NATION

PASSWORD

NSPoliteia: An Index of Democracy and Pluralism

A place to put national factbooks, embassy exchanges, and other information regarding the nations of the world. [In character]
User avatar
Piste-Land
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Aug 30, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

NSPoliteia: An Index of Democracy and Pluralism

Postby Piste-Land » Mon May 25, 2020 2:08 am

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


Methodology
NSPoliteia groups nations into democracies, autocracies, and anocracies (a mix of the two previous classifications) using a 21-point system based on the characteristics of their political systems. The three main political aspects to be evaluated are as follows:
  • The openness of executive recruitment,
  • The degree of constraints on executive power, and
  • The openness of political participation and competition.
These three are further subdivided into concepts, such as competitive election and inheritance for executive recruitment, which are used to describe a nation's current political situation in that aspect. Each concept is assigned a number of Democracy (D) and Autocracy (A) points, which determine the presence and absence of democratic qualities in a nation's political system respectively.
Here are the different Concepts for each aspect:
Concept 1: Inheritance (+3 A points)
  • The office of chief executive is passed down by hereditary sucession.
  • Typically includes traditional and absolute monarchies, as well as de facto hereditary republics such as real-life North Korea in which the position of chief executive has been passed down over three or more generations.
  • Does NOT include constitutional and parliamentary monarchies with a prime minister, unless said prime minister is virtually powerless.
  • Does NOT include authoritarian self-declared monarchies, unless the self-declared monarch is succeeded by a relative as ruler.
Concept 2: Inheritance + Designation (+3 A points)
  • The office of chief executive is shared between a hereditary monarch and a prime minister designated by authoritarian means.
  • Typically includes authoritarian constitutional monarchies wherein the prime minister is a member of a hegemonic faction that controls the government.
  • Does NOT include authoritarian constitutional monarchies wherein the monarch is merely a figurehead (code Concept 3).
  • Does NOT include authoritarian 'constitutional' monarchies wherein the prime minister is virtually powerless (code Concept 1).
Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)
  • The office of chief executive is determined by non-violent informal competition within a closed authoritarian regime.
  • Typically includes one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, and authoritarian pseudo-democracies with rigged and/or show elections. Elective monarchies in which the monarch is selected by a council of nobles or other unelected assembly are coded here as well.
  • Also includes closed authoritarian regimes wherein factions agree to rotate power on a regular basis.
  • Does NOT include recently-established military dictatorships wherein the current chief executive came to power via a coup (code Concept 4).
Concept 4: Self-Selection (no points)
  • The office of chief executive was recently determined by a forceful, though not necessarily violent, seizure of power (e.g. a coup).
  • Typically includes recently-established military dictatorships wherein the current chief executive came to power via a coup.
  • Even if the coup leader attempts to legitimize their rule via implementing procedures for transfers of power, as long as they retain de facto power, their nation will be coded here. If said procedures are democratic, have been firmly established, and drawn out over the course of more than 2 years but the coup leader still remains in power, it may be coded as Concept 5.
  • Does NOT include mass-based social revolutions such as the Russian and French revolutions.
  • Does NOT include entrenched military regimes wherein a regular transfer of power has already taken place.
  • Does NOT include situations wherein a leader selected by normal means resigns due to international pressure or a failed coup.
Concept 5: Executive-Guided Transition (no points)
  • The office of chief executive was determined by autocratic means, whether inheritance, designation, or self-selection via coup.
  • The chief executive has begun to establish procedures for a (at least nominally) democratic and orderly transition of power, though they have not stepped down yet, whether formally or de facto.
  • The transition, however, is dominated by the executive and their supporting institutions, and involvement by opposition groups and other non-executive forces is restricted.
  • If the chief executive formally steps down according to the newly-established set of procedures but continues to dominate the political arena as a de facto leader, it is coded here.
Concept 6: Inheritance + Election (+2 D points)
  • The office of chief executive is shared between a hereditary monarch and a democratically elected, whether directly or indirectly, prime minister.
  • Typically includes constitutional monarchies wherein the prime minister normally heads executive discussion, but the monarch still retains a considerable amount of real power.
  • Does NOT include parliamentary constitutional monarchies wherein the monarch is merely a figurehead with symbolic powers (code Concept 7 or 8 depending on how fair the elections are).
  • Does NOT include 'constitutional' monarchies wherein the prime minister is overshadowed by the monarch or virtually powerless (code Concept 1).
  • Does NOT include constitutional monarchies wherein the prime minister has considerable power, but is designated by a weak or rubber-stamp legislature (code Concept 2).
Concept 7: Restricted Elections (+2 D points)
  • The office of chief executive is determined by free, though not fair direct or indirect elections plagued by considerable, though not insurmountable, problems.
  • If the elections are deemed to be free, but not fair by domestic and international observers or these observers are barred from monitoring the elections, it is coded here.
  • If the executive or various unelected groups such as the military attempt to influence, but not rig, the elections, it is coded here.
  • If the executive is elected indirectly via an unelected assembly (at least 25% of it is unelected), it is coded here.
  • If the elections take place in an environment of widespread civil unrest or under the military supervision of a UN equivalent or regional peace organization, it is coded here.
  • If the elections are completely rigged or just for show, it is NOT coded here (code Concept 3).
Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
  • The office of chief executive is determined by free and fair elections, whether direct or indirect, which are typically free from major obstacles.
  • If the elections are verified to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers or independent electoral commissions, it is coded here.
  • If the executive or various unelected groups such as the military attempt to influence, but not rig, the elections, it is NOT coded here (code Concept 7).
  • If the elections take place in an environment of widespread civil unrest or under the military supervision of a UN equivalent or regional peace organization, it is NOT coded here (code Concept 7).
  • If a major opposition party or group boycotts the election for strategic reasons or as a political protest, it is NOT coded here (code Concept 7).

Concept 1: Unlimited Executive Authority (+3 A points)
  • There are no regular limitations on the chief executive's actions, unlike irregular limitations such as threat of coups and assassinations. Rule by decree is repeatedly used.
  • The judiciary is completely devoid of independence, and the legislature, if it exists, is either powerless or completely subservient to the executive's wishes.
  • Typically includes absolute monarchies and personalistic dictatorships. One-party states and military dictatorships may be included, but only if the regime's structure simply serves the chief executive's wishes.
  • If the democratically-elected executive is granted sweeping powers by an assembly to deal with a national emergency then relents this power after it has passed, it is NOT coded here, unless these emergency powers have been in effect for more than two years.
Concept 2: Slight Limitations (+2 A points)
  • Typically used to document a change from Concept 1 to Concept 3 or vice versa within the span of 10 years.
  • Examples include a monarch establishing a weak consultative assembly (Concept 1 to 3) or the leader of a hegemonic party beginning to consolidate their power over the party apparatus (Concept 3 to 1).
Concept 3: Slight to Moderate Limitations (+1 A point)
  • There are real but limited constraints on the executive.
  • For example, the legislature or party council might occasionally initiate some pieces of legislation.
  • Typically includes strong, institutionalized one-party states (unless they are dominated by a single individual) and long-standing military juntas in which numerous military officers have held the office of chief executive.
  • Can also include 'democratic-authoritarians' or democratically-elected leaders who thoroughly dominate their political systems, with the legislature and judiciary being clearly subordinate to their wishes.
Concept 4: Moderate Limitations (+1 D point)
  • Typically indicates a transition between Concepts 3 and 5, one way or the other, in the span of ten years.
  • Can be used to document the tightening of restrictions on the executive in a previously autocratic regime (3 to 5) or the further weakening of checks and balances in a democratic system that already grants significant powers to the chief executive (5 to 3).
Concept 5: Substantial Limitations (+2 D points)
  • The executive has more effective authority than accountability groups such as legislatures and party councils, but are substantially constrained by them.
  • For example, the legislature may occasionally refuse funds to the executive or modify strike down their proposals.
  • Democratic systems which grant a significant amount of power to the executive, e.g. strong presidential regimes, are typically coded here. These may be created by design or are a result of the legislature being unable to effectively restrict the executive branch. While parliamentary systems are not exempt from being coded here, it is far less common for them to be so.
  • If the chief executive completely dominates the judiciary but is effectively restricted by the legislature, it is coded here.
Concept 6: Approaching Parity (+3 D points)
  • Typically indicates a transition between Concepts 5 and 7, one way or the other, in a span of 10 years.
  • This can be used to depict a situation wherein a democratically-elected chief executive is temporarily granted emergency powers by a powerful legislature in order to cope with a national emergency.
  • In semi-presidential systems wherein both the president and prime minister are granted significant powers, this can be used to depict periods where both are from the same party.
Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
  • In most political activity, accountability groups such as the legislature and judiciary have a degree of power equal to or greater than the executive.
  • The legislature is responsible for initiating most or all important legislation.
  • The chief executive is chosen by the accountability group and dependent on its continued support to remain in office, as in most parliamentary systems.
  • Most mature, consolidated democracies are coded here.

