Glen-Rhodes wrote:Balder's political stance hasn't really changed since the monarchy was created in 2013. You, NES, and Onder swept in, along with the rest of the European family trees, and the political environment you all built is still very much the only game in town. Independent-imperialism, anti-defenderism, favoring the consolidation of power in the few.
This is completely wrong. Solorni and North East Somerset have been closely involved in the Government of Balder from the day the region was founded in October 2011. I have been a citizen since then, but my own high-level involvement in Balder politics started only in mid-2016. I had no serious political participation within Balder at any point in 2013. Balder became a monarchy in February 2013 under Delegate Charles Cerebella, not Solorni or North East Somerset. When Charles Cerebella opted not to seek re-election as Monarch (in the same month he was elected Prime Minister of the LKE and founded Albion), Solorni was elected as Delegate in April 2013 and North East Somerset was elected as her successor in January 2014, after competitive races against credible opponents in both cases. They did not swoop in. Both were elected after lengthy periods of service in ministerial and administrative roles in Balder.
I don't know why you are fixated on 2013 as a year of change for Balder foreign policy either. The bigger shifts then were in wider geopolitical context due to events in Osiris and Lazarus, and the reincarnation of the UIAF. To the extent that Balder's policy changed, it was in response to external developments, not any faction's internal takeover. The trajectory of Balder's foreign policy has been remarkably stable since its original set-up as a republic in late 2011. Balder's foreign policy has evolved naturally in line with its interests and its relationships with its allies. It's nothing to do with the monarchical and parliamentary structure of our institutions. Europeia, the game's most successful presidential democracy, has exhibited a similar degree of stability.
Regions can have internal political disagreements about policy issues other than gameplay alignment. Regional politicians should be focused on serving their region's interests, not on promoting external ideological causes. Where an alignment or foreign policy framework has served a region well for years and their alliance network is based on that, it would be unusual to see radical change. Indeed, such changes are frequently associated with political instability (i.e. coups or attempted coups) either before the shift or shortly afterwards. In a game where you can choose which region you join, any democracy tends to attract members who have similar values and who share the same conception of the wider world. That said, if you are saying a state cannot be democratic if there is a foreign policy consensus amongst its leading politicians, then many real-life western democracies also fall foul of your definition.
Considering the way that Defender powers like The South Pacific and The Rejected Realms have treated Balder, compared to the friendship we have consistently received from fellow Independent regions, it is hard to see why Balder politicians would favour a change in direction in any case. It is not normal for politicians within a state to advocate alliances with hostile foreign powers. It's obvious why such antics may trouble to find electoral support.
I'll spend an hour or two digging up the examples, you'll explain some of them away as not being serious and justify the rest, and we'll just be back to where we began. I'll take leaving it alone over the burden of proof, thanks.
