A Primer on Common Understanding in Danzilona Law, a Defense of Single-office-holding and the Ministry Duties Continuance Act, its reliance on Common Understanding, and Ramifications of Ignoring Common Understanding and Allowing “Loopholes”, And A Warning About Another Common Understanding At Risk

My fellow Danzilonans, I hope this day finds you well. For the last nine years, it has been Common Understanding in Danzilona that citizens may only hold one elected government position at a time.

The MDCA seeks to resolve an issue that would not exist but for a certain Common Understanding.

Common Understanding is a convention or tradition that is unwritten, yet informally enforced by a community. It is one of these Common Understandings that exist within Danzilona that is the basis for the Ministry Duties Continuance Amendment (MDCA). Without that Common Understanding, the MDCA would be moot, and voting for it would be pointless. All past periods of low activity and empty government positions could have been resolved by one citizen running for all positions unopposed. Yet historically no one did.

The first sentence of the MDCA, the “Because” clause, references this Common Understanding of Danzilona that, when adhered to faithfully, may cause a destabilization of government and inability to execute its duties. It is this situation which the MDCA seeks to prevent.

If it were untrue that citizens could not hold more than one position, then the MDCA should have been rebuked as being unnecessary, and voted against out of principle. But it was not. Those discussing the proposal inherently understood that it sought to resolve an issue that would only surface because citizens cannot hold two or more offices at once. The voters understood that it sought to resolve that issue when they read the final text of the amendment before voting.

The MDCA was passed unanimously, eleven to zero, the most votes on any recent legislation. No voters voted nay on the reasoning that they agree with the MDCA in part but disagreed in part. No arguments were made against the delegation of core powers the MDCA granted. The MDCA was proposed, voted on, and passed in full constitutional compliance, so it is not the constitutionality of the MDCA that we argue here.

Common Understanding is the backbone of Danzilona’s longevity.

Common Understanding is the “oral law” of Danzilona. On one side of our legal doctrine coin, we have a basic written constitution that guarantees basic rights, provides a method for criminal trials, establishes a small government to carry out tasks best accomplished by the state, and leaves whatever is left unstated open to discussion and majority decision.

Common Understanding is the other side of our legal doctrine coin. The unwritten conventions of Danzilona are what have made it so resilient these last nine years. Players have come and gone, laws have passed and failed, and constitutions have lived their faithful lives. But Danzilona is not its laws nor its constitutions nor, as we may think, its players. It is the conventions and traditions that make up that Common Understanding, and respect for that anchoring doctrine by all of its citizens.

Danzilona survives and thrives despite its loose constitution and legal system because that Common Understanding attracts and retains the players that benefit our community and repels those that do not, without the need for legal or state intervention.

Common Understanding has led our elections since the beginning.

In this instance, the Common Understanding exists that one player may not hold more than one government position. For one player to hold more than one government position would go against the Danzilonan Spirit of liberal democracy.

Des23 seeks to occupy all three positions not for the continuity of government, nor to retain the faith of the citizens in the stability of the government, but because she is barred only by Common Understanding, and not the constitution. Bowing to the usage of this “loophole” would put the integrity of Common Understanding, and Danzilona as it is viewed from both within and without, at incredible risk of future exploitation.

One could argue that it was time for the Common Understanding to adapt to the circumstances. As activity falls on CivMC because of school, work, and the ongoing war, perhaps one person should hold more than one position, in order to maintain the stability and efficiency of the government. But should that not be discussed beforehand, in order to see whether there is merit, whether this is the time that such a drastic action is taken? And would that be necessary if the MDCA passed, when it was proposed on August 24, with more than enough time to take effect before the September elections even began?

The facts of this case fail to make that argument. It could not be reasonably expected that the government would be absent candidates come election time. Qaad posted in the Danzilona Discord on August 24th that he intended to run for Interior Minister. Des23 announced her intention to run for all positions the day after, August 25th. Thus it cannot be argued that Des23 was running for all positions because of low activity, because the Interior Ministry, at the least, would have a candidate.

The “Because” clause is safe from override via the Elastic Clause.

The Elastic Clause states: [...] Any power or authority relating to public matters that is not explicitly outlined in this constitution automatically defaults to the majority vote and/or consensus of the Danzilonans. [...]”

The “Because” clause in the MDCA should be interpreted as an explicit reference to the Common Understanding of single-office-holding. Danzilona has never had one person occupy all positions, so it has never come up. Nor has anybody ever tried. There is a valid argument to be made that Danzilonans would discourage or outright reject legislation closing this “loophole” out of disdain for bureaucracy and trust in the unlikelihood that any of its citizens would try such a thing.

It has been Common Understanding since the founding that because Danzilona is based in democracy, it would go against the spirit of the law to occupy more than one position. So safeguards against that have never been put into place. That Danzilonan Spirit and inter-citizen trust has been respected for nine years, until Des23 attempted to abuse this respect by exploiting the loose wording of our constitution.

Even if a court, which Danzilona does not have, were to rule that the “Because” clause is not an “explicit[] outline” in the constitutions, the citizens of Danzilona must execute the responsibility that “...automatically default[s]...” to them, and decide by consensus that this Common Understanding must stand. The ramifications of allowing this Common Understanding to fall without argument or discussion are immense, moreso if it is allowed to happen because defending it would be more laborious than standing aside as it is broken, unilaterally, “just this once”.

Ramifications of “just this once.”

If we allow this convention to be broken by Des23, then every single one of Danzilona’s unwritten conventions and traditions that make up the Common Understanding are at stake to be exploited. This time, the attempt was by a loyal and contributive member of the community with good intentions. Next time, it may not be. If we ignore one, we ignore all. This precedent must not be set. Danzilonan Law, written or unwritten, must be preserved.

At this very moment another Common Understanding is under debate, as it should be. The definition of “alternative vote” has been loosely defined through Danzilona’s history, yet it has caused few issues. Now, with heated political battles causing voters to submit partial ballots, and the Common Understanding method of counting votes unable to function with these conditions, even our most fundamental rights are being discussed in public forums because it was not “explicitly outlined” in the constitution. No one would argue that this Common Understanding should be exploited in private because it is a “loophole”. And so neither should any other.

I yield my time. Thank you.

Qaad

;)