Concept 1: Repressed Competition (+4 A points)
  • The nation is institutionally closed, both officially and de facto. No significant political activity is permitted outside of the ranks of the hegemonic regime.
  • The hegemonic regime bans and suppresses ALL opposition groups, regardless of size or organization.
  • The regime has both the capacity and willingness to suppress and exclude opponents from the political arena.
  • If the regime cannot effectively suppress oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion for more than 5 years, it is NOT coded here (code Concept 2).
  • Typically included are totalitarian one-party states, military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, and despotic absolute monarchies.
Concept 2: Restricted Competition (+3 A points)
  • The nation is institutionally closed, though it need not be officially so. Some organized political activity is permitted outside of the regime's ranks, but they are systematically limited.
  • The hegemonic regime bans and suppresses MAJOR opposition groups. Minor opposition groups are typically permitted to operate on a limited scale.
  • If all political parties are outlawed but limited independent oppositional activity is permitted, it is coded here. However, if these 'independents' are merely a front for the ruling regime, it is coded as Concept 1.
  • If the regime allows major opposition forces to organize but not participate in the electoral process, it is coded here.
  • If the regime allows major opposition forces to participate in the electoral processes but systematically suppresses them (e.g. leaders killed or jailed, candidates regularly ruled off ballots, opposition media harassed), it is coded here.
  • If the regime aims to suppress all oppositional activity but is unable to do so, as manifested by mass protests and acts of rebellion for more than 5 years, it is coded here.
  • If 20% or more of the population is denied all political rights, it is coded here. However, if they are allowed limited political rights, less than 20% are denied all political rights, or they are allowed all political rights but nonetheless face severe harassment and intimidation, it is not coded here (code Concept 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 depending on the extent of exclusion and the size of the group).
  • Typically included are one-party states, military regimes, some personalistic dictatorships, and authoritarian monarchies, as well as some illiberal democracies with a considerable authoritarian streak.
Concept 3: Authoritarian-Guided Liberalization/Deepening Hegemonic Control (+2 A points)
  • Typically used to denote a transition from Concepts 1 or 2 to Concept 6 or 7, or vice versa, over the span of 10 years.
  • For example, a formerly hegemonic regime decides to open up to limited and typically factional competition (Concept 1 or 2 to Concept 6 or 7), or a weak illiberal democracy plagued by factionalism transforms into a fully-fledged authoritarian regime which systematically represses oppositional activity (Concept 6 or 7 to Concept 1 or 2).
Concept 4: Unregulated Competition (no points)
  • Political participation can be described as decentralized and unregulated, typically revolving around various personalities, regional interests, ethnic or religious groups, and clans. It can be likened to tribalism, feudalism, and 'traditional' societies.
  • The central authority is generally weak and national organizations and institutions such as political parties are either weak or non-existent.
  • These systems are most likely to be found following the collapse of central authority in a resource-poor authoritarian state in the wake of decolonization.
  • If the central government's authority does not extend to more than half of the nation's territory, an interregnum (see the Special Cases category) classification would be more appropriate as it would denote the complete breakdown of central authority.
Concept 5: Gradual Transition from Unregulated Competition (no points)
  • Typically used to denote a transition from unregulated forms of political participation (Concept 4) to more stable and rigid systems.
  • Also typically used to denote the gradual consolidation of power by a formerly weak central authority, as well as the formation of stable national organizations and institutions such as political parties.
  • If a central government re-emerges in the wake of foreign occupation or a state failure (e.g. civil war or anarchy) and gradually reorganizes political authority and political competition with the support of state institutions, it is coded here.
  • If the aforementioned re-emerging central government uses its powers to limit the formation and expression of political interests and perspectives, it should be coded as Concept 3 instead.
Concept 6: Restricted Factional Competition (+1 D point, +1 A point)
  • More or less the same as open factional competition (Concept 7), though it is more restrictive and entails greater levels of government recognition of group differences and promotion of exclusionary ideologies.
  • These nations typically swing back and forth more or less regularly between intense factionalism and faction-based restrictions. An example is that when one of the contending factions seizes power, it uses that power to promote its exclusive interests and reward group members while marginalizing other contending factions until it is displaced in turn.
  • It is more restrictive than open factional competition (Concept 7) which it has a lot in common with, but less restrictive than restricted competition (Concept 2).
  • If less than 20% of the population are denied all political rights, it is coded here. If 20% or more are excluded, however, it is coded as Concept 2.
  • If the regime cannot effectively deny political access to these groups, it is coded as Concept 7.
  • If the excluded groups, regardless of size, are allowed limited political rights, it is coded here, or as Concepts 7 or 8.
  • While it is not impossible for democratic political systems to have restricted factional competition, a rule of thumb is that restricted factional competition is more likely to be associated with authoritarian systems, while open factional competition is more likely to be associated with democratic systems.
Concept 7: Open Factional Competition (+1 D point)
  • Relatively stable and enduring factions such as political parties and ethnic groups regularly compete for influence at the national level, but they tend to promote particularist and narrow-minded agendas in an uncompromising manner with limited social integration. Thus, competition between them is often intense, antagonistic, hostile, and coercive.
  • It is distinguished by a relative balance of group capabilities that prevents any one of the contending factions from gaining control of the state apparatus, and can also arise when the state is a relatively autonomous entity attempting to broker peace between these factions.
  • Elections are deemed by international and domestic observers to be free but not fair, and the electoral process is constantly plagued by partisan-based violence.
  • The government attempts to use its institutional powers to interfere with the outcome of the electoral process.
  • The political arena may either be dominated by numerous fractionalized parties/factions or a few major parties, but as long as they promote polarizing ideologies and compete in a fierce, antagonistic manner, it is coded here.
  • Major parties are sectarian and/or personalistic in character or a secular, progressive regime attempts to control and limit, but not prohibit, the activities of sectarian groups.
Concept 8: Political Liberalization/Democratic Retrenchment with Persistent Coercion (+2 D points, +1 A point)
  • Typically used to document relatively coercive and/or restrictive transitions from factional competition (Concept 6 or 7) to institutionalized competitive participation (Concept 10) or vice versa over the span of ten years.
  • Often found in nations wherein political participation is characteristically unconsolidated in an otherwise democratic system, such as those with relatively shallow democratic roots.
  • Is generally the same as Concept 9, but with a greater degree of force and coercion present in the system. For example, the electoral process may be marred by systematic though limited partisan-based violence.
Concept 9: Political Liberalization/Democratic Retrenchment with Limited Coercion (+2 D points)
  • May be used to document relatively peaceful transitions from factional competition (Concept 6 or 7) to institutionalized competitive participation (Concept 10), though not necessarily within the span of 10 years.
  • Elections are deemed to be free, but not necessarily fair, by domestic and international observers. The electoral process is stained by sporadic and/or limited partisan-based violence.
  • May be used to depict the early years of a democratic transition wherein previously-moribund or newly-formed weak parties revolving around specific personalities, issues, affiliations, or nationalism compete for power or the former hegemonic party continues to dominate the electoral process due to its established, superior organizational and financial resources.
  • If a single party dominates the executive and legislative branches continuously for an extended period of time (e.g. 15-20 years) and opposition parties pose no real electoral threat to the dominant party and do not actively challenge their policies and/or face minor institutional barriers to competing in the electoral arena, it is coded here.
  • If the government attempts to interfere with, but not rig, the outcome of the electoral process without the overt use of repression or establishes unreasonable minimum vote thresholds for inclusion in the legislature, it is coded here.
  • If all major domestic groups have full political rights but some minor groups face significant obstacles to political participation, it is coded here.
  • If numerous parties (e.g. more than 10) regularly contest national elections and most are fluid in nature (e.g. here one election, gone the next), it is coded here. However, depending on the degree of coercion and factionalism present in the system, it may be more appropriately coded as Concept 6, 7, or 8.
  • If the major parties have traditionally been personalistic and/or sectarian in character but are intentionally making efforts to institutionalize their organizational structures and/or evolve into ideology and mass-based parties, it is coded here.
  • If the nation holds democratic elections but nonetheless is plagued by common, but not systematic, violations of civil liberties, it is coded here. Some examples of human rights abuses are: media/literature censorship, restrictions on the content of public discussion, limits on freedom of assembly and demonstration, military and/or police brutality, unjustified imprisonment, a draconian criminal code, constraints on labor and/or business organizations, and restrictions on religious practice, property rights, travel, choice of residence, and so forth.
Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
  • Relatively stable and enduring political groups such as political parties regularly compete for political influence with little to no use of coercion. No significant political and cultural groups, issues, or types of conventional political actions are regularly excluded.
  • Often found in stable, consolidated democratic systems wherein political competition and participation in the electoral arena has been fully institutionalized and regulated.
  • Political parties, especially major ones, are ideology and/or issue-based and cross-cutting rather than personalistic, narrow-minded, and/or sectarian.
  • Human rights and civil liberties are generally well-respected.
  • National elections are deemed by international and domestic observers to be both free and fair.
  • A regular rotation of power between competing parties is not necessary for a nation to be coded here. If a single party continuously dominates the government for more than 15-20 years and opposition parties pose little to no threat to it, but continue to actively challenge their policies and face no significant institutional barriers to competition and participation, the nation is coded here.
  • All domestic groups must have equal institutional opportunities to access the political process, though certain groups may dominate the political agenda. Group claims for self-determination and/or autonomy do not have to be satisfied to be coded here, but if the government resorts to repression to quell these demands or the groups resort to force to pursue their claims, it is NOT coded here, but rather as Concept 6, 7, 8, or 9.
  • If numerous parties (e.g. more than 10) regularly contest national elections, it may be a sign that political competition has not been institutionalized. If these parties are fragile/unstable and/or factional in nature, the nation is NOT coded here. However, if these parties are durable and not prone to factionalism, the nation may be coded here.
  • If the major parties are personalistic in character, revolving around dominant personalities rather than ideological platforms, it may be a sign that political competition has not been institutionalized. However, if personalistic parties have evolved into ideology-based or issue-based organizations over time or a personalistic leader rises from within the ranks of a firmly-established and existing organization, the polity may be coded here.
  • If the major parties are sectarian in character, revolving around exclusive ethnic, racial, religious, and/or regional social networks (to the exclusion of other social networks), the nation is NOT coded here. This environment is much more likely to be featured in nations coded as Concept 6, 7, 8, or 9, depending on the degree of party exclusiveness and the extensiveness of inter-group conflict in the nation.
  • If the political environment is dominated by class-based parties that actively compete in the electoral process but the use of non-party class instruments such as labor unions, police, and paramilitary groups to coerce and intimidate opposition forces, the nation is NOT coded here.
  • If the major parties are mass-based and secular in nature and actively seek to limit the political activities of sectarian and other non-mass-based political parties and/or movements, this may indicate factional (Concept 6 or 7) than institutionalized competitive (Concept 10) competition.
  • If the nation holds free and fair elections but nonetheless experiences significant violations of civil liberties, it is unlikely to be coded here. The systematic violation of civil liberties is a form of restriction on participation and the suppression of dissent, despite the existence of widespread political rights. However, under certain special conditions a restriction of civil liberties may occur in any political system. If the restrictions are consistent and short-lived rather than capricious or concentrated against certain members of opposition groups, the nation may be coded here.


