[CLOSED] NSPoliteia: An Index of Democracy and Pluralism

[The United States of Paul]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Federal Republic of the United States of Paul
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 67
3. Year of Establishment: Year 0
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President Ginola Rakoto (Social Democratic Party)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Federal Legislature (Upper House: Federal Senate | Lower House: Federal Assembly)
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.
[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? Federal Judges are appointed by the system of merit selection, with the president being the appointment authority.

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

[Logon]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: United Duchies of Logon
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1866
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1920
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): King Jacob III and Chancellor O'Curry
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): National Parliament, House of Dukes (Upper House) and United Assembly (Lower House)
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)
[ 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?
[ X ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ X ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ X ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] 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.
[ 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): The Chancellor is formally appointed by the King, but the King asks for a recommendation from the United Assembly, and appoints their "recommendation"

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?
[ ] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ X ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ X ] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

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

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

[Nordhagan]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Confederated Cantons of Nordhagan
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1869
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1869
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Consul James Ryan (Conservative- Diacook Canton), Consul Joseph Ericsson (Christian Democratic- Lueur Canton) and Consul Julianna Landrose (Populist- Glyphidia Canton)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Tricameral, Confederal Congress, houses are Cantonal Council, House of Delegates, and Senate. All are equal in power, no lower/upper house.
7. Name of Judiciary: Constitutional Court

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

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

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[ X ] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] 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): Each house picks a Consul. While the House of Delegates is elected, the Cantonal Council is appointed by the Cantonal governments (which are themselves elected) and the Senate is 1/3 appointed by Cantonal Executives and 2/3 appointed by the House of Delegates.
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.
[ X ] Other (please explain): The Consuls are in general weak indvidually but very strong when united on an issue, and appoint the various ministers of government together, but the Cabinet mostly acts as an advisor/carrying out orders, with very little decision making power.

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

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

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

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

[Paleo-Siberia]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Nomadic Peoples of Paleo-Siberia
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 2005
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 2005
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Chieftain Urgytok Markdyivasckop
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): The Two Councils, consisting of the Council of Tribal Elders and The Council of Tribesmen.
7. Name of Judiciary: N/A, the Council of Tribal Elders handles judiciary functions.

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

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

1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[X] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[ ] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[X ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[X ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[X ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[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.
[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?
[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?
[ ] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[X ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[X ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ ] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

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

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

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

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

[New Englaland]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Commonwealth of New Englaland
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1204
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): N/A (uncodified)
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Cesar Siward V Barn, Firstthane Artem Honchar (National Conservative).
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Bicameral: Witanmoot (underhouse and overhouse)
7. Name of Judiciary: Deemerwick

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

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

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

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

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[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.)
[ ] 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 nation though closely related to English parliamentarianism and constitutional monarchism is somewhat divergent of it, and incorporates other regional and philosophical influences. There are subtle influences of Czarism and Late Roman Imperialism, which among other factors has lead to the power of the ruling family being durable. The nation also has heavy classical republican and other related influences (such as classical philosophy), taking the idea of civic participation, civic duty and other concepts to be important, thus allowing in some cases for greater freedom in citizens in other areas, while restricting it in others. Though the tendency is towards greater freedom, and inculcating mindsets that it believes truly frees citizens (e.g you are not free, if you are enslaved to your passions) and of course also makes them good as citizens so thus attempts to teach a modern form of liberal arts and other arts important to the citizen [including a level of moral and ethical education (even if it might lead to them going contrary to more accepted norms such as authoritarianism through their own free choice)] and mandates conscription (or civil service) as the duty for all citizens (for the same reason as civic education). So thus it uses means that can be considered authoritarian to achieve outcomes which might be considered less than authoritarian. Finally, given the national values being similar in many regards to the Anglosphere and its classical republican and philosophical leanings it takes the concept of mixed government seriously, not just to have separation of power (and to limit accumulation of it) but also to share power as widely as possible and that even though it might be unevenly distributed everyone has a place at the table (and to of course avoid class, and other factional conflict). For this reason, the middle class tends to be encouraged (through social and economic policy among other things), since they are seen as being the least likely to foment discord with other segments of the population and in general tend to be better citizens. The judiciary though independent and free of undue influence has had checks placed upon it to prevent it from improperly encroaching on the power of other institutions. And though largely a capitalist mixed-market economy, the nation due to its ideological concerns (such as unity, liberty, and the importance of the middle class) takes influence from economic theories such as distributism, social credit, and some milder forms of socialism.

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

[Wrna]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Wrna Republic
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1751-1940; 1947
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1947
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Prime Minister Bran de Werg {Zentrumdemokratisch/Konservative Partei)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater):Landes-Diet
7. Name of Judiciary: no official name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is anybody actually updating the lists?

[Bagong Luzon]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Kingdom of New Luzon (TL: Kaharian ng Bagong Luzon)
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): AD 2020
3. Year of Establishment: AD 1988
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): N/A
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): King Ferdinand II
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Royal Assembly
7. Name of Judiciary: Royal Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[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 results are selected to be as close to reality as possible: nobles, for example, oversee their territories in the name of the King, subject to a hierarchy where lesser nobles report to their superiors. The noblemen who hold the title of Count are a special case; the counts and countesses of the realm serve as members of the Royal Assembly, which performs many of the roles associated with a legislature subject to the King's assent.

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

[Ottomeme]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name:Ottomeme
2. Current Year (in YN's canon):2020
3. Year of Establishment:2009
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution):2012
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable):Vasiel Themeli
6. Name of Legislature: The People's National Legistlature (plus houses if bicameral or greater):
7. Name of Judiciary: The Judging Team

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

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

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

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

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[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.
[X] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[X] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.

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

[Orange-Nassau-Hesse]

*

[Santa Selena]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Libertarian Republic of Santa Selena
2. Current Year (in YN's canon):2020
3. Year of Establishment:1831 (Technically 57 AD but was annexed between 57 AD and 1831)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution):1891
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable):Sandre Maint (President)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): The Representative House (50 members) and the Selenan Board (210 members).
7. Name of Judiciary: The National Selenan 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.
[x] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[x] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[x] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[x] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

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

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

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Kingdom of the Prussian Realms
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1721
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1850
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): King/Chief Minister
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Prussian State Diet (House of Lords, House of Representatives),
7. Name of Judiciary: Prussian Judiciary

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

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

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

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

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[X] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[X] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] 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 -

[Indo States]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Fatimanian Federation
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1900 (Independence from Fatiman Empire) 2002 (Republic Proclaimed)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 2020
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President Jeannie Daza (Partido Social Democratico Fatinanya, Social Democratic), Vice President Camille Crimieliyev (Partido Nacionalista, Centrism and Fatimanic Nationalism), Prime Minister Alice Desnilla (Partido Social Democratico Fatinanya, Social Democratic)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): The Parliament, Senate (Upper House), Secretariat (Lower House)
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court of the Fatimanian Federation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[New Carthagea]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Constitutional Monarchy of New Carthagea
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1542
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1899
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): HM King Christophe II / PM Joseph Adhamanon ( Carthaginian Congress Party )
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): The Parliament ( Upper House, Lower House )
7. Name of Judiciary: The Judiciary

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

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

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

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

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[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 -

[Newenken]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Federal Republic of Newenken
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1955
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1957
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President (New Newenkenian Commitment party, member of the Together for Change alliance
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Newenken Legislature (unicameral)
7. Name of Judiciary: Newenken Judicial Branch

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.
[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.
[X] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.

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

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

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

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

[Piste-Land]

Short Announcement
All nations from Ratsirana to Newenken that have submitted their datasets so far have now been ranked, with two exceptions:
> Ottomeme (conflicting answers)
> Indo States/Fatimanian Federation (conflicting answers)

A new edition of NSPoliteia will commence development soon. Feel free to send a telegram if you have any suggestions.
--- NSPoliteia ---

[Nivesia]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Republic of Nivesia
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 1971
3. Year of Establishment: 1877
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1945
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President Andre Fortuin, Vice President James Albers
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): People's Consultative Assembly (Regional Representative Council, People's Representative Council)
7. Name of Judiciary: Supreme Court of Nivesia

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 was not completely 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?
As its a presidential republic, the three branches (executive, legislative, judicial) are co-equal and keeping check against each other.
There is one more independent branch in the same level as the three branch and it is "The Audit Board of Nivesia". Its a high state body which is responsible for evaluation of management and accountability of state finances conducted by the central Government of Nivesia.

The political parties are not ideology based as all of them are built around the national ideology, but instead they are issue-based and mass-based. All political parties are to adhere to the national ideology.

(OOC: its heavily based on Indonesian government)

2. A new edition of NSPoliteia will commence development soon. Any suggestions for it?
None as of now.

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

Edit 1: made correction to the leaders' name
Edit 2:adding more information to section V

[Anagonia]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name:
Confederate States of Anagonia
2. Current Year (in YN's canon):
104 AUR(After United Republic); 2090 AD(Anno Domini)
3. Year of Establishment:
0 AUR(After United Republic); 1986 AD(Anno Domini)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution):
Written: September 14th, 0 AUR; Signed into law: September 15th, 0 AUR
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable):
-President Franklin Johnson (100 AUR - Current)
-Vice President Edmond Goff (100 AUR - Current)
(NOTE: The President is both Chief of State and Head of Government under Constitutional Law)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater):
Grand Senate of the Confederacy
Grand House of Confederate Representatives
(As established under Section II - Legislative Branch of the Constitution of the Confederate States)
7. Name of Judiciary:
Supreme Court of the Confederacy
(As established under Section II - Judicial Branch of the Constitution of the Confederate States; Seven Chief Judges appointed by vote from citizens of all seven states, thereby approved by Legislature)

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 was not completely 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 tO the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[X] Other (please explain):
The primary function of the President is to oversee and accordingly resolve national issues and international issues that concern the nation. The Legislative Branch primary concern is passing laws that are accordingly gauged by each member-states Senator and Representative as important (Grand Congress concentrates on issues pertaining to all member-states, Grand House of Confederate Representatives concentrates on issues pertaining to each member-state). At no point is it established in the Constitution that both these branches are to interact - there may be rhetoric shared, the President does give speeches to the Grand Senate, but the President does not have veto power over the Grand Senate nor vice versa. Only the Confederate Military has veto power over any ruling branch of government, if such ruling branch violates the laws written and held sacred by the Constitution. The only branch that can reverse a Military Veto is the Judicial Branch, which exists independently from rule from all branches of government due to its unique responsibility.

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):
The Confederate States of Anagonia is a governing entity that exists to handle foreign and national issues an agreement between the seven states of the Confederate States. The central government, if it can be called that, does not have authority over internal affairs beyond the nation level as all seven states are technically their own countries still; each state has its own military, own government, own laws, et cetera. The central government exists as an agreement between all seven states to resolve disputes, provide a national identity, provide a national military, provide national upkeep of roads and other necessary maintenance, and provide funding for critical areas such as healthcare and education. As such, the national election takes place firstly on the state level, whereupon the votes are passed to the central government to be tallied. The majority votes count what state votes for what prospective President and their Vice President, and the majority vote is approved as the winning solution. In the case of a tie, a second election is held (elections are counted as holidays) whereupon the same process is repeated. If a third tie is held, the decision is granted to the Supreme Court of the Confederacy (one Chief Judge elected from each represented state) and a decision is finalized there.

In the extremely rare case that a decision sparks unrest, the military is authorized by the Constitution to maintain central government affairs until such time as the people have resolved said dispute.
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.)
[ ] 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?
General Information
The Confederate States political arena is open and diverse, and cannot by law exclude a citizen from this process. All groups of represented in the political system; communists, fascists, liberals, conservatives, and traditional confederates. The political system relies entirely on citizen participation to work. Under the Constitution, a person may not vote until such time as they have completed their four-year mandatory term of military service either voluntarily at 18 years of age or report for service by the age of 21. This ensures that all citizens partake in not only the defense of the nation as a whole, but also are granted experience that permits them a critical understanding of their necessary participation in the political process.

While the Confederate States does have a President, the President may not order the nation in such a fashion as to be a federal entity. This means that the political system within Anagonia is incredibly devolved, wherein the lowest points (the States themselves) have the highest autonomy. The President may order specific departments within the government and national military to undertake initiatives for the betterment of the nation, but he may not order the states specific departments and state military. The President is considered the highest Chief Executive of the nation and regularly meets with state elected leaders (and one Emperor of a State non-elected) to discuss how he can lead the national government to better the country as a whole.

If a state has any issues with the government or other states, such as water rights issues or national military obligations, they have every right and are encouraged to send their petitions and grievances to the Supreme Court of the Confederacy. The Supreme Court of the Confederacy is an independent government branch that has full authority and rights to resolve national and state-level issues with a final decision and ruling. All issues are encouraged to firstly be addressed through dialogue and diplomatic channels, with the Supreme Court seen as a last resort. This being the case, citizen cases traditionally are not seen by the Supreme Court, instead by their states equivalent. The Supreme Court of the Confederacy is usually tied up with petitions by states, obligated to keep the fragile Confederacy whole and moving and resolve quarrels of its member-states.

Civil Protection
Civil Protection, by law, is carried out by the Military Police within the Confederacy. It has long been believed that a military-based police force, obligated more to the defense of the People rather than the government itself, would better ease tensions within the nation as a whole. It was also believed that with military-grade training that a more professional and capable civil servant would be created who could abide by all laws provided.

During times of civil unrest, such as mass protests or general rebellion, the Military Police ensures that first and foremost the People are protected from all harm. According to the laws of the Confederacy, the People have all rights to protests publicly and privately any and all grievances to their government and/or relevant conditions. Normal procedure for unscheduled protests is to have a unit standby and protect private property while maintaining a distance from the protest in question. Should the protest get out of hand or become violent in any nature, it is the right of the MP to defend the people from harm and harming themselves. In such conditions the MP's will border off the protests and attempt to quell the violence in a diplomatic and peaceful manner. Should that fail, non-lethal force will be used to hamper any violence in the protests.

If a rebellion of any sort occurs in any city, county, state or region within the Confederacy the Military Police has the right to ensure that the people involved in the rebellion do not wish bodily harm upon their fellow man. If such a case is true, they will use aggressive non-lethal force to quell such rebellion. If lethal force is used against the MP during these times and no armored protection is capable of defending the MP or if a MP is injured, lethal force will be authorized under the law of "Protecting the Nation". Once said rebellion is quelled or calmed to a more proper diplomatic fashion, a council will be formed between the government and the People to address the issues that initiated the rebellion. The Military Police is required by law to moderate and oversee the meeting between the two parties and ensure that the People benefit the most from the outcome, so long as said outcome does not dissolve the Confederacy in any manner.

National Military
The Confederate States Military is under the operating procedures of securing and protecting the Continuity of Anagonia in whatever government form it may take. This was established not only by the Constitution of the Confederate States, but also the Articles of the Armed Forces of the Confederacy. Under the law of the Articles, the military may conduct actions that are deemed essential or in line with protecting national and citizen interest. The majority of their time is spent protecting international and domestic trade within and without the nation (Sea, Land, Air trade), as it is the most essential provider for the national economy. The military also conducts Secret Operations/Projects, as permitted by the Articles, which permits a ten year period of silence before such projects must be revealed to all citizens and the government.

The military also has the responsibility placed to it by the Articles that, if the central government disobeys the restrictions placed under it by law, the military shall step in and intercede to reestablish proper law. Once the government complies with the Constitution, the military shall return to its proper posting. This has led to confusion in the past, wherein an international visitor of proper acclaim noted the complete lack of any citizen without military training in the government. Therefore, wouldn't it make sense if the nation was a Stratocracy and already under military control? This is simply not the case, as active serving political officials (Senators, Judges, the President) cannot be serving in the military at the same time, as that would violate the Articles and Constitution concerning military intervention. This does not negate the possibility wherein the central government provides further control for the military through laws, if said government officials were inclined to do so, but even then the military would still be obligated to maintain a status quo - theoretically.
2. A new edition of NSPoliteia will commence development soon. Any suggestions for it?
First time ever doing this, it was real easy and simple. I say provide additional areas for input, but otherwise I understand the need to gauge answers bluntly instead of theoretically. Good job!
Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

Edit
forgot a question and answered it (Question 5 under Executive Recruitment)
Edit 2
Added in link to supporting documents
Edit 3
For Further Reference, here is a map of the country and a general outline

[Piste-Land]

Short Announcement
The nations of Nivesia and Anagonia, as well as the previously unclassifiable Indo States/Fatimanian Federation, have now been ranked.
--- NSPoliteia ---

[The Crapanese Empire]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Theocratic Genocidal Fascist War-Criminal Empire of Crapan
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2145, since it is when our history ends
3. Year of Establishment: 2068
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): N/A, constitutions are for degenerates
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Supreme Monarch: Emperor Yeerohito(sole autocratic monarch of Crapan)
His right hand man: Hideki Yoda(Commander of the Military, and advisor of Yeerohito)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): None
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)
[x] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[ ] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[x] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that was not completely freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[x] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[x] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[x] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

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

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

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

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

V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? We are like Imperial Japan but much more autocratic, I.e. there is no prime minister, only an Emperor and his military advisors.

2. A new edition of NSPoliteia will commence development soon. Any suggestions for it? Maybe involve something about atrocities done by the government or totalitarian control over personal freedom. Or if the government is at war with another country(slaughtering civilians for fun maybe).

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

[Shiatoru]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The United Socialist States of Shiatoru
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1983
4. Year when current constitution was adopted: 1983
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s): Chairwoman Eliza Mann
6. Name of Legislature: People's Representative Council
7. Name of Judiciary: People's 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 was not completely freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[X] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

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

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[X] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[X] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[X] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ ] 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.
[X] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied ALL political rights.
[ ] 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?
As a socialist nation, Shiatoru currently bans political parties right of center-left politics. This is not set to change in the foreseeable future.

2. A new edition of NSPoliteia will commence development soon. Any suggestions for it?
N/A

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

[Tilam]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

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

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

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

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

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

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[x] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] 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.
[x] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[x] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[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 applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?

2. A new edition of NSPoliteia will commence development soon. Any suggestions for it?

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

[Greatdux]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Greatduxian Unified Republic
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1990
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 2004
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): His Supreme Excellency Lukas Tillinic
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): National Council
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 was not completely freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[x] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[x] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[x] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

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

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

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

1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?
[ ] ALL opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] 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?

2. A new edition of NSPoliteia will commence development soon. Any suggestions for it?

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

[Hesperie]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The United Kingdom of Hesperie
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020 AD
3. Year of Establishment: 1832 AD
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1834 AD(Heavily amended in 1859 and 1871)
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): King Louis IV, Premier Jean-François, Baron de Lisée
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Parliament of Hesperie/Upper House: Senate, Lower House: Chamber of Deputies
7. Name of Judiciary: Royal Judiciary of Hesperie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Senate is composed of hereditary peerages(appointed to the Senate orignally by the monarch) and appointments by the monarch selected through indirect election, though the monarch can appointment anyone he wishes to the Senate without taking into account the selections of the electors. The premier ministre can also advise or recommend to the monarch appointments to the senate, though this practice has become rare today. The senate is limited to 335 members.

The Monarchy of Hesperie follows a set of uncodifed laws regarding matters such as succession. According to these laws, the throne is to be passed in primogeniture from male to male, with those eligible also required to be catholic, a member of the royal house, and not from a female line. A person is legally considered monarch immediately following the death of the previous monarch. In the event of the absence or minority of the monarch, a Lieutenant-General of the Kingdom(Regent) is to be appointed by either the Sovereign Council of State or previous from previous appointment by decree of the monarch.

The Sovereign Council of State is the name given to a judiciary and advisory body to the executive. The Council serves as the supreme court on administrative matters as well as administering the realm and giving advice to the monarch on administrative and legal matters. The Council is comprised of the ministers of Hesperie as well as numerous councilors and experts appointed to the council. The Council also features a number of ceromonial positions with little actual power, such as that of the Crown Prince. The Council has some power to it, being able to veto decisions of the monarch and appoint a Lieutenant-General of the Kingdom. The Council is headed by the Monarch and presided over by the premier ministre.
2. A new edition of NSPoliteia will commence development soon. Any suggestions for it?
N/A
Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -

[North Alezia]

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Federation of North Alezia
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1958
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 2020
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Premier (name: Sa'ada Mutakfalaina)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): National Parliament
7. Name of Judiciary: Judiciary Court of North Alezia

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 was not completely freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] Other (please explain):
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[X ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] Other (please explain):

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

1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[X ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] Other (please explain):
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[X ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[X] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[ ] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[X ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[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-
2. A new edition of NSPoliteia will commence development soon. Any suggestions for it?
-none-
Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -