(Dec. 31:) Solving the “gap” re: young candidates/competence

[Christer Lundquist]

In Leo’s progress report of Dec. 20, the board expressed concern that “we encounter a problem” with votes cast on Herbert Tombeur’s issues and different angles expressed on the quality of the delegates: “Christer brought this up in a context in which he convincingly argues that the age for eligibility for the House of Citizens should not be set at 25 but at 18. (…) In the amended Article II, we follow his view and have therefore set the age at 18.” (Note to the board: Not done yet.) Leo continues: “But that results in a contradiction (…) The question is whether someone aged 18-24 is capable of acquiring that competence and suitability,” and asks how to “bridge this gap”.

I had prepared a proposal that entails a training course for candidates, regardless of age. Something akin to what we in Norway call “examen philosophicum”; a required university preliminary entrance examination. This is a one-semester (a half-year term in university) course that incorporates many of the requirements described. It can be done part-time and digitally, and ends with a four-hour exam at the end of the semester. You either pass or fail. If you fail at first, you may try again. My idea was to propose a similar kind of course with a specific curriculum tailored especially to all the knowledge and requirements necessary to qualify as a candidate for the Congress of Europe.

But to my pleasant surprise: The Board has already fleshed this idea out and built the bridge over the above-mentioned gap! It is laid out nicely in the newest Appendix II A distributed; described in detail in four bullet points in the section “The responsibility of transnational parties”. I commend the board for this extensive piece of hard work. I concur with the ideas put forth and therefore abstains from deliberating further on my own proposal.

A last note: The revolutionary requirements on competencies and suitability of delegates is a very, very tall order indeed! There are 19 specified areas of knowledge in the section about Competencies, and 14 regarding Suitability. I highly doubt that many, if any, of the world’s “elders” and wisest statesmen would be able to tick all 33 boxes appropriately, without a little brushing-up of educational skills. Much less most ordinary parliamentarians who serve us today. This, to me, underscores that age in and of itself is null and void as a reason to bar any adult Citizens from their House. The training envisioned will probably be required for most, if not all, candidates, no matter how old and wise.

[Author]

Posts