[CLOSED] NSPoliteia: An Index of Democracy and Pluralism

[Eraman]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Kingdom of Eraman
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1945
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1945
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Bendahara Tun Sengalang Petara
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Royal Council (upper house) and People's Council (lower house)
7. Name of Judiciary: Federal Court

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[x] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[x] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[x] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[ ] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[x] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[x] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[x] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[x] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[x] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[x] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[x] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[ ] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[x] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[x] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[x] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[x] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?

Legislative power is divided between federal and state legislatures. The bicameral federal parliament consists of the lower house, the People's Council and the upper house, the Royal Council. The 111-member People's Council is elected for a maximum term of five years from single-member constituencies. All 35 members of the Royal Council sit for three-year terms; 18 are elected by the 9 state assemblies, and the remaining 17 are appointed by the King.

The parliament follows a multi-party system and the government is elected through a first-past-the-post system. Parliamentary elections are held at least once every five years. Registered voters of age 21 and above may vote for the members of the People's Council and the state legislative chamber.

Executive power is vested in the Cabinet, led by the Bendahara. The Bendahara must be a member of the People's Council, who in the opinion of the King, commands the support of a majority of members. The Cabinet is chosen from members of both houses of Parliament. The Bendahara is both the head of cabinet and the head of government.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Toin]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Democratic States of Toin
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 10 August 2020 (as of this post)
3. Year of Establishment: 27 July 1847
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 27 July 1847
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President Eleanore Crew, Democratic Socialist Party
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Parliament (upper Council of Villages, lower House of Commons)
7. Name of Judiciary: There is no official name for the judiciary. De facto, it is "judiciary" or something along those lines.

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[X] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[X] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[X] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[X] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[X] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[X] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ ] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[X] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[X] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[X] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? Yes. The President can introduce bills to Parliament as if they were a sitting member, but are not actually sitting members and are not accountable to Parliament (unless an impeachment trial is in progress). Parliament may also summon the President for oral questions or compel them to answer written questions, which the President must comply with. The President is typically summoned for oral questions once every two weeks to once every two months depending on the national situation at hand, but written questions are answered within two weeks.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Monasheya]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Republic of Monasheya
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1871
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1874
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Prime Minister Florian Gardet (National Union)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Parliament of Monasheya (Senate and Chamber)
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court of Monasheya

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[X] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[X] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[X] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[X] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[X] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[X] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ ] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[X] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[X] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[X] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? No.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Fosa Agige and North Lemonina]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Fosa Agige and North Lemonina
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1999
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1999
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Marçal Dragan Georgovik (Lemoninan Independence Party)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Supreme Council
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Council

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X ] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X ] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[X ] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[X ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[X ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[X ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[X ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[X ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[X ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[X ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[ ] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[X ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[X ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ ] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[X ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[X ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[ ] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[The Third Duloch]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Holy Eternal Empire of The Third Duloch
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2145
3. Year of Establishment: 2133
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): N/A(the constitution of the previous nation was destroyed and Fuhrquaad was labeled king)
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Maximus Farquaad- Der Lord Fuhrquaad; The Church of Duloch;
The National Feudalist Party has much less power than the emperor, as it is just there to host Fuhrquaads main supporters
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): N/A, The Third Duloch is a medieval style fascistic genocidal empire, The National Feudalist Party is merely a bureaucracy under control of the Royal Leaders and Fuhrquaad
7. Name of Judiciary: N/A

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[x] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[x] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[x] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[ ] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[x] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[x] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[x] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[x] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[x] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[x] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[x] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[x] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[x] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ ] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[x] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[x] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[ ] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? We are technically a de jure one-Party State, but in reality we are a Medieval Style totalitarian monarchy under a massive hierarchy with Fuhrquaad at the top. The National Feudalist Party is a bureaucratic part of the hierarchy, but the Church and Fuhrquaad are above it so most of it lacks power. The Third Duloch differs from Nazi-Germany politically, being more monarchist and less oligarchic. The atrocities perpetrated by Fuhrquaad’s regime were directly under his orders with other bureaucratic groups like the FF being merely pawns. However, some consider him not a king since he doesn’t yet have a queen(because it is hard for most people to love a genocidal identitarian who wants to exterminate billions of people).