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

Under the NSPoliteia classification system, nations are classified into five distinct main categories. They are:
  • NSPoliteia Score Range: 10
  • Description:
    Nations grouped under the Full Democracy category have mature, entrenched pluralistic political systems with a healthy degree of democratic competition between parties for public office. Chief executives are elected in open, transparent elections, there are little to no problems interfering with the political process, and the executive branch's powers are balanced out by an active legislature and independent judiciary.
  • Real-Life Example: Norway (10), Canada (10)

  • NSPoliteia Score Range: 6–9
  • Description:
    Nations grouped under the Democracy category have relatively durable pluralistic political systems with a reasonable degree of democratic competition between parties, though problems such as sporadic political violence, antagonistic factionalism, and a relative lack of constraints on the executive are present.
  • Real-Life Examples: India (9), Brazil (8)

  • NSPoliteia Score Range: 1–5
  • Description:
    Nations grouped under the Open Anocracy category typically possess a relatively weak but still adequately democratic political system with a slight authoritarian streak. They are typically plagued by violent, irregular, or loosely restricted competition between factions, an imbalance of power favoring the executive, internal turmoil, and/or other impediments to democratic procedures. Open anocracies straddle the line between democracy and autocracy, though they lean further towards democracy than their closed peers.
  • Real-Life Example: Ecuador (5), Russia (4)

  • NSPoliteia Score Range: (-5)–0
  • Description:
    Nations grouped under the Closed Anocracy category typically possess a weak, barely democratic system that has been largely compromised by autocratic threats such as restricted competition in the politcal arena, often by a dominant party, an imbalance of power heavily favoring the executive typically combined with a weak or sharply divided legislature and an ineffective judiciary, internal turmoil, a closed system of executive recruitment, and/or other impediments to electoral democratic procedures. Closed anocracies straddle the line between democracy and autocracy, though they possess a greater authoritarian streak than their open peers.
  • Real-Life Examples: Turkey (-4), Egypt (-4)

  • NSPoliteia Score Range: (-10)–(-6)
  • Description:
    Nations grouped under the Autocracy category either have an extremely weak and superficial pseudo-democratic system or none at all. Their political systems are deeply authoritarian, with opposition generally being heavily suppressed by the hegemonic regime. Virtually all political power resides with the executive, with the legislature being either an extremely weak rubber stamp or nonexistent, and the judiciary being completely powerless. Chief executives are typically recruited via informal competition within the hegemonic party or military cabal, self-selection via coup, or inheritance within a firmly established royal bloodline.
  • Real-Life Examples: China (-7), Saudi Arabia (-10)

Interruption/Occupation
  • Description: Nations classified as being in a state of interruption are completely under the rule or occupation of a foreign power, such as in times of war. This classification is applied until the nation in question is liberated or a new government is established.
Interregnum/State Failure
  • Description: Nations classified as being in a state of interregnum have suffered a complete collapse of central authority, in which more than half of their territory is under control of factions fighting against each other for dominance. Situations like these typically arise in times of widespread civil war or ethnic conflict. This classification is applied until the central authority regains control of the nation's entire territory or a faction triumphs and establishes a new, stable government.

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

With all that said, here is the NSPoliteia Questionnaire. Answer honestly. NS stats do not have to be used.
For a better-informed decision, try reading the different Concepts included above.
Code: Select all
[spoiler=YOUR NATION NAME HERE][color=#FF8000][size=150][b][u][i]The NSPoliteia Questionnaire[/i][/u][/b][/size][/color]

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

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

[u]II. Executive Recruitment[/u]
[color=#FF8000]Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.[/color]
[spoiler][b]1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)[/b]
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[ ] No.
[b]2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive ([i]de facto[/i] leader) chosen?[/b]
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] [i]De facto[/i] inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. [i]de facto[/i] inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] [u]Other (please explain)[/u]:
[b]3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?[/b]
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free [u]and[/u] fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are [u]not allowed[/u] to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
[b]4. Under what conditions were the elections held?[/b]
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
[b]5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?[/b]
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] [u]Other (please explain):[/u][/spoiler]

[u]III. Executive Constraints[/u]
[color=#FF8000]Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.[/color]
[spoiler][b]1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?[/b]
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[ ] [u]Other (please explain):[/u]
[b]2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?[/b]
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
[b]3. Is there an independent judiciary?[/b]
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
[b]4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?[/b]
[ ] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
[b]5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?[/b]
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[ ] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.[/spoiler]

[u]IV. Political Participation and Competition[/u]
[color=#FF8000]Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.[/color]
[spoiler][b]1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?[/b]
[ ] [u]ALL[/u] opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] [u]MOST[/u] opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress [u]ALL[/u] opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[ ] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
[b]2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?[/b]
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied [u]ALL[/u] political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied [u]ALL[/u] political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[ ] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.[/spoiler]

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

[color=#FF8000]Well done! You have now completed the [u]NSPoliteia Questionnaire.[/u][/color]
[color=#FF8000]- END OF DOCUMENT -[/color][/spoiler]

NOTE: A nation's factbooks and other sources of national information may be used as additional sources to help determine their Concepts.
Note to new applicants: Try explaining your political system further in Section V in order to make your score easier to determine, as some answers are vague and/or conflicting. Try reading the Concepts as well.
Last edited by Piste-Land on Thu Jun 11, 2020 7:33 am, edited 7 times in total.
NOTE: This nation's official name is the Republic of Goldonia. Piste-Land is only there due to NationStates naming limitations (and for the memories as well).

Goldonia only uses Civil Rights, Economy, and Political Freedom. All other NS stats are not used.
Has an alternate nation named Southern Tzhelarhaai.

User avatar
Piste-Land
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Aug 30, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Piste-Land » Mon May 25, 2020 2:09 am

The NSPoliteia Index

Full Democracies (NSPoliteia Score Range: 10)
Aikoland (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Empire of Aikoland
Established: 1794
Constitution: 1902
Chief Executive: Prime Minister Mélodie Bélanger (Social Democratic Party)
Legislature: Parliament of Aikoland, bicameral
  • Upper House: Senate
  • Lower House: Chamber of Deputies
Judiciary: Supreme Court of Aikoland
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Alinghi Federal-Democratic Republic (2092)
Full Nation Name: The Federal-Democratic Republic of Alinghi
Established: 2004
Constitution: 2007
Chief Executives: Chancellor Skivolk Padme Anakey (Alingan Social Democratic Workers' Party), Confederal Governor Bourdillon Eichel Rita (Alingan Progressive Joint List)
Legislature: Confederal Diet, bicameral
  • Upper House: Council of Cantons
  • Lower House: House of Peoples
Judiciary: Confederal Constitutional Supreme Court of Alinghi
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Commonwealth Republic of Andyrssia (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Commonwealth Republic of Andyrssia
Established: 1808
Constitution: 1810
Chief Executives: Premier Olivier Buonespriza (People’s Tribune Party), Secretary General Zara Laurentis (People’s Tribune Party)
Legislature: Assembly of Andyrssia, bicameral
  • Upper House: House of Governors
  • Lower House: House of Delegates
Judiciary: Supreme Magistracy
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)*
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10**

*May change to Concept 6: Approaching Parity (+3 D points).
**At risk of dropping to 9.

Anollasia (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Peaceful Republic of Anollasia
Established: 1912
Constitution: 1912
Chief Executives: Prime Minister Grace Penelope (Green Party), Assistant Prime Minister Ryan Peters (Liberal Party)
Legislature: Council of Legislation, unicameral
Judiciary: Supreme Court of Anollasia
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

-Astoria (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Republic of Astoria
Established: 1644
Constitution: 1672
Chief Executive: Prime Minister Robert Paisley (Labour)
Legislature: Parliament, bicameral
  • Upper House: Senate
  • Lower House: Commons
Judiciary: Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Borovin (2431, does not correspond to Earth CE years)
Full Nation Name: The Republic of Borovin
Established: 2315
Constitution: 2317
Chief Executive: Prime Minister Mikrel Loudanin
Legislature: Parliament, bicameral
  • Upper House: Senate
  • Lower House: Assembly of Delegates
Judiciary: Supreme Court of Borovin/Constitutional Court of Borovin
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

British Socialist Syndicates (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Commonwealth of Great Britain
Established: 1927
Constitution: 1981
Chief Executives: President Adam Baxter, Prime Minister John McDonnell
Legislature: National Assembly, bicameral
  • Upper House: Council of Deputies
  • Lower House: People's Congress
Judiciary: Supreme Court of the Commonwealth
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

The Union of British North America (2020)
Full Nation Name: The North American Union
Established: 1768
Constitution: 1867
Chief Executive: Prime Minister Dame Felicity Graves (Whig Party of the NAU)
Legislature: General Assembly of the North American Union, bicameral
  • Upper House: General Council of State
  • Lower House: Grand Council
Judiciary: General Court of Appeal for America
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Gandoor (2025)
Full Nation Name: The Democratic Republic of Gandoor
Established: 1904
Constitution: 1904
Chief Executive: Prime Minister Park Sang-Hee (Gandoor Communist Party)
Legislature: Forum of the Democratic Republic of Gandoor, unicameral
Judiciary: High Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

HUElavia (2076-2077)
Full Nation Name: The United States of HUElavia
Established: 1897
Constitution: 1900
Chief Executive: President Rodrigo Freitas-Matos
Legislature: House of the HUElavian Senate/House of the HUElavian Congress, bicameral
Judiciary: House of the HUElavian Judicial Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Iove (2020)
Full Nation Name: The People's Republic of Iove
Established: 1989
Constitution: 1989
Chief Executive: Coleia Gandi, leader of the Leftist Party (Leftist Party, de facto chief executive)*
Legislature: Iovean Senate, unicameral
Judiciary: Iovean Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10
*There is no executive branch, but the leader of the dominant party can be considered the de facto leader.

