vanderToki писал(а):
Honestly, I don't like this idea, as I've written before. ;] Here's the reasons: first of all, it's limitation of democracy. Not everyone can stand for office and the number of candidates is limited. Moreover, the nuisance appears - when someone's very good at their office, they function very well as the president, they can't be elected for the second term in row because of their nationality. Even when president's not powerful, that's uncomfortable. ; ) Pan Woloh's idea of switching residence from one capital city to another seems to be better in my opinion, even if it's mostly symbolical matter.
I agree with you that a non-democratic principle will be unsustainable. This is exactly what fails today in the EU - its leadership lacks democratic legitimacy, and thus it will never have real responsibilities openly delegated to it.
In addition, if we talk about foreign and defence policy, basically, we talk about the ultimate ability to declare a war. This is a pretty heavy stuff. It requires full backing of the entire population, and its readiness to sacrifice for the common cause. That's why we should all feel like we took such a decidion together (not one nation at a time), we are all responsible, and that a head of confederation represents all our values.
I am leaning towards a model developed by Switzerland (which faced similar nationalistic concerns).
In Switzerland the status of the head os state is not personal - it is collective, performed by the
Swiss Federal Council. SFC consists of 7 members. Those 7 members rotate as Presidents and vice-presidents of SFC every year, being appointed by the Swiss parliament. Basically, every member of SFC at some point becomes a vice-president, and then a president.
===============
Imagine the confederation being led by a similar 7-member
Supreme Council. Each Councilor is elected by a respective region (for 7 years), representing values and voices of people from that region. Each Councilor at some point becomes the President of the Council for no more than 1 year. It's ok to have such a short period because the Council President is rather a spokes person, and a tie-breaker. The real collective responsibility lies on the overall council - on all its 7 members together.
Roughly, there are 7 regions in the potential confederation which represent different electoral values (3 for Poland, 1 for Belarus, and 3 for Ukraine):
1) Poland 1: Wielkopolska and Slask
2) Poland 2: Pomorze Zachodnie, Pomorze Gdanskie, Mazury
3) Poland 3: Mazowsze, Podlasie, Malopolska
4) Belarus: Belarus
5) Ukraine 1: Western Ukraine
6) Ukraine 2: Central Ukraine
7) Ukraine 3: South-Eastern Ukraine
Вложение:
Poland-confed.png [ 267.14 КБ | Просмотров: 18273 ]
Вложение:
Ukraine-confed.png [ 52.84 КБ | Просмотров: 18273 ]
You can see that they are sort of in line with usual electoral preferences.
Each region is likely to vote its local candidate, but the rules could be broader than that. I believe anyone should be able to run for a Council seat from a particular region as long as he is a citizan of the confederation. Council members will be replaced gradually - one per year - ensuring smoother transition, and continuity. No sudden changes of the political course, and a difficulty to affect the Council's composition by third countries.
Lastly, each of 7 members should have a particular area of responsibility/oversight:
1) Foreign Office
2) Defense
3) [..Business climate???]
4) [..Information flow and government transparensy??]
5) [..Standardization ??]
6) ...
7) ...