Forum:A Proposed Check on Loya Jirga Power

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 2px; margin-top: 0.2em;width:90%;" ! style="background:#ccf; border:2px #007fff solid; -moz-border-radius:20px; text-align:center;"|'''Forum closed: see here where any further comments should be made


 * As all good governing bodies have a system of checks and balances, I propose that any appeals of Loya Jirga decisions be taken to the old Administrative Abuse page, and decided by those bureaucrats who are not a part of the Loya Jirga. 03:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As all good governing bodies have a system of checks and balances, I propose that any appeals of Loya Jirga decisions be taken to the old Administrative Abuse page, and decided by those bureaucrats who are not a part of the Loya Jirga. 03:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So: when Marcus says: "They're abusing me by vandal blocking me" we return to HCM? If the LJ is questioned it should be impeached/re-elected not overruled. 04:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I hate to say it but if this idea is going to be worth anything, it must be the final authority. No appeals, nothing. That's why there must also be term limits - and fairly short ones. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * EC) What I mean is, what's the point of the LJ if it is gonna be questioned at every turn? 04:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC X 2)No, when Marcus says "They're abusing me", the case is dismissed because it's him. The point is, there should be some kind of check on their power. But that check isn't going to go all irrational like you suggest. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will always over-rule the LJ. It just means that, if by chance, the LJ is wrong, there is an appellate body. I can think of no 'crats seriously sympathetic to MC, or TK, or Fall down. Can you?  04:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

П's recall idea

 * (EC)I don't like the impeachment much. The point of this is to have someone put their foot down and the nonsense stop. Elections every six months is the check for the Loya Jirga, just like a parliamentary democracy. Perhaps we could also allow the Loya Jirga to have a no confidence spill, e,g, if 4 or more member think the current Loya Jirga is unworkable they can call an early election. 04:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Π's idea. The point is just that the LJ shouldn't have absolute power. There should be some kind of check and balance on them. 04:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a recall election should be a possibility, but would like to see the bar raised a little higher--10 members, each of whom have been here for more than a day or so? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * EC) In fact the mob does have absolute power: there's nothing the LJ can do if a majority (of 'crats} decide they're rubbish anyhow. Even a majority of editors would be able to ignore any LJ "dictat". But it's rulings shouldn't be bitched about. If no-one's gonna argue about MC, TK, Fall down etc. why do we need anything anyway: that's what all the arguments have been about in the past. (and CUR) 04:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) was talking about 4 members of the Loya Jirga. Either their term expires or they call the election, the moment we start going above them, they have no authority and every one of their decisions will be questioned with a HCM. 04:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely. 04:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the resident irrational numbers idea over mine, actually. 04:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good: close the forum? 04:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and add the recall thingy to the LJ's responsibilities page. 04:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(u/d) Look, what is the point of having this committee as a final arbiter if it's not a final arbiter? Either everybody agrees to be bound by LJ decisions or scrap the whole idea. There's no point in allowing get-outs and wriggle room because it will just lead to HCM at a higher level! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)What SR said. 04:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we figured it out, SuspectedReplicant/ The LJ members have to power to recall the current LJ if it's unworkable. 04:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I think I got EC'ed. As long as it's only the LJ that can recall the LJ - that's fine. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Forum closed, proposal for Π's recall idea moved to this talkpage. -}