Kreuzmont (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Kingdom of Kreuzmont
Established: 1798
Constitution: 1798
Chief Executive: Prime Minister Viktoria Rieger (Sozialdemokratische Partei)
Legislature: Reichstag, bicameral
  • Upper House: Bundesrat
  • Lower House: Volksrat
Judiciary: Oberster Justizrat
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Middle Barael (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Most Serene Republic of Middle Barael
Established: 1947
Constitution: 1963
Chief Executives: King Solomon (Union of Social Democrats), Prime Minister Marc Nuya (Liberal Party)
Legislature: Middle Baraelan Parliament, unicameral
Judiciary: Middle Barael Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Mobius and the Biscay (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Kingdom of Mobius and the Biscay
Established: 1976
Constitution: 1977
Chief Executives: HM King Myles, Prime Minister Geoffrey St. John (People's Democratic Party)
Legislature: Jesston State Hall, bicameral
  • Upper House: House of Peers
  • Lower House: House of Congress
Judiciary: Supreme Court of Mobius
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Mopistan (2020)
Full Nation Name: Mopistan
Established: 1890
Constitution: 1990
Chief Executive: President Carter Scrinton (non-partisan)
Legislature: Municipal Council, unicameral (de facto)
Judiciary: Citizen High Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Nacrad (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Federal Republic of Nacrad
Established: 1886
Constitution: 1922
Chief Executives: President Matthew Y. Smith (Social Democratic League), Prime Minister Jonathan Stone (Social Democratic League)
Legislature: Nacradian National Assembly, bicameral
  • Upper House: House of Advisors
  • Lower House: House of Representatives
Judiciary: Nacradian District and National Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Nantu (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Commonwealth of Nantu
Established: 1919
Constitution: 1919
Chief Executive: Prime Minister Ryan Harper (National Tory)
Legislature: Parliament, bicameral
  • Upper House: House of Lords
  • Lower House: House of Commons
Judiciary: Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

New Transeurasia (2032)
Full Nation Name: The Democratic Federation of New Transeurasia
Established: 1930
Constitution: 1980
Chief Executive: Premier Ivan Petrov (National Party)
Legislature: National Assembly, unicameral
Judiciary: Supreme National Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Nova Anglicana (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Sovereign State of New Anglicana
Established: 2003
Constitution: 2003
Chief Executive: Prime Minister Hal Blackwood
Legislature: Parliament, bicameral
  • Upper House: Senate/House of Senators
  • Lower House: House of Deputies
Judiciary: Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Picairn (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Empire of Picairn
Established: 1780
Constitution: 1946
Chief Executive: Prime Minister Arthur D. Gladstone (Conservative Party)
Legislature: Parliament, bicameral
  • Upper House: House of Lords
  • Lower House: House of Representatives
Judiciary: Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Piste-Land (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Republic of Goldonia
Established: 1856
Constitution: 1964
Chief Executive: President Simeon Gots (Conservative Party)
Legislature: National Assembly, bicameral
  • Upper House: Senate
  • Lower House: House of Representatives
Judiciary: Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Radiatia (4067 NC)
Full Nation Name: The Radiatian Federation
Established: 4014 NC
Constitution: 4043 NC
Chief Executive: Steven McCarthy
Legislature: Radiatian Federal Parliament, bicameral
  • Upper House: Federal Senate
  • Lower House: Federal Assembly
Judiciary: Supreme Court of the Radiatian Federation
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Sajnur (2023)
Full Nation Name: The Federation of Sajnur
Established: 1945
Constitution: 1945
Chief Executives: President Oshla Toraq (Socialist), Prime Minister Emily Terjezi (Socialist)
Legislature: Parliament, bicameral
  • Upper House: Senate
  • Lower House: House of Assembly
Judiciary: High Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Tamri3l (5E-60/2020 AD)
Full Nation Name: The Empire of Tamriel
Established: 5E-40
Constitution: 5E-59
Chief Executives: HIH Emperor Titus Mede III, Prime Minister Ennodius Hiriel
Legislature: Imperial Parliament, bicameral
  • Upper House: Imperial Senate
  • Lower House: Imperial Chamber of Chancellors
Judiciary: Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

The Allied Tribe (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Vegetarian Democratic States of the Allied Tribe
Established: 12,000 BCE
Constitution: 1801
Chief Executive: Chief Donovan Deei, known abroad as President Donovan I the Defender
Legislature: House of Elders/House of Chiefs, bicameral
Judiciary: Court of Chiefs
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Thermodolia (2020)
Full Nation Name: The National Republic of Thermodolia
Established: 1898
Constitution: 1897
Chief Executives: President Jacob Zarman (United Thermodolia), Prime Minister Derak Gœs (Democratic Socialists)
Legislature: Federal Parliament of Thermodolia, bicameral
  • Upper House: Federal Senate
  • Lower House: National Assembly
Judiciary: Constitutional Court of Thermodolia
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 10
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 10

Democracies (NSPoliteia Score Range: 6-9)
Eikotomi (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Kingdom of Eikotomi
Established: 1871
Constitution: 1947
Chief Executive: Prime Minister Rikyu Nakamura (Liberal Democratic Party)
Legislature: National Diet, bicameral
  • Upper House: House of Councillors
  • Lower House: House of Representatives
Judiciary: Supreme Court of Eikotomi
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 6: Approaching Parity (+3 D points)*
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 9
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 9]

Narvatus (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Federation of Narvatus
Established: 1911
Constitution: 1932
Chief Executives: Prime Minister Berhé Roseberk (Federal Democratic Party), President Ake Fálke (Federal Democratic Party)
Legislature: Assembly, bicameral
  • Upper House: Grand Council
  • Lower House: Federal Chamber
Judiciary: National High Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 6: Approaching Parity (+3 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 9
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 9

North German Realm (2020)
Full Nation Name: The North German Confederation
Established: 1866
Constitution: 1929
Chief Executives: Kaiserin Sophie, Reichskanzler Richard Lagenmauer (National North German Party)
Legislature: Bundesrat/Reichstag, bicameral
Judiciary: Judiciary of North Germany
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 6: Inheritance + Election (+2 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 9
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 9

Reuturn (818/2020)
Full Nation Name: The Federation of Reuturn
Established: 648 (1850)
Constitution: 649 (1851)
Chief Executive: President Rosa Thalenharm
Legislature: Parliament, bicameral
  • Upper House: Upper House
  • Lower House: Lower House
Judiciary: Judicial House
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 6: Approaching Parity (+3 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 9
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 9

Carendom (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Carendom Republic
Established: 1963
Constitution: 1963
Chief Executives: The President (Conservative Party), the Prime Minister (Social Liberal Party)
Legislature: The Legislative Houses, bicameral
  • Upper House: House of Councilors
  • Lower House: House of Representatives
Judiciary: Judiciary
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 7: Open Factional Competition (+1 D point)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 8
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 8

Southern Tzhelarhaai (2120)
Full Nation Name: The Commonwealth of Southern Thelar'áí
Established: 2065
Constitution: 2073
Chief Executive: President of the Government Lucas Kasketal, native name Kəskét'al Letísz Lijúthrəx (Unity and Development Bloc)
Legislature: Hiletrai/Hilǝt'ráí (Grand Assembly), tricameral
  • Upper House: Council of Constituent States
  • Middle House: Council of Advisors
  • Lower House: Assembly of Peoples
Judiciary: Grand Judicature
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 8: Competitive Elections (+3 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 8: Political Liberalization/Democratic Retrenchment with Persistent Coercion (+2 D points, +1 A point)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 9
Autocracy (A) Score: 1

NSPoliteia Score: 8

Polata City (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Principality of Polata City
Established: 1968
Constitution: 1968
Chief Executives: Prince James II, Prime Minister Mary Sasor (Conservative)
Legislature: Royal Parliament of the Principality of Polata City, bicameral
  • Upper House: Grand Council
  • Lower House: People's Assembly
Judiciary: Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 6: Inheritance + Election (+2 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 5: Substantial Limitations (+2 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 7
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 7

Exalted Inquellian State (1566)
Full Nation Name: The Empire of the Exalted Inquellian State
Established: 1558
Constitution: 1560
Chief Executives: Emperor Uirkhuk I, Chancellor Aukhaui (Conservative Union)
Legislature: Imperial Senate, unicameral
Judiciary: Federal Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 6: Inheritance + Election (+2 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 5: Substantial Limitations (+2 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 9: Political Liberalization/Democratic Retrenchment with Limited Coercion (+2 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 6
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 6

MineLegotia and Equestria (2385 ALB/2035 AD)
Full Nation Name: The Multiversal Bureaucratical State Commonwealth of MineLegotia and Equestria and Its Dominions and Colonies
Established: 1034 ALB
Constitution: 1037 ALB
Chief Executives: Kaisar Jason I, Empress Celestia I, Prime Minister John Newway (Nationalconservative Party)
Legislature: National Parliament, with an array of smaller autonomous parliaments for each state
Judiciary: Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 6: Inheritance + Election (+2 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 5: Substantial Limitations (+2 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 9: Political Liberalization/Democratic Retrenchment with Limited Coercion (+2 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 6
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 6

Pax Brasiliana (2021)
Full Nation Name: The Empire of Brazil
Established: 1822
Constitution: 2017
Chief Executives: Empress Ana Sofia, Prime Minister Eduardo Michalski (National Liberal Party)
Legislature: General Assembly, bicameral
  • Upper House: Senate
  • Lower House: Chamber of Deputies
Judiciary: Supreme Federal Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 6: Inheritance + Election (+2 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 5: Substantial Limitations (+2 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 9: Political Liberalization/Democratic Retrenchment with Limited Coercion (+2 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 6
Autocracy (A) Score: 0

NSPoliteia Score: 6

Open Anocracies (NSPoliteia Score Range: 1-5)
Ko-oren (3814)
Full Nation Name: Ko-oren
Established: Unknown (possibly ≈2000 BCE)
Constitution: 3812
Chief Executive: Prime Minister Dhunerin Laurderinthen
Legislature: Council of Ministers, unicameral*
Judiciary: Courts of Ko-oren
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)*
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 7
Autocracy (A) Score: 2

NSPoliteia Score: 5
*The legislature is meritocratically selected, but kept in check by the Auditory Branch, which consists of the democratically-elected Parliament.

