Let's Light Up a Fire
Azazel Romanov
Well so much has been going on recently that I felt I had to write something to calm my nerves. I'm glad to feel back in the swing of things again, and I'm enjoying myself a bit. I recently arrived back in congress and I'm sort of working again, we'll see what else the near future may hold in store. It looks like international events are spiking and we have a contested presidential race once more.
I had recently written about SFP's potential future, and it seems that Aramec has decided to jump into the debate as well, with a little bit more in-depth analysis. The short of it: SFP needs to adapt to survive, or at least to gain more appeal within the community of the Top 5 parties. J.A. Lake's response to this essentially argues that rejecting the norm could yield new fruits for SFP. However, I'm not entirely sure of this point, and new congressional debate doesn't seem to be cultivating new trees.
Wild Owl announced that he would run again and then essentially laid out the current state of foreign affairs. Following this, Gnilraps kind of surprised everyone by jumping into the presidential race. What seemed most odd about this was despite the current attention that should be on foreign affairs, Gnilraps put most of his focus into an experiment to end the Defensive Dictatorship. I will have to see what develops from his "International Awareness" plank before making more comments on that portion.
However his presidential campaign seems to have hit a legislative wall, as you may be able to see from the public congressional debate on the dictatorship. His main option is now whether to press on the debate and shift the tide, drop the plank, or go against legislation he himself had a key factor in authoring and break the dictatorship law should he win. This also seems like a doubling-down from Jude's presidential run, rather than an attempt from SFP to find some issue to integrate on. I know, SFP has no endorsed policies, but from the comments section it doesn't seem too terribly divided.
I also don't think that the Defensive Dictatorship should really be the focus this month, especially given the changing world events around us. With the Greco-Hungarian War, we could be seeing a new alliance shift, and a new role for Pacifica. A new alliance formed, but I have to doubt its viability as a major game changer (only includes Spain, UK, and Belgium). And I don't usually cite Auctoritas, but his last article seems to hit on the head what I think this election should really be about. Pacifica could be better, and we could add more countries that stay on the periphery of the Balkans instead of pulling us in further. There is also the argument that Asteria falls apart and we are pulled to one side of the split. I'm not actually sure which course is right myself, as both have their pros and cons.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - It's an interesting thought - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So there's my piece, I simply think this election shouldn't be about the Defensive Dictatorship, especially when another issue is more likely to gain importance. I'm usually content to sit on the sidelines and wait, so perhaps I'm not the best judge of this. So consider this a challenge to the candidates and other writers: where should we go?
Comments
didn't understand even a bit of it as i am not in politics sorry..
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/some-improvements-part-2-25-comments-please--2567887/1/20
2 more comments needed
Well-written and thoughtful, as usual.
Regarding the SFP's newly heightened role on the domestic political scene, the debate over the Defensive Dictatorship, and Brother Gnil's hilarious and very welcome attempt at finding alternatives to dictatorship (following on his equally welcome reversal of state religion), I would like to suggest that maybe folks could try to refrain from trying to "fix" the SFP and work instead on taking its presence in eUSA politics at face value.
What I mean is, there really are a contingent of citizens who are not satisfied with autocratic back channels and "safety at any cost" kind of strategy. So grapple with those ideas head-on instead of trying to make the SFPniks and their allies, friends and dance partners "fit in" to a pre-conceived mold.
Are they perfected agents of change with everything all worked out? Nah.
Are they an active, engaged, fun-seeking bunch of players. You betcha.
xoxoxoxxo
I don't necessarily think all people want to just "fix" the SFP and have them believe what we want, I honestly have no problem with differing political opinions and welcome the exchange of ideas. But I don't think they are getting far by simply suggesting the current system is broken without redemption. There is a reason why a majority of players are still involved in it, so we don't have to call it a garden of dead trees. They believe as much as SFP and BSP that they are right, and it doesn't necessarily make them elitist or authoritarian. I've always preferred an approach to politics that puts policy ahead of personality.
I think my problem mostly stems from the personal approach these divisions start to take, and I know the other parties are certainly guilty of this. People take a different stance, and the attack on the stance turns to an attack on the person. While I may not fully agree with his ideas, I'm glad someone like Gnilraps takes a jump to SFP to see what its like. I read Tom Cauchon's article and I loved it, and I think that's exactly what we need. I'd really like to see SFP and BSP members in roles that could expand their experience and perspective, as well as bring them closer to the table.
Just two cents I guess.
there are almost more articles about the SFP coming from non-members then there are those written by members and that is somehow fascinating. you're in some kind of spotlight, so make the best out of it.
Thank you for summing up the thesis of my article, Freeman.
voted
beautiful
It feels good to be publishing along side you again. Certainly gives me fire in the fingers to write more. And I definitely agree: the election focus should be about the coming alliance shift. Instead, it's grandstanding an issue that's been put forth in the most politicized way it could have been.
Voted. I like that map.
Glad to see more from you once again ... whether I agree with your points or not you are a talented writer and I enjoy reading what you have written.
The 3 months ( starting with Aramec ) we have had somewhat of a revitalization of the media and I am glad to see so many well written articles.
Keep it up o7
Good work!
FIST