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Former Citizens of the Nimbus System]

Apologies for adding a couple of 'Other' options on two of the questions; the Nimban political system didn't really conform to any of the existing ones! I've written a summary at the end to hopefully make things clear and would be happy to answer questions for further clarification!

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Nexus Wardship of Former Citizens of the Nimbus System
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 64 After Foundation (Nimban Calendar), 1228 Arcadian Calendar
3. Year of Establishment: 0 After Foundation (Nimban Calendar), 1164 Arcadian Calendar
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 0 After Foundation
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Minister for Governance (OOC: State is currently overdue me RPing an election cycle! The former Minister for Governance is Jade Birch.)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): The Nimban Assembly (House of the Assembly)
7. Name of Judiciary: The Nimban Courts of Arbitration

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[X] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[X] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation or the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[X] Other (please explain): The democratically-elected chief executive shares power with a cabinet whose members are each also democratically-elected (all are chosen by vote of the legislature).

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[X] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[X] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[X] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[X] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
[X] Other (please explain): The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Political parties that combine multiple unrelated political positions are banned as anathema to free discussion and choice, though groups formed to discuss and/or promote singular issues or policies are permitted; instead, individuals stand for election as independent candidates with their own combinations of ideas, perspectives and qualities. Political funding is drawn from taxation and distributed to candidates across an election cycle; the use of funding beyond this or other resources for campaigning is illegal. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[X] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? The Nexus Wardship may be described as a ‘unicameral semi-directorial representative democracy’.

Its legislature, the Nimban Assembly, is hosted at the House of the Assembly, though the latter name (as well as simply ‘the Assembly’) has also come to refer to the legislature itself. The Assembly is formed from members elected by constituencies called ‘communities’, whose boundaries are determined an independent body formed primarily of senior arbiters (Nimban equivalent to judges) and academics with political and demographic expertise. Members are not formed into political parties, which are prohibited by law to stop discourse-stifling ideological blocs from forming; instead, hopeful members run as independent candidates. To counteract the forces that normally result in political parties, political funding is distributed from a central pot drawn from taxation and elections held by typically three rounds of single transferrable vote, with more funding given to candidates who successfully pass each round. To avoid business and financial interests from having undue political influence, candidates are prohibited from using funds or resources other than this handout. Meanwhile, to facilitate the political discussion that parties would otherwise provide a space for, groups to campaign around a singular issue or policy are permitted, though the generally non-partisan and radical (in the literal sense) political landscape of the Wardship means that these often take the form of simple fora for discussion of an issue across a spectrum of perspectives instead. Voting for members of the Assembly is not compulsory for adult citizens (a group that is very easy to access, typically dependent on either one or more Nimban parents or proof of intent to reside in the Wardship while lacking a major criminal record) and spoiled ballots permitted but attendance at a polling station on the day of polling is compulsory, with the exceptions of people submitting proxy or postal votes or unexpected factors such as sudden illness, injury or bereavement; a day of polling is considered a public holiday in order to facilitate this.

The Nimban executive takes the form of the Ministerial Offices. There are currently 17 Ministers, a number that has fluctuated (mostly grown) across the Wardship’s brief history; each has authority over and responsibility for a given Office of the civil service (current Offices include the Economy, Education, Sport and Warfare). Ministers are elected by the Assembly from candidates drawn not from the Assembly itself but the population at large, meaning that candidates with expertise, ideas and knowledge relevant to a given Ministerial Office are favoured over career politicians (with the frequent exception of Minister for Governance, given that political experience confers relevant expertise here). Their election follows a non-partisan, centrally-funded, multi-tier STV model akin to legislative elections. The head of the Nimban nation is the Minister for Governance, a first-among-equals responsible for leading Ministerial talks, proposing Ministerial items for debate in the Assembly and government reform, as well as some diplomatic and ceremonial duties as standard for a head of state. Though a capable Minister for Governance is important for maintaining cohesion between Ministers who sometimes have very different philosophies of government, Nimban cultural emphasis on diversity and unity as complementary and fundamentally intertwined forces, an education system that focusses significant attention on both philosophy and social and communication skills and the typical expertise of each Minister in their own field also act to support cooperation.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Peiyang China]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Republic of China
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1912
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1957
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President Chen Shui-bian
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Bicameral National Assembly (Senate and House of Representatives)
7. Name of Judiciary: Judicial Yuan

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[X] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[X] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[X] Other (please explain): The democratically-elected chief executive shares power with a legislature-elected cabinet (e.g. the President's cabinet is picked by the National Assembly) who are slightly less strong

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[X] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[X] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[X] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[ ] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[X] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[X] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[X] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
No.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Restored Great Britain]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Kingdom of Great Britain
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1948
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1948
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Queen Elizabeth II (head of state), Sir Keir Starmer (head of government)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain; House of Commons (lower), Senate (upper)
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Great Britain

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[X] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[ ] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[X] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[X] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[X] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[X] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[X] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[X] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[X] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
No.
Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[West Bromwich Holme]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: United Kingdom & West Bromwich Holme
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): Varies, depending on setting
3. Year of Establishment: TBD
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution):
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Paul Holmes
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater):
7. Name of Judiciary:

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[ X] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X ] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ X] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[ ] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[X ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ X] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ X] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ X] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[X ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ X] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[ X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ X] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ X] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[X ] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Wumoria]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Republic of Wumoria
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1919 (Provisional Government), 1921 (International Recognition), 1947 (De Jure Independence from Soviet Union), 1989 (De Facto Independence from the Soviet Union), 1991 (Modern Constitution).
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1991
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President Janis Tamme (The Wumorian Centrist Party), Minister-President Pāvels Skudra (The Social Democratic Party of Wumoria)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): The Riksdome.
7. Name of Judiciary: The Tietonis Tribunal.

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[X] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[X] Other (please explain): The President (who is elected by popular vote) nominates a Minister-President (the Chief Executive) who's voted on by the Riksdome. If the Riksdome rejects the nominee, the Riksdome can nominate someone.
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[X] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[X] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[X] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[X] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[X] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[X] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[X] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[X] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
The Chief Justices of the Tietonis Tribunal is appointed by the President of Wumoria with the approval of the Riksdome.

Deputies of the Riksdome are appointed by the Parties they're a part of, and seats are given to parties according to their percentage of the national vote. There's no popular input on who specifically gets seats in the Riksdome.

All legislation not introduced by a Deputy of the Riksdome has to get approval by the Chief Librarian of the Rikshus Bibliotheque, a position appointed by the Minister-President without any approval necessary. The Chief Librarian is not protected by the Wumorian Constitution, as it has informal powers to fill the vacancy left by the MuVaDome, which is on a 24 hour lunchbreak.

The Minister-President and President can- with 1/2 majority approval of the Riksdome- dissolve the Riksdome for an unspecified period of time. Although this hasn't happened in Wumorian history, it is something that could occur.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Dunferm]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Kingdom of Dunferm
2. Current Year (in YN's canon):2020 Anno Domini
3. Year of Establishment: 1224
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): N/A
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable):His Majesty the King, Prime Minister
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater):The General Assembly of Lands and Estates of the Realm
7. Name of Judiciary: The Sovereign

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X ] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[ X] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[X] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[ ] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[X] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[X ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[X] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[X] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[X] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[X] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[ ] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[X] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ ] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[X] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[X ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied SOME political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[ ] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
The Legislature is divided between democratically elected MPs, and appointed noblemen and religious leaders. Election of Prime Minister, while certainly is democratic to degree, requires support from nobility de-facto. There are no limitations on the King, while Prime Minister can face opposition from Legislature.
Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Drew Durrnil]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: United Republics of Durrnil
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020 (real time)
3. Year of Establishment: 1805
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1981
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Mænsk Hænt
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): National House, Republican House, National Parliament, Republican Parliament
7. Name of Judiciary: National Court of Durrnil, *Republic* court of Durrnil

