[CLOSED] NSPoliteia: An Index of Democracy and Pluralism

[Piste-Land]

NSPoliteia: A Brief Summary

NSPoliteia is a project that aims to compile a comprehensive index of nations sorted according to the degree of democracy and pluralism present in the inner workings of their political systems.
(OOC: As its name may suggest, it is heavily based on the real-life Polity project by the Center for Systemic Peace.)

Methodology

NSPoliteia groups nations into democracies, autocracies, and anocracies (a mix of the two previous classifications) using a 21-point system based on the characteristics of their political systems. The three main political aspects to be evaluated are as follows:

• The openness of executive recruitment,
• The degree of constraints on executive power, and
• The openness of political participation and competition.

These three are further subdivided into concepts, such as competitive election and inheritance for executive recruitment, which are used to describe a nation's current political situation in that aspect. Each concept is assigned a number of Democracy (D) and Autocracy (A) points, which determine the presence and absence of democratic qualities in a nation's political system respectively.
Here are the different Concepts for each aspect:

Concept 1: Inheritance (+3 A points)

• The office of chief executive is passed down by hereditary sucession.
• Typically includes traditional and absolute monarchies, as well as de facto hereditary republics such as real-life North Korea in which the position of chief executive has been passed down over three or more generations.
• Does NOT include constitutional and parliamentary monarchies with a prime minister, unless said prime minister is virtually powerless.
• Does NOT include authoritarian self-declared monarchies, unless the self-declared monarch is succeeded by a relative as ruler.

Concept 2: Inheritance + Designation (+3 A points)

• The office of chief executive is shared between a hereditary monarch and a prime minister designated by authoritarian means.
• Typically includes authoritarian constitutional monarchies wherein the prime minister is a member of a hegemonic faction that controls the government.
• Does NOT include authoritarian constitutional monarchies wherein the monarch is merely a figurehead (code Concept 3).
• Does NOT include authoritarian 'constitutional' monarchies wherein the prime minister is virtually powerless (code Concept 1).

Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)

• The office of chief executive is determined by non-violent informal competition within a closed authoritarian regime.
• Typically includes one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, and authoritarian pseudo-democracies with rigged and/or show elections. Elective monarchies in which the monarch is selected by a council of nobles or other unelected assembly are coded here as well.
• Also includes closed authoritarian regimes wherein factions agree to rotate power on a regular basis, as well as meritocratic systems wherein there is little to no citizen participation in the executive recruitment process.
• Does NOT include recently-established military dictatorships wherein the current chief executive came to power via a coup (code Concept 4).

Concept 4: Self-Selection (no points)

• The office of chief executive was recently determined by a forceful, though not necessarily violent, seizure of power (e.g. a coup).
• Typically includes recently-established military dictatorships wherein the current chief executive came to power via a coup.
• Even if the coup leader attempts to legitimize their rule via implementing procedures for transfers of power, as long as they retain de facto power, their nation will be coded here. If said procedures are democratic, have been firmly established, and drawn out over the course of more than 2 years but the coup leader still remains in power, it may be coded as Concept 5.
• Does NOT include mass-based social revolutions such as the Russian and French revolutions.
• Does NOT include entrenched military regimes wherein a regular transfer of power has already taken place.
• Does NOT include situations wherein a leader selected by normal means resigns due to international pressure or a failed coup.

Concept 5: Executive-Guided Transition (no points)

• The office of chief executive was determined by autocratic means, whether inheritance, designation, or self-selection via coup.
• The chief executive has begun to establish procedures for a (at least nominally) democratic and orderly transition of power, though they have not stepped down yet, whether formally or de facto.
• The transition, however, is dominated by the executive and their supporting institutions, and involvement by opposition groups and other non-executive forces is restricted.
• If the chief executive formally steps down according to the newly-established set of procedures but continues to dominate the political arena as a de facto leader, it is coded here.

Concept 6: Inheritance + Election (+2 D points)

• The office of chief executive is shared between a hereditary monarch and a democratically elected, whether directly or indirectly, prime minister.
• Typically includes constitutional monarchies wherein the prime minister normally heads executive discussion, but the monarch still retains a considerable amount of real power.
• Does NOT include parliamentary constitutional monarchies wherein the monarch is merely a figurehead with symbolic powers (code Concept 7 or 8 depending on how fair the elections are).
• Does NOT include 'constitutional' monarchies wherein the prime minister is overshadowed by the monarch or virtually powerless (code Concept 1).
• Does NOT include constitutional monarchies wherein the prime minister has considerable power, but is designated by a weak or rubber-stamp legislature (code Concept 2).

Concept 7: Restricted Elections (+2 D points)

• The office of chief executive is determined by free, though not fair direct or indirect elections plagued by considerable, though not insurmountable, problems.
• If the elections are deemed to be free, but not fair by domestic and international observers or these observers are barred from monitoring the elections, it is coded here.
• If the executive or various unelected groups such as the military attempt to influence, but not rig, the elections, it is coded here.
• If the executive is elected indirectly via an assembly that was not completely freely elected but not completely unelected either (at least 25% of it is unelected), it is coded here.
• If the elections take place in an environment of widespread civil unrest or under the military supervision of a UN equivalent or regional peace organization, it is coded here.
• If the elections are completely rigged or just for show, it is NOT coded here (code Concept 3).
• If the chief executive is democratically elected but forced to share power with unelected officials who exert significant though not overbearing influence, it is coded here.

Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)

• The office of chief executive is determined by free and fair elections, whether direct or indirect, which are typically free from major obstacles.
• If the elections are verified to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers or independent electoral commissions, it is coded here.
• If the executive or various unelected groups such as the military attempt to influence, but not rig, the elections, it is NOT coded here (code Concept 7).
• If the elections take place in an environment of widespread civil unrest or under the military supervision of a UN equivalent or regional peace organization, it is NOT coded here (code Concept 7).
• If a major opposition party or group boycotts the election for strategic reasons or as a political protest, it is NOT coded here (code Concept 7).

Concept 1: Unlimited Executive Authority (+3 A points)

• There are no regular limitations on the chief executive's actions, unlike irregular limitations such as threat of coups and assassinations. Rule by decree is repeatedly used.
• The judiciary is completely devoid of independence, and the legislature, if it exists, is either powerless or completely subservient to the executive's wishes.
• Typically includes absolute monarchies and personalistic dictatorships. One-party states and military dictatorships may be included, but only if the regime's structure simply serves the chief executive's wishes.
• If the democratically-elected executive is granted sweeping powers by an assembly to deal with a national emergency then relents this power after it has passed, it is NOT coded here, unless these emergency powers have been in effect for more than two years.

