Exotic Governmental/Legal Systems

[Johnny1A.2]

Another modification to a general Westminster-type parliamentary system occurs to me: imagine a setting where someone in the general public can start a petition, and if it gets enough signatures, it triggers an election whether the ruling party or coalition wants one or not.

It would probably require a very large number of signatures, but I could imagine a parliamentary system with some such feature.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

Another modification to a general Westminster-type parliamentary system occurs to me: imagine a setting where someone in the general public can start a petition, and if it gets enough signatures, it triggers an election whether the ruling party or coalition wants one or not.

It would probably require a very large number of signatures, but I could imagine a parliamentary system with some such feature.

That's not entirely out there; apparently some German states allow for the dissolution of state parliaments by petition when elections would not normally be scheduled. In some Canadian provincial parliaments and in British Parliament* petitions can trigger by-elections for specific MPs.

*British recall petitions are initiated when an MP is found to commit certain misconduct, not whenever.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by TGLS

That's not entirely out there; apparently some German states allow for the dissolution of state parliaments by petition when elections would not normally be scheduled. In some Canadian provincial parliaments and in British Parliament* petitions can trigger by-elections for specific MPs.

*British recall petitions are initiated when an MP is found to commit certain misconduct, not whenever.

I think many parliamentary states also retain the formal authority of the head of state to dissolve the parliament. He never does mind you (at least in the West, I'm not so sure about the Supreme Leader of Iran), and while you can usually petition him for anything you like, he's under no obligation to grant anything. Still, in principle it could happen, and once it does once, suddenly it's an option on the table all the time.

If 50% of the voters of Canada or the UK actually signed a petition and delivered it to King Charles asking him to dissolve the government, what [would] he do? I dunno. I suspect the real answer is as it got close to looking like a majority, he'd call in the PM and politely ask him to resign or call an election "voluntarily" and not make this into a constitutional crisis likely to establish an actual precedent.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by malloyd

I think many parliamentary states also retain the formal authority of the head of state to dissolve the parliament. He never does mind you (at least in the West, I'm not so sure about the Supreme Leader of Iran), and while you can usually petition him for anything you like, he's under no obligation to grant anything. Still, in principle it could happen, and once it does once, suddenly it's an option on the table all the time.

If 50% of the voters of Canada or the UK actually signed a petition and delivered it to King Charles asking him to dissolve the government, what [would] he do? I dunno. I suspect the real answer is as it got close to looking like a majority, he'd call in the PM and politely ask him to resign or call an election "voluntarily" and not make this into a constitutional crisis likely to establish an actual precedent.

I don't know of any recent case where the British monarch refused to dissolve Parliament when asked to, or tried to when not, but IIANM, in some countries, like Italy, the President of the state (as opposed to the head of government) who fills the same role has refused to dissolve the legislature a few times in recent decades, insisting that the parties try again to form some kind of government.

[jason taylor]

Chanceries are divided according to relevance to domestic or foreign concerns between the upper and lower houses. For instance the foreign chancellor and the chancellor of war is picked by the upper house. Treasury, defense (including militia and emergency services), is chosen by the lower house.

The Ombudsman is chosen by the legislature and used as a sort of "Zampolit" in the cabinet. He has a right to demand that any executive policy be brought to the legislature before implementation.

[Boomerang]

The Paradocracy

The government of this world is so strange that Homeline has designated it as too dangerous to visit. Any who choose to travel there from Homeline are well aware of the no return policy before embarking. Fortunately, some brave, curious, and superbly trained agents have decided to settle in the Paradocracy and report back on a limited basis to ensure they are not compromised. Without these volunteers Homeline would have no idea about recent events.

The Paradocracy is named after one of the most popular theories on how the government actually functions as its true nature is a mystery even to its own inhabitants. It appears that in the early 1990s history diverged. Dozens of letters appeared simultaneously in the private residents of dozens of world leaders as well as apparently ordinary random citizens issuing a short list of very specific instructions and a warning that if these instruction were not followed the recipient would die within 7 days.

Initially it was believed to be a well orchestrated and elaborate hoax, but when most people failed to comply and began suddenly dying from various causes it was quickly taken more seriously. Chaos erupted for a time, wild speculation and conspiracy theories flooded the media, but quickly settled over the coming weeks.

Roughly 2 months later a second round of letters arrived causing widespread panic. These letters were mainly delivered to famous religious leaders around the world and again included some seemingly random, relatively unknown private citizens. These letters followed the same pattern as the first round; a short list of instructions were given and a warning to comply immediately or die within 7 days.

This pattern repeated many times over the coming years and usually targeted politicians and religious leaders, but sometimes business leaders and other famous or powerful people. All the worlds major religions failed as one by one their leaders were forced to publicly declare their faith a fraud or die. This lent credence to the "creator theory" which basically stated that the creator of the universe was offended by the plethora of false religions that had risen during the centuries and decided to destroy them before revealing the one true path. This theory made sense as the terrestrial source of the letters was never discovered and the sender appeared to be omniscient and omnipotent, there was no person, no matter how powerful and well guarded the letters could not reach. This theory although popular for several years was eventually rejected by most when the one true path was never revealed, and even new religions worshipping the sender of the letters were quickly dismantled.

The replacement theory, which is now the most popular, is that some day in the far future humanity discovers time travel. Whilst this time travel theory explains how the letters always seem to reach their target, and how the sender is always aware of recent events, it raises all kinds of paradoxes, not the least why should people of the future want to directly interfere with events that have already happened from their perspective? Interestingly, instead of this logical paradox causing the theory to be rejected, most people embraced the theory with a kind of religious fervour and now call their new world government The Paradocracy instead. Whether the theory is true, the name has stuck. Those who most fervently believe the time travel theory have an absolute faith that the people of the future are far more wise and benevolent than those in the present. As evidence the true believers cite the long term general trends of greater prosperity and technological progress, and the reduction in autocracies, warfare, and environmental damage. On balance these trends are objectively verifiable, but the counter argument of these trends being consistent with trends prior to the first round of letters arriving are dismissed by true believers as heresy. There is also no clear explanation for why the letters have specified that the entire world transition to one language: Latin.

Over the years various other theories have circulated, become popular for a time, and then faded away. The most notable being the "illuminati theory" and the "alien conspiracy". The letters continue to arrive in batches, always following the same pattern of focusing on famous people with a few random ordinary citizens included. Never has the arrival of a letter ever been filmed, or the origin traced. Never has a fatality been prevented, except by following the instructions specified in the letter. Extensive scientific testing was conducted on the letters from the second batch onwards revealing nothing of interest other than the paper contained an unusually high ratio of the isotope carbon-13. Eventually testing the letters stopped in the year 2005 when a round of letters forbid the practice.

Thirty years on, it is the year 2025. The citizens of Paradocracy have become used to their new world government, despite having no idea who the sender is, and what their motivations might be. Whilst broad trends are obvious and generally benign, the purpose of some of the more specific instructions contained in the letters, especially those sent to private citizens, are a mystery. Only a few citizens remain sceptical of the true motivations of the sender, and a few small secret societies have formed and built secret enclaves to hide in should things turn bad. Meanwhile Homeline watches patiently from a far and waits...

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Boomerang

The Paradocracy

There's an interesting concept in here, but the details have some problems. The biggest one I see is that this has any substantial effect on religions. Most religions don't have leaders in any universal sense, many religious leaders are pretty sincere and willing to risk death to defy an order to abandon their faith, most believers wouldn't abandon their faith even if a leader called on them to do so, and a fair number of faiths actively [permit] lying about faith in the face of oppression, so even if a leader does publically announce the faith is false under threat, everybody who knows it is under threat knows it shouldn't be taken seriously.

Unless the people sending these things can send them to millions of people, are willing to kill a large fraction of said millions, and have some way of telling whether they are [sincere] in following instructions, I don't think this has the influence you think it does. Decide issues by majority vote and it's unclear how you even swing politics, never mind religions. Sure you can kill the leaders who don't actively refuse to follow the will of the majority, but unless you are willing to kill the majority, or at least every lower level government actor who obeys the vote rather than the obviously coerced leader, that doesn't help. Power doesn't flow entirely from leaders after all.

[Boomerang]

Religious belief is highly malleable. I doubt the religious impulse would disappear but I think it would be relatively easy to convert official, public worship in established organised religions into personal, individual, private, disorganised worship of the sender within a generation.

I was imagining that the majority of people might still identify as Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc. but in reality don’t go to church, don’t or can’t read their bible, know nothing about the history of their religion, never see preachers on TV and actually have faith in the sender when quizzed.

In a way it reminds me of the old joke. A Jewish man travels to Northern Ireland during the troubles and is stopped by a police officer who asks if he is Catholic or Protestant. He replies that he is Jewish, to which the officer responds: yes, but are you a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Boomerang

Religious belief is highly malleable. I doubt the religious impulse would disappear but I think it would be relatively easy to convert official, public worship in established organised religions into personal, individual, private, disorganised worship of the sender within a generation.

Possibly amongst the majority, but you'll have a large minority who maintain their religious beliefs and practices in private. There are places in the world where following the "wrong" religion carries a de facto death sentence (and I think in some of them, the death sentence is even de jure) and yet there is still a strong, secret presence of believers, converting others on the sly and raising their children within the religion. That said, to observers from Homeline it may well look as though all the major religions are no longer practiced. It could certainly be an interesting twist for the PC's if the friends they've made suddenly reveal they are actually Baptists - or Catholics, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or whatever.

The setting certainly is interesting, and is a bit reminiscent of Death Note.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Varyon

That said, to observers from Homeline it may well look as though all the major religions are no longer practiced.

That's one of the things that struck me as most nonsensical barring that killing of hundreds of millions option. Religions simply are not top down organizations, you aren't killing organized practice of them unless you start killing people at the level of leaders of individual congregations.

I'd also point out that pushing very hard to stamp out religion makes the local response even more nonsensical, and it's pretty stretched already. Mysterious supernatural forces are attempting to stamp out the true faith (and the right political ideology at the same time) using murderous extortion to compel obedience to commands they don't even explain. They must be benevolent time travelers! No. It's quite obvious they are evil demon lords or something equivalent, there is no way people are anything like this accepting.