[CLOSED] NSPoliteia: An Index of Democracy and Pluralism

[Yaruqo]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Democratic Republic of Yaruqo
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: Kingdom of Yaruqo (1421); Transitional Authority (03/21/1978); Democratic Republic of Yaruqo (02/12/1981)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted: 1981, last amended in 2015
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s): Head of State - President Noura Khanan (Democratic Socialist Party); Head of Government - Prime Minister Oraham Marokel (Democratic Socialist Party)
6. Name of Legislature: Parliament of Yaruqo aka Barlaman (Unicameral)
7. Name of Judiciary: Constitutional 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.
[ ] 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] 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.
[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:
1. Feel free to review my factbook, I've tried to answer this survey as closely to what I portray in the factbook as possible

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

[Slavakino]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Military Titoist Republic of Slavakino
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): First Constitution, 1945, Second, 1963, Latest 1976
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Grand Marshal Vladimir Tito
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Parliament of Slavakino
7. Name of Judiciary: National 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.
[X] 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?
[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?
[ ] 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.
[ ] 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.
[ ] 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?
[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?
[ ] 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?
Due to a long ass writing. Be sure that although my political system is a One-Party Dictatorship, democratic elections happen to determine an elected head of government

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

[New Eurasian Empire]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The New Eurasian Empire
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2114
3. Year of Establishment: 2071
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 2073
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Chairman of the Executive Council Aleks Konstantinov(Алекс Константинов, National Libertarian Party), President Zàn Wén(文赞, National Libertarian Party), Prime Minister Aleksandrina Maksimova(Александрина Максимова, Eurasian Conservative Party)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): National Assembly(Executive Council, Provincial Council(Led by President), Representative Council(Led by Prime Minister))
7. Name of Judiciary: Eurasian 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)
[ ] 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 Chairman of the Executive Council is appointed by members of the Executive Council(Which are not democratically elected and are either inherited or chosen to be on the council by the CEC), the President is elected by the populace with the Provincial Council acting as an electoral college, and the Prime Minister is appointed by the Representative Council which is democratically elected.
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(CEC)] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X(Prime Minister)] 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(President)] 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(CEC)] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X(President, Prime Minister)] 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 Chairman of the Executive Council(chief executive) shares power with the Executive Council, that acts as a cabinet.

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): A semi-democratic multi-party system with a relatively strong chief executive.
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)
[X(Executive Council)] 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(Provincial Council)] 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(Representative Council)] 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 President is chairman of the Provincial Council, and the Prime Minister is the chairman of the Representative Council. The Executive Council's members are either inherited or appointed to the council by the Chairman of the Executive Council or the council itself. The Provincial Council's members are appointed by leaders and legislatures of provinces which may or may not be democratically elected, depending on the province ranging from an absolute monarch or dictator to an elected governor. The Representative Council's members are elected democratically by the population.

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

[World Web]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Disputed Territories of World Web
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2024
3. Year of Establishment: 2021
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 2021
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Åñøńÿmöūš
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): The Webian Council
7. Name of Judiciary: The Webian 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.
[ ] 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)
[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?
[ ] 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.
[X] 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.
[X] 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.
[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?
Our nation is based online although it has territories around the world.
Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Nacrad]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Federal Republic of Nacrad
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1886
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution):Base version 1922; final amendment 1963
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable):
- President Matthew Y. Smith (Social Democratic League)
- Prime Minister Jonathan Stone (Social Democratic League)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater):
Nacradian National Assembly
- House of Representatives (lower)
- House of Advisors (upper)
7. Name of Judiciary: Nacradian District and National 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.
[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 -

[New Great Britain and Acadia]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Kingdom of New Great Britain and Acadia
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2060
3. Year of Establishment: 2040
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): King Francis I
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Parliament (House of Commons, House of Lords)
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court of Judicature

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)
[X] 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.
[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.
[ ] 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.
[ ] 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.
[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?
Political power is something of a balancing act between the King, the cabinet and Parliament. The King appoints the Prime Minister and his cabinet, and may dismiss members at will, but equally is customarily not permitted to take any political action without first consulting his ministers. Parliament does not have the same checking power on the executive as in other modern parliamentary democracies since the executive is not always drawn from Parliament, but it does have significant power - it can block or delay legislative projects, petition the executive, declare war and peace, and it must be consulted on all new tax levies. Powerful monarchs can exert pressure on Parliament, however, and political factions may attempt to stack the Houses of Parliament with individuals loyal to their cause in order to exert greater influence. The most independent institution is the judiciary. Whilst judges are freely appointed and dismissed by the monarch, New British judges are known for their independence of judgment, and have even been known to rule against the monarch in high-profile legal cases. Rule of law is valued highly, and trials are generally fair.

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

[Yuwa]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Sultanate of Yuwa
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 14
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1814
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Sultan Yuwa Zara
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): The Parliament
7. Name of Judiciary: The Council of Judges

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).
[X] 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.
[X] 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.
[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?
[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.
[ ] 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.
[ ] 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.
[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.)
[ ] 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 relevant information about our nation for this questionnaire can be seen in our Constitution, Article 1 - 6 and 11.

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

[Romanian-Slavia]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Legionary Empire of Romanian-Slavia
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 2018
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): Emperor Augustus I the Great (Leader), Leonard Arman Vosganian (Prime-Minister)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Parliament (unicameral)
7. Name of Judiciary: National Justice Service

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.
[ 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)
[ ] 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): A constitutional monarchy where the erreditar Emperor share power with the free-elected Prime-Minister
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.
[ 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?
[ ] 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.
[ X ] 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).
[ X ] 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 -

[Narvatus]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Federation of Narvatus
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020(?)
3. Year of Establishment: c. early 1700s (Kingdom of Narvatus), 1911 (Republic of Narvatus)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1932
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Berhé Roseberk, Prime Minister, Federal Democratic Party / Ake Fálke, President, Federal Democratic Party
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Federal Chamber (lower house) / Grand Council (upper house) / Assembly (collective)
7. Name of Judiciary: National High 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.
[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.
[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?
The ruling political party, the Federal Democratic Party, has consistently held the government and over 70% of seats in the Assembly for over 50 years. As such, the party is at risk of splitting into left and right factions.

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

[TURTLESHROOM II]

{ OOC: Tagged! }

[Middle Barael]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Most Serene Republic of Middle Barael
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1947 (Current Form) (We’ve been a united nation since the 1800s, and parts of Middle Barael go back to ~950 BCE, although we weren’t united back then)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1963
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Head of State: elected King Solomon (Union of Social Democrats)
Head of Government: Prime Minister Marc Nuya (Liberal Party)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Middle Baraelan Parliament (We are only partially parliamentary, as the Prime Minister and King are both elected from the popular vote with proportional representation.
7. Name of Judiciary: Middle Barael 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)
[ ] 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): There is a democratically elected monarch, and a democratically elected prime minister. The prime minister handles domestic policy and more, along with a cabinet that they choose featuring members from all parties in their ruling coalition, while the elected King or Queen handles foreign policy and diplomacy, as well as swearing in and officiating government policies and positions.

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?

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

[Imperial Majapahit]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Empire of Majapahit
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1293
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1915, latest amendment in 1946
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Emperor Jayanagara VII and Premier Sri Indra Thohir, Imperial Unity Party
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Imperial Assembly, composed of the Council of Lords (upper house) and Council of Representatives (lower house)
7. Name of Judiciary: Imperial 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)
[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 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.
[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.
[ ] 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?
[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.
[ ] 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).
[X] 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 -

[British Socialist Syndicates]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Commonwealth of Great Britain
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1927
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): President Adam Baxter; Prime Minister John McDonnell
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): National Assembly; People's Congress (lower house), Council of Deputies (upper house)
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court of the Commonwealth

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?
[ ] 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?
The Commonwealth of Great Britain is a syndicalist state in which workers' unions form an integral part of the political process. Unions democratically elect delegates to represent them in the People's Congress. These delegates can come from any political party, or they can be independents, but the majority tend to be Syndicalists as most major unions are affiliated with this party. Because of this, Great Britain is often described as a 'dominant-party' state. However, it should be noted that Supreme Court judges and the President of the Commonwealth are required to be officially non-partisan.