Lillorainen (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Federation of Lillorainen
Established: 1981
Constitution: 1981
Chief Executive: President Silas Flemming (Meritocratic Unity Party)
Legislature: Meritocratic Council/Chamber of States, bicameral
Judiciary: Federal Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 7
Autocracy (A) Score: 2

NSPoliteia Score: 5

Venesso (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Federation of Lillorainen
Established: 1714
Constitution: 1717
Chief Executive: The Doge
Legislature: Great Council, bicameral
  • Upper House: Senate
  • Lower House: Council of Ten
Judiciary: Council of Forty
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 7: Executive Parity or Subordination (+4 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 9: Political Liberalization/Democratic Retrenchment with Limited Coercion (+2 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 6
Autocracy (A) Score: 2

NSPoliteia Score: 4

Imperial Majapahit (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Empire of Majapahit
Established: 1293
Constitution: 1915
Chief Executives: Emperor Jayanagara VII, Premier Sri Indra Thohir (Imperial Unity Party)
Legislature: Imperial Assembly, bicameral
  • Upper House: Council of Lords
  • Lower House: Council of Representatives
Judiciary: Imperial Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 6: Inheritance + Election (+2 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 3: Slight to Moderate Limitations (+1 A point)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 9: Political Liberalization/Democratic Retrenchment with Limited Coercion (+2 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 4
Autocracy (A) Score: 1

NSPoliteia Score: 3

Kovkastan (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Republic of Kovkastan
Established: 1991
Constitution: 1999
Chief Executive: Prime Minister Arevshad Darbinyan (National Republican Federation)
Legislature: Khorhrdaran (Parliament), unicameral
Judiciary: Constitutional Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 7: Restricted Elections (+2 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 4: Moderate Limitations (+1 D point)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 6: Restricted Factional Competition (+1 D point, 1 A point)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 4
Autocracy (A) Score: 1

NSPoliteia Score: 3

Newne Carriebean7 (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Revolutionary Military Junta of Newne Carriebean
Established: 1362
Constitution: 1855
Chief Executives: The Emperor, President Carol Dartenby (Pirate), Prime Minister Michael P. Zimmer (Constitutionalist)
Legislature: Congress/Parliament/Regional Representation Council, tricameral
Judiciary: People's National Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 6: Inheritance + Election (+2 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 4: Moderate Limitations (+1 D point)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 6: Restricted Factional Competition (+1 D point, +1 A point)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 4
Autocracy (A) Score: 1

NSPoliteia Score: 3

Persegonian Republic (1980)
Full Nation Name: The State of Iran
Established: 1980
Constitution: 1980
Chief Executives: Imperial Regent Massoud Eskandari (military), Prime Minister Daryush Hosseinzadeh (Iranian National Front)
Legislature: Majelis (Parliament), bicameral
  • Upper House: Senate
  • Lower House: National Consultative Assembly
Judiciary: Judiciary of Iran
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 7: Restricted Elections (+2 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 3: Slight to Moderate Limitations (+1 A point)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 7: Open Factional Competition (+1 D point)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 3
Autocracy (A) Score: 1

NSPoliteia Score: 2

The Land of the Ephyral (2030)
Full Nation Name: The Ephyral Freehold/Ephyral Republic
Established: 1562
Constitution: None
Chief Executives: Archons Helaegos Eresios Raheris and Sparlios Gelionios Lenennis (Traditionalist Faction)
Legislature: Senate/Symposium, bicameral
Judiciary: None
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 7: Restricted Elections (+2 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 5: Substantial Limitations (+2 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 2: Restricted Competition (+3 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 4
Autocracy (A) Score: 3

NSPoliteia Score: 1

New Great Britain and Acadia (2060)
Full Nation Name: The Kingdom of New Great Britain and Acadia
Established: 2040
Constitution: None
Chief Executive: King Francis I
Legislature: Parliament, bicameral
  • Upper House: House of Lords
  • Lower House: House of Commons
Judiciary: Supreme Court of Judicature
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 2: Inheritance + Designation (+3 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 5: Substantial Limitations (+2 D points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 9: Political Liberalization/Democratic Retrenchment with Limited Coercion (+2 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 4
Autocracy (A) Score: 3

NSPoliteia Score: 1

Yuwa (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Sultanate of Yuwa
Established: 1477
Constitution: 1814
Chief Executive: Sultan Yuwa Zara
Legislature: Parliament, unicameral
Judiciary: Council of Judges
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 1: Inheritance (+3 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 4: Moderate Limitations (+1 D point)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 10: Institutionalized Open Electoral Participation (+3 D points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 4
Autocracy (A) Score: 3

NSPoliteia Score: 1

Closed Anocracies (NSPoliteia Score Range: (-5)-0)
Feyrisshire (2020)
Full Nation Name: The People's State of Feyrisshire
Established: 1945
Constitution: 1950
Chief Executives: Chief Secretary Amaryllis Chrysanthemum (Communist Party), State Vizieress Yuna Yericsheid (Communist Party)
Legislature: High Assembly, unicameral
Judiciary: High City Court of Shyubi Daschime, High City Court of Puraggawsen City
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 7: Restricted Elections (+2 D points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 3: Slight to Moderate Limitations (+1 A point)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 2: Restricted Competition (+3 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 2
Autocracy (A) Score: 4

NSPoliteia Score: -2

Glakta (early FT era)
Full Nation Name: The Empire of Glakta
Established: 528 Earth years ago
Constitution: None
Chief Executive: Emperor Novaius
Legislature: Council, unicameral
Judiciary: Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 3: Slight to Moderate Limitations (+1 A point)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 7: Open Factional Competition (+1 D point)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 1
Autocracy (A) Score: 3

NSPoliteia Score: -2

Nalihama (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Republic of Nalihama
Established: 1821
Constitution: 1979
Chief Executives: Consul of the Republic François Nicolás Paquet (National Republican Party), Prime Minister Gaubert Marius Fèvre (National Republican Party)
Legislature: Parliament, bicameral
  • Upper House: Senate
  • Lower House: Chamber of Deputies
Judiciary: None
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 5: Executive-Guided Transition (no points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 3: Slight to Moderate Limitations (+1 A point)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 2: Restricted Competition (+3 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 0
Autocracy (A) Score: 4

NSPoliteia Score: -4

World Web (2024)
Full Nation Name: The Republic of Nalihama
Established: 2021
Constitution: 2021
Chief Executive: Åñøńÿmöūš
Legislature: Webian Council, unicameral
Judiciary: Webian Council
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 4: Self-Selection (no points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 3: Slight to Moderate Limitations (+1 A point)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 2: Restricted Competition (+3 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 0
Autocracy (A) Score: 4

NSPoliteia Score: -4

Autocracies (NSPoliteia Score Range: (-10)-(-6))
Tegrad (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Tegradian Federal Socialist Republic
Established: 1991
Constitution: 1994
Chief Executive: President Ivan Vadimovich (officially non-partisan, backed by the Tegradian Worker's Party)
Legislature: Supreme Council, bicameral
  • Upper House: Federal Council
  • Lower House: National Council
Judiciary: Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 3: Slight to Moderate Limitations (+1 A point)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 2: Restricted Competition (+3 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 0
Autocracy (A) Score: 6

NSPoliteia Score: -6

Bulgar Rouge (2024)
Full Nation Name: The Revolutionary Entity of Bulgar Rouge
Established: 2014
Constitution: None
Chief Executive: Brother Number One
Legislature: None, Party Standing Committee (de facto)
Judiciary: None
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 3: Slight to Moderate Limitations (+1 A point)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 1: Repressed Competition (+4 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 0
Autocracy (A) Score: 7

NSPoliteia Score: -7

Kancia (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Consumerist State of Kancia
Established: 1957
Constitution: 1957
Chief Executive: President Ekhon Numik (Kancian Conservative Coalition)
Legislature: National Council/Representative House, bicameral
Judiciary: Kancian National Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 2: Slight Limitations (+2 A points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 2: Restricted Competition (+3 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 0
Autocracy (A) Score: 7

NSPoliteia Score: -7

Ferlik
Full Nation Name: The Holy State of Ferlik
Established: 1927
Constitution: 1946
Chief Executive: President Aquinas Boar (Liberty and Salvation Movement)
Legislature: National Congress, unicameral
Judiciary: Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 2: Slight Limitations (+2 A points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 1: Repressed Competition (+4 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 0
Autocracy (A) Score: 8

NSPoliteia Score: -8

Idoho (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Christian Republic of Idoho
Established: 1845
Constitution: 1845
Chief Executive: President John Merson (Christian Republicans)
Legislature: Congress, unicameral
Judiciary: Ecclesiastical Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 2: Slight Limitations (+2 A points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 1: Repressed Competition (+4 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 0
Autocracy (A) Score: 8

NSPoliteia Score: -8

Apiary One (AP-75)
Full Nation Name: The Workers' Colony of Apiary One
Established: 1945
Constitution: 1945
Chief Executive: The Hivemaster
Legislature: Workers' Party of Apiary One
Judiciary: None
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 1: Unlimited Executive Authority (+3 A points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 1: Repressed Competition (+4 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 0
Autocracy (A) Score: 9

NSPoliteia Score: -9

Aryax (2020)
Full Nation Name: The People's Republic of Aryax
Established: 1958
Constitution: 1959
Chief Executive: National President/General Secretary Stanislav Tyrankov (People's Revolutionary Movement)
Legislature: People's Assembly, unicameral
Judiciary: Supreme Court
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 1: Unlimited Executive Authority (+3 A points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 1: Repressed Competition (+4 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 0
Autocracy (A) Score: 9

NSPoliteia Score: -9

Isla de Flores (2020)
Full Nation Name: The People's Socialist Republic of Isla de Flores
Established: 1964
Constitution: 1964
Chief Executive: General Secretary Emmanuel Rodriguez
Legislature: People's Assembly, unicameral
Judiciary: None
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 1: Unlimited Executive Authority (+3 A points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 1: Repressed Competition (+4 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 0
Autocracy (A) Score: 9

NSPoliteia Score: -9

Lingang (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Federation of Lingang
Established: 1796
Constitution: 1956
Chief Executive: Supreme Lord Hanna Welburg
Legislature: Grand National Congress, bicameral
    Upper House: House of Minor-Lords
    Lower House: House of Commons
Judiciary: None
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 1: Unlimited Executive Authority (+3 A points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 1: Repressed Competition (+4 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 0
Autocracy (A) Score: 9

NSPoliteia Score: -9

Third ZSeparatists (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Fascist Dictatorship of ZSeparatists
Established: 1866
Constitution: None
Chief Executive: Supreme Leader Talc Zilš
Legislature: None
Judiciary: None
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 3: Elite Designation (+2 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 1: Unlimited Executive Authority (+3 A points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 1: Repressed Competition (+4 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 0
Autocracy (A) Score: 9

NSPoliteia Score: -9

Meadville (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Grand Duchy of Meadville
Established: 1795
Constitution: None
Chief Executive: Grand Duke Mark IV
Legislature: None
Judiciary: Supreme Court of the Grand Duchy of Meadville
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 1: Inheritance (+3 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 1: Unlimited Executive Authority (+3 A points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 1: Repressed Competition (+4 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 0
Autocracy (A) Score: 10

NSPoliteia Score: -10

Mordka (1975)
Full Nation Name: The Empire of Mordka
Established: 1345
Constitution: None
Chief Executive: Emperor Moxuous Mordon VII
Legislature: Imperial Counsel
Judiciary: Grand Court of Mordka
--- Concepts ---
Executive Recruitment: Concept 1: Inheritance (+3 A points)
Executive Constraints: Concept 1: Unlimited Executive Authority (+3 A points)
Political Participation and Competition: Concept 1: Repressed Competition (+4 A points)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: 0
Autocracy (A) Score: 10

NSPoliteia Score: -10

Special Cases (Interruption/Interregnum)
Liberimarcat (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Terminal Border
Established: 1990
Constitution: None
Chief Executive: None
Legislature: None
Judiciary: None
--- Special Cases ---
Special Case Classification: Interregnum/State Failure (widespread anarchy)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: N/A
Autocracy (A) Score: N/A

NSPoliteia Score: 0 (due to being in a state of Interregnum)

The Terminal Border (2020)
Full Nation Name: The Terminal Border
Established: 1981
Constitution: None
Chief Executive: None
Legislature: None
Judiciary: None
--- Special Cases ---
Special Case Classification: Interregnum/State Failure (widespread civil war and anarchy)
--- Scoring ---
Democracy (D) Score: N/A
Autocracy (A) Score: N/A

NSPoliteia Score: 0 (due to being in a state of Interregnum)
Last edited by Piste-Land on Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:22 pm, edited 39 times in total.
NOTE: This nation's official name is the Republic of Goldonia. Piste-Land is only there due to NationStates naming limitations (and for the memories as well).

Goldonia only uses Civil Rights, Economy, and Political Freedom. All other NS stats are not used.
Has an alternate nation named Southern Tzhelarhaai.

User avatar
Piste-Land
Envoy
 
Posts: 209
Founded: Aug 30, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Piste-Land » Mon May 25, 2020 2:10 am

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

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

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

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


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


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


V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
No. That is all the information we shall give for now.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
Last edited by Piste-Land on Mon May 25, 2020 2:49 am, edited 4 times in total.
NOTE: This nation's official name is the Republic of Goldonia. Piste-Land is only there due to NationStates naming limitations (and for the memories as well).

Goldonia only uses Civil Rights, Economy, and Political Freedom. All other NS stats are not used.
Has an alternate nation named Southern Tzhelarhaai.

User avatar
Bulgar Rouge
Minister
 
Posts: 2377
Founded: Dec 08, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Bulgar Rouge » Mon May 25, 2020 2:23 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Revolutionary Entity of Bulgar Rouge
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2024
3. Year of Establishment: 2014
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): N/A
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared): Brother Number One
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): None, Party Standing Committee issues ideologically motivated decrees
7. Name of Judiciary: None

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

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


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


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


V. Conclusion/Other Information (if appliacble)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? Our nation is a Party-state where most traditional attributes of statehood have been completely dismantled. Various Party bodies completely control the processes within the nation. We are a communal state where most communes are self-governing, but strictly within the confines of a spartan ideological framework.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
Last edited by Bulgar Rouge on Mon May 25, 2020 2:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

This nation does not reflect my RL views.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:I'm only saying that, well, even commies have reached the level of selling counterfeit and drugs in their storefronts, we can't be any less.

The Holy Therns wrote:Politicians make statements. It's their substitute for achievement.

User avatar
-Astoria
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1970
Founded: Mar 14, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby -Astoria » Mon May 25, 2020 2:26 am

Tagged; will post soon.
The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

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

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

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


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


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


V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? None

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
Last edited by -Astoria on Mon May 25, 2020 7:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Republic of Astoria | Tarain Asdair | Vasnin Astoir
New updates! (bold) | Constitution | Bill of Rights | Anthem | Lyrics | Embassy | FAQ | NS stats unused
Jul 4, 2020
✉ Asdairtydden: Limited train services reinstated in most cities | Dialects in the digital era: an insight | Weather: Footscray 14°C P/CLDY | Altas 16° P/CLDY | Esterpine 15° M/CLDY  Naltgybal 13° SHWRS | Ceirtryn 17° M/SNY | Bynscel 21° M/CLDY | Lyteel  13° M/CLDY

A 7 civ | 9th in NSFB#1! | 10/10 by DGES | Much hope; much nostalgia - yes.
Low-effort responses since 15/5/20: 55½
mmm free kills | mit zuckerguß


User avatar
Ko-oren
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5015
Founded: Nov 26, 2010
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ko-oren » Mon May 25, 2020 2:50 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

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

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

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


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


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


V. Conclusion/Other Information (if appliacble)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
Our nation has a long meritocratic tradition, which is always reviewed. As such, apart from an executive, judicial, and legislative branches, there is the auditory branch in which our parliament is located - for which there are elections. This branch, which is well protected, oversees the meritocratic process and guides its decision-making slightly.
Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
Trigramme: KOR - Demonym: Ko-orenite - Population: 27.270.096
Sports Domestic Sports Newswires - RPable People - Info Factbook Storefronts Loro Language Schools - Goliæth Sports Café - Call for bids!
Champions 1x CoH - 1x AOCAF - 1x WBC - 2x World Bowl - 1x IBC - 1x T20 WC - 3x RUWC - 1x RLWC - 1x HWC - 1x Beach Cup
Runners-up 1x AOCAF - 1x WBC - 2x World Bowl - 4x IBC - 1x AOHC - 1x GCF Test Cricket - 2x RUWC - 1x WLC - 1x FHWC
Hosts 1x World Bowl - 1x WCOH - 1x T20 WC - 1x RUWC - 1x FHWC

User avatar
MineLegotia and Equestria
Envoy
 
Posts: 292
Founded: Jul 22, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby MineLegotia and Equestria » Mon May 25, 2020 3:06 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

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

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

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


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


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


V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
The Executive - mainly the monarchs - on paper have theoretical power stated in the Constitution to dissolve the National Parliament and do seize all Legislative power, but however, the Legislative - within the first years of its establishment - has passed laws that state if such a move is done without the permission of the Prime Minister, it may constitute as an Abuse of Power.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
Last edited by MineLegotia and Equestria on Mon May 25, 2020 3:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Think MLP but darker, combined with British Imperialism, German-Chinese Culture, and Stellaris levels of Diversity of Species
Christian Conservative and borderline Libertarian
"All posts are personal, does not represent any organization I'm in, unless stated"
Parliament debates over new SAR legislation | "AWF is new step in interregional politics for MineLegotia and Equestria"

User avatar
Gandoor
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9284
Founded: Sep 23, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Gandoor » Mon May 25, 2020 3:36 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

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

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

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


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


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


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

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
OOC - Call me Viola
IC Flag|Gandoor Wiki|Q&A|National Currency Database
Reminder that true left-wing politics are incompatible with authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and dictatorship in all forms.
Flag is currently Nagisa Misumi and Honoka Yukishiro from Futari wa Pretty Cure.
I'm female.
OOC Info
Twitter: @Sailor_Viola
Steam: Princess Viola
TGs are welcome

User avatar
Waisnor
Attaché
 
Posts: 87
Founded: Aug 03, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Waisnor » Mon May 25, 2020 3:36 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

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

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

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


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


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


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

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
81 = 18th/34
82 = 22nd/31
83 =

51 = 10th/20
52 =

User avatar
A m e n r i a
Minister
 
Posts: 3418
Founded: Jun 08, 2017
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby A m e n r i a » Mon May 25, 2020 3:54 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

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

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

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


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


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


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

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
Last edited by A m e n r i a on Mon May 25, 2020 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Empire of Amenria (亚洲帝国)


Sinocentric Asian theocratic absolute monarchy. Set 28 years in the future, Amenria reflects the prosperity that would be brought about by a real, modernist, Islamic government.


Save yourselves from yourselves.

User avatar
Eikotomi
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 147
Founded: Apr 18, 2020
Corporate Bordello

Postby Eikotomi » Mon May 25, 2020 4:22 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

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

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

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


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


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


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

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
Last edited by Eikotomi on Mon May 25, 2020 4:23 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Ferlik
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Jan 08, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Ferlik » Mon May 25, 2020 6:04 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

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

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

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


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


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


V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? The legislature includes members of powerful churches and businesses and the military, but while it does initiate legislation the President has absolute veto power and the ability to rule by decree and to dismiss legislators who are also party members or military

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
Last edited by Ferlik on Mon May 25, 2020 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
This nation does not represent my real political views

User avatar
The Land of the Ephyral
Diplomat
 
Posts: 581
Founded: Jun 03, 2016
Moralistic Democracy

Postby The Land of the Ephyral » Mon May 25, 2020 7:15 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: | The Ephyral Freehold / Ephyral Republic
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): | 2030 AD
3. Year of Establishment: | 1562 AD
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): | N/A
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): | Archons Helaegos Eresios Raheris and Sparlios Gelionios Lenennis, traditionalist faction, political parties do not exist.
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): | The Senate and Symposium.
7. Name of Judiciary: | No such body exists.

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

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


III. Executive Constraints
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.
1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[X] Other (please explain): | Similar to the Roman Republic. Political parties do not exist although ideological factions within the Senate do; whilst the archons serve annual terms in which they are afforded great individual power to act in the interest of the state, but which is checked by the body of the Senate. The people possess only the power to elect statesmen, and can neither propose nor amend legislation, although a group of peoples' officers within the Senate may veto undesired legislation.
2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[ ] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[X] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
3. Is there an independent judiciary?
[X] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[ ] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?
[X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[X] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Ephyra is a work of my own political and philosophical views fused with deliberate values dissonance for my own entertainment.