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[x] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[x] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[x] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[x] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[x] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[x] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[x] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[x] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[x] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[x] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[ ] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[x] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[x] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[x] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[x] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
The Judiciary is mostly subnational, and the head of state/government has relatively limited powers, since there is very heavy devolution in Durrnil. The Durrnilian Parliament is similar to the Senate in the US.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Yaosoland]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Yaoso Republic
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: Independence in 1961; Current government took shape in 1972
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1977
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President Imani Mwana-Juma. Technically Non-Partisan, but has close links to the United Progressive Party
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Parliament of the Yaoso Republic; made up of the Federal Congress and the Chamber of Representatives.
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court of the Yaoso Republic

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[x] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[x] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[x] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[x] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[x] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[x] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[x] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[x] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[x] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[x] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[x] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[x] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[x] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[x] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[The North America Union]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The United States of America, Canada; The North America Union
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1776 (U.S.), 1867 (Canada); 2016 (N.A.U.)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1787 (U.S.), 1867, 1982 (Canada); 2016 (N.A.U.)
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Robert Stanton (U.S.), Justin Trudeau (Canada); Both co-leaders of N.A.U. via their political systems (separate executive, legislative, and judicial). Both can also sometime bypass their political systems by the use of executive orders, however the orders would only apply in their separate countries, and in differing cases.
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): House of Reps. and Senate/Congress (U.S.), the House of Commons and the Senate (Canada), either can pass bills to the N.A.U., but bills have to pass both Legislative branches to be adopted into N.A.U. law. Both can be sometime bypassed by the use of executive orders, however the orders would only apply in their separate countries, and in differing cases.
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court (U.S.), The Queen on the Bench, (Canada), both interpret laws for their countries. If a law is determined illegal in one country and it applies to both countries, it will be abolished.

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[ ] No. X
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[ ] No. X
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK) X for Canada only
[ ] No. X for United States only
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch. X for Canada Only
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics) X for U.S. only
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process. X for U.S. and Canada; they are both leaders of the N.A.U., via their own political systems (executive, legislature, judicial)
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation or the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions. X for U.S. and Canada; they are both leaders of the N.A.U., via their own political systems (executive, legislature, judicial)
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet. X for U.S. (elected by the people through an electoral college), and Canada (becomes leader upon being the leading party in parliament, which is elected by the people); they are both leaders of the N.A.U., however each executive branch for both countries can issue executive orders that bypass their other branches of government, on differing cases and usually minor orders. Executive orders are not generally a sign of autocratic rule.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems) X for U.S. and Canada; they are both leaders of the N.A.U., via their own political systems (executive, legislature, judicial, and their adjoining checks and balances)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office. X for U.S. (Congress is by far the most powerful branch of government, direct rep. of the people, however the power could not be wielded without balance), and Canada
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups. X for U.S. (The president has the power to nominate the justices and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate. After appointment, they are completely independent), and Canada (completely independent from all other branches), and in total for the N.A.U., if a law concerning both countries (a law created for the N.A.U.) is determined illegal in one country and it applies to both countries, it will be abolished from N.A.U. law. Each country however has their own laws, N.A.U. laws are separate from individual country laws.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[ ] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is. X for both the United States and Canada. for the N.A.U. as a whole, the United States tends to be more diplomatically powerful in dictating N.A.U. law, sometimes pressuring Canada's executive and legislature into enacting certain things to go along with the U.S., however both nations are required to directly cooperate and have equal power in the N.A.U. Essentially, the U.S. can use more power outside the N.A.U. to influence Canada's action inside of the N.A.U.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ ] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers. X for both the U.S. and Canada, as well as N.A.U. as a whole, ie. COVID-19. Both countries' leaders have made certain executive orders regarding their individual nations, although theses orders are not substantial or a sign of autocratic power, nor do they apply to both nations. The only way for executive orders to apply to both nations, is if they are ordered in the same context and wording, both legal in either country and in the N.A.U. as a whole, however they can still be challenged later by either countries' individual branches of government. Both nations also have had the same system of executive orders before the emergency.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected. X for U.S., competition is usually limited to two main parties, however independent and non-partisan groups have started to make a larger base of politics. Basically the U.S. today, but less partisan, no political violence, and a mature system, almost like a centripetal democracy. Same for Canada. As a whole, both of the systems for Canada and the U.S. ultimately decide the system as whole for the entire N.A.U.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[ ] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it. X for both the U.S. and Canada, as well as the N.A.U. as a whole

