From the notes of Citizen Emilia, Voice of the People

I let Charles look after Martin during lunch, but I made sure he knew to avoid public spaces. They would be followed by guards, so they should be fine. I was going to spend lunch strategizing with Robert and Tessa, something that worked very effectively for Silas the previous day. We knew the afternoon topic was going to be amendments, and it made sense to work together for a common proposal.

I wanted a strong democratic mechanism, but also a high bar so that it wasn’t too easy to change the constitution. I said a supermajority in the Lower House followed by a national referendum, which also required some supermajority. We debated a bit, but settled on 60% supermajority for both the Lower House and the referendum. Tessa suggested that the lower house could be bypassed by a citizen initiative with enough signatures, something like 100 thousand. This would allow the people to bypass a stubborn legislature. I liked it, but wondered if it might be too easy for public passion to upend basic rights.

Robert suggested that a few specific issues, like rights and regional powers, be subjected to a higher bar. 60% in each region in the referendum, rather than nationally, to ensure broad support throughout the country. I liked the sound of it. It was very democratic, but still required broad support for big changes.

When we returned from our lunch, we ran head first into competing proposals. Pepe, Silas, Charles and Mira were not interested in citizen initiatives or referendums, they wanted 2/3s of both legislative houses. They claimed it provided stability, expertise, as well as democratic input through the lower house. Before I could even react to that, I heard a far worse proposal from the military members. Aguilo, Oliphaunt and even the usually reasonable Dauphin wanted a council of military flag officers to have a veto on amendments related to the military or national defense. While I could see the merits of Pepe’s proposal, while disagreeing with the details, this military proposal was offensive.

Elias stepped in with a compromise to try and give everyone a little bit of what they wanted. He proposed a normal amendment procedure as well as additional requirements for certain amendments. The normal amendment procedure was 60% of both houses, with a delay until the next election, and passage by 60% of both houses again. The double passage must be in consecutive houses. The supermajority was not as high as Pepe wanted, but the delay added stability to prevent poorly considered amendments. I also had to admit that the delay added democratic scrutiny, attempting to pass unpopular amendments against the will of the people could lead to defeat in the next election. Overall this sounded acceptable.

He proposed a special amendment procedure for altering rights or the balance of powers between the regions and the nation. It was the same as the normal one with the addition of a referendum, which must be passed by 60% in a referendum in each region. This also sounded quite good to me. By this point, the democratic and technocratic members are pretty much on the same page, and are willing to accept this compromise, but the military is still not on board.

Elias also tried to address the concerns of the military members, but without allowing a direct military veto. For matters relating to the military, such as the seat on the supreme court, or general matters of national defense, the regular amendment procedure would apply with an additional requirement. The Directorate would consult with the senior most flag officers of all military branches to get their opinions on the change. Then the Directorate would decide whether or not to accept the amendment, requiring 5 out of 7 members to make the change. This makes it more difficult to amend matters relating to the military, and the officers will have a chance to make an argument for or against the change, but the democratically accountable Directorate still makes a final decision.

I wasn't thrilled about the deference shown toward the military, but it was still fairly democratic, so I decided to accept this deal. Dauphin was also won over, but the Aguilo and Dauphin remained stubborn. We didn’t need their votes anyway. Almost as an afterthought, Elias also mentioned that the amendment procedure itself should be difficult to amend, and recommended a combination of all the methods: Supermajorities in both houses, regional referendums, and approval by the Directorate after consulting the military officers. We decided this was acceptable.

Overall, this method is fairly reasonable, and even the military influence is consultation, and not an actual veto like they wanted. I think we can live with this. I am mentally preparing for tomorrow, when we finally reopen the contentious issues of week 1.

Statement from General Aguilo, Revolutionary Commander - Western Front

Over lunch I talked with Dauphin and Oliphaunt about our strategy for preserving military influence. It was necessary for stability and to uphold our revolutionary ideals. Oliphaunt complained that we were being too passive and we had to push harder, but I told him we had to accept the dominance of democratic governance. We merely had to find a supporting role. He warned that whatever little influence we had at this point would be eroded in the future unless we had a beneficial amending procedure. I actually agreed with him.

