If we want things to continue as they are, things will have to change
- Camilla Isabella Crozier, co-founder of the Institutionalists
- Camilla Isabella Crozier, co-founder of the Institutionalists
The Insitutionists began their existence as a splinter faction of the Reformist Party in the 2690s. Feeling the Reformists had developed an untenable reactionary bent, Thomas Charles Montegue and Camilla Isabella Crozier broke with their former party, taking a handful of members with them. The new party, nameless for the moment, was somewhat rudderless for its first few years. Their policies and the voting histories of their parliamentarians leaned Reformist, with occasional sops to the Conservatives, but it was all half-hearted.
Freed from the oversight of the more reactionary elements, the nascent Institutionalists began slowly piecing together a platform, a manifesto, and political philosophy that was difficult to square with any other the other political factions. Like the Reformists, they support the New Men and New Women, those of merit and zeal who have risen to prominence by their own skillful means. They have no great love for old money, some members going so far as to hold such personages in contempt, which earns them no love among the Conservatives.
It is in their policies towards the so-called lower races that the Institutionalists break most from their Reformist roots. Holding a more tolerant view of both humans and wicks (especially the non-nomadic kind), the Institutionalists have come to assert that, far from cracking down on the lower orders, they should, instead be granted more autonomy, more rights, and a wider participation in society. All, of course, guided by enlightened galdori.
They are not completely mad.
The formulation of these positions came as rather a shock to Crozier, more still in that it was she who found herself advocating for them. Tensions between the races had grown considerably over the last few decades. Outbreaks of anti-galdori, anti-government, violence were growing more frequent. It was becoming clear that without substantive change to many long-held laws and traditions, that the spirit of revolt would grow. The refusal of the Conservatives to address or change long-standing specific laws and customs that no longer worked could no longer be tolerated. And the Reformists short-sighted, reactionary policies only served to exacerbate the problem. From both sides, or so the Institutionalists see it, the system as a whole was being torn apart. If a new course was not charted, then the whole of society might come crumbling down, sweeping away the country as it had been in a tide of chaos, petty greed, and negligence.
The system is worth saving, but no system can run on its own unimpeded forever. The parts need replacing, cleaning, repair.
Yet, for all their generally ‘softer’ approach to the lower races, they are by no means egalitarians. True, they advocate for considerably expanded legal and civil rights (the right to independent legal representation, the repeal of the reading ordinances), as well as a right to small property holdings (everyone loves more tax revenue) but as to political rights, they are more circumspect. That some form of expanded political participation for the lower races is needed they do not contest, but fall well short of anything like full suffrage. There are a number of competing proposals currently much debated among the small number of Institutionalists now in government. Perhaps an Assembly of some kind convened by the lower orders to elect a handful of representatives to the Parliament? A division of the humans of the country into large voting blocks, and giving each block a single vote on certain matters? A cadre of elected magistrates who might sit in Parliament but act only as a single body to threaten to veto legislation?
For now, the Institutionalists are a very small faction, and one not easily placed but they do have some representation, and are steadily working to increase the influence of their faction.
Freed from the oversight of the more reactionary elements, the nascent Institutionalists began slowly piecing together a platform, a manifesto, and political philosophy that was difficult to square with any other the other political factions. Like the Reformists, they support the New Men and New Women, those of merit and zeal who have risen to prominence by their own skillful means. They have no great love for old money, some members going so far as to hold such personages in contempt, which earns them no love among the Conservatives.
It is in their policies towards the so-called lower races that the Institutionalists break most from their Reformist roots. Holding a more tolerant view of both humans and wicks (especially the non-nomadic kind), the Institutionalists have come to assert that, far from cracking down on the lower orders, they should, instead be granted more autonomy, more rights, and a wider participation in society. All, of course, guided by enlightened galdori.
They are not completely mad.
The formulation of these positions came as rather a shock to Crozier, more still in that it was she who found herself advocating for them. Tensions between the races had grown considerably over the last few decades. Outbreaks of anti-galdori, anti-government, violence were growing more frequent. It was becoming clear that without substantive change to many long-held laws and traditions, that the spirit of revolt would grow. The refusal of the Conservatives to address or change long-standing specific laws and customs that no longer worked could no longer be tolerated. And the Reformists short-sighted, reactionary policies only served to exacerbate the problem. From both sides, or so the Institutionalists see it, the system as a whole was being torn apart. If a new course was not charted, then the whole of society might come crumbling down, sweeping away the country as it had been in a tide of chaos, petty greed, and negligence.
The system is worth saving, but no system can run on its own unimpeded forever. The parts need replacing, cleaning, repair.
Yet, for all their generally ‘softer’ approach to the lower races, they are by no means egalitarians. True, they advocate for considerably expanded legal and civil rights (the right to independent legal representation, the repeal of the reading ordinances), as well as a right to small property holdings (everyone loves more tax revenue) but as to political rights, they are more circumspect. That some form of expanded political participation for the lower races is needed they do not contest, but fall well short of anything like full suffrage. There are a number of competing proposals currently much debated among the small number of Institutionalists now in government. Perhaps an Assembly of some kind convened by the lower orders to elect a handful of representatives to the Parliament? A division of the humans of the country into large voting blocks, and giving each block a single vote on certain matters? A cadre of elected magistrates who might sit in Parliament but act only as a single body to threaten to veto legislation?
For now, the Institutionalists are a very small faction, and one not easily placed but they do have some representation, and are steadily working to increase the influence of their faction.
Platform Positions
- Increased property taxes for large estates
- Subsidies for public works
- Support for public investment in innovation and technology (they can be great rail-boosters)
- Lowering trade duties and internal taxation on commerce
- Expanded civil and legal rights for humans and wicks of ‘good standing” (no criminal record, paying above X in taxes yearly)
- Repeal of the Reading Ordinances
- Limited suffrage for the lower races
- Limited property ownership by the lower races (partly to increase revenue, partly to break up large estates)
- The elimination of sinecures
- The compulsory serving of asparagus at breakfast