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?

The system of the N.A.U. works as not another level of bureaucracy, but instead a way to better integrate North America, specifically the members of the union, the U.S. and Canada. The United States and Canada's political system remains independent from each other, however they can work in joint fashion with each other when it directly pertains to N.A.U. laws and initiatives. The legislature of the N.A.U. comprises of the United States' Congress (House of Reps. and Senate), and Canada's legislature (House of Commons and the Senate). Both legislative branches of the U.S. and Canada act separately, and enact legislation for their individual countries, however, each legislature can enact legislation for the N.A.U. as whole, but both legislatures have to pass the identical legislation for it to become law in the N.A.U. as a whole. Legislation is often focused on legislation that bring the countries closer, such as F.T.A.s and other trade agreements, border free zones, citizenship laws, evolution of a combined passport, drug trafficking and handling laws, joint initiatives, combined intelligence sharing, and many other services for citizenry, and etc. Individual countries can also enact legislation that only directly corresponds to their involvement in the N.A.U., in which case the opposite country's legislative branch does not have to approve it, however, legislation of this nature does not typically need to be passed as N.A.U. law, but individual legislation for that one country. In order to repeal legislation, each judicial branch of both countries, independent, rule on their own laws like they would without the union, however, they also have the power to rule if a N.A.U. law is illegal in their country. If an N.A.U. law is ruled illegal in one country, and it applies to both, then the law is automatically removed from the N.A.U. If the law applies only to their nation, then it is automatically removed from N.A.U. law.

In conclusion, the U.S. and Canada's political systems are completely independent and almost identical to real life, however if both agree, can enact legislation and initiatives that pertain to both of them through the N.A.U. system, or the N.A.U. as whole (Often called 'N.A.U. law').

My factbooks also give additional information if needed, just scroll through the lists of dispatches and factbooks, it may give a general idea of the system of the N.A.U., and how its member countries respect foreign nations' rights as well.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

TG me when done

[Varenskjyr]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Federated Republic of Varenskjyr
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1913
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): N/A
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Hjalmar Urzutkilsik of the Varenskjyrian Communist Party
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): N/A (run by a committee of party members at the Bureau of Domestic Policy)
7. Name of Judiciary: The Bureau of Justice and Legal Affairs

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X (though it is around 70-75%)] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[X] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[X] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[X] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[X] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[X] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[X] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[X] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ ] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[X] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[X] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[ ] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[The Greater Gothic Empire]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: the Greater Gothic Empire
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 316.M757 (corresponds to 757317 CE)
3. Year of Establishment: 22nd May, 666.M6 (corresponds to 23rd May, 5666 CE)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted: N/A.
5. Leader/Chief Executive: HIM Empress Victoria II Caesar
6. Name of Legislature: N/A.
7. Name of Judiciary: N/A.

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[x] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[x] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[x] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[ ] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[x] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[x] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[x] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[x] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[x] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[x] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[x] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[x] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[x] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ ] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[x] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[x] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[ ] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?

