Victory Announcement

 

OPERATION DETAG

Europeian Republican Navy
ARNHELM
EUROPEIA
OFFICE OF THE GRAND ADMIRAL

--30^th OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN--

Earlier this week, the ERN participated in a de tag update operation with the North Pacific Army of The North Pacific. For those unfamiliar, de tagging is a defending tactic that involves securing a region's delegacy and instituting its normal World Factbook Entry, removing another militaries invasion WFE that had been in place. This operation was taken part to increase cooperation with The North Pacific and yielded results of diversifying our operational output. This operation did both, and allowed sailors to get a taste of other operations.

Huzzah!

TROOPS REPORTING;

Grand Admiral Writinglegend
Commodore CptCarrot
Midshipman Cokeland

Thank you all for your participation.

REGARDS,
Writinglegend, GRAND ADMIRAL

Quote:

 

ENN - "Analysis: An Assembly With Balls Is Essential To The Long-Term Survival Of Europeia"
Written by Klatonia
Lecturer at the University of Europeia

The author is a former Mayor of the defunct City Council, a former Senator, Speaker and presidential candidate. His opinions do not reflect those of the E-News Network.

---

So this is a continuation of this thread. I just finished reviewing the whole CARP saga and... well, it was instructive, to say the least. Here's a post-facto, summary, institutionalist (and probably wrong) sub-analysis, in line with my previous comments.

The very existence of the CARP underlines that there might have been a downside in the shift towards educational purpose of the CA. When CA leaders or up-and-comers are educating, they are not... how shall I say this... capitalizing on their newly-acquired political capital. When the CA is deprived (and I use it in a non-derogatory sense) of a stated or informal role/influence in policymaking (and that goes WAY beyond ordinances and pre-acts and the technical stuff), the whole system suffers because the CA is no longer training future leaders through experience.

That's the point I think HEM was trying to make: if the lay-level, non-elected entity only aims at educational goals, then it fails to provide proper real-life experience (as opposed to simulated experience) to members and, thus, fails to nurture advanced political skills like negotiation, leadership and responsibility.

Thus, the CARP. From a remote and more historical perspective, it seems as if one of the unstated reasons for its creation was the inability of the CA to ''stock the shelves'' with new leaders. It provided more technically skilled citizens but less politically proficient members. In institutionalist terms, Europeia's political structure lost one of the two predominant ways to create an intermediary output of leadership (the other being straight importation from other Regions). The system thus has to create a ''new'' toy to compensate for such systemic failure.

So where to go from here? Well, three possibilities immediately come to mind. First is to reestablish the CARP, thus providing the system with what seems to have been a rather reliable output of leaders. Second would be to establish a new program with comparable objectives.

Third... well, third goes back to the question HEM and Notolecta were arguing about: what's the role of the CA? Should the CA once again assume (in part or in whole) the purpose of providing a close-to-reality political simulation forum, or should it remain a technical institute for political bureaucrats?

The first option would both force the Region to lend some legitimacy to the Assembly and force the Assembly to assume a more political role - with every possible calamity that comes with it: conflict, confrontation, negotiation, power trips, intrumentalization of somewhat clueless members, and other predicted disaster. It carries the risk of gravedigging the old guard/new guard bullshit. However, it provides the opportunity (nothing more) for the development of leadership skills. Never for the many, only for the few who thrive in that kind of environment. Cost, benefit.

Reading the CARP archives, I wondered why the CA was limited to an educational role and why the leaders were basically selected for political upwards mobility. Is it that the Region has become confrontation-averse and wishes to streamline the rise of potential leaders through means that exclude troublemaking? I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud.

The second option seems to be working to a lot of people's satisfaction. It actually works as intended, apparently, with the usual ups and downs. The sheer quality of the educational resources is mind buggling. My concern is that the curriculum (and some feedback and comments I've seen posted) aim almost exclusively at developping what are known as (and sorry, it's a translation because I don't know the English term for it) compliance skills.

Correctly understanding, discussing and drafting legislation is not related (in theory) to personal style of leadership. Europeia, through its freaking awesome legal architecture (and the individuals that built it), has corporatized, streamlined and standardized almost every aspect of government related to legality, including the vocabulary and writing conventions of policy. So the educational resources and support provided seem, to me, like they strive to teach citizens how to comply with established norms... and THAT ISS FINE. Im a freaking lawyer, I can relate and appreciate. What you get is an active population that hosts a larger proportion of legal- or legislative-literate citizens.

But it does not nurture leaders.

We need a lay-level entity, whatever its freaking name, that allows both objectives to be attained at the same time.

Everything I've read and lived through so far here reflects what I would shamelessly call a Europeian truth: we are only as vibrant a Region as the quality of our leaders. If you don't like that statement, that's too bad. Engaging people in activity and creativity is only possible when the right levers are activated: when high-yielding recruitment leads to a larger population, and therefore a larger potential field of active members, who are then activated by either their past experience (a minority) or by the experience they live once they're admitted. All these levers - recruitment, integration, animation - are in the hands of the Executive. Yes, individual initiative can foster a punctual spike in participation. Yes, RL trends directly affect the activity level of the board. But in the end, looking through history, it is very difficult to disprove the thesis that we are a leader-driven region with strong democratic roots (which makes us a republic, really, what a coincidence) and a very steady, very influencial internal culture.

On that last point, it's only since I came back two days ago and skimmed the archives that I've come to truly appreciate the 'old guard' for what they are: a cultural safenet. This steadiness in our political and social culture is what allows Europeia to avoid having to reinvent the wheel every year, or to regularly fall under the spell of ill-faithed demagogues (it has happened but very rarely considering the lenght of our terms). So I'll take this opportunity to address a public apology to Lethen, Anumia, HEM, Lexus, Neo and Asianatic: if I had understood THAT in 2009-2011, things would have been different. I don't regret stirring s*it up. I don't regret confronting the 'establishment'. Hell, I don't even regret the intent behind the Extreme Measures Act. The way it was done and the sometimes blatant dismissal of your contribution, however, were inexcusable, and I apologize for that.

To survive in a context of high citizen turnover, Europeia needs a steady supply chain of politically activated, lucid citizens (which includes utopists, by the way) who are given the chance to learn not just through scholastic exercises but through the experience of situations that are as close to the 'real' leadership as possible. For some, it's to champion a bill they really care about once they learn how to frame it. For others, it'll be the learning of the ropes of political maneuvering through a seemingly absurd revolt against, let's say, the Senate's lack of transparency. Whatever the case, every citizen should have an easy access to a resource where political experiences can be lived and experienced to the fullest in order to exercise an honest judgement of their will to 'climb up the ranks' or 'make a name for themselves'.

For the record, I think the CARP narrowed that access by 1) cementing the role of the CA to purely 'educational' purposes and 2) putting in place a recruitment system that limits the number of 'chosen people' and the ways they can learn. It hinders the emergence of out-of-the-ordinary, somewhat unexpected leaders. In short, it skews the necessary diversity of the leadership supply market. Its disbanding was a good thing, but it does not solve the issue at hand: if not the CARP, then what?

Does that mean the CA is the only way to create leaders? Of course not. But since all others rely on voluntary participation that hinges on a combination of personal volition and leaders' capability to create/rally interest, the CA presents a very high potential for systemic leadership and citizenship development. That should be its mission, and we should be able to accept that it can, in time, take forms we personally don't like. Accepting a loss of control is a skill many should learn.