I suggested that the military leadership should have a veto on all amendments, but Dauphin just shook his head. After consideration, he was probably right that it wouldn't be accepted. I proposed a limited veto only over very narrow topics related to the military. Dauphin agreed to back me on this. Oliphaunt considered it weak, but decided he had little choice to but to join us.

The time came for debates, we didn’t care to choose between the democrats and technocrats, we just wanted the winning proposal from their debate to incorporate our narrow veto. They wouldn’t have it. Pepe spoke up about the importance of the military as a stabilizing force, but still said we needed to narrow the scope of our proposal. It was Elias who watered down our proposal into something the rest would accept. He added an extra requirement for military amendments to make them more difficult, and also gave our officers an advisory role in the process to give us a chance to state our case.

Dauphin abandoned ship as soon as he heard the proposal, something he is not known for in his naval career, but I suppose this is a different matter entirely. I knew it was important to recognize democratic supremacy, and I appreciated the attempt at a compromise, so I abstained from the vote rather than voting against it. Oliphaunt strongly objected.

Excerpt from Crafting the Constitution, by Professor Elias

We came to another matter that was most vexing, a procedure to amend the constitution. If the bar is too low, the constitution means nothing, it is just ordinary legislation to be changed on a passing whim. If it is too difficult to change, important revisions might be stalled or blocked entirely, despite a dire need. I listened with great interest to three main proposals, all which brought important concerns to the table, and I attempted to weave them together into a final proposal.

The major debate was between stability and democratic accountability, so I proposed a method that required consecutive approvals by both supermajorities houses of the legislature, with an intervening election. This guaranteed broad and sustained support. To protect rights and regional powers I proposed an additional requirement of referendums which must pass by supermajority in all 5 regions. Only with wide support across the entire nation could these major areas be changed.

There was another matter of certain members trying to sustain military influence, ostensibly for the purposes of order and stability. I didn’t entirely agree with them, but I made a good faith attempt to meet their concerns. I proposed that any matters relating to the military or defense should be approved by the Directorate, in addition to the standard procedure, after consulting the highest military officers. The military would get a chance to state its case, but the politicians still make the final decision.

To prevent the amendment procedure itself from being too easily eroded, I proposed that it should only be changed if all the previous methods were combined. The legislature, the Directorate, and the people would all have to agree in order to change this foundational element. It seems this carefully balanced amendment proposal won them over, and nearly every member of the convention supported it.

From the Office of Chancellor Pepe, Acting Head of Civil Service

Day 7 - Afternoon - Amendment Procedure

Amendment procedures are quite important, and will determine how our constitution adjusts to  changing times. It should provide stability, while also allowing flexibility to deal with new problems. I worked with Mira and Silas to craft a proposal that required 2/3s of both houses of the legislature in order to amend the constitution. It is simple and clear. A high bar, but one that can be met if the country is united. 

The extreme democrats wanted citizen petitions and referendums, a well intentioned proposal no doubt, but a recipe for chaos. The military officers, on the other hand, wanted a military veto on amendments of certain types. I understand the importance of stability that the military brings, but after the chaos of the recent protests, I expected this would not be acceptable to most of the civilians in this room, or the ones gathered outside.

Elias had another great compromise, and he pulled together all the proposals into something acceptable to nearly every member present. He even gave the military consulting powers on certain amendments but not a veto. Requiring the Directorate to approve military amendments was quite a clever move. The Directorate, by its nature, would be more concerned with matters of national security than the other branches of government. They would be quite willing to hear out the concerns of the military, making such amendments difficult. But they are still accountable to democratic processes so they must push forward with amendments that enjoy wide enough support. An excellent balance indeed.

Result - Consensus not reached, amendment procedure passed by a vote of 10-1-1. Aguilo abstained, Oliphaunt opposed, and everyone else supported it.

Normal Amendment Procedure: 60% of both houses, a delay and one election, 60% of both houses again. Both approvals must be consecutive.

Procedure for Rights/Regional Powers: Same as normal with the additional requirement of 60% in a referendum in all 5 regions.

Procedure for Military/Defense: Same as normal with the additional requirement that the Directorate must consult with senior most flag officers of the military and approve by 5 out 7.

Amending the Procedure Itself: The other 3 procedures combined.