A nation that is themed and based on superficial, pompous, even high-society LARP-based Goth types (e.g., Victorian Goth, Vampire Goth, Romantic Goth, Steampunk Goth, etc.) rather than more erstwhile provocative, if not 'rebellious' or 'poseur' types (eg. Trad Goth, Nu Goth, Punk Goth, etc) and is also based on Jilian Venters' book Gothic Charm School, drawing statal influences from Warhammer 40,000's Imperium of Man, Code Geass' Holy Britannian Empire, One Piece's and Killzone's Helghast Empire; and historical influences from Qin China, Ancient Rome, Medieval Europe, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Tsardom and Empire, Napoleonic Europe, Victorian Britain, World War I and World War II Germany, Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, and the so-called Axis of Resistance in the 21st century (not to mention North Korea, Jinping's China, Putin's Russia, Gaddafi's Libya, al-Assad's Syria), Greater Gothica is technically governed/controlled beneath a hierarchical and centralized aristocratic-oligarchic totalitarian dictatorship, backed by the military and the secret police. In practice, virtually all the power that is in this world belongs only to the Emperor/Empress, not just in the Empire itself, which means the Empire and its ruling aristocracy- and stratocracy-bedecked bureaucratic humongous hierarchy is undoubtedly under the universal control of a unitary central theocratic totalitarian hyper-hegemonic universal absolute monarchy.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[New African States]

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Federation of New African States (FNAS)
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1965
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1965
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President Ngutubu & Prime Minister Bellura (New Pan-African Congress)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): New African Assembly
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[X] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[X] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[X] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[X] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[X] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[X] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[X] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ ] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[X] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[X] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[ ] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? The country officially allows for multiple parties to participate in elections. However, electoral laws require political parties have to follow "pan-African ideals" and are not allowed to be based on one ethnicity. These laws are used by the ruling political party, the New Pan-African Congress (NPAC), to surpress all other electoral opposition, resulting in parliamentary and presidential elections to be fully dominated by this party (somewhat comparable to Atatürk's Turkey or the PRC).

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[TURTLESHROOM II]

The NS Politeia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Great Bountiful Empire of the United Turtles, Mushrooms, and Men of TurtleShroom
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020 AD
3. Year of Establishment: 1796 AD (TS founding), 2019 AD (current order)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted: 2020 AD
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s): Tsar Maven Outtacountry (turtle), Tsarina Tammy Olvia (human), and Tsar Grigory Wip (mushroom)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater):

On the confederal level, TurtleShroom maintains more than one legislature, and they are separate and independent from one-another. The Congressional Duma is the actual lawmaking body. The Grand Boyar Council consists of the noblemen of the realm and they have functions sharply different from the Congressional Duma.

7. Name of Judiciary:

TurtleShroom maintains three separate judicial institutions, and the Appeal to Caesar. The Supreme General Court handles all civil matters, Constitutional matters, and final appeals from the lower confederated courts, as well as dealing with interstate and cross-border disputes. The Grand Alcoholic Tribunal maintains exclusive control over enforcing the Prohibition, trying drug-related crimes, and determining what is and is not illegal under the Prohibition. The Divorce Court, as its name suggests, controls termination of marital unions and defines the legal definition of "marital unfaithfulness".

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.

2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[X] No.

2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[X] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. elective monarchies)
[X] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[X] Other (please explain):

Upon taking the throne, each new Tsar of TurtleShroom appoints his Majestic Twelve. Any TurtleShroomian citizen matching the Tsar's species, plus the Constitution's requirements to become the Tsar and stand for office, can be selected as one of these heirs.

The Grand Boyar Council, collectively with the highest parishional officials in each Parish, elects the Tsars. At a reigning Tsar's death, lots are cast to determine which of the Majestic Twelve becomes the heir apparent. The lot's (God's) chosen successor is then grilled by the Grand Boyar Council, who votes to confirm him. Rejecting the Majestic Twelve successor requires lots to be cast again. If the GBC constantly rejects every Majestic Twelve result, the twelfth and final member automatically becomes Tsar. So shall the last be first.

3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedural free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.

4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.

5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[X] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[X] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[X] The chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[X] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister.
[X] Other (please explain):

The Crown shares power with the Executive Cabinet. Some members of the Executive Cabinet are elected, and others are appointed by the Tsars. Every government official, even the Tsars, can be Recalled by popular vote or be forced to abdicate or be expelled through an organized impeachment process in the legislatures. While the drug courts and divorce courts are appointed by the Crown, the general judiciary is directly elected. All offices appointed by the Crown require the advice and consent of the Grand Boyar Council, which consists of all heriditary noblemen.

2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[X] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, or refusing them funds. (The legislature cannot override a veto by the Crown.)
[X] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation.
[X] Other (please explain):

On the confederal level, TS has a fully empowered legislature which has exclusive power to pass laws, and a second, weaker legislature of noblemen that is unrelated to it. However, the legislature is normally compliant with the Crown's objectives and has always deferred to strongmen. This does not mean, though, that it has ever surrendered its powers to the executive branch.

3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[X] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups. (Most judges are elected on the confederal level, but the Tsar appoints the judges of all drug courts and divorce courts. Parishes are required to elect their judges.)

4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[X] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances. (TS has decentralized itself into a confederation of Parishes, with patchwork noble estates and corporate neo-feudalism.)

5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[X] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers. (The nation continues to transition to a confederation as of writing.)

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[X] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition.
[X] Other (please explain):

TurtleShroom has no ballot access laws beyond the Constitutional requirements to stand office and hold citizenship (ect.). As such, there are thousands of political parties with countless agendas, appeal, and localization. (Of course, only a handful actually have any power.) TurtleShroom elects all offices by secret ballot. The government does not try to intimidate or coerce these parties and groups, and electoral fraud is punishable by death. However, political violence (as in factions fighting and individuals brawling) is common, both by voters and the politicians themselves, who have been frequently known to fight on the legislative floor.

2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[X] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.

TS aoutlaws all Marxist parties and Marxist politics from all forms of government. It is illegal to advocate for the abolition of private property or the seizure of the Means of Production. The Marxists that once practiced actual, true (but theocratic) communism are now on a reservation. We don't talk about the Exclusion Zone. TS does, however, accept any leftist ideology that respects private property and capitalism to any degree. Most leftist parties are in favor of sharply increased regulation on the economy and, more importantly, a true mixed economy. Non-Marxist, leftist parties are unpopular in most of the country, but they are not restricted at all. The strongest leftist parties are populist and authoritarian, akin to Huey Long's mindset and doctrine. There is also a Shutai (that is, Juche) party that advocates Juche economics. No party in TurtleShroom seeks to disenfranchise or remove other parties, as this is illegal.

[X] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups). (TS has a class of citizens- the chimeras -that are disenfranchised and sharply limited in their rights.)

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?

For a full understanding of the TurtleShroomian political system, it is paramount that OP should read this Factbook and this Factbook.

Well done! You have now completed the NS Politeia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Kamotel]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Republic of Kamotel (alternatively, the Kamot Commonwealth)
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment:
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution):
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Head of state: Consul Stewart Norton; head of government: Prime Minister Madeleine Sudworth
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Parliament of the Kamots
7. Name of Judiciary:

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[x] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[x] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[x] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[x] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[x] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[x] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[x] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[x] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[x] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[x] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[x] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[x] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[x] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[x] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Calusahatchii]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Autonomous Provincial Union of Calusahatchii
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1988 (Grand Duchy of Calusahatchii), 2017 (As a Federal Republic), 2020 (July 4 Revolution)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 2020
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Martin Wang (RSCAD), Francisca Quayle (RSCAD), Jakob Christopher Lurken (SDP), Richard P.W. Kreutzfeld (Green Party), Jasmine Zheng (SDP), Christina Lombard (RSCAD), Peter Christiansen (CPDR), Benjamin A. Monroe (CPC), Lara Velazquez (Independent)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Parliament. Upper House: Senate; Lower House: House of Representatives
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Judicial Council

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X ] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X ] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[X ] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[X ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[X ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[X ] Other (please explain): There is an Executive Council that is comprised of 9 individuals that all share the same power including the power to veto. Each member gets one vote and there are two co-presidents that serve as ceremonial heads for the commencing of meetings.