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

[Alinghi Federal-Democratic Republic]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Federal-Democratic Republic of Alinghi
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2092, but the tech and the events are modern (for example trump is elected in 2089)
3. Year of Establishment: 1756 first union, 1946 gained inipendence after invation from foreign forces in 1940. 2004 Alinghi became the modern republic
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): the actual republican constitution was enacted in 2007, amended many times.
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): The HoS is the Chancellor Skivolk Padme Anakey (Alingan Social Democratic Workers' Party), the HoG is the Confederal Governor Bourdillon Eichel Rita (Alingan Progressive Joint List)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): The Alingan Parliament is the Confederal Diet, what composed by the Lower House: the House of Peoples; and the Upper House: the Council of Cantons
7. Name of Judiciary: The Confederal Constitutional Supreme Court of Alinghi

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?
[ ] 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.
[ ] 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. - The HoP give for 3 month a emerceny powers to afford the COVID epodemy, by the powers are limited only on measures linked to afford the emerceny, and all decreed done by the government can be challenged by a vote of HoP, or invalidated by the Confederal Constitutional Supreme Court.
[ ] 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?

Alinghi is a Federal semi-presidential republic, most powers and legislation are matter of canton, the Confederation have matteron foreign policy, economic policies, defence. ON the other matters will interfer if only ther are a confederal interest to do, and in 95% of cases the Confederal Law indicate or fix only the basic principles, the canton will receive this and make the law under these principles.

The Lower house, the House of People (HoP) is representing the people and is composed by 750 seats, every canton is assigned a number of seats based by their population (with a little advantage to less populated cantons).
Alinghi use the Localized open list system. The citizen to vote can choose to cast their vote entirely for a candidate or divided thier vote in fractions that in the denominator are equal of number of seats assigned to that canton (example: a citizen live in a canton who had 25 seats in representation on HoP, he can cast theri vote for a Candidate X, or do give 11/25 of his vote to candidate X, 10/25 to Candidate Y and 4/25 to Candidate Z. He/She can vote for candidates of different party). At the close of poll, firstly are seen the vote to indipendent candidate, and who reached enough votes for that canton he/she was elected, the reimanent seats was distribuited proportionally with d'Hondt system to the Confederal Party, and the most voted candidate are elected (ex. if Party X had won 8 seats, the 8 most voted candidates of Party X is elected), after this the cantonal electoral office when received the results of elections, and count all votes, they will sent to Confederal Electoral General Office and announce publicily, the elected Representant Citizen (the name of MP in Alinghi) in their canton. The Confederal Electoral General Office, after receiving all results from Cantons, do a final statment that announced, the number of seats belonging to Confederal Parties and indipendets, and publish the elected Reprentant Citizen, the Canton there he/she is elected, the Confederal Party what he/she belong or if he/she is an indipendent, etcc...
The Confederal party, is a Confederation of cantonal parties, to form this and partecipate the Confedral election of House of Peoples' at least 12 cantonal parties from at least 12 cantons, must do an agreement, and done this agreement they can partecipate at election and can found cantonal parties linked to the Confederal Party in cantons there wasn't present a linked party. The powers of the chamber are:
-propose and vote the Confederal laws,
- vote the laws proposed by the Confederal Government,
- vote the laws proposed by the Council of Cantons,
- vote the constitutional laws,
- elect one member of the seven judges of Confederal Constitutional Supreme Court,
- vote of an eventual impeachment of chancellor,
- give/lift legimancy to Confederal Governor.

The Upper House is the Council of Cantons (CoC), it's composed by 86 seats, 2 seats for cantons. The members is appointed by elected governors of the single cantons (for this reason every years ca 1/4 of its members is renewed, because 1/4 of canton have the cantonal governormental and parliamental elections). The powers of this chambers was:
- purpose the law that will be voted by House of Peoples,
- decide if the law passed by House of Peoples must be confrimed by a Confederal Referendum,
- vote the adhesion/ratifing or withdraw from interational organisation or treaties (it's a exclusive power, the House of Peoples didn't have this power),
- vote the constitutional law,
- elect one of seven judges of Confederal Constitutional Supreme Court,
- vote of an eventual impeachment of chancellor.

The Chancellor is elected by instatnt-run off system every 4 years and the Chancellor can be re-elected once time on the his entire life (pratically a citizen in his life can't be chancellor more than of two terms also if not consecutive, a term that last less of 2 years by not resignation or impeachment reason is not considered a term under this law). He/She's the Head of States and have executive power, he appointed the Confederal Governor that must have the legimancy by the House of Peoples. He differently from other semi-presidential or presidential regime, don't have a veto power, but a referendum veto power, pratically he can chos to not sign the law and indict a referendum on this, but he/she can't refuse to sign the law in full. He appoint one of seven judged of Confederal Constitutional Supreme Court, after three consecutive vote against an appointed Confederal Governor (and refuse of chancellor to appoint the House of Peoples candidate, because if the HoP refuse a candidate must give to the Chancellor their candidate, called "constructive delegimancy vote") can dissolve the HoP and call for a new election of HoP. The Chancellor can dissolve the HoP without this procedure only if the election of Chanellor and election of HoP is not coinciding, in that case the Chancellor within 90 days before the Chancellor's election dissolve the HoP, and parify the term of Chancellor and the term of the HoP. The Chancellor can be impeched if the 2/3 of both chambers vote for the impeachment, in this case the Confederal Constitutional Supreme Court of Alinghi will judge the Chancellor, and decide if he/she will be gulty and will be removed from office, or innocent and continue to be in office.

The Confederal Constitutional Supreme Court it's composed by 7 judges, adn thier term last for life (excluding their resignation):
- 1 is elected by HoP,
- 1 is elected by CoC,
- 1 is appointed by the Chancellor,

- 2 are elected/choosen by the council of cantonal supreme court (these council is composed by the presidents of the single cantonal supreme court, a meeting only to elect the two judged),
- 1 is elected by magistrated of the Confederal Courts,
- 1 is elected by magistrates of cantonals courts.

The president of the court rotates every years. The role of the court if to judge the constitutionality of the Confederal Laws, or if the laws of single canton will break the Confederal Constitution.
Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Carlotina]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Free Federated States of Carlotina.
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, last time amended in 2017.
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): "El Presidente" Guillermo Torrejón Paredes (People's Liberation Front).
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Supreme Council.
7. Name of Judiciary: Federal Constitutional 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.
[ ] 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): El Presidente was a fighter in the Carlotinian Revolution and became the PLF's Leader throughout that process. He stepped into complete power in 1999; he and his companions let their constitutional draft be vote through by the populace. With the PLF having remained the dominant party in the (democratically elected) Supreme Council to this day, El Presidente is still the head of the party, thus head of state and government of Carlotina.
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)
[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.
[ ] 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.
[ ] 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.
[X] 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).
[X] 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?
As the current government has evolved during a revolution, the People's Liberation Front has worked on cementing its power since then, but also on the attempt of establishing a more democratic system at the same time. One should also be aware, that prior to 1999, Carlotina has been divided up into a number of independent states, mostly socialist and nationalist/fascist-in-denial dictatorships, the dominators and followers of which had a hard time in El Presidente's first years of rulership, in which the PLF was the only legal party - which changed in 2005, but cost the PLF only little of its power. This might be due to a certain personality cult around El Presidente, albeit this one is nowhere near the ones around, say, the Kims or the Castros.
Carlotina understands itself as a Council Republic and has, in the beginning, focussed on local self-administration rather than a comprehensive nationwide system of power. Carlotina consists of fourteen federal states and one federal district, all of which are ruled by councils and have a level of autonomy that makes Carlotina almost look like more of a loose confederacy rather than a unified state (there isn't even unrestricted interstate travel as of now, even though it's being worked on). Still, there are efforts for more centralization of power, at least to a degree the constitution allows.

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

[Lingang]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Federation of Lingang
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020 AD
3. Year of Establishment: 1734 (as British Territory); 1796 (Independence)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1956
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Supreme Lord Hanna Welburg
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): The Grand National Congress (House of Commons, House of Minor-Lords)
7. Name of Judiciary: The 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?
[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?
[ ] 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.
[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?
[ ] 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?
Since the end of the Red Rebellion in the mid 1950's, which saw a large popular uprising quashed by the government, Lingang has very slowly become drastically more authoritarian and autocratic, and the federal government itself has become more and more intertwined with LinCorp, a large semi-private entity which has become a de facto state enterprise. The closeness between LinCorp is so severe, that the corporation has been granted seats in parliament, and the government will always serve the needs of LinCorp and other corporations first.

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

[Feyrisshire]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: People's State of Feyrisshire.
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020.
3. Year of Establishment: 1444 - Establishment of first centralized state. 1945 - Establishment of current government.
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1950. Most recent revision was in 2000.
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Chief Secretary Amaryllis Chrysantemum - Secretary of the Communist Party, High Princess Feyris Cherise - Head of State, Yuna Yericsheid - Head of Government. All are Communist Party members.
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): High Assembly
7. Name of Judiciary: High City Court of Shyubi Daschime and High City Court of Puraggawsen City

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)
[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.
[ ] 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.
[X] 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.
[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? None.

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

[Anollasia]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Peaceful Republic of Anollasia
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1760 (independence) or 1912 (current form)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1912 (amended various times after)
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Prime Minister Grace Penelope (Green Party) and Assistant Prime Minister Ryan Peters (Liberal Party)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Council of Legislation (also known as the Parliament, it is unicameral)
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court of Anollasia

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.*
*The chief executive/head of government is elected by the people and relies on electoral support, not the legislature
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.*
*Some parties may be banned or not allowed to be represented in parliament if they incite hatred/violence and/or violate the constitutional principles of republicanism, democracy, secularism, and pacifism.
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.

*Some parties may be banned or not allowed to be represented in parliament if they incite hatred/violence and/or violate the constitutional principles of republicanism, democracy, secularism, and pacifism.
V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? Anollasia is a parliamentary republic with a representative democracy. Executive power is held by both the Prime Minister (head of state) and Assistant Prime Minister (head of government). In a way, this prevents buildup of power in one person. Both of them are elected by the people and can be from different parties. Legislative power is held by the unicameral Council of Legislation (Parliament). The Council is made up of 516 seats, each representing an electoral district. Electoral districts are usually divided into areas of even population, to give roughly equal representation to urban and rural areas. The cabinet is selected by the Prime Minister and must be approved by the Assistant Prime Minister but must be ultimately approved by the Council of Legislation by majority voting. Laws must be approved by a majority of the Council, then the Assistant Prime Minister and the Prime Minister. Currently there are 10 political parties represented in parliament.

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

[Meadville]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Grand Duchy of Meadville
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1795
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): Grand Duke Mark IV
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): N/A
7. Name of Judiciary: The Supreme Court of the Grand Duchy of Meadville

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?
[ ] 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? Political parties are illegal in the Grand Duchy and a cult of personality does exist around the Grand Duke but he is not worshipped North Korea style. The nation is also relatively isolationist and the people living there have little contact with the outside world as the internet and international media are suppressed while all domestic media is controlled by the government. The Church of Meadville is the state religion and holds a great deal of sway over the government and society, although people are not forced to join it. The various dukes hold sweeping local powers and they hold the only meaningful power beyond the Grand Duke, but they usually comply with the regime as the Grand Duke rarely intervenes in local matters.

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

[The Union of British North America]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Union of British North America (IC: North American Union)
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1768
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1867
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Prime Minister Dame Felicity Graves (Whig Party of the NAU)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): General Assembly of the North American Union; bicameral (lower house: Grand Council, upper house: General Council of State)
7. Name of Judiciary: General Court of Appeal for America

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.
[ ] 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 -

[Ulvena]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Theocratic Republic of Ulvena
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 952 A.D
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1820
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): High Chancellor Cal - Traditionalist Party
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): The Chancellory
7. Name of Judiciary: Ecumenical 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.
[ ] 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 directly elected members of the Chancellory elected one of their own as High Chancellor for a period of 5 years, upon which re-election occurs. The Judicial Branch, the Ecumenical Council, may veto the vote but the veto can be overcome with 2/3 majority of the Chancellory. The general citizenry does not participate in this selection process
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 to 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 High Chancellor holds all executive authority but the Ecumenical Council (Judicial Branch) can veto any appointments to the cabinet, cabinet appointments are entirely up to the High Chancellor provided the Ecumenical Council agrees. The Chancellory holds the majority of law execution powers.

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.
[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.
[ ] 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.)
[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.
[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?
All political parties must pledge themselves to Jewish, Christian, or Muslim values and legal systems. While very liberal in acceptance of denominations within those three, atheists and religious sects not of those three major religions are disallowed from the political process. In addition, any communist or socially liberal party is de facto banned due to consistent community disdain in addition to government encouragement of hatred of these parties and their ideologies. No law exists to bar them, however. Any overtly seditious party is only allowed limited political rights.

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

[Tamri3l]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Empire of Tamriel
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 5E-60 (= AD 2020)
3. Year of Establishment: 5E-40
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 5E-59
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): His Imperial Highness Emperor Titus Mede III (Leader), His Excellency the Prime Minister Ennodius Hiriel (Chief Executive).
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): The Imperial Parliament, subdivided into the Imperial Chamber of Chancellors and the Imperial Senate.
7. Name of Judiciary: The Great Court of Tamriel.

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. (The Emperor is elected).
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.
[ ] 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?
Anyone over the age of 18 can request the right to vote. However, there's a test on current politics and the structure of the Empire to be sustained before the right to vote is granted.
The test is not politically influenced and is severely surveilled.

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

[Nalihama]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Republic of Nalihama
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1821
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1979
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): His Excellency François Nicolás Paquet, Consul of the Republic (head of state), National Republican Party; Gaubert Marius Fèvre, Prime Minister, National Republican Party
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Parliament; Senate (upper) and Chamber of Deputies (lower)
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)
[ ] 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): François Paquet originally came into power through a military coup d'etat, temporarily assuming the title Commandeur de la République, which he held for three years of military rule. After the resumption of civilian rule, Consular elections resumed. The Consul is elected by direct election.
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.
[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)
[ ] 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): A dominant-party state, nominally a multi-party democracy, with a strong leader.
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?
[ ] 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)
[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.
[ ] 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?

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

[Reuturn]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Federation of Reuturn
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 818 (2020)
3. Year of Establishment: 648 (1850)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 649 (1851)
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President Rosa Thalenharm
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Parliament; Upper House, Lower House
7. Name of Judiciary: Judicial House

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.
[ ] 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.
[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 -

[Southern Tzhelarhaai]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Commonwealth of Southern Thelar'áí
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2120
3. Year of Establishment: 2065
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 2073
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President of the Government Lucas Kasketal, native name Kəskét'al Letísz Lijúthrəx (Unity and Development)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Hiletrai/Hilǝt'ráí (Grand Assembly), tricameral
- Upper House: Council of Advisors
- Middle House: Council of Constituent States
- Lower House: Assembly of Peoples
7. Name of Judiciary: Grand Judicature

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. | Some autonomous subnational governments have hereditary monarchs, however.
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.
[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)
[X] Other (please explain): A relatively durable democratic system with a generally healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check.
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.
[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?
- Southern Thelarai is a federation of states and autonomous subnational monarchies and republics. Its federal government is organized along the lines of a parliamentary democracy.
- Federal politics, especially parliamentary politics, is dominated by a mixture of identity-based/sectarian and ideology-based/broad-based political groups. This is largely a result of Southern Thelarai itself being a highly diverse federation of 9 sapient races (7 subspecies of the dominant green-skinned Vrakhoiethoaian genus, the gray-skinned Tsethethioaian species, and highly influential human immigrants from Earth and their native-born offspring), with a total population of 1.9 billion. Racism and speciesism, while on the decline, continues to persist in most levels of society.
- The gray-skinned Tsethethioaians, accounting for around 1.7% of the total population, are systematically repressed and discriminated against due to their long-standing historical rivalry with the dominant green-skinned Vrakhoiethioaians. Thus, they are granted only limited political rights. They are granted the right to vote, but their right to protest is highly curtailed and they are barred completely from running for political office. Members of the influential human community and certain progressive Vrakhoiethioaians, however, are working to loosen the restrictions imposed on them, though these attempts have so far been unsuccessful.
- In 2115, former President of the Government K'arótesz resigned amidst widespread condemnation by the government and military for initiating an unlawful power grab back in 2113, possibly ordering attacks on leaders of non-Ka-Weitakhoshiese (the dominant Vrakhoiethioaian subspecies) parliamentary groups, and corruption. His successor and the current President of the Government, Kasketal, initially came to power as interim leader, though he was formally elected the following year by the Hiletrai in a relatively fair election. Under his rule, the legislature and judiciary's powers were somewhat expanded in order to avoid another self-coup attempt, and the position of President of the Government, previously being completely flexible with no term limits due to its dependence on the Hiletrai's support, was assigned a term limit via a constitutional amendment. It still remains dependent on the Hiletrai's support, however.

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