country would be flipped on its head.
The establishment of The First Spanish Republic in 1873 would create a divide between the students and professors of the Academy. There were three major factions: there was the “Republicanos” who supported the first republic, they were the largest and most outspoken of the three. The “Restorationists”, who wished to see a restoration of the monarchy, they were usually underground and rarely identified themselves as such. Finally there was a third group led by Dominik. They were formed when students were starting to kicked out of classes for their supposed political stance. Dominik did not care for Spanish politics, and when he was barred from learning certain subjects, he hated it. Dominik led riots to stop this political bias. On November 8th, 1873 he led a ragtag army of 50 students and attacked a primarily-republican school building, killing 6 people and wounding 100 or so. Several students were kicked out for the incident, but Dominik was, oddly enough, not.
Dominik would soon find out why he still remained. His attack on the building gave leverage to the Restorationists. This advantage would end in January of 1874, when General Francisco Serrano become president of a newly-formed government. The government was headed union between Radicals and Constitutionalists. This period had lacked true republicans, and this is why many former republicans, members of Dominik’s protestors, and a few restorationists joined the Radical faction.
The radicals would maintain control in the academy throughout the most of 1874. Dominik did not have support from any faction. This is why when a peaceful protest in july of 1874 led to riot with 25 dead and 50 wounded, Dominik and several of the ringleaders were imprisoned. The radicals effectively established a sort of martial law. This enforced a strict curfew of 7:00 and ordered the arrest of several supposed restorationists and republicanos. Dominik would still study in prison, but was limited to radical influenced works. There would be hope for Dominik though. In September an unlikely alliance was brokered between republicanos and radicals. The republicanos, although had a strong distaste for Dominik, knew that he was the only man who could lead a rebellion.
In October and November, Dominik would plot with several members of an underground study group. The group illegally brought in works with non-radical influence. Dominik and his club had planned for a full-scale rebellion in December. Backed by republicanos and restorationists, Dominik was certain victory was at hand.
The rebellion wouldn’t be necessary though. In December Alfonso XII came to power and restored the monarchy. The radicals dispersed and the restorationists disbanded for their goal was achieved. The republicanos drifted off into existence. The period of turmoil made Dominik a hero among many in the academy, though he was still consistently bullied. This was a turning point in Dominik’s life. He turned away from his goal of ousting Dusan and looked towards a career in politics.
Dominik would finish his studies at the academy in 1877 and graduate at the top of his class. He looked forward to boasting about his success when he returned home to Slovakia, but more importantly to prove to his “father” that he was not a failure. Before he left, Dominik was encountered by his former history professor and former member of the restorationists, Senor Alvarez. Alvarez informed Dominik that his father had paid several men to assassinate him, and that Dominik had no ship waiting at the docks to bring him home. Dominik, appalled, confessed that he did not want to go home and was glad Dusan realized this.
Dominik took this as an opportunity to pursue a career in politics. Dominik went to the court of King Alfonso XII and delared “King, I am Dominik Alvarez (he was still experimenting with names and also wanted to appear more Spanish), hero of the Academy of Toledo and the most intelligent man in all of Spain (or so he claimed) have come here to pledge my allegiance to you and take my rightful place in your court.” Alfonso laughed at the Slovak’s cocky statements. But he saw that Dominik had ambition, and he adored that. Since Dominik was not of Spanish heritage, he didn’t receive a high-ranking office. He was the tax-collector to the rebellious province of Lerida in north-eastern Spain.
Dominik would get into many entanglements during his tenure (which lasted from 1877 – 1880), but he would find his way out of all of them. He politicked a lot and would calm the whispers for rebellion better than the governor of Lerida himself. Alfonso would frequently hear of the success of “Spain’s favorite Slovak”. Dominik enjoyed more than anyone else. Not because of his immense popularity, but because of the implications. This meant he would rise in rank. He hoped that one day he would gain enough power and popularity to gain control of Spain, and from there, the whole of Eorope especially Slovakia.
Dominik would be promoted to governor of Barcelona in 1880. He wished to crush anything that remained of the Carlists. He enacted laws to crackdown on Carlist remnants. Dominik also immersed himself in the writings of liberal enlightment thinkers such as John Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Spinoza. He formulated that there needed to be a balance between the left and right wing in order to form a stable government. This period was brief as Dominik learned that it is better to promise something than it is to give something. Liberalism was just not an idea he could comprehend.
Dominik had a brief reign as governor. In February of 1881, Dominik was forced out of power by a group of Carlists who opposed his reign, and would ultimately go on to persuade Dominik out of the country. The Carlists fabricated several documents which stated (falsely) that Dominik had committed adultery, arson, embezzlement, and much more. Dominik was tried in Barcelona, but was found innocent of the crimes. He was also tried in front of King Alfonso, but was also found innocent. In May of 1871, it was revealed that the documents the Carlists had presented were fake. Dominik had all of the men who had any connections to the documents imprisoned for fraud and treason.
Despite all of the claims being absolutely false, Dominik asked to be removed from his position by King Alfonso, stating “Although I have the utmost respect for this country and it’s ideas, I must leave it. The Carlist accusations have led me to believe I’m not welcome here, and I have heard of troubles in my homeland of Slovakia. I thank you my king for everything.” Dominik returned home to Slovakia in July of 1881. He had been reunited with his homeland for the first time in 9 long years.
Immediately upon his return, Dominik confronted his father about the assassination attempt. Dusan ridiculed his son, shoving it aside as a cruel joke mad by Professor Alvarez. During his time in Spain after graduation, he had managed to gain a sufficient amount of evidence to back up Alvarez’s claims. He presented this evidence to Dusan. Dusan, nervous that his “unclean son” would take him to court and win, pleaded on his knees. He apologized for his insults, and even promised to pay Dominik a large sum. Dominik refused, he did not care much for money or material possessions, but only for power and revenge.
On August 5th, 1881, Dusan Citrad was sentenced to death for attempted murder, embezzlement, fraud, treason, and grand theft (the majority of these crimes made up by Dominik to ensure that Dusan would get the death sentence). Dominik, not finished, also managed to get 4 of his five siblings and his mother sentenced to life in prison for various crimes. The only other freeman of the Citrad family was Dominik’s second eldest brother, Mirek. Mirek, 31, was a doctor in France. The trials would be one of the last times Dominik would see his adopted family.
Dominik, now glad that the demons of his childhood had been put away, did not know where to go from there. In early 1882, Dominik published his book, “Krásy Španielska“ ( The beauties of Spain). The book would garner averagre reviews. „The beauties of Spain“ was essentialy a review of Spain, and it’s landscape.
Dominik wrote several more books and essays. None of them would gain nationwide recognition. He decided to take a break fro writing in 1887, to continue his political career he had previously started in Spain just 6 years prior.
Dominik was very much a stranger to the political landscape of Danubia, and, unlike Spain, politics in a democracy. He had paid little attention to the politics during his teenage years, and during his return. Nevertheless, Dominik would secure a position as a councillor for Slovakia. The young misfit hoped to shake the very foundation of the Danubian Federation.


Ooc: Wow! 1,156 pages and it’s only 1887! I have a few questions though. Could someone explain to me the current political situation and the current political parties. I don’t really know what’s going on right now, and the table of contents linksdon’t work for me. I hope to have a lot of fun playing. And thanks in advance for any answers to my questions.