User avatar
Exalted Inquellian State
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Apr 30, 2020
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Exalted Inquellian State » Mon May 25, 2020 7:46 am

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

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

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

[u]II. Executive Recruitment[/u]
[color=#FF8000]Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.[/color]
[spoiler][b]1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)[/b]
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[X] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[ ] No.
[b]2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive ([i]de facto[/i] leader) chosen?[/b]
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] [i]De facto[/i] inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. [i]de facto[/i] inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[ ] [u]Other (please explain)[/u]:
[b]3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?[/b]
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections are judged to be both free [u]and[/u] fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are [u]not allowed[/u] to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
[b]4. Under what conditions were the elections held?[/b]
[ ] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[X] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
[b]5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?[/b]
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[X] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[ ] [u]Other (please explain):[/u][/spoiler]

[u]III. Executive Constraints[/u]
[color=#FF8000]Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.[/color]
[spoiler][b]1. Which of these political systems best describes YN?[/b]
[ ] An absolute monarchy or personalistic dictatorship. (e.g. modern-day Saudi Arabia and North Korea)
[ ] A one-party state wherein a strong leader dominates the party apparatus (e.g. the USSR under Stalin) or a military dictatorship wherein a single military officer dominates the regime (e.g. Cuba under Batista)
[ ] A strong, institutionalized one-party state or military regime with a broad distribution of power (e.g. modern-day China)
[ ] An otherwise democratic system with an uncharacteristically powerful president or prime minister (e.g. possibly Charles de Gaulle in the early days of the French Fifth Republic)
[ ] A relatively durable democratic system with a relatively strong president or prime minister (e.g. modern-day France and the Philippines)
[ ] A stable, consolidated democratic system with a healthy system of checks-and-balances keeping the executive in check (e.g. the modern-day United States and most parliamentary systems)
[X] [u]Other (please explain):[We have a monarch who is powerful in foreign policy, but shares power with the Prime Minister]
[b]2. Is there a parliament/legislature (or any equivalent)?[/b]
[ ] No. There is no legislature at all, or the executive wields direct legislative powers.
[ ] Yes, but it is either ceremonial or otherwise virtually powerless.
[X] Yes. It occasionally initiates some pieces of legislation, but it is either weak or sharply divided and thus unable to effectively sanction the chief executive.
[ ] Yes, though it only has a moderate degree of power. It, however, makes occasional moves to limit the powers of the executive, such as modifying or striking down their proposals, refusing them funds, or denying them permission to leave the country.
[ ] Yes. It is both active and powerful. It often initiates major pieces of legislation, and in the case of parliamentary systems, chooses the chief executive, who relies on its continued support to remain in office.
[b]3. Is there an independent judiciary?[/b]
[ ] No. There is no judiciary at all, or the executive wields direct judicial powers.
[ ] No. A judiciary exists, but it is largely weak and devoid of independence, being thoroughly dominated by the executive.
[X] Yes. The executive or other groups wield a moderate or sizable degree of influence over it, however, so it is not as independent as one would expect it to be.
[ ] Yes. It is staunchly independent and free of nearly all undue influence from the executive or other groups.
[b]4. Is YN currently in a state wherein the balance of power within the government is shifting?[/b]
[X] No. The current balance of power is relatively stable and remains as-is.
[ ] Yes, and the balance of power is shifting in the executive's favor, to the detriment of the other branches of government.
[ ] Yes. The balance of power is evening out, shifting away from a system with a powerful executive to a system of checks-and-balances.
[b]5. If the leader is not given sweeping autocratic powers, have they currently been (temporarily) granted substantial emergency powers by the legislature or other accountability group to cope with a national emergency?[/b]
[ ] The leader possesses substantial autocratic powers by default.
[X] No. There either is no national emergency, or there is one but the leader has not been granted sweeping emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for less than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] Yes. The national emergency has lasted for more than two years, and so have the leader's emergency powers.
[ ] There is a national emergency, but the leader has seized substantial emergency powers without the authorization of the legislature or another accountability group.[/spoiler]

[u]IV. Political Participation and Competition[/u]
[color=#FF8000]Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X, as well as typing your answer if called for. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.[/color]
[spoiler][b]1. Which of these best describes the nature of political participation and competition in YN?[/b]
[ ] [u]ALL[/u] opposition groups are completely banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through effective systematic repression.
[ ] [u]MOST[/u] opposition groups, especially major ones, are banned from the political arena, and the hegemonic regime enforces that ban through systematic repression, or all political parties are outlawed, but limited independent oppositional activity is allowed. (Alternatively, the hegemonic regime attempts to repress [u]ALL[/u] opposition groups but is unable to do so, as evidenced by oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion over the span of more than 5 years)
[ ] The hegemonic regime permits its opponents to compete in the electoral arena, but systematically represses them. Examples include having their leaders killed, imprisoned, or exiled, their media banned and/or harassed, and their candidates regularly being ruled off ballots. Alternatively, major opposition groups are allowed to organize, but are barred completely from participating in the electoral process.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from the repression or restriction of political competition by a hegemonic regime to limited, typically factional competition, or vice versa.
[ ] Political competition is uninstitutionalized and unregulated, revolving around personalities, regional interests, and religious/ethnic/clan groups. The central authority is weak, and national institutions are either weak or nonexistent. Thus, this system can be likened to feudalism.
[ ] The nation is currently undergoing a transition from uninstitutionalized, feudalistic, and/or decentralized competition to other, more institutionalized forms of political competition such as systematic repression or restriction, factional competition, or institutionalized electoral participation. One indicator is the gradual centralization of power in a previously-weak central government.
[ ] The political arena, though not necessarily democratic, is dominated by personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that fiercely compete with each other in an occasionally cutthroat fashion for control of the government, at which point they would then shower their allies with promotions and harass their opponents until they, in turn, are displaced by other factions. Political violence is common. Alternatively, an ideology-based, secular, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not outright prohibit, the activities of sectarian political groups.
[ ] The relatively democratic political arena is dominated by relatively stable, personalistic, sectarian, and/or narrow-minded political factions that regularly compete for political influence, though the nature of political competition is fierce, factional, typically antagonistic, and occasionally cutthroat. Political violence is common. (Alternatively, political competition between two or more major parties, regardless of character, is highly antagonistic, such as in the US or Belgium, or an ideology-based, cross-cutting government attempts to restrict, but not prohibit the activities of sectarian political groups.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though largely unconsolidated, nature, and political groups or their associates often, though not systematically, use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is somewhat common, though not as common as under factional competition. (Alternatively, the nation is currently undergoing a transition from factional to institutionalized electoral competition, or vice versa.)
[ ] The electoral arena may be dominated by a mix of personalistic, sectarian groups and mass-based, cross-cutting parties or groups. Political participation is of a liberal, though somewhat unconsolidated nature, and political groups or their associates seldom use non-electoral elements such as police or protesters in order to deter opposition. Thus, political violence and/or coercion is present, though sporadic, and is nowhere near as common as under factional competition.
[X] The nation has a mature, well-established, democratic political system. Nearly all political groups or parties that regularly compete for political influence are ideology-based or issue-based, mass-based, and cross-cutting, with sectarian political groups or parties being rare. No major domestic groups are regularly excluded from the political process, and there is little to no political violence or coercion plaguing the political system. Human rights and/or civil liberties are generally well-respected.
[b]2. Are certain domestic groups regularly excluded from the political process or granted only limited political rights?[/b]
[ ] As the authoritarian/totalitarian hegemonic regime effectively represses oppositional political activity, all groups outside the ranks of the regime are excluded.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of 20% or more of the population, and they are denied [u]ALL[/u] political rights.
[ ] Yes. These groups consist of less than 20% of the population, and they are denied [u]ALL[/u] political rights.
[X] Yes. These groups, regardless of size, are granted only LIMITED political rights (e.g. the right to vote but not the right to stand for election or form political groups).
[ ] The government attempts to deny certain groups, regardless, of size, political access, but is unable to effectively do so.
[ ] No. All domestic groups are granted equal access to competition in the political arena, though some groups may dominate it.[/spoiler]

[u]V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)[/u]
[b]1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?[/b]
The legislature nominates a prime minister, but the monarc(who holds foreign policy power except in making offensive war) appproves them. Also, the first elections were held in a war of independence, but the second ones were held in peace, and that parliament is the current one.
[color=#FF8000]Well done! You have now completed the [u]NSPoliteia Questionnaire.[/u][/color]
[color=#FF8000]- END OF DOCUMENT -[/color][/spoiler]
My Three Way Cold War Map Game=https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=486045

User avatar
Commonwealth Republic of Andyrssia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 44
Founded: Oct 17, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Commonwealth Republic of Andyrssia » Mon May 25, 2020 7:47 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


(OOC: felt very vanilla filling this out as a modern-day liberal Western European democracy lol)
Last edited by Commonwealth Republic of Andyrssia on Mon May 25, 2020 10:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
Andyrssia the Mighty, Andyrssia the Free, we pledge our undying allegiance to thee!


*NS stats mostly disregarded*

User avatar
Kovkastan
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Mar 11, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kovkastan » Mon May 25, 2020 8:01 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: Republic of Kovakastan
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 860 BC (earliest kingdom), 1991 (current republic)
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1999
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Arevshad Darbinyan of the National Republican Federation
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): Khorhrdaran (Parliament)
7. Name of Judiciary: Constitutional Court

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

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


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


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


V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
The best real life analogy for Kovkastan's political situation is the majority of post-Soviet states. In other words, elections happen, but their legitimacy is scrutinised.
Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
Last edited by Kovkastan on Mon May 25, 2020 7:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Republic of Kovkastan
"Duty – Honour – Fatherland"
A post-Soviet anocracy located in the South Caucasus and a spiritual successor to Caucasian Albania. Ruled by PM Markar Kosorov, a de facto benevolent dictator whose regime practices a blended system of corporatism, market socialism, technocracy, and nationalism. Maintains close ties with Russia.

Overview | Prime Minister | Parliament | National Anthem
Kovkapress: Tensions remain high on Kovka-Azerbaijani border following brief clash | Ministry of Health lift some lockdown measures as COVID-19 infection rates continue to fall | PM Kosorov: Victory Day Parade will happen when it is safe |

User avatar
Aryax
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Oct 16, 2019
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Aryax » Mon May 25, 2020 8:19 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: (the) People's Republic of Aryax
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1955-1958
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1959, last amended 2019
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): Stanislav Tyrankov, party: People's Revolutionary Movement (PRM)
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): People's Assembly (unicameral)
7. Name of Judiciary: referred to in the Constitution as simply "judiciary", highest judicial authority is the Supreme Court

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

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


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


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


V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? The current regime is visibly and quickly shifting away from a one-party state with a strong leader to a personalistic regime where the single legal party is throughoutly beholden to the wishes of National President Stanislav Tyrankov. This includes widespread purging of party members and the creation of a cult of personality around Tyrankov.
The age of establishment is listed as 1955-1958 as the republic in its current form was created after a civil war, with some parts of the territory being under PRM control since 1955; full territorial control was achieved in 1958.
OOC: The genitive 's as in People's Republic of Aryax breaks the spoiler that the post is included in.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
----------
----------
People's Republic of Aryax
----------
----------
Ⰰⱃⱑⰽⱄⰰⱑ Ⱀⰰⱃⱁⰴⱀⰰⱑ Ⱃⰵⱄⱂⱆⰱⰾⰹⰽⰰ
----------
----------
Aryaksaya Narodnaya Ryespublika
This nation does not represent my views.

User avatar
Tegrad
Envoy
 
Posts: 310
Founded: Aug 19, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tegrad » Mon May 25, 2020 8:28 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

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

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

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


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


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


V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
The President, while an independent, effectively has the fully backing of the Tegradian Workers' Party. The opposition parties of the legislature, while nominally opposed to the government are either to enfeebled to operate effectively as opposition or are on the government's paycheck.
Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
Tegradian Federal Socialist Republic
"The flame of Red October still burns"
A post-Soviet state that reveres the former USSR and its way of life.
Overview Legislature National Anthem

User avatar
Prosperon
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: May 15, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Prosperon » Mon May 25, 2020 8:30 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

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

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

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


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


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


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

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
For Peace And Prosperity!
Motto of the People's Republic of Prosperon

Join The Economic Alliance of Prosperity today! | Check out my iiWiki page (it's a work in progress) | Take a look at my Constitution

User avatar
The Terminal Border
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Mar 28, 2020
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby The Terminal Border » Mon May 25, 2020 8:54 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: the Terminal Border
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020
3. Year of Establishment: 1981
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): N/A
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): N/A
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): N/A
7. Name of Judiciary: N/A

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

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


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


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


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

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

User avatar
Thermodolia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58702
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Thermodolia » Mon May 25, 2020 9:03 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
Male, Titoist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, give me any good Irish, Canadian, or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY!
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA:
Ambassador to the GA Jon Æthr
Ambassador to the SC Eve Šanœ

RIP Dya

User avatar
Lillorainen
Minister
 
Posts: 3099
Founded: Apr 17, 2018
Capitalizt

Postby Lillorainen » Mon May 25, 2020 9:06 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

I. a. Basic Information
1. Full Nation Name: The Federation of Lillorainen.
2. Current Year (in YN's canon): 2020.
3. Year of Establishment: 1981.
4. Year when current constitution was adopted (put N/A if no constitution): 1981.
5. Leader(s)/Chief Executive(s) (put two or more if position is shared, as well as party if applicable): President Silas Flemming (Meritocratic Unity Party).
6. Name of Legislature (plus houses if bicameral or greater): The Meritocratic Council & the Chamber of States (bicameral legislature).
7. Name of Judiciary: Federal Supreme Court.

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

II. Executive Recruitment
Answer the questions below by marking your choice with an X. For a better-informed answer, try reading the Concepts included in the original post.
1. Does YN have a hereditary monarch? If so, how powerful are they? (elective and self-declared monarchs don't count)
[ ] Yes. They hold all executive power, and do not have a prime minister to share power with (i.e. an absolute or traditional monarch).
[ ] Yes. They have a prime minister who is virtually powerless, with the monarch themselves holding all real executive power. (e.g. possibly Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian, non-democratic means, such as court selection or rigged elections. (e.g. the German Empire, modern-day Morocco)
[ ] Yes. They share executive power with a prime minister chosen by democratic means. (e.g. Victorian UK, modern-day Bhutan)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a prime minister chosen by authoritarian means, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day Thailand, modern-day Cambodia)
[ ] Yes. They are largely a ceremonial figurehead, with a democratically chosen prime minister, the true chief executive, holding actual executive power. (e.g. modern-day UK)
[X] No.
2. If YN does not have a hereditary monarch, how was the chief executive (de facto leader) chosen?
[ ] There is a hereditary monarch.
[ ] De facto inheritance within the ruling elite (e.g. North Korea's Kim dynasty, the Republic of Florence under the Medici family)
[ ] Designation/informal competition within the ruling elite (e.g. one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, elective monarchies, rigged pseudo-democratic elections) or power-sharing agreements which have not been publicly approved.
[ ] Abrupt, often violent, self-selection, typically via military coup. (mass-based social revolutions do not count)
[ ] The leader was selected by authoritarian means (e.g. de facto inheritance, elite designation, or self selection), but they are currently attempting to reform the political process with the goal of introducing a (at least nominally) democratic set of procedures by which the next leader would be selected, as well as increased legislative and judicial power. The leader, however, dominates this transition, and opposition groups are routinely excluded from it.
[ ] Free election, whether direct (e.g. popular election in presidential republics), indirect (e.g. via parliaments or electoral colleges), or a mix of both (e.g. semi-presidential republics)
[ ] Indirect election via an assembly that is not freely elected (e.g. parliaments wherein around 25% is filled in by unelected officials such as military officials or members hand-picked by the executive)
[X] Other (please explain): Appointed by the Meritocratic Council (whose members appoint each other based on the results of a comprehensive examination on knowledge and personal merits for society), approved by the Chamber of States (which consists of democratically elected representatives of the State Governments). This process is generally fair, open and transparent to the people. One can say, it's kind of semi-democratic, but not democratic in a narrow sense of the term.
3. If the leader (including elected prime ministers with a figurehead or active monarch) is chosen via democratic means, how procedurally free and fair are the elections used to select them?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections are judged to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers alike, with little to no problems plaguing the electoral process.
[ ] The elections, though not rigged, are judged to be free, but not fair, by domestic and international observers. Problems such as major opposition parties facing significant obstacles to political participation ot the military threatening a coup to manipulate the election plague the system. (Alternatively, international and/or domestic observers are not allowed to monitor the elections or are largely unable to do so, or the leader was chosen indirectly through an assembly that was not completely democratically elected.)
4. Under what conditions were the elections held?
[X] The leader(s) was/were not chosen democratically.
[ ] The elections were held under generally peaceful conditions.
[ ] The elections were held under turbulent or otherwise precarious conditions such as during times of widespread civil conflict, under the direct military supervision of a UN equivalent, regional peace organizations or a neutral, impartial state, or a 'democratic transition' initiated by an authoritarian leader.
5. How is power distributed within the executive branch?
[ ] The monarch, dictator, or other strong leader virtually holds all executive power.
[ ] The authoritarian ruling elite (e.g. hegemonic party or military regime), maintains a relative balance of power within the executive branch.
[ ] The monarch shares executive power with a prime minister and their cabinet.
[ ] The monarch is merely a figurehead, with a prime minister and their cabinet holding actual executive power.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive (e.g. president or prime minister) shares power with a freely-chosen cabinet.
[ ] The democratically-elected chief executive is forced to share power with unelected officials (e.g. military officials or a hegemonic party) who are equally as strong.
[X] Other (please explain): The President shares power with the Ministers, which are appointed by the Meritocratic Council as well. In addition, the 14 States have reasonable executive and legislative power as well, within the constitutional framework.


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


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


V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system?
Nothing I could think of. Just in case, I gave a brief description of my nation's system in this post, outlining the way separation of powers generally works in Lillorainen, should anything above remain unclear.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
Since Lillorainen's geography is currently being overhauled a 'tiny' bit, most information on it posted before December 12, 2018, is not entirely reliable anymore. Until there's a new, proper factfile, everything you might need to know can be found here. Thank you. #RetconOfDoom

User avatar
Lillorainen
Minister
 
Posts: 3099
Founded: Apr 17, 2018
Capitalizt

Postby Lillorainen » Mon May 25, 2020 9:06 am

(EDIT: Apologies for the double-post ...)
Last edited by Lillorainen on Mon May 25, 2020 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Since Lillorainen's geography is currently being overhauled a 'tiny' bit, most information on it posted before December 12, 2018, is not entirely reliable anymore. Until there's a new, proper factfile, everything you might need to know can be found here. Thank you. #RetconOfDoom

User avatar
Icadias
Envoy
 
Posts: 250
Founded: Aug 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Icadias » Mon May 25, 2020 9:07 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

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

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

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


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


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


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

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
The Queendom Of Icadias
"Our heroes, our protectors"
HRM, Catherine
News Cycle:Comment latest.

No NS Stats Are Used

User avatar
Mobius and the Biscay
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 55
Founded: Feb 07, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mobius and the Biscay » Mon May 25, 2020 9:26 am

The NSPoliteia Questionnaire

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

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

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


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


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


V. Conclusion/Other Information (if applicable)
1. Is there any more major information you have to offer about your nation's political system? The monarch can establish a royal dictatorship in a time of severe crisis. Of course, the monarch is expected to dismantle the royal dictatorship once said crisis subsides, failure to do so will be met with a forced abdication and a snap monarchical election to elect a new one that won't preserve a royal dictatorship when there isn't a need for one. As such, no monarch ever dares to establish a royal dictatorship, leaving the problem-solving to the democratically-elected parliament.

Well done! You have now completed the NSPoliteia Questionnaire.
- END OF DOCUMENT -
Last edited by Mobius and the Biscay on Mon May 25, 2020 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The Knothole Accords was the legal birth of Mobius, the Lavender Revolution was the spiritual birth of Mobius." - Angela Berngau, PDP MC from Valio

Ignore NS Stats, this nation uses factbooks.

K thanks bai! - Brandon

Crowned republic, or semi-constitutional monarchy? You decide.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Factbooks and National Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gallia-, New Vihenia, Rhinocera, Southern Tzhelarhaai, Spirit of Hope

Advertisement

Remove ads