Concept 2: Slight Limitations (+2 A points)

• Typically used to document a change from Concept 1 to Concept 3 or vice versa within the span of 10 years.
• Examples include a monarch establishing a weak consultative assembly (Concept 1 to 3) or the leader of a hegemonic party beginning to consolidate their power over the party apparatus (Concept 3 to 1).

Concept 3: Slight to Moderate Limitations (+1 A point)

• There are real but limited constraints on the executive.
• For example, the legislature or party council might occasionally initiate some pieces of legislation.
• Typically includes strong, institutionalized one-party states (unless they are dominated by a single individual) and long-standing military juntas in which numerous military officers have held the office of chief executive.
• Can also include 'democratic-authoritarians' or democratically-elected leaders who thoroughly dominate their political systems, with the legislature and judiciary being clearly subordinate to their wishes.

Concept 4: Moderate Limitations (+1 D point)

• Typically indicates a transition between Concepts 3 and 5, one way or the other, in the span of ten years.
• Can be used to document the tightening of restrictions on the executive in a previously autocratic regime (3 to 5) or the further weakening of checks and balances in a democratic system that already grants significant powers to the chief executive (5 to 3).

Concept 5: Substantial Limitations (+2 D points)

• The executive has more effective authority than accountability groups such as legislatures and party councils, but are substantially constrained by them.
• For example, the legislature may occasionally refuse funds to the executive or modify strike down their proposals.
• Democratic systems which grant a significant amount of power to the executive, e.g. strong presidential regimes, are typically coded here. These may be created by design or are a result of the legislature being unable to effectively restrict the executive branch. While parliamentary systems are not exempt from being coded here, it is far less common for them to be so.
• If the chief executive completely dominates the judiciary but is effectively restricted by the legislature, it is coded here.

Concept 6: Approaching Parity (+3 D points)

• Typically indicates a transition between Concepts 5 and 7, one way or the other, in a span of 10 years.
• This can be used to depict a situation wherein a democratically-elected chief executive is temporarily granted emergency powers by a powerful legislature in order to cope with a national emergency.
• In semi-presidential systems wherein both the president and prime minister are granted significant powers, this can be used to depict periods where both are from the same party.

Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)

• In most political activity, accountability groups such as the legislature and judiciary have a degree of power equal to or greater than the executive.
• The legislature is responsible for initiating most or all important legislation.
• The chief executive may be chosen by the accountability group and dependent on its continued support to remain in office, as in most parliamentary systems.
• Presidential systems wherein the chief executive (president) is well-constrained are coded here as well.
• Most mature, consolidated democracies are coded here.

Concept 1: Repressed Competition (+4 A points)

• The nation is institutionally closed, both officially and de facto. No significant political activity is permitted outside of the ranks of the hegemonic regime.
• The hegemonic regime bans and suppresses ALL opposition groups, regardless of size or organization.
• The regime has both the capacity and willingness to suppress and exclude opponents from the political arena.
• If the regime cannot effectively suppress oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion for more than 5 years, it is NOT coded here (code Concept 2).
• Typically included are totalitarian one-party states, military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, and despotic absolute monarchies.

Concept 2: Restricted Competition (+3 A points)

• The nation is institutionally closed, though it need not be officially so. Some organized political activity is permitted outside of the regime's ranks, but they are systematically limited.
• The hegemonic regime bans and suppresses MAJOR opposition groups. Minor opposition groups are typically permitted to operate on a limited scale.
• If all political parties are outlawed but limited independent oppositional activity is permitted, it is coded here. However, if these 'independents' are merely a front for the ruling regime, it is coded as Concept 1.
• If the regime allows major opposition forces to organize but not participate in the electoral process, it is coded here.
• If the regime allows major opposition forces to participate in the electoral processes but systematically suppresses them (e.g. leaders killed or jailed, candidates regularly ruled off ballots, opposition media harassed), it is coded here.
• If the regime aims to suppress all oppositional activity but is unable to do so, as manifested by mass protests and acts of rebellion for more than 5 years, it is coded here.
• If 20% or more of the population is denied all political rights, it is coded here. However, if they are allowed limited political rights, less than 20% are denied all political rights, or they are allowed all political rights but nonetheless face severe harassment and intimidation, it is not coded here (code Concept 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 depending on the extent of exclusion and the size of the group).
• Typically included are one-party states, military regimes, some personalistic dictatorships, and authoritarian monarchies, as well as some illiberal democracies with a considerable authoritarian streak.

Concept 3: Authoritarian-Guided Liberalization/Deepening Hegemonic Control (+2 A points)

• Typically used to denote a transition from Concepts 1 or 2 to Concept 6 or 7, or vice versa, over the span of 10 years.
• For example, a formerly hegemonic regime decides to open up to limited and typically factional competition (Concept 1 or 2 to Concept 6 or 7), or a weak illiberal democracy plagued by factionalism transforms into a fully-fledged authoritarian regime which systematically represses oppositional activity (Concept 6 or 7 to Concept 1 or 2).

Concept 4: Uninstitutionalized Competition (no points)

• Political participation can be described as decentralized and unregulated, typically revolving around various personalities, regional interests, ethnic or religious groups, and clans. It can be likened to tribalism, feudalism, and 'traditional' societies.
• The central authority is generally weak and national organizations and institutions such as political parties are either weak or non-existent.
• These systems are most likely to be found following the collapse of central authority in a resource-poor authoritarian state in the wake of decolonization.
• If the central government's authority does not extend to more than half of the nation's territory, an interregnum (see the Special Cases category) classification would be more appropriate as it would denote the complete breakdown of central authority.

Concept 5: Gradual Transition from Uninstitutionalized Competition (no points)

• Typically used to denote a transition from unregulated forms of political participation (Concept 4) to more stable and rigid systems.
• Also typically used to denote the gradual consolidation of power by a formerly weak central authority, as well as the formation of stable national organizations and institutions such as political parties.
• If a central government re-emerges in the wake of foreign occupation or a state failure (e.g. civil war or anarchy) and gradually reorganizes political authority and political competition with the support of state institutions, it is coded here.
• If the aforementioned re-emerging central government uses its powers to limit the formation and expression of political interests and perspectives, it should be coded as Concept 3 instead.

Concept 6: Restricted Factional Competition (+1 D point, +1 A point)

• More or less the same as open factional competition (Concept 7), though it is more restrictive and entails greater levels of government recognition of group differences and promotion of exclusionary ideologies.
• These nations typically swing back and forth more or less regularly between intense factionalism and faction-based restrictions. An example is that when one of the contending factions seizes power, it uses that power to promote its exclusive interests and reward group members while marginalizing other contending factions until it is displaced in turn.
• It is more restrictive than open factional competition (Concept 7) which it has a lot in common with, but less restrictive than restricted competition (Concept 2).
• If less than 20% of the population are denied all political rights, it is coded here. If 20% or more are excluded, however, it is coded as Concept 2.
• If the regime cannot effectively deny political access to these groups, it is coded as Concept 7.
• If the excluded groups, regardless of size, are allowed limited political rights, it is coded here, or as Concepts 7 or 8.
• While it is not impossible for democratic political systems to have restricted factional competition, a rule of thumb is that restricted factional competition is more likely to be associated with authoritarian systems, while open factional competition is more likely to be associated with democratic systems.

Concept 7: Open Factional Competition (+1 D point)

• Relatively stable and enduring factions such as political parties and ethnic groups regularly compete for influence at the national level, but they tend to promote particularist and narrow-minded agendas in an uncompromising manner with limited social integration. Thus, competition between them is often intense, antagonistic, hostile, and coercive.
• It is distinguished by a relative balance of group capabilities that prevents any one of the contending factions from gaining control of the state apparatus, and can also arise when the state is a relatively autonomous entity attempting to broker peace between these factions.
• Elections are deemed by international and domestic observers to be free but not fair, and the electoral process is constantly plagued by partisan-based violence.
• The government attempts to use its institutional powers to interfere with the outcome of the electoral process.
• The political arena may either be dominated by numerous fractionalized parties/factions or a few major parties, but as long as they promote polarizing ideologies and compete in a fierce, antagonistic manner, it is coded here.
• Major parties are sectarian and/or personalistic in character or a secular, progressive regime attempts to control and limit, but not prohibit, the activities of sectarian groups.

Concept 8: Political Liberalization/Democratic Retrenchment with Persistent Coercion (+2 D points, +1 A point)

• Typically used to document relatively coercive and/or restrictive transitions from factional competition (Concept 6 or 7) to institutionalized competitive participation (Concept 10) or vice versa over the span of ten years.
• Often found in nations wherein political participation is characteristically unconsolidated in an otherwise democratic system, such as those with relatively shallow democratic roots.
• Is generally the same as Concept 9, but with a greater degree of force and coercion present in the system. For example, the electoral process may be marred by systematic though limited partisan-based violence.

Concept 9: Political Liberalization/Democratic Retrenchment with Limited Coercion (+2 D points)

• May be used to document relatively peaceful transitions from factional competition (Concept 6 or 7) to institutionalized competitive participation (Concept 10), though not necessarily within the span of 10 years.
• Elections are deemed to be free, but not necessarily fair, by domestic and international observers. The electoral process is stained by sporadic and/or limited partisan-based violence.
• May be used to depict the early years of a democratic transition wherein previously-moribund or newly-formed weak parties revolving around specific personalities, issues, affiliations, or nationalism compete for power or the former hegemonic party continues to dominate the electoral process due to its established, superior organizational and financial resources.
• If a single party dominates the executive and legislative branches continuously for an extended period of time (e.g. 15-20 years) and opposition parties pose no real electoral threat to the dominant party and do not actively challenge their policies and/or face minor institutional barriers to competing in the electoral arena, it is coded here.
• If the government attempts to interfere with, but not rig, the outcome of the electoral process without the overt use of repression or establishes unreasonable minimum vote thresholds for inclusion in the legislature, it is coded here.
• If all major domestic groups have full political rights but some minor groups face significant obstacles to political participation, it is coded here.
• If numerous parties (e.g. more than 10) regularly contest national elections and most are fluid in nature (e.g. here one election, gone the next), it is coded here. However, depending on the degree of coercion and factionalism present in the system, it may be more appropriately coded as Concept 6, 7, or 8.
• If the major parties have traditionally been personalistic and/or sectarian in character but are intentionally making efforts to institutionalize their organizational structures and/or evolve into ideology and mass-based parties, it is coded here.
• If the nation holds democratic elections but nonetheless is plagued by common, but not systematic, violations of civil liberties, it is coded here. Some examples of human rights abuses are: media/literature censorship, restrictions on the content of public discussion, limits on freedom of assembly and demonstration, military and/or police brutality, unjustified imprisonment, a draconian criminal code, constraints on labor and/or business organizations, and restrictions on religious practice, property rights, travel, choice of residence, and so forth.

Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)

• Relatively stable and enduring political groups such as political parties regularly compete for political influence with little to no use of coercion. No significant political and cultural groups, issues, or types of conventional political actions are regularly excluded.
• Often found in stable, consolidated democratic systems wherein political competition and participation in the electoral arena has been fully institutionalized and regulated.
• Political parties, especially major ones, are ideology and/or issue-based and cross-cutting rather than personalistic, narrow-minded, and/or sectarian.
• Human rights and civil liberties are generally well-respected.
• National elections are deemed by international and domestic observers to be both free and fair.
• A regular rotation of power between competing parties is not necessary for a nation to be coded here. If a single party continuously dominates the government for more than 15-20 years and opposition parties pose little to no threat to it, but continue to actively challenge their policies and face no significant institutional barriers to competition and participation, the nation is coded here.
• All domestic groups must have equal institutional opportunities to access the political process, though certain groups may dominate the political agenda. Group claims for self-determination and/or autonomy do not have to be satisfied to be coded here, but if the government resorts to repression to quell these demands or the groups resort to force to pursue their claims, it is NOT coded here, but rather as Concept 6, 7, 8, or 9.
• If numerous parties (e.g. more than 10) regularly contest national elections, it may be a sign that political competition has not been institutionalized. If these parties are fragile/unstable and/or factional in nature, the nation is NOT coded here. However, if these parties are durable and not prone to factionalism, the nation may be coded here.
• If the major parties are personalistic in character, revolving around dominant personalities rather than ideological platforms, it may be a sign that political competition has not been institutionalized. However, if personalistic parties have evolved into ideology-based or issue-based organizations over time or a personalistic leader rises from within the ranks of a firmly-established and existing organization, the polity may be coded here.
• If the major parties are sectarian in character, revolving around exclusive ethnic, racial, religious, and/or regional social networks (to the exclusion of other social networks), the nation is NOT coded here. This environment is much more likely to be featured in nations coded as Concept 6, 7, 8, or 9, depending on the degree of party exclusiveness and the extensiveness of inter-group conflict in the nation.
• If the political environment is dominated by class-based parties that actively compete in the electoral process but the use of non-party class instruments such as labor unions, police, and paramilitary groups to coerce and intimidate opposition forces, the nation is NOT coded here.
• If the major parties are mass-based and secular in nature and actively seek to limit the political activities of sectarian and other non-mass-based political parties and/or movements, this may indicate factional (Concept 6 or 7) than institutionalized competitive (Concept 10) competition.
• If the nation holds free and fair elections but nonetheless experiences significant violations of civil liberties, it is unlikely to be coded here. The systematic violation of civil liberties is a form of restriction on participation and the suppression of dissent, despite the existence of widespread political rights. However, under certain special conditions a restriction of civil liberties may occur in any political system. If the restrictions are consistent and short-lived rather than capricious or concentrated against certain members of opposition groups, the nation may be coded here.

Once a nation's three concepts are decided, the amount of D and A points are added together, then the total number of A points is subtracted from the total amount of D points in order to get their NSPoliteia Score, which determines how democratic and pluralistic their political system is. A positive score implies a degree of democracy and pluralism, while a negative score implies a lack of democracy or the presence of autocratic elements. The maximum scores for each extreme are 10 (full democracy) and -10 (total autocratic control).

Under the NSPoliteia classification system, nations are classified into five distinct main categories. They are:

• NSPoliteia Score Range: 10
• Description:
  Nations grouped under the Full Democracy category have mature, entrenched pluralistic political systems with a healthy degree of democratic competition between parties for public office. Chief executives are elected in open, transparent elections, there are little to no problems interfering with the political process, and the executive branch's powers are balanced out by an active legislature and independent judiciary.

• NSPoliteia Score Range: 6–9
• Description:
  Nations grouped under the Democracy category have relatively durable pluralistic political systems with a reasonable degree of democratic competition between parties, though problems such as sporadic political violence, antagonistic factionalism, and a relative lack of constraints on the executive are present.

• NSPoliteia Score Range: 1–5
• Description:
  Nations grouped under the Open Anocracy category typically possess a relatively weak but still adequately democratic political system with a slight authoritarian streak. They are typically plagued by violent, irregular, or loosely restricted competition between factions, an imbalance of power favoring the executive, internal turmoil, and/or other impediments to democratic procedures. Open anocracies straddle the line between democracy and autocracy, though they lean further towards democracy than their closed peers.

• NSPoliteia Score Range: (-5)–0
• Description:
  Nations grouped under the Closed Anocracy category typically possess a weak, barely democratic system that has been largely compromised by autocratic threats such as restricted competition in the politcal arena, an imbalance of power heavily favoring the executive typically combined with a weak or sharply divided legislature and an ineffective judiciary, internal turmoil, a closed system of executive recruitment, and/or other impediments to electoral democratic procedures. Closed anocracies straddle the line between democracy and autocracy, though they possess a greater authoritarian streak than their open peers.

• NSPoliteia Score Range: (-10)–(-6)
• Description:
  Nations grouped under the Autocracy category either have an extremely weak and superficial pseudo-democratic system or none at all. Their political systems are deeply authoritarian, with opposition generally being heavily suppressed by the hegemonic regime. Virtually all political power resides with the executive, with the legislature being either an extremely weak rubber stamp or nonexistent, and the judiciary being completely powerless. Chief executives are typically recruited via informal competition within the hegemonic party or military cabal, self-selection via coup, or inheritance within a firmly established royal bloodline.

Interruption/Occupation

• Description: Nations classified as being in a state of interruption are completely under the rule or occupation of a foreign power, such as in times of war. This classification is applied until the nation in question is liberated or a new government is established.

Interregnum/State Failure

• Description: Nations classified as being in a state of interregnum have suffered a complete collapse of central authority, in which more than half of their territory is under control of factions fighting against each other for dominance. Situations like these typically arise in times of widespread civil war or ethnic conflict. This classification is applied until the central authority regains control of the nation's entire territory or a faction triumphs and establishes a new, stable government.

One should note, however, that under the NSPoliteia system, human rights are a secondary consideration subordinate to the degree of pluralism present in a nation's system. Thus, nations classified as authoritarian regimes under other systems, such as real-life Russia, may end up being classified as open anocracies due to their political systems, and vice-versa.

With all that said, here is the NSPoliteia Questionnaire. Answer honestly. NS stats do not have to be used.
For a better-informed decision, try reading the different Concepts included above.

Code: Select all

This index has been concluded. If you wish to apply, wait for the upcoming NSPoliteia II index.

NOTE: A nation's factbooks and other sources of national information may be used as additional sources to help determine their Concepts.
Note to new applicants: Try explaining your political system further in Section V in order to make your score easier to determine, as some answers are vague and/or conflicting. Try reading the Concepts as well.

[Piste-Land]

The NSPoliteia Index (Final)

---

Legend:

NSPoliteia Score Nation Name (Concepts: Executive Recruitment Concept|Executive Constraints Concept|Political Participation and Competition Concept)
(For information regarding the Concepts, refer to the first post.)

Full Democracies (NSPoliteia Score Range: 10)

---

10 Achaean Republic (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Aikoland (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Alinghi (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Anagonia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Anatoliyanskiy (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Anentova (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Andyrssia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Anollasia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Ascion (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Astoria (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Azania (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Balgariia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Borovin (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 British Socialist Syndicates/Commonwealth of Great Britain (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 British North America/North American Union (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Calusahatchii (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Charellia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Deltia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Doge Land (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Dominioan (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Eurasies (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Former Citizens of the Nimbus System/Nexus Wardship of Former Citizens of the Nimbus System (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Free Republic of Hong Kong (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Gandoor (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 HUElavia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Indian Empire (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Iove (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Isle of Breda (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Kamotel (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Kishambia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Kreuzmont (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Lura (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Merni (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Middle Barael (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Minskiev (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Mobius and the Biscay (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Monasheya (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Mopistan (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Nacrad (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Nantu (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 New Hocksmith (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 New Transeurasia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Nivesia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 North Alezia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 North America Union (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Nova Anglicana (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Peiyang China/Republic of China (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Picairn (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Piste-Land/Goldonia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Radiatia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Restored Great Britain/Kingdom of Great Britain (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Sajnur (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Shamsiyya (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Shtet (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Tamri3l/Empire of Tamriel (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 The Allied Tribe (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Thermodolia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Toin (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 United States of Paul (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Valgia (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Waisnor (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Yaruqo (Concepts: 8|7|10)
10 Zamazia (Concepts: 8|7|10)

Democracies (NSPoliteia Score Range: 6-9)

---

9 Cartoonia (Concepts: 6|7|10)
9 Eikotomi (Concepts: 8|6|10)
9 Gazharstan (Concepts: 8|7|9)
9 Great-German Empire/Empire of Germany (Concepts: 6|7|10)
9 Icadias (Concepts: 6|7|10)
9 Imperium Germaniae (Concepts: 6|7|10)
9 Indo States/Fatimanian Federation (Concepts: 8|6|10)
9 Liberal Democratic Socialist States (Concepts: 8|6|10)
9 Narvatus (Concepts: 8|6|10)
9 Nation of Hanguk/Kingdom of Corea (Concepts: 8|6|10)
9 New Carthagea (Concepts: 6|7|10)
9 North German Realm/North German Confederation (Concepts: 6|7|10)
9 Prosperon (Concepts: 7|7|10)
9 Reuturn (Concepts: 8|6|10)
9 Santa Selena (Concepts: 8|6|10)
9 West Bromwich Holme (Concepts: 6|7|10)
9 Woford (Concepts: 6|7|10)
9 Yaosoland/Yaoso Republic (Concepts: 8|7|9)
8 Autolyko (Concepts: 7|6|10)
8 Carendom (Concepts: 8|7|7)
8 Cascadia Ecotopia/Cascadia (Concepts: 8|6|9)
8 Drew Durrnil (Concepts: 8|7|8)
8 Eluney (Concepts: 8|5|10)
8 Megistos (Concepts: 8|7|7)
8 New Englaland (Concepts: 6|6|10)
8 Newenken (Concepts: 8|5|10)
8 Nordhagan (Concepts: 8|5|10)
8 Ottomeme (Concepts: 8|7|7)
8 Southern Tzhelarhaai/Southern Thelarai (Concepts: 8|7|8)
8 Xanthal (Concepts: 8|5|10)
8 Wrna (Concepts: 8|7|7)
8 Zarnicovia Nova (Concepts: 6|7|9)
7 Appalachia (Concepts: 8|6|7)
7 Baltan (Concepts: 8|4|10)
7 Confederate American SU/Rep. of Confederate American States and Syndicates (Concepts: 8|7|4)
7 Eraman (Concepts: 7|6|9)
7 Free Indian States (Concepts: 7|7|8)
7 Free Ravensburg (Concepts: 8|5|9)
7 Great Nortend (Concepts: 6|6|9)
7 Korwin (Concepts: 7|6|9)
7 Lippo Group (Concepts: 7|6|9)
7 Logon (Concepts: 8|6|7)
7 MineLegotia and Equestria (Concepts: 6|6|9)
7 Polata City (Concepts: 6|5|10)
7 South Quantia (Concepts: 7|7|7)
6 Daishania (Concepts: 8|4|9)
6 Exalted Inquellian State (Concepts: 6|5|9)
6 Namabi (Concepts: 7|5|9)
6 New Eurasian Empire (Concepts: 7|5|9)
6 Pax Brasiliana/Empire of Brazil (Concepts: 6|5|9)
6 Shiatoru (Concepts: 8|5|7)
6 Ulvena (Concepts: 8|5|8)
6 Wumoria (Concepts: 8|5|8)

Open Anocracies (NSPoliteia Score Range: 1-5)

---

5 Desecraton (Concepts: 7|4|9)
5 Greatdux (Concepts: 7|4|9)
5 Hesperie (Concepts: 6|5|8)
5 Ko-oren (Concepts: 3|7|10)
5 Lillorainen (Concepts: 3|7|10)
5 Venesso/United Venetian Republics (Concepts: 3|7|10)
4 Carlotina (Concepts: 7|5|5)
4 Dakotishland (Concepts: 8|4|6)
4 Fluvannia (Concepts: 1|7|10)
4 Republic of Kongsi* (Concepts: 7|5|4)
3 Imperial Majapahit/Empire of Majapahit (Concepts: 6|3|9)
3 Kovkastan (Concepts: 7|4|6)
3 Newne Carriebean (Concepts: 6|4|6)
3 Ratsirana (Concepts: 5|5|8)
3 TurtleShroom (Concepts: 3|7|8)
2 Haremm (Concepts: 1|5|10)
2 Hypercapital (Concepts: 8|3|4)
2 Persagonian Republic/State of Iran (Concepts: 7|3|7)
2 Romanian-Slavia (Concepts: 8|4|3)
2 The Prussian Realms (Concepts: 2|5|10)
1 Dunferm (Concepts: 6|3|4)
1 Ephyra (Concepts: 7|5|2)
1 New Great Britain and Acadia (Concepts: 2|5|9)
1 Republic of Yunnan** (Concepts: 7|3|5)
1 Yuwa (Concepts: 1|4|10)

Closed Anocracies (NSPoliteia Score Range: (-5)-0)

---

0 Conservative Christian American States (Concepts: 7|4|2)
0 Western Fardelshufflestein (Concepts: 1|5|8)
-1 Destyntine (Concepts: 1|3|10)
-1 Kashimura (Concepts: 1|3|10)
-2 Feyrisshire (Concepts: 7|3|2)
-2 Glakta (Concepts: 3|3|7)
-3 Konolas (Concepts: 4|3|3)
-4 Amenria (Concepts: 1|3|4)
-4 Hong Kong SAR (Concepts: 3|4|2)
-4 Nalihama (Concepts: 5|3|2)
-4 Shikonjima (Concepts: 1|3|4)
-4 World Web (Concepts: 4|3|2)

Autocracies (NSPoliteia Score Range: (-10)-(-6))

---

-6 Fosa Agige and North Lemonina (Concepts: 4|2|1)
-6 Kergstan (Concepts: 3|3|2)
-6 New African States (Concepts: 3|3|2)
-6 Paleo-Siberia (Concepts: 2|3|3)
-6 People Republic of China/People's Republic of China (Concepts: 3|3|2)
-6 Tegrad (Concepts: 3|3|2)
-6 United Azizid Emirates (Concepts: 3|3|2)
-7 Bulgar Rouge (Concepts: 3|3|1)
-7 Davadatopia (Concepts: 3|3|1)
-7 Kancia (Concepts: 3|2|2)
-7 Menschlicher Sternenstaat (Concepts: 3|3|1)
-7 's-Hertogenbosch (Concepts: 3|3|1)
-7 Slavakino (Concepts: 3|3|1)
-7 Tilam (Concepts: 3|3|1)
-7 Varenskjyr (Concepts: 3|3|1)
-8 Ferlik (Concepts: 3|2|1)
-8 Idoho (Concepts: 3|2|1)
-8 Russian National Republic (Concepts: 3|2|1)
-8 Thebrin (Concepts: 3|2|1)
-9 Apiary One (Concepts: 3|1|1)
-9 Aryax (Concepts: 3|1|1)
-9 Isla de Flores (Concepts: 3|1|1)
-9 Lingang (Concepts: 3|1|1)
-9 Nokelon (Concepts: 1|1|2)
-9 The Third Duloch (Concepts: 3|1|1)
-9 Victorious Decepticons (Concepts: 3|1|1)
-9 VlaRiSsiA (Concepts: 3|1|1)
-9 ZSeparatists (Concepts: 3|1|1)
-10 Crapanese Empire (Concepts: 1|1|1)
-10 Greater Gothic Empire (Concepts: 1|1|1)
-10 Meadville (Concepts: 1|1|1)
-10 Medwedia (Concepts: 1|1|1)
-10 Mordka (Concepts: 1|1|1)
-10 New Luzon (Concepts: 1|1|1)
-10 Talatorrum (Concepts: 1|1|1)

Special Cases (Interruption/Interregnum)

---

Interregnum (State Failure) Jianxi-Fujian Soviet (Concepts not applicable)
Interregnum (State Failure) Liberimarcat (Concepts not applicable)
Interregnum (State Failure) The Terminal Border (Concepts not applicable)

---

*A puppet state under heavy Nacradian influence.
**A puppet state under heavy influence from the FR of Hong Kong.

[Piste-Land]

Here is Piste-Land/Goldonia's application form, which may be used as a reference.

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Republic of Goldonia
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1856
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1964
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President Simeon Gots (Conservative Party)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): National Assembly (Lower House: House of Representatives, Upper House: Senate)
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court

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

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

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[X] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] 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?
No. That is all the information we shall give for now.

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

[Bulgar Rouge]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Revolutionary Entity of Bulgar Rouge
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2024
3. Year of Establishment: 2014
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): Brother Number One
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): None, Party Standing Committee issues ideologically motivated decrees
7. Name of Judiciary: None

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): Theoretically, the Party Standing Committee - the highest governing body in the Revolutionary Entity - is elected by the various economic, welfare and military committees of the Party, which in turn mostly have directly elected representatives from each commune in our nation. In practice, these representatives are all members of the governing party and their advancement through the ranks is consistently kept in check by a system of ideologically motivated purges, shuffles and resignations. Only an ideologically sound candidate may advance to the top position, but that will take a lot of time, and there is a sufficient number of factions who would rather not see a more radical candidate rise further. Additionally, the identity of the top leadership is kept secret, and is largely irrelevant on the communal level.
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[X] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

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

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[X] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[X] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[X] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default. (skip)
[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?
[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 appliacble)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? Our nation is a Party-state where most traditional attributes of statehood have been completely dismantled. Various Party bodies completely control the processes within the nation. We are a communal state where most communes are self-governing, but strictly within the confines of a spartan ideological framework.

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

[-Astoria]

Tagged; will post soon.

---

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: [Republic of] Astoria
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020 [present day]
3. Year of Establishment: 1644
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1672
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Prime Minister Robert Paisley [Labour]
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Parliament; bicameral [upper house: Senate | lower house: Commons]
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court

I. b. Special Cases
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.
1. Is your nation currently under complete foreign occupation or domination?
[ ] Yes.
[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? None

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

[Ko-oren]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Ko-oren
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 3814
3. Year of Establishment: Unknown. 2000 BCE is often used as a rough date for the first Bay Confederacy.
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 3812
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared): Dhunerin Laurderinthen
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Council of Ministers
7. Name of Judiciary: Courts of Ko-oren

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 leader was meritocratically appointed by the Council of Ministers, and accepted by the Parliament. The selection criteria are open to the public, and the various candidates' scores and interviews are available as well. Transparency and fairness are key in these appointments.
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[X] Other (please explain):The meritocratically selected head of state shares power with the ministers and secretaries.

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 stable, consolidated meritocratic system with a 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.
[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. (skip)
[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.
[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 appliacble)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
Our nation has a long meritocratic tradition, which is always reviewed. As such, apart from an executive, judicial, and legislative branches, there is the auditory branch in which our parliament is located - for which there are elections. This branch, which is well protected, oversees the meritocratic process and guides its decision-making slightly.
Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[MineLegotia and Equestria]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Multiversal Bureaucratical State Commonwealth of MineLegotia and Equestria and Its Dominions and Colonies
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2358 ALB (Equivalent to world's 2035 AD)
3. Year of Establishment: 1034 ALB
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1037 ALB
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Kaisar Jason I / Empress Celestia I / Prime Minister John Newway (Nationalconservative Party)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): National Parliament (with an array of smaller autonomous parliaments for each state [Think of it like the US's Senate and the State Senates]
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court

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

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

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[X] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[ ] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] 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): In the case that one of the two monarchs die, the second option (De facto inheritance within the elite takes place), and in the case the Prime Minister's time runs out, it's via Free Elections with a requirement to have a university degree.
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[X] Other (please explain): Technically, MineLegotia and Equestria have two monarchs sharing executive power with a prime minister and their 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)
[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.
[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.
[ ] 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 Executive - mainly the monarchs - on paper have theoretical power stated in the Constitution to dissolve the National Parliament and do seize all Legislative power, but however, the Legislative - within the first years of its establishment - has passed laws that state if such a move is done without the permission of the Prime Minister, it may constitute as an Abuse of Power.

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

[Gandoor]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Democratic Republic of Gandoor
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2025
3. Year of Establishment: 1904 (current state), 1587 (first state called Gandoor)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1904
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Prime Minister Park Sang-Hee (Gandoor Communist Party)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Forum of the Democratic Republic of Gandoor (unicameral)
7. Name of Judiciary: 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)
[ ] 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 -

[Waisnor]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Republic of Waisnor
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1991
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1992
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President Alexander Monov
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): National Assembly
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] 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 -

[A m e n r i a]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Empire of Amenria
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2048
3. Year of Establishment: 2045
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 2045
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Heavenly Emperor Tianshi and Heavenly Empresses Somi and Park Jin Ae
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Imperial Council + State Council
7. Name of Judiciary: Imperial Court of Earthly Law + Imperial Court of Heavenly Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eikotomi]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Kingdom of Eikotomi
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: February 11, 660 BC, November 29, 1871 (As Eikotomi)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): May 3, 1947
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable):
Monarch (Head of State): Emperor Haruto
Prime Minister (Head of Government): Prime Minister Rikyu Nakamura (Liberal Democratic Party)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater):
The National Diet - Lower House: The House of Representatives, Upper House: The House of Councillors
7. Name of Judiciary: Highest Judicial Branch is the Supreme Court of Eikotomi

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 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.
[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)
[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?

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

[Ferlik]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Holy State of Ferlik
2. Current Year (in YN's canon):
3. Year of Establishment: 1927
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1946
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President Aquinas Boar (Liberty and Salvation Movement)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): National Congress
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court

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

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

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[X] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[X] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[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)?
[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.
[X] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[X] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[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? The legislature includes members of powerful churches and businesses and the military, but while it does initiate legislation the President has absolute veto power and the ability to rule by decree and to dismiss legislators who are also party members or military

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

[The Land of the Ephyral]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: | The Ephyral Freehold / Ephyral Republic
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): | 2030 AD
3. Year of Establishment: | 1562 AD
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): | Archons Helaegos Eresios Raheris and Sparlios Gelionios Lenennis, traditionalist faction, political parties do not exist.
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): | The Senate and Symposium.
7. Name of Judiciary: | No such body exists.

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

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

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

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): | Similar to the Roman Republic. Political parties do not exist although ideological factions within the Senate do; whilst the archons serve annual terms in which they are afforded great individual power to act in the interest of the state, but which is checked by the body of the Senate. The people possess only the power to elect statesmen, and can neither propose nor amend legislation, although a group of peoples' officers within the Senate may veto undesired legislation.
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?
[X] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[X] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

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

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

| Detailed response to Part III Section 5. In the event of a national emergency, it is more common for a separate office of state to be reactivated which possesses legal power above the two leaders but does not replace them, rather than empowering the presently elected leaders.

| Detailed response to Part IV Section 2. The Ephyral Freehold's citizenry comprise a minority of the population, thus the majority of those living within the Freehold and its non-sovereign confederate allies (a complex relationship best imagined as locally self-governing states without foreign policy of their own) do not possess the right to take part in the Ephyral elections, although these non-citizen communities alongside citizen ones hold local elections and possess their own offices which one need only be a local citizen in order to take part in.

In addition to this, amongst the citizens of Ephyra certain other factors restrict or deny political rights, including primarily; insufficient property worth (this does not outright prohibit political participation, but enrols the citizen into a voting group which is almost never required to even cast a vote), a legal status of infamy as a consequence of profession or crime rendering them a person of public disrepute, possessing Ephyral citizenship that explicitly does not include suffrage, and finally - excluding the largest amount of the population -, being female (women do not have any place within the public sphere in Ephyral culture or law beyond their role as a matron of the family household unit).

Furthermore citizens who are eligible to vote may not be eligible for office unless further requirements are met, including a minimum term of military service and sufficient property worth to demonstrate a large enough stake in the prosperity of the country in order to be trusted with acting in its interests.

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

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Code: Select all

[spoiler=Inquellian Empire][color=#FF8000][size=150][b][u][i]The NSPoliteia Questionnaire[/i][/u][/b][/size][/color]

[u]I. a. Basic Information[/u]
[b]1. Full Nation Name:[The Empire of the Exalted Inquellian State]
[b]2. Current Year (in YN's canon):[1566]
[b]3. Year of Establishment:[1558]
[b]4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution):[1560]
[b]5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable):[Emperor-Uirkhuk I
Chancellor-Khuikahk]
[b]6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater):[The Imperial Parliamen]
[b]7. Name of Judiciary:[Supreme Judiciary]

[u]I. b. Special Cases[/u]
[color=#FF8000]Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X.[/color]
[b]1. Is your nation [u]currently[/u] under complete foreign occupation or domination?[/b]
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
[b]2. Is your nation [u]currently[/u] under widespread civil war or another situation wherein the central government has control over less than half of its territory?[/b]
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
[color=#FF8000][b]If your answer to both questions is [u]No[/u], proceed. Otherwise, it all ends here.[/b][/color]

[u]II. Executive Recruitment[/u]
[color=#FF8000]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.[/color]
[spoiler][b]1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)[/b]
[ ] 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.
[b]2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive ([i]de facto[/i] leader) chosen?[/b]
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] [i]De facto[/i] 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. [i]de facto[/i] 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)
[ ] [u]Other (please explain)[/u]:
[b]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?[/b]
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections are judged to be both free [u]and[/u] 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 [u]not allowed[/u] 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.)
[b]4. Under what conditions were the elections held?[/b]
[ ] 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.
[b]5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?[/b]
[ ] 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.
[ ] [u]Other (please explain):[/u][/spoiler]

[u]III. Executive Constraints[/u]
[color=#FF8000]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.[/color]
[spoiler][b]1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?[/b]
[ ] 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] [u]Other (please explain):[We have a monarch who is powerful in foreign policy, but shares power with the Prime Minister]
[b]2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?[/b]
[ ] 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.
[b]3. Is there an independent judiciary?[/b]
[ ] 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.
[b]4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?[/b]
[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.
[b]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?[/b]
[ ] 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.[/spoiler]

[u]IV. Political Participation and Competition[/u]
[color=#FF8000]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.[/color]
[spoiler][b]1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?[/b]
[ ] [u]ALL[/u] opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] [u]MOST[/u] 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 [u]ALL[/u] 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.
[b]2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?[/b]
[ ] 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 [u]ALL[/u] political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied [u]ALL[/u] 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.[/spoiler]

[u]V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)[/u]
[b]1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?[/b]
The legislature nominates a prime minister, but the monarc(who holds foreign policy power except in making offensive war) appproves them. Also, the first elections were held in a war of independence, but the second ones were held in peace, and that parliament is the current one.
[color=#FF8000]Well done! You have now completed the [u]NSPoliteia Questionnaire.[/u][/color]
[color=#FF8000]- END OF DOCUMENT -[/color][/spoiler]

[Commonwealth Republic of Andyrssia]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Commonwealth Republic of Andyrssia
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1808
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1810
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Premier Olivier Buonespriza (People’s Tribune Party), Secretary General Zara Laurentis (People’s Tribune Party)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Assembly of Andyrssia; House of Governors (upper house), House of Delegates (lower house)
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Magistracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] MOST opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress ALL opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] 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?

Andyrssian democracy is highly participatory, due in large part to a deep history of civic nationalism in the country. The military and civil society remain highly-revered, more so than in most other European democracies. As a result, Andyrssian society has been said to have a quasi-authoritarian level of patriotism in daily life. Civic education and youth political programs are a much higher priority in Andyrssian schools than elsewhere, which has been criticized by detractors as indoctrination. The nation has been ruled by autocratic leaders in the past who took advantage of this aspect of political culture, yet stringent ethics policy and a more robust system of checks and balances were instilled throughout the 20th century to remedy this problem. Andyrssian citizens also have a unique degree of loyalty and pride for their respective commonwealths (the nation’s equivalent of states/provinces), and commonwealth-level politics are often just as or perhaps more closely-watched than national affairs.

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

(OOC: felt very vanilla filling this out as a modern-day liberal Western European democracy lol)

[Kovkastan]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Republic of Kovakastan
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 860 BC (earliest kingdom), 1991 (current republic)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1999
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Arevshad Darbinyan of the National Republican Federation
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Khorhrdaran (Parliament)
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.
[X] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[X] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[X] 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?
[ ] 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.
[ ] 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.
[X] 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?
The best real life analogy for Kovkastan's political situation is the majority of post-Soviet states. In other words, elections happen, but their legitimacy is scrutinised.
Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Aryax]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: (the) People's Republic of Aryax
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1955-1958
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1959, last amended 2019
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Stanislav Tyrankov, party: People's Revolutionary Movement (PRM)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): People's Assembly (unicameral)
7. Name of Judiciary: referred to in the Constitution as simply "judiciary", highest judicial authority is 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? The current regime is visibly and quickly shifting away from a one-party state with a strong leader to a personalistic regime where the single legal party is throughoutly beholden to the wishes of National President Stanislav Tyrankov. This includes widespread purging of party members and the creation of a cult of personality around Tyrankov.
The age of establishment is listed as 1955-1958 as the republic in its current form was created after a civil war, with some parts of the territory being under PRM control since 1955; full territorial control was achieved in 1958.
OOC: The genitive 's as in People's Republic of Aryax breaks the spoiler that the post is included in.

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

[Tegrad]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Tegradian Federal Socialist Republic
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1991
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1994
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Ivan Vadimovich, Independent
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Supreme Council (Upper: Federal Council, Lower: National Council)
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
The President, while an independent, effectively has the fully backing of the Tegradian Workers' Party. The opposition parties of the legislature, while nominally opposed to the government are either to enfeebled to operate effectively as opposition or are on the government's paycheck.
Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[Prosperon]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The People's Republic of Prosperon
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 1985
3. Year of Establishment: 1985
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1985
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Head Chairman Adalius Nova
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): The Ruling Council
7. Name of Judiciary: The Tribunal

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

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

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[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.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[X] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[X] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Terminal Border]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: the Terminal Border
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1981
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): N/A
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): N/A
7. Name of Judiciary: N/A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? To provide some context, the Terminal Border is a violent anarchy with no functioning government, legal system, judiciary, taxation or public services whatsoever. The territory is dominated by mercenary groups and militias fighting for control; it is literal arbitrary rule, enforced through violence. None of the active armed groups actually hold a sizeable amount of the total territory, and many areas have no basic authority at all.

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

[Thermodolia]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The National Republic of Thermodolia
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1898
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1897 (Last amended 1994)
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President Jacob Zarman (United Thermodolia), Prime Minister Derak Gœs (Democratic Socialists)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Federal Parliament of Thermodolia (Upper House: Federal Senate, Lower House: National Assembly)
7. Name of Judiciary: Constitutional Court of Thermodolia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? The Judicial system is highly independent with the President only appointing the members of the Constitutional Court with approval from the Federal Senate. The rest of the judicial system is appointed by the Constitutional Court with approval from the Federal Senate.

Thermodolia currently bans Nazi and Communist parties from participating in any elections and bans those who belong to cults the ability to stand for election.

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

[Lillorainen]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Federation of Lillorainen.
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020.
3. Year of Establishment: 1981.
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 Silas Flemming (Meritocratic Unity Party).
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): The Meritocratic Council & the Chamber of States (bicameral legislature).
7. Name of Judiciary: Federal 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): Appointed by the Meritocratic Council (whose members appoint each other based on the results of a comprehensive examination on knowledge and personal merits for society), approved by the Chamber of States (which consists of democratically elected representatives of the State Governments). This process is generally fair, open and transparent to the people. One can say, it's kind of semi-democratic, but not democratic in a narrow sense of the term.
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[X] Other (please explain): The President shares power with the Ministers, which are appointed by the Meritocratic Council as well. In addition, the 14 States have reasonable executive and legislative power as well, within the constitutional framework.

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 one-party parliamentary meritocracy with reasonable checks and balances on both national and regional level.
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).
[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?
Nothing I could think of. Just in case, I gave a brief description of my nation's system in this post, outlining the way separation of powers generally works in Lillorainen, should anything above remain unclear.

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

[Lillorainen]

(EDIT: Apologies for the double-post ...)

[Icadias]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Queendom of Icadias
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1933
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1937
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Anastasia Kolsk, Lady of the Elite Council (Prime Minister) [Centre Party]
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Elite Council
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court

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

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

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[X] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[ ] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] 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?
[ ] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ ] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[X] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

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

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

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

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

[Mobius and the Biscay]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Kingdom of Mobius and the Biscay
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1976
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1977
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Monarch: His Majesty King Myles (Apolitical); Prime Minister: The Most Honourable Geoffrey St. John (People's Democratic Party)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Jesston State Hall; House of Peers (Upper); House of Congress (Lower)
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court of Mobius

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 monarch is elected for life in a free direct instant runoff vote, the candidate pool consists exclusively of descendants of the first king (Myles). Candidates can opt-out if they wish. The prime minister is the leader of the ruling party which gets its power in a free direct party-list proportional representation vote.
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? The monarch can establish a royal dictatorship in a time of severe crisis. Of course, the monarch is expected to dismantle the royal dictatorship once said crisis subsides, failure to do so will be met with a forced abdication and a snap monarchical election to elect a new one that won't preserve a royal dictatorship when there isn't a need for one. As such, no monarch ever dares to establish a royal dictatorship, leaving the problem-solving to the democratically-elected parliament.

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