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[X ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[X ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[X ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[ ] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[X ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[X ] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[X ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[X ] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
It is a decentralised confederation and the majority of power is held at the provincial and communal levels. They are able to filter non-imperative laws from the national government and they mainly decide their own policy unless it goes against the Calusian National Charter.
Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Xanthal]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2395
3. Year of Establishment: 2321
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 2326
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Triumvirate (3 members) (current party affiliations: Libertarian, Vanguard, Reasonable and Prudent)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Assembly (1000 members)
7. Name of Judiciary: High Court (9 members)

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.
1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[X] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[X] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[X] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.
1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[X] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[X] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[X] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[X] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.
1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[X] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[X] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
The Assembly is nominally the most powerful branch of government, but sharp ideological divisions and supermajority lawmaking requirements severely limit its effectiveness. The Triumvirate's de facto legislative role has expanded to fill this void, and it is checked in practice mainly by an unusually powerful judiciary (which also controls the federal police) and to a lesser extent by the states with which the central government shares power under constitutional federalism.
Civil conditions are generalized- administrative subdivisions vary radically in their political structure as well as prevailing socioeconomic conditions.
Political parties
Constitution
Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

8 Xanthal (Concepts: 8|5|10)
1 Aellis (Concepts: 7|5|2)
10 Trasnia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
3 Mirfak (Concepts: 7|7|2)
-1 Than (Concepts: 4|3|4)
7 Talmaraan (Concepts: 7|7|7)
8 Shinra (Concepts: 7|7|9)
-2 Zithal (Concepts: 5|2|6)
-9 Gexil (Concepts: 3|1|1)

[Anatoliyanskiy]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Federal Republic of Anatoliyanskiy
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1971
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): N/A (Code of conduct was written in 1982)
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Anatoli Piesiyackiya
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): House of Commons
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[] Yes.
[ ✓] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[✓] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[✓] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ✓] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[✓] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[✓] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[✓] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[✓] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[✓] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ ✓] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[✓] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[✓] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? No.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[South Quantia]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name:[The United Socialist States of South Quantia] (Quantian Socialist Federal Republic IC)
2. Current Year (in YN's canon):2115
3. Year of Establishment:2114
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution):2114
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable):President Zavier Long III (Democratic Socialist Party)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater):People's Congress
7. Name of Judiciary:Supreme People's Court

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[X] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[X] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[X] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[X] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[X] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[X] Other (please explain): [Democratic, yes. Stable, definitely not. The nation's parliament requires a two-thirds vote to pass any legislation, and its members can be recalled and replaced by their constituents at any time. Combine that with three large parties that all despise each other for various reasons and a general belief in direct democracy and the system is anything but stable. The President only has power to influence foreign policy and has almost no say domestically.)
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[X] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[X] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[ ] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[X] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[X] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[X] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[X] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[ ] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
The country is a decentralized federation of direct democratic communes with significant autonomy, and power is largely shared between them and the national government. The national government itself is largely a representative democracy, with direct democratic elements like constant referendums and the ability for the voters to instantly recall delegates. Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Nokelon]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Socialist Empire of Nokelon
[b]2. Current Year (in YN's canon):2115
3. Year of Establishment:2012
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution):N/A
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable):Emperor Zavier III Long
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater):no legislature
7. Name of Judiciary:Supreme Court

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[X] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[ ] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[X] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[X] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[X] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[X] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[X] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[X] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ ] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[X] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[X] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[ ] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
Nokelon is an absolute monarchy, but the government does at least respect civil rights and personal freedoms, which is not shown in the quiz. Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Fluvannia]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Federated Principality of Fluvannia
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1826
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1893
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Crown Prince Michael (non-partisan by both law and custom)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Legislature has no name; High Council is upper house, House of Delegates is lower house
7. Name of Judiciary: Curia

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
2. Is your nation currently under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
If your answer to both questions is No, proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[X] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[ ] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[X] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[X] Other (please explain): Monarch holds executive power but this is severely limited by law and often delegated to Cabinet Ministers

III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[X] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[X] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[X] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[X] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

IV. Political Participation and Competition
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[